The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-28 00:00:00

CHURCH RATES.

Petitions against the abolition of Church-rates were pre-
sented by the Bishop of Chichester, the Duke of Marl-
borough, the Duke of Richmond, Viscount Dungannon,
and several other peers.
SPAIN AND MOROCCO.
The Earl of CARNARVON drew the attention of the
Government to a telegram which appeared in the news-
,papers stating that terms of peace had been signed
between the two contending parties, and asked
if the Government knew whether the terms
if peace were those proposed by General O'Donnell.
*deli information had been received, he wished to know
*Nether there would be any objection to lay the papers re-
lating to the subject on the table of the house. The pro-
duction of the papers was of the utmost importance, if such
were in the possession of the Government, as it was highly
desirable the exact terms of the peace should be publicly
known.
Lord WODEHOUSE said the Government had received
similar information to that referred to—namely, that preli-
minaries of peace had been signed, but they were alto-
gether ignorant of the details. He reminded the noble
earl that peace had not been concluded. The preliminal ies
ha-I only been signed. Under such circumstances, he could
gi
not at present ve the noble lord any more definite infor-
mation.

SAVOY AND NICE.

The Marquis of NORMANBY gave notice that on Fri-
day, the 20th of April, he should move the resolution of
which ho had given notice, that matters of great pul)lic
importance should not be made private letters instead of
public despatches.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The fellowingb&wereTeacr asecond time :—Bainbridge,
Li*burne, and Belfast and Ulster Railways; Belper Water,
Cline Railway, Liverpool Corporation Water.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Dublin (City) Steam Packet Company, and Dublin. and
Drogheda Railway.
MUTINY BILL.
On the motion of Earl DE GREY, this bill was read a
third time and passed.
MARINE MUTINY BILL.
On the motion of the Duke of ,SOMERSET, this bill
was read a third time and passed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (1,8511,000) BILL.
On the motion of the Duke of NEW this bill
was read a second time.
BANKS IN INDIA.

Lord 31ONTEAGLE moved for returns of all correspon-
dence between the Secretary of State for India and the Go-
vernment of India, touching the establishment of Govern-
ment banks ; and also for lists of all banks now existing in
India.
The Duke of ARGYLL laid on the table tte returns
moved for by the noble lord. He did not wish at that mo-
ment to enter into a discussion on the subject, the more so
as several noble peers, who took great interest in banking in
India, were not in their places. His own opinion was
.. that it was as much the duty of the Government to issue
paper money as coined metal. The doctrine of the noble
lord, that it could not be the duty of the Government to
issue paper money, was in opposition to the opinion of the
highest authorities.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought that the
issue of paper money could never be important in amount,
and that the attempt to issue might lead to inconvenience.
He would take that opportunity of asking if the Government
had yet received an account of Mr. Wilson's financial
scheme in sufficient detail to lay them before the house.
The Duko of ARGYLL said he had only received the
document that morning, and was therefore not in a posi-
tion at that moment to answer the question.
Their lordships then adrurned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Liskeard and Caradon Railway Bill was read a third
ime and passed.
The following. bills were considered, and ordered for
third reading .—Cardiff Water, Chard Railway, Norwich
Corporation Markets, &c.
The Finn Valley Railway Bill was read a second time.
THE LIGHT DRAGOONS. _

Mr. PAPIL•LON asked the Secretary of State for War,
how it happened that the 14th Light Dragoons were sent
home by long sea instead of overland, as intended : what
were the circumstances under which the Himalaya
was detained at Alexandria with the two Arm-
'Aron.- batteries of Royal Artillery barracked on
board; whether the Himalaya, having been further detained
owing to the expected arrival of the 14th Light Dragoons,
will now return empty ; and, what is the probable amount
of expense to which the country will have been put owing
to these arrangements ?
Mr. S. HERBERT entered into an explanation, which
was to the effect that telegrams sent by the Government re-
lative to the conveyance of troops from Bombay by Suez
were not received at the former place. Arrangements were
now made in reference to the Himalaya and the conveyance
of the troops in question to this country.
THE ANNEXATION OF SAVOY AND NICE.
Mr. B. COCHRANE asked the hon. member for Bridge-
water (Mr. Kinglake) on what day he proposed to bring
forward his motion respecting the annexation of Savoy and
Nice ?
Mt. KINGLAKE—The declaration of the present views
and future policy of the Government which the house had
heard last night from the noble lord the Secretary of State
for Foreign Atlairs with so much satisfaction, had superseded
the necessity for the motion of which he had given
notice on the 6th of March last. Ho should not deem

it his duty to call for the interposition of the house in re-

ference to this matter, so long as he believed as he then did
that her Majesty's Government were determined to carry
on their foreign policy in conformity with the opinion of
that house and of the country at large. (Hear, hear.)
LUNACY LAWS.

Mr. TORRE NS asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department when it was intended to nominate the
select committee on the lunacy laws sanctioned by the house
last February; and whether it was intended, without fur-
ther delay, to submit reports on the evidence already given
on the lunacy laws before the select committees of the two
previous sessions, with a view to legislate for the ameliora-
tion of the condition and treatment of patients confined in
insane asylums.
Sir G. GREY said that the committee previously ap-
pointed on the subject was re-opened this session, on the
motion of a private member. That committee had taken
evidence, and would report the result to the house.
FORTIFICATIONS.

Sir S. NORTHCOTE asked the First Lord of the Trea-
sury whether it was the intention of Government to pro-
pose any vote in the present year for raising by loan, or
otherwise, any sum for fortifications beyond the sum • pro-
posed in the army estimates at present laid on the table ?
Lord PALMERSTON—The subject of additional forti-
fications had been the subject of inquiry before a commis-
sion appointed for that purpose, and their report was under
the consideration of the military autkorities. The matter
had to be dealt with in reference to the description of forti-
fications that might be deemed requisite as well as other
points. As soon as the report has been laid before the
Government they would deliberate on what course they
ought to pursue, and then it would be his duty to bring the
report before the house, and to state the intentions of the
Government.
CARDINAL FIESCIII AND M. THOUVENEL.
Mr. BOWYER asked the First Lord of the Treasury
whetheri Lord Cowley had forwarded to her Majesty a
communication from Cardinal Fieschi relative to the note of
M. Thouvenel ?
Lord PALMERSTON considered that notice of the
question should be given before he was called on to an-
swer it.
Mr. BOWYER then gave notice that ho would esk the
question on Thursday next.
PACKET AND TELEGRAPIIIC CONTRACTS.
• Capt. L. VERNON called the attention of the house to
the report of the packet and telegraphic contracts commit-
•e. The hon. and gallant member contended that Mr.
Churchward had been most unjustly treated, and that the
conduct of the Government in regard to him was calculated
to Shake the confidence of the commercial classes in the
justice of Ministers. fie went in detail through the :cir-
cumstances relating to the contract in question as deve-
loped in the committee appointed to inquire into the subject
last session. He was at a loss to understand upon what
grounds it was sought to affix upon Mr. Churchward the
charges of obtaining and accepting the contract upon col,
rupt motives. The case had already been twice tried, by a
select committee and by an election petition, and in both of
these cases the Administration had been exonerated ; but
as far as Mr. Churchward was contemned they had sought
to sacrifice him upon insufficient grounds. Mr. Church-
ward had found that his political opinions and financial
interests were in opposition, and he had resolved to act in
accordance with the suggestions of the latter rather then of
the former opinions. That could not be called corruption.
After having exonerated the Government, it was not, in his
opinion, right to make a scapegoat of Mr. Murray, a con-
tractor, or such small deer. But if all persons were gibbeted
who were guilty of political inconsistency, Mr. Churchward
might say with Macheath :
" Since laws were made of every degree,
To curb vice in others, as well as in me,
I wonder we haven't better company under Tyburn Tree."
In conclusion, the hon. and gallant member called upon
those members who had been contractors, the present and
past law advisers of the Crown, and those connected with
commerce, to prevent the breach of the contract which had
been entered into between the Government and Mr. Church-
ward. The hon. and gallant member concluded by moving
_ _ _

" That this house, having considered the report and the
evidence presented by the select committee on packet and
telegraphic contracts,.is of opinion that the contract entered
into on the 26th day of April, 1859, between the commis-
sioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the
• ,-I•Tnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Joseph
George Churchward, ought to be fulfilled."
. • Sir V.,I3ARING opposed the motion, and contended that
the'comrnittee were fully justified in the decision to which
they had arrived. There was not a vote come to by the
committee which did not include among its supporters SOW
gentlemen who sat upon the opposite side of the house, and
he therefore vindicated the decision of the committee from
the charge that thair;object was to damage the Government.
There were three points for the house to consiler—first,
whether the contract was really a good one and beneficial
to the public interests; secondly, whether the committee
had come to a just or an unjust decision with respect to the
. contract ; and thirdly, whether both these points being
decided against Mr. Churchward, this house was still not
bound in honour to carry out the contract. With respect
to the first of these points, the opinion of the committee
was, that the contract was not for the advantage of the
country. As to the prolongation, there were some circum-
stances which called for the special consideration of the
Nr. Chtrchward applied is 1857 for the papaw

of certain sums for the discharge of duties which he stab

were not included in the terms of the contract. The claim
was refused by the Admiralty of that day. In 1859 he

again applied for payment, with one exception, of these

very same things, and the application ended.lpytpe Govern-
ment of that day giving him not only 'what lie 'applied for,

but they gave him into the bargain an extension of the con-
tract. By the original contract Mr. Churcirward was bound
to keep six steamers for the' English service, and ho subse-
quently made a contract with the French Government to
keep three steamers. He had a double set of captains and a
double set of colours in every ship, and when the steamer
arrived at Calais he dropped the English colours, ran up
the tricolour, and a French captain took command, and it
was made a-French ship. What was an ample sum for the
payment of six ships, might be very effectively diminished
when the number was practically reduced to three. In the
contract which Mr. Churchward entered lute With the
French Government he stipulated that in the case of mail-

time war, he was bound to give two of their ships to the
French service ; and in his examination by tin committee
the Secretary of the Admiralty stated that if he had known
of such a stipulation he would not have sanctioned the con-

tract. Mr. Churchward said that it was quite true that he
had entered into such an arrangement, but he stated that he
never intended to perform it. (A laugh) The contract with
the English Government was thatit was to pay for six ships,
but by the arrangements subsequently made two of those
ships were to be handed over to the French Government in
the case of a maritime war. The committee had also to deal
with conflicting evidence ; on the one side they had the
declarations of a gallant officer, and on the other the evi••
deuce of two gentlemen in tlirect opposition to them. This
was a most disagreeable part of the duty of the committee,
and he asked the house, at any rate, to believe that the com-
mittee did not come to a decision without giving its most
anxious and careful consideration to the subject. Some
reference had been made to the acts and character of Mr.
Churchward. So far as his experience was concerned, it

was not very easy for any Government to carry on its busi
ness without some connection with gentlemen of the press
—(a laugh)—and he must do Mr. Churchward the justice
to say that all his articles were generally favourable to the
Administration of the day. (A laugh.) But with respect to
the character of Mr. Churchward, he was bound to say that
he was not altogether unknown to committees of the house.
In the case of the committee on Mr. Mare's election, it was
reported that he (Mr. Churchward) had bribed two electors
at that election; and another committee had reported that ho
had asked for forty places, and had got twenty-five of them.
He thought this showed, upon the whole, that Mr.
Churchward was not a man to abstain from using Parlia-
mentary influence to get something good. (A laugh.) Mr.
Murray had denied that the conversation described by Cap-
tain Carnegie had passed, but had said that Capt. Carnegie
must have had in his mind a conversation with him (Mr.
Murray) in which he had made use of such remarks as had
been repeated. That was to say, Mr. Murray talked to
Capt. Carnegie about Mr. Churchward assisting him, and
they had therefore the admission that there was an offer to
Mr. Churchward to take part in the election. But that was
not all : the late Secretary to the Treasury wrote that the
Government were anxious to expedite Mr. Churchward's
matter, and they wanted him to go down to Dover to can-
vass. The reason, then, that the committee recommended
that Mr. Churchward's contract should not be extended
was, that Mr. Churchward thought he got his contract
through his Parliamentary assistance. (Hear, hear.) He
wow came to the last question, whether the contract having
been entered into, the house was not bound to perform it?
Was it to be understood that in every; promise of a Govern-
nient, involving a vote of money, the house was bound in
good faith to pay whatever might be demanded ? If so, had
the house any right to enter into any question connected
with the retiring allowances ? If the principle were carried
to its full extent, there was hardly a thing in which Parlia-
ment would be permitted to interfere, but he thought he
could show that the house had never acted upon that doc-
trine. There was a contract entered into by the Minister at
Paris for the purchase of a certain chapel, and part of the
'money was actually paid, but the house threw out the vote
and refused to perform the contract ; and amongst those who
on that occasion voted in the majority were Mr. Disraeli,
Mr. Henley, Sir J. Graham, Sir W. Jolliffe, Sir J. Faking-
ton, Mr. S. Fitzgerald, the present Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, Lord J. Manners, the present Judge-Advocate,
Mr. Sergeant Ringlak e, Mr. It. Malins—in the way of whose
speech, now on the other side, he was sorry to throw any
difficulty—(laughter)—and the late Attorney-General for
Ireland. Then, again, they had the precedent of the com-
mercial treaty with Louis the Fourteenth, when the house
thanked her Majesty for the treaty, but threw out the clause
for the reduction of duties ; and that was an instance of a
most solemn contract—a contract with a foreign Power
under the Great Seal of England--set aside by Parliament.
The engagement in contracts such as that now under discus-
sion was worded thus—" We engage to pay out of moneys
to be provided by Parliament and it could not be main-
tained that the Lords of the Admiralty had the power to
make contracts to which the House of Commons were asked
to assent only as a ridiculous form. It appeared to him, in
the first place, that the contract was not good in itself; that
whether it were or were not a good contract, the conduct (4
Mr. Churchward had been such as to render it advisable that
it should not be extended ; and that the House of Commons
was perfectly free to withhold its sanction from the course
which they were now recommended to take.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE was not prepared to argue the
question upon legal grounds, but the right hon. gentleman
who had just sat down had placed the question from begin-
ning to sad upon a totally false issue. What the hen. mem-
ber for Berkshire asked the house to do was not to tie, but
to untie its hands. The committee submitted the question
fur consideration, whether Mr. Churchward had not by his
conduct rendered it impossible for the house, with regard to
its honeur and dignity, to vote the money necessary for
carrying the contract into effect, and this called for an ex-
pression of opinion upon the subject. All that was now
asked was, that the house should be placed in that position
that it should not be fettered :by the decision of the com-
mittee, but should be at liberty to give its opinion freely
upon the vote in committee. In the case of the Paris
chapel the contractors were about to put up the debt of the
British Government to the lowest bidder, and a vote of the
House of Commons was taken to prevent the discreditable
transaction taking place. This was an instance, then, of
the inconvenience of too hasty interference with such bar-
gains, and in the present case, if the house was persuaded
that the Government had entered into the contract fairly,
and for the public service, he submitted that it would be a
most injurious and injudicious course if they repudiated the
engagment upon the ground merely that they considered it
inexpedient. He had stated to the house last year, he had
stated again before the committee, and he would now state
once more, what the grounds were upon which the late Go-
vernment agreed to the extension of the contract. In the
first place, the extension was asked for on a ground that he
did not think a good one—that Mr. Churchward had sus-
tained great and serious losses in the execution of his con-
tract. That was a ground on which the contract was extended
by a previous Government, in 1855 ; but he had refused, so
far as he was concerned, the extension on that ground.
Then it was recommended upon the ground that Mr.
Churchward was anxious to improve the service—that he
was unable to carry it out so effectively as he ought without
going to considerable expense, and that it was unreasonable
to suppose that he would go to that expense unless an ex-
tension were granted to him. Now that was a ground he
(Sir S. Northcote) took, and took in conformity with prece-
dents set over and over again-by Governments ever since
they had had to deal with packet contrasts. There was one
remarkable instance, in a case infinitely more important
than this, namely, the extension of the royal mail contract.
The royal mail contract to the West India Islands involved a
subsidy of 1270,000, whereas this involved only .£15,000, or
£16,000; that service was very badly done, this was very
well done ; that involved a dead loss to the Government of
£215,000 a year, because the postage revenue derived from
it was very small, whereas in this case the contract produced
an absolute gain by postage of £60,500 a year. The Royal
Mail Company came forward in 1857, when Mr. Wilson
was at the Treasury, their contract having four years to
runt and obtained an extension for two years, on the ground
that they proposed to build larger ships. He might be told
that this was a case got up with a view to favour Mr.
Churchward, but he contended that the case was most com-
pletely made out in favour of the extension ; and in proof
he quoted the evidence given by Captain M'llwaine, a very
competent and perfectly unbiassed witness, who stated to
the committee that it would be of advantage if Mr. Church-
ward could put on better boats—that he had not speed for
the contract in bad weather. It might be said that they
ought to have allowed Mr. Churchward to drag out his
contract, and made no attempt to improve the 'system.
Well, that might be so ; but even those who took that view
would surely acquit them of not having acted up to the
best of their judgment. The next ground which had in-
duced them to close with Mr. Churchward was that not
only had he a contract with the British Government, but
likewise with the French Government. Mr. Churchward
had a contract with the British Government by which he
was bound until the year 1863, and one with the French
Government by which he was bound until the year 1870.
As far as the contract with the French Government was
concerned, it was entirely beyond their control, but it so
happened that at the time a correspondence was going on
between the Post-office authorities, the French Govern-
ment, and Mr. Churchward, with respect to certain hu-
r;rovements in the service which bad been suggested by
Mr. Churchward. These improvements could only have
been carried out by the aid of Mr. Churchward, and, con•
sequently, had he refused it, they must have fallen to
the ground ; and the result had been that the accelera-
tion of the mails, which wps so much desired, did take
place, and that the mails which left Dover between
one and two in the afternoon now were to leave it at seven
in the morning. Moreover, Mr. Churchward had accele-
rated the passage between France and England, and instead
'hf the voyage being performed at the rate of ,eleven knot s an
hour, as used to be the case, it was now performed at four-
teen knots an hour. And it should be borne in mind that it
was not in the English service that these improvements
had taken place, but in the French service, over which Mr.
Churchward had complete control. He did not mean to
say that Mr. Churchward's conduct, as regarded the elec-
tion, was everything that was proper, but as regarded the
contract there was nothing whatever to impugn. If there
was any corruption at all it was on the part of the late Go- _

vernment ; and both his colleagues and himself should be
ashamed of themselves if they were to be acquitted of all

blame, and the consequences visited on Mr. Churchward
alone. Had the inquiry been conducted before a legal tri-
bunal, leading questions, such as the hon. member had put,
would never have been tolerated. He would again repeat

that ho should feel thoroughly ashamed of himself if it

could be supposed that he was prepared to ride off on the
sort of acquittance accorded by the report of the committee,
while Mr. Churchward, the contractor, innocent of every-
thing that cola be impeached, was allowed to be a heavy
sufferer. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. LAING, as one of the majority of the committee who
had decided in favotur of the report which had been published,
desired to offer a few observations to the house. He should

rat his decision entirely upon the question whether or not

any corrupt influence had attempted to be used by the con-
tractor when seeking the renewal of the contract. Were he,

however, to base it oYi the consideration whether or not the
bargain WAS an advantageous one for the country, he might
have much to say #4, opposition to the view taken by the
honourable baronet who had just spoken. He believed, for
the reasons set fbrth in the report of the Post-office autho-

rities, that the transaction was not upon the whole one for
the good of the country. Where the case was such that it

was morally certain, either from the vastness of the under-
taking or other circumstances, that a variety of competitors
would not appear in the field, it might be better, un-

doubttdly, that the Government should close at once wit

an individual. But that was not the case with the Dover

line ; for it was perfectly possible for a great variety of per
sons to have competed for the contract—in fact, any one
with five or six steaniers could have done so. And, more-
over, it was notorious that, as regarded the railways, there
were elements of competition entering in these of which the
public ought to have taken advantage. It certainly, there-
fore was unwise to tie up the hands of the country by so
influenced an execution of the contract. However, all such
considerations appeared to him to be beside the question.
The simple point with him was, had corrupt motives
heightened the execution of the contract. The hon. baronet
had found fault with the report of the committee. Now,
he was astonished that a gentleman of such acuteness was
unable to see the distinction between a verdict of acquittal
as regarded B the acceptor of a bill, and a verdict of guilty
as against A, the offerer of a bill. There was no assertion
that the contract had been obtained by the exercise of cor-
rupt influence, but there was a distinct assertion by a great
majority of the committee, and not consisting of onepolitical
party, that Mr. Churchward did attempt to exercise cor-
rupt influence, in the hope of thereby obtaining the con-
tract. The question was not in the slightest degree one of
law, for undoubtedly the House of Commons had the power
of rejecting the renewal of the contract by refusing to vote
for the money. It should also be borne in mind that
Churchward was a person whose antecedents were not
satisfactory—who had been reported to the • House of
Commons on a former occasion as having been
guilty of attempting to bribe certain electors as a
political agent. Nor could they shut their eyes to the
fact of the communications between Churchward and the
Admiralty on the subject of the Dover election. A select
committee had since then sat on the Dov©r election, and
had made their report to the house ; that report was not
printed, and he (Mr. Laing) was therefore obliged to quote
from the newspapers. He proceeded to read a passage from
the report in qUestion, when—
Lord LOVAINE rase to order, and put it to the Speaker
whether the hon. member was justified in quoting the report
of a committee not before house.
The SPEAKER decided to hon. member was rot in
order.

-- - .
Mr. LAING said the point was immaterial, except for
the sake of argument. His general impression, however,
was that the report threw a remarkable light on the
con-
nection of Churchward with the Dover election through the
agents employed.
Mr. LYGON rose to order. To refer to a report not be-
fere the house was not in Order.
The SPEAKER decided that the hon. member was
again out of order.
Mr. LAING said the report of the committee had been
laid on the table, though it had not yet been printed ; but he
did not wish to pursue the subject further than to say that
the report was referred to by the hon. and gallant member,
who made the motion, and that if he (Mr. Laing) was out
of order, he only followed that hon. gallant member. But
taking the case as it stood the question was narrowed down
to the single issue—whether Captain Carnegie's evidence
was to be believed or rejected ? If it was to bo rejected, then
there was an end of the business. If, however, it was to be
believed, then no man of sense could doubt for a single moment
that Mr. Churchward attempted, by means of a political
bribe, to obtain from the Admiralty a renewal of his con-
tract. That being the case, then came the question, was an
atttrept a sufficient justification for the House of
Commons to, put an end to the contract in
question by refusing to vote the money for it ? The
introduction of the words in the contract making it
dependent on the vote of the House of Commons, was a
great novelty in contracts ; but it was plain, from the state-
ments of the members of the Government who had made
• that contract, that these words were not mere idle verbiage,
but had a definite purpose and specific. meaning. Under
the words of the contract they were at perfect liberty to re-
fuse the vote. It was of the highest consequence, moreover,
that they should support the decision of their own select
committee, whose conclusion was strictly based on evidence,
and therefore he hoped they would not agree to the reso-
lution.
Mr. MALINS said the house was not in possession of all
the facts of the case, which was to be regretted, as the deci-
sion Fould be of a judicial character. Before the year 1854
Mr. Churchward had been connected with the public press
on naval affairs, and had acquired a considerable knowledge
of those matters. At that time the packet service from Dover
to Calais was costing the country £25,000 a-year ; and Mr.
Churchward suggested that this service should be performed
by tender, and not by Government boats. This was agreed
to. The Government advertised for tenders, and Mr. Church-
ward and a Captain Jenkins tendered to perform the service
for £15,500, which tender was accepted, and a contract was
accordingly signed on the Ist April, 1554. The right hon.
baronet the member for Carlisle was then at the head of the
Admiralty, and a Liberal Government was in power. That
wont on until 1855, to the satisfaction. of the Government,
when Mr. Churchward—who, with the knowledge of the
Government had entered into an arrangement with the
• French Government to bring over the French mails in
his packets instead of returning empty—applied for and re-
ceived a renewal of his-contract to 1863, on the ground that
he had been at considerable expense, and had suffered the
loss of one of his vessels. That contract was on the same
terms as the former, with some collateral advantages. The
right hon. baronet the member for Halifax was then First
Lord of the Admiralty. After that came the Crimean war
and the Indian mutiny, and the arrival of the Indian mail
being very irregular, Mr. Churchward put himself to great
expense to have a steamer in readiness when the mail ar-
rived. In consequence of this, and his having suggested
great improvements in the postal service, the Government
of Lord Derby-increased the term of contract. It would be
admitted that the Government of Lord Derby was in no
danger until the middle of March, 1859, when the noble
lord opposite proposed his resolution. The course of
circumstances eonnected with the contract appeared to
be this. On the • Gth January, 1859, Mr. Church-
ward, being at that time in possession of a contract which
was to last till 1863, first mooted the question of its
renewal. On the 11th of February he was invited by the
Admiralty to make a formal offer of the terms which he pro-
posed. In compliance with that invitation he made an
offer, proposing that his remuneration should be £lB,OOO a
year instead of £15,500 a year and casualties, as under the
old contract, the casualties amounting usually to about
£2,500. On the 23d of February that offer was formally
accepted and adopted by the Admiralty, and all that then
remained was for the Treasury to put it into shape. That
was a mere matter of machinery, and for all practical pur-
poses the contract was completed on the 23d of February.
On the 26th of April, however, the contract was positively
executed—" signed, sealed, and delivered" by the Treasury
—and under it Mr. Churchward, was to receive £lB,OOO a
year, and the contract vas to endure till 1870. On the faith
of that contract Mr. Churchward had expended £16,000
upon two new steamers to enable him to perform his part
of the undertaking, and it had been so fill• recognised by the
present Government that on the Ist of July, when the first
quarter's subsidy became due, they handed over to him the
sum of £4,500. The contract having been thus entered
into, it was now said that it was to be set aside on account
of a conversation which was alleged to have taken place
with Capt. Carnegie on the 2d April. A more ridiculous
ground for repudiating a contract he had never heard. He
appealed to the justice of the noble lord, and of the house,
not to sanction the repudiation of a contract solemnly en-
tered into by a public department on the ground of mere
gossip, said to have taken place in the room of. a private
secretary.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he could not agree
with the propositions which his hon. and learned friend op-
posite had laid down with regard to the law of this case. He
admitted the correctness of the dates given by his hon. and
learned friend, but he demurred to the conclusion which he
had drawn from them. It appeared that early in 1859 Mr.
Churchward proposed to the Admiralty the abrogation of
and :w:hefi to
proposal,l continuet
ihee n
as existing,
disposed
o forwardedsl leB d7acitno. d r
eTtlhyhieeto
tnAsoutdibihnseeit
absence
Treasury,
lrstteeyi
ano
sncuny)
off' one
approvedabonnu
any
armtdhsa
ecet
in point a form, the contract was not signed
a t that acserhe6oal:tflvtei
binding acceptance of the contract on the part of the Trea-
sury. Mr. Churchward was a man not inex •
perienced in
contracts, and must haveknswn the importance of the want
of the ratification by the Treasury. However Mr. Church-
ward might exaggerate the advantages of the contract to
himself, that of itself would not negative the fact found by
the committee, that Mr.Churchward had at tempted to obtain
an advantage to himself by means 1 hat Were corrupt. For-
tunately for the interests of public justice and political
morality, there was in this contract so corruptly obtained a
stipulation, the importance of which his hon. and learned
friend had sought to evade, to the effect that the periodical
payments to Mr. Churchward were to be made 'out of
moneys to be voted by Parliament. No complaint, there-
fore, could with justice be made by Mr. Churchward, if the
house should refuse to vote the fund out of which payments
were to be made to him. It followed, from the terms of