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

the contract, that they would be guilty of a breach of duty
if, in the Nee of the Adverse ObiniOn of Parliament, they
were to make payments to Mr. Churchward. The question
they had to consider was, whether the conclusioili arrived
at by the select committee were to be reversed by a vote in
favour of the motion now submitted to them. In justice to
their own Committee, the house might notl on light grounds,
to disturb its decision. He agreed with his hon. and learned
friend that the Government should not seek to evade the
contract on any ground which would not be available for
the avoiding of a contract between private individuals.: He
denied, however, as respected the application of that rule in
the present case, that the Government were in any way in
fault. Such S. case as this could not happen as between
private individuals. Mr. Churchward was soliciting a con-
tract from the Government which had sought to complete
it by attempting to corrupt an officer of the Government,
by promising to support the Government candidate at an
election. His lion. and learned friend must know that a
contract between individuals was void if corruptly entered
into—if contra bonos mores—or against the statute or com-
mon law. Such a contract was always pronounced void on
objection being taken to it. He contended that in a reference
to the dates of the various steps in the transaction that Mr.
Churchward had obtained an advantage to which he was
not, at the time of receiving the payment of the sum of
money referred to, entitled. He denied that Mr. Church-
ward was without a remedy in a court of law against the
officers of the Government, if he conceived he had any
cause of complaint, as he might proceed by petition of right
against the Crown. With respect to the facts of the case,
he had come to the conclusion, after a careful examination
of the evidence, that Mr. Churchward had sought to ob-
tain that which, at all events, he by his conduct re-
garded as a matter of considerable advantage, by
means which were to be reprobated ; and which must,
if carried into general practice, tend to corruption in
the public departments with respect to the grant of con-
tracts ; and he should, therefore, feel it impossible, by
a vote in favour of the motion, to reverse the decision to
which the select committee had arrived.
Lord LOVAINE considered that Capt: Carnegie had
acted in this affair in a manner which was most unfair to
his colleagues, and ho regretted to find that so much weight
was to be attached to evidence not given on oath.
Lord C. PAGET defended Capt. Carnegie from the per •
sonal charges which had been against him. He stated that
the gallant officer bad been for many years an acquaintance
of his own, and he had always regarded him as one of the
most high-minded of his brother officers.
Sir F. KELLY said if the conduct of Capt. Carnegie had
been the subject of the debate he should not have denied
him what had been denied to Mr. Churchward—a fair trial.
He was glad that a lawofficerhad been induced to rise upon
that occasion, but notwithstanding the arguments that had
been advanced, he put it to any lawyer in the house whe-
ther, if an action had beenbrought upon the contract by Mr.
Churchward, there would have been the slightest shadow
of a defence of the course taken by the committee in recom-
mending that the contract should beset aside? The contract
was entered into in 1854 between the Admiralty and Mrs
Churchward for the conveyance of the mails between Dover
and Calais, and Dover and Ostend—an arrangement which
saved to the Government £lO,OOO, and no one could main-
tain that Mr. Churchward had departed from the strict let-
terkf the contract. Subsequently the contract was extended
for five years, and Mr. Churchward having entered into a
contract with the French Government, terminating in 1870
was anxious to extend his contractwith the English Govern-
ment to the same period, which would have enabled him to
perform the service much more advantageously to this coun-
try. The approval of the Admiralty was signified to him,
and communication took place between Mr. Churchward
and the Admiralty and the Treasury, and the result was
that in the month of April the arrangement was completed.
Instead of £17,500 a-year the Government were to pay
£lB,OOO a-year, and in the improved arrangements Mr.
Churchward undertook, at an expense of £2,000, to pro-
vide a steamer for harbour service at low water. Immedi •
ately after the contract was entered into on the 26th of
April, Mr. Churchward proceeded in perfect good faith to
expend £2,000 in the purchase of a steam vessel, and lay •
ing 115,000 in supply ing the best, and most effective, and
fastest steam vessel that had ever carried the mails between
England and France. On the Ist of July Mr. Churchward
sent in his account at a time when the late Government
had ceased to exist, the present Government had eomo into
power, and the first instalment under the contract was paid.
This continued for three months more, until at least half of
the sum of money to be paid under the contract, amounting
to £29,000 and more, had been expended by Mr. Church-
ward and those associated with him, and in September he
sent in a statement of account demanding a sum of £4,500
which was then due. The house had no more right to pre-
vent or defeat the full performance of this contract by the
Board of Admiralty than they had to keep away by any
vote the estate of any gentlemen. After the lapse of a fort-
night Mr. Churchward wrote that he was still bound, under
heavy penalties, to the strict performance of the contract ;
that he had with great cost and labour and increased risk,
carried out strictly the stipulations of the contract; that he
had incurred liabilities of £lB,OOO and £19,000; that the
outlay was so large that it was impossible to do justice to
the public unless good faith were observed by the Govern-
ment, and that he was advised that he could recover his de-
mand in a court of law. Upon this payment was made to
enable him to go on and not stop the public services alto-
gether, and be was obliged to accept it under pretest, still
insisting upon the whole of his claim. He would like to ask
his hon. friend the Attorney-General and his hon. friend
the Solicitor-General whether the House of Commons or
the Crown had the power either to set aside one contract or
to revive another which had been expressly put an end to for
ever? Suppose Mr. Churchward had been a man of straw,
and that the Government were obliged to full back upon his
sureties, did any one imagine that the sureties under the
contract of 1855 could be held liable ? Were the attempt
made, the illegality and absurdity of the whole proceedings
would soon be made apparent. He was inclined to speak not
so much against the report as against the purposes to, which
it had been applied. Now, if it were intended to report
against the fulfilment of the contract on the ground that
Mr. Churchward had been guilty of bribery, he would
humbly suggest that before any such conclusion was acted
on, that Mr. Churchward ought to be allowed the opportu-
nity of submitting the question to a decision of a jury of his
countrymen, and of having the evidence sifted upon oath.
There could not be a shadow of doubt, both legally and
constitutionally, Mr. Churchward was entitled to a trial
by jury before such a senf once could be pronounced against
him. The question was not a vote of money, it was one of
fair dealing ; and he deeply lamented that the house should
be asked to set aside a contract between the Government
and an individual, and so be called upon to assume the juris-
diction of a court of justice without any of the machinery
for arriving at the truth. Under these circumstances, he
trusted the precedent woulcl'hot be adopted, and that the
house would pass the resolution before it.
Mr. BOUITERIE differed from most of the conclusions
of the hon. and learned gentleman, and thought the ques-
tion was not a lawyer's question, butine on which the house
as guardian of the public purse, was bound to exercise a
strict supervision of the public money. The hon. and
learned gentleman would seem not to have read the evi-
dence taken before the committee,! or he would have seen
that the Secretary for tho Treasury to the late Government
had, stated that the provision in the contract was specially
introduced with the consent of the then Chancellor of the
Exchequer to provide for the very contingency in ques-
tion. Technically or legally, therefore, the contractor
could not complain if Parliament refused to find the money.
Mr. WHITESIDE having protested against the doc-
trine that public contracts were liable to be rescinded, as
was prcposed in the present instance,
Mr. GLADSTONE denied that the present Govern-
ment had done any act by which they recognised this con-
tract. The whole question was whether the contract was
to be renewed for seven years after its present term, which
was yet to be decided by the house, without reference to
any damage which‘Mr. Churchward might have suffered,
as was implied by the present motion. It was the duty of
the Government and the house also to support the decision
of a committee which had been appointed with the utmost
impartiality, and had carefully examined into the subject.
Sir J. PAKINGTON explained and defended the part
he had been alleged to have taken in the transactions re-
lating to the Dover election, and said that, if anything, he
was to blame for not knowing enough of what was going
on, especially with regard to the contract with Mr. Church-
ward. He denied that there was any evidence which con-
victed Mr. Churchward of corruption.
After a few observations from Mr. G. W. HOPE,
The house divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion .. 117
Against it ....

Majority against the motion .... 45
The Income Tax Bill was read a second time.
The house adjourned shortly before two o'clock.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—The greatest happiness of a jour-
nalist is to introduce to his readers some new discovery
calculated to benefit that vast portion of our fellow crea-
tures, which has the strongest claims upon our sympathies.
It is with this feeling that we call the attention of invalids
to the following extraot.from Du Barry's interesting report
of cures without medicine of indigestion (dyspepsia), fla-
tulency, constipation, nervous, bilious and liver complaints,
cough, asthma, consumption and debility by Da Barry's
Itevalcnta Arabica Food. Cure No. 180, twenty five years'
nervousness, constipation, indigestion, and debility, from
which I had sufiered great misery, and which no medic ine
could remove or relieve, have been effectually cured by Du
Barry's food in a very short time.—W. R. Reeves, 181,
Fleet-street. Cure No. ,54,618, of a lady of 107 years; of
age.—Wandsbeek, near Hamburgh, 12th May, 18574—1
hereby certify that my mother-in-law, Mrs. Holze, who
has just completed her 107th'year, after having suffi !red
for half a century and more,' from indigestion (dyspepsia),
and consequent disorders, has been perfectly cured by :Du
Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food, and is now enabled to di-
gest almost any kind of food with great comfort.—W. 110 l ze.
In tins, at is. 6d. ; Ilb., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; 51b., 125.; 121,.b.,
265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of post-
office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, London;
Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182,, Piccadilly; Alibis, 60,
Gradechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, Oxfold-
street ; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopsgrde-
street ; 85, Tottenham-court-road. Also at Dublin,
Bewley 'and Draper ; at Edinburgh, Raimes and Co.;
at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; at Mimi cheater, Sharp and
Scott; at York, Raimcs, Blanchard, si id Co.;
_at South.
anipton, Ranciali and Bon,