§ SUPPLY considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £700,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of the Post Office Packet Service, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of
1020
March 1864, which sum includes provision for payments to Mr. Joseph George Churchward, for the conveyance of Mails between Dover and Calais and Dover and Ostend, from the 1st day of April 1863, to the 20th of June 1863, but no part of which sum is to be applicable or applied in or towards making any payment in respect of the period subsequent to the 20th day of June 1863, to the said Mr. Joseph George Churchward, or to any person claiming through or under him by virtue of a certain Contract, bearing date the 26th day of April 1859, made between the Lords-Commissioners of Her Majesty's Admiralty (for and on behalf of Her Majesty) of the first part, and the said Joseph George Churchward of the second part, or in or towards the satisfaction of any claim whatsoever of the said Joseph George Churchward, by virtue of that Contract, so far as relates to any period subsequent to the 20th day of June 1863.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he rose to ask if the Government would afford some further explanation in reference to the arrangements for the conveyance of the mails between Dover and Calais and Dover and Ostend. He believed that between Dover and Ostend the mails were carried by the Belgian Government—a very peculiar arrangement certainly. He wished to know whether there was anything more than the correspondence, and what had been done to insure the punctual performance of the service? He did not understand the position of the Government and country with regard to the other service between Dover and Calais. Some time ago they were told that Mr. Churchward's contract was to come to an end on the 20th of June, and he should like to know how the service had been carried on from that date. He understood that a contract had been given to one, if not two railway companies, but the whole arrangement was kept at present a secret from the House. The question of those contracts was mixed up with legal difficulties. He did not know what steps Mr. Churchward was going to take to enforce what he considered to be his rights; but he believed it was the gentleman's intention to adopt some proceedings to test the legality of the course pursued by the Government; and under these circumstances he thought the Committee ought to have some explanation on the subject of those contracts.
MR. PEELsaid, that when the question was under discussion on a former occasion, he stated that the Government had received an offer from Mr. Harrington for the conveyance of the mails between Dover and Calais for a sum of £5,000 a year. Pending the decision of the House with respect to the Resolution submitted to them on the 1021 occasion to which he referred, no permanent arrangement could have been come to, and the interval between the time at which the Resolution was passed and that at which Mr. Churchward's contract expired, was too short to enable Mr. Harrington to make preparations for commencing a contract. He therefore proposed to commence the new service on the 1st of January next, and he was willing to perform a temporary service between the 20th of June and the 18th of January for a sum of £11,000. That, however, appeared to the Government to be a larger sum than they would be justified in paying, and they applied to the railway companies, who undertook to perform the service from the 20th of June for a subsidy of £6,000 a year. That appeared to the Government to be a more advantageous arrangement than the one proposed by Mr. Harrington, taking into account the sum demanded by him for the temporary service. The railway company had been performing the contract since the 20th of June; and he understood that four vessels which they were using were four which Mr. Churchward had used in the performance of his contract. It was intended to embody the agreement with the two companies in a contract, and the condition in the advertisement of the Government was that no contract should be binding until it was laid on the table of the House and approved of, or had been on the table for a month without being disapproved of. He hoped the contract would be signed in sufficient time to be laid on the table of the House before the end of the Session, and he would invite the House, if necessary, to pass a Resolution respecting it. With regard to the service from Dover to Ostend, the Belgian Government had for some years been performing half of the night service—that was, performing it three nights in the week. Her Majesty's Government having advertised for the performance of our division of that service, the Belgian Government offered to perform it for a sum of £4,000 a year. That offer had been accepted, and the performance of the contract would be provided for by a postal convention. As it had been estimated that out of the subsidy paid to Mr. Churchward about £10,000 was for the Dover and Ostend service, the Committee would see that the new arrangement was an advantageous one. He apprehended that the arrangement would not be limited in point of time, but would be terminable at a year's notice.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, 1022 he must protest against the extraordinary arrangement connected with the Dover and Calais contract, an arrangement by which the Government were utterly evading a Resolution passed two years ago. That Resolution was intended to provide that for the future the House should be put in possession of all the circumstances connected with any partial contract before it was finally adopted. The Resolution was to the effect that the contract should not be binding until it had been laid on the table of the House, and had remained on the table of the House for one month without challenge, unless it was specially affirmed by a Vote of the House. They were now asked to Vote the money for a contract which they knew nothing about; and the Resolution for approving that contract would be submitted when the House would be occupied almost exclusively by Votes of the Government.
§ MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he objected to the £4,000 for the Dover and Ostend service as an unnecessary expenditure. The mails from Dover to Ostend started at the same hour as those from Dover to Calais. Both met at Ghent in the morning, and went on together in the same train from Ghent to Brussels.
MR. CORRYsaid, he objected to the arrangement on a different ground from that put forward by the hon. Gentleman. He objected to it on the ground that foreign vessels ought not to be engaged to carry on the postal communications between this country and a foreign country. The next thing the House would hear of was that the postal contract was taken away from the Cunard line and given to a New York company, because they would take it at £1,000 less.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the outburst of indignation which had come from the right, hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) contained a very fine sentiment for a civilized man. But there were civilized men out of England, and what if they objected to the conveyance of their letters by English ships? If the principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman were acted upon, every country would maintain a separate set of mail packets for carrying its letters from every port. But, in point of fact, the service had already been performed for us by the Belgian Government during three nights a week for several years, so that the objection of the hon. Gentleman was not only bad, but late. His hon. Friend (Sir S. 1023 Northcote) complained that he did not know what was to be the relation of the two railway companies who were to perform the contract between Dover and Calais. As to that contract they would be partners, and would be jointly and severally liable for its execution. The sum they were to receive was £6,000 a year, together with an extra remuneration for the extra performance which was stipulated to be done by them. The services were the same as had been already described in printed papers laid on the table. His hon. Friend complained of the Government for endeavouring to nullify the Resolutions of the Committee on the Packet Service. That would be a very blamable attempt if it had been really made, but the object of the Government really was to give the fullest effect to those Resolutions. In certain cases, however, the Resolutions would require the adoption of an intermediate arrangement, which without them might not be necessary. The condition that the contracts should lie on the table of the House before receiving full validity would occasionally interpose a certain time between the expiration of the old contract and the full validity of the new one, and then a provisional arrangement would become necessary. The Government were taking money with the view of bringing the contracts as soon as possible under the notice of the House, and also with the view of providing for the services in the mean time until the subject could be brought under notice. But the preparation of the necessary legal instruments and their execution by the necessary parties required considerable time. He was sorry, that though so far as the Government were concerned, they had done their utmost to expedite the matter, it had not been in their power to lay the contracts on the table before. But the only course they could take was to ask for a Vote for the performance of the service, reserving the question as to the final judgment of the House, and therefore as to the validity of the contract. With regard to cases in which before the expiration of the Session the contracts might be laid on the table, though the requisite month could not elapse, primâ facie the duty of the Government would be to ask for a Vote of the House in approval of the contract, because there would be some hardship to the parties in keeping them for a length of time subject to a merely provisional arrangement. Accordingly, as his right hon. Friend had stated, a Vote would 1024 be asked for with respect to such contracts as could be produced before the close of the Session. His hon. Friend thought it unfair on the part of the Government to ask for a ratification as far as the Dover contract was concerned. But he thought, that after a formal decision of the House in 1860, and two decisions in 1863, the question had been finally settled. If the question, were to be contested, the Government would be placed in some difficulty to decide between the convenience of the House on the one side in taking a division at so late a period of the Session, and what was due to the parties on the other. On Monday they would probably be able to take a complete review of the subject and decide what course to adopt.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would admit that there might frequently be a necessity for provisional arrrangements under the circumstances alluded to by his right hon. Friend, and he should have no objection to the passing of this Vote for a merely provisional arrangement. But there was a disputed question. In spite of the unfavourable vote of the House, Mr. Churchward did not admit that he had lost his rights against the Government. It was understood that he proposed to take legal proceedings, and supposing that he did so in the course of the recess, and a verdict was given in his favour, the House would have confirmed a contract in July, while in the January or February following they would find that another contract would be enforced against them. If they allowed the arrangement to rest as a provisional one, the difficulty would be very much less. It was true there had been two decisions of the House during the Session, but it was quite possible that the question might be opened again, especially if evidence should be taken before a Court of Law, which would alter the question He therefore contended it was only fair to Mr. Churchward that nothing should be done unnecessarily to prejudice his rights.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was anxious to protest against the cosmopolitan sentiments to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given utterance. He had always understood that one of the principal reasons why contracts were entered into by this country was to encourage a kind of steam vessels which would be available for service in time of war and be a nursery for our seamen. Last century the same sentiments were uttered by another famous Minister, when the Hessians and the Dutch were 1025 required to defend this country by land, as Belgians might yet be called upon to do by sea. He, for one, should protest against the money of the taxpayers of this country being spent in the encouragement of a foreign navy.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, whatever reasons ought to operate with the Government, he sincerely hoped they would not be such as had been suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford. The House had upon three occasions deliberately expressed its opinion upon the subject of Mr. Church ward's contract, and it was the bounden duty of the Government to assume that that decision would be carried into effect by the House. He protested against the supposition that it was to be treated as an open question. Any person could bring any action at law that he pleased, but he hoped the Government would not go one inch out of its way in consequence of the terrors of such an action. He, for one, was not afraid of the result of such an action, whatever might be the conclusion which might be arrived at by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
MR. CORRYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) seemed to treat the question of the conveyance of mails across the sea as an open question, but he should protest against such a conclusion. As an illustration of the inconvenience of such a course, he would refer to a question put that evening by the hon. Member for Poole, "whether it was true that a bag containing the despatches from the Admiralty to the Admiral on the station at Vancouver's Island had been abstracted from on board the United States steamer in its passage from Panama; and whether, in the absence of safe postal communication, the Admiral was not under the necessity of employing a Government war steamer to carry the despatches to Panama?" If every foreign country were to carry the mails for £5,000 or £10,000 less than English contractors, they were likely to be put to every kind of inconvenience at a future time. If that principle were adopted, they would have their mails carried not by contract but by men-of-war of fifty guns, or carried to Vancouver's Island, as on the occasion of the Trent affair, round by Cape Horn.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he should move to reduce the Vote by £3,110 for conveyance of mails from Dover to Ostend, and he intended to divide the Committee upon it. There was lately laid upon the table a 1026 correspondence which informed them that this sum was to be paid to the Belgian Government. That was a grand stroke of economy, that we could get our mails carried cheaper by subsidizing Belgium. But he denied the justice of the comparison, because the Belgian Government had not entered into a contract as an English contractor would—it was not subject to penalties, nor was it to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the courts of law of this country. But even if there were the greatest economy in the matter. England ought not to recognise the principle of subsidizing foreign Governments to carry our mails. It was fair to arrange with the Government of France for an alternate mail, but then we yielded to the pretensions of a great and powerful State; but weak States often took advantage of their weakness to obtain concessions which a more powerful State would not require. On principle we ought to insist on having the mails carried by our own subjects. If there were a great saving in the matter, it might be pleaded as an excuse; but the saving was very small, and the principle ought not to be sacrificed to it. When they recollected that they had been squandering money in every way under the auspices of the Government during the Session, that attempt at economy was ridiculous. It was injurious to our commercial marine, and he intended to record his vote against it, even though he should go into the lobby almost alone. He begged to move to reduce the Vote by £3,110 for the conveyance of the mails from Dover to Ostend for a certain specified time.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he rose to move a reduction of £400,000 in the Vote. [Laughter.] The Post Office revenue was only £400,000, whilst the amount of the Vote was nearly £800,000. He therefore proposed a reduction equal in amount to the excess of the subsidy over the receipts produced from the conveyance of letters. It was most unjust that this country should be called upon to pay such an enormous sum for the benefit of the mercantile part of the community.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman must point out the particular items in the Vote which he challenged. The particular subject under discussion was the conveyance of mails between Dover and Ostend.
MR. PEELsaid, he could not understand why there should be any objection in principle to a postal convention with 1027 the Belgian Government, which had for some months been carrying the night mails for three nights in the week. The saving would be from a sum of £10,000 a year to £4,000. This was a gain which he thought was not to be overlooked. With respect to the mercantile marine, he wished to observe that it had been the effort of the Government to send all the German mails by Calais, with this special object in view; but the arrangements of foreign Governments had made the discontinuance of this practice necessary.
MR. LYGONsaid, he wished to know on what terms the Ostend service was to be carried on. He submitted that the House had not had an opportunity of expressing its opinion respecting Mr. Church-ward's contract, and a large demand was made on the credulity of the House when it was asserted that such decision had been three times given. The Government had not afforded the House any opportunity of pronouncing an opinion on the subject.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALcontended that Mr. Churchward's contract had been three times decided on, both in substance and in form. In substance, they all knew, it had been decided on; and in form it was pronounced on when Captain L. Vernon proposed that the contract should be fulfilled. The House negatived that proposition by a large majority, and this year the Government proposed that a certain sum should be voted, but that no part of that sum should be applied to the payment of Mr. Churchward's contracts after a certain day. An hon. Member then moved the House to omit those words relating to Mr. Churchward's contract; and if anything could raise the question as to the contract, it must be obvious to any person of common sense that that did. The House decided that no part of the money should be applied to the performance of Mr. Churchward's contract, and repeated the Vote twice.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to ask whether the recommendations held out by the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Government to take legal proceedings were inspired by their success in the case of the Alexandra?
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that the question raised by his Amendment had nothing to do with Mr. Churchward.
§ MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he had no intention whatever of supporting the Amendment. His inquiry went to a very different point.
§
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put,
That the item of £3,110, for conveyance of Mails between Dover and Ostend, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 75: Majority 49.
§ Original Question again proposed.
| AYES. | |
| Barttelot, Col. | Hennessy, J. P. |
| Bentinck, G. C. | Heygate, W. U. |
| Berkeley, Hon. C. P. F. | Lever, J. O. |
| Bridges, Sir B. W. | Lygon, Hon. F. |
| Bruce, Sir H. H. | Mure, D. |
| Clifton, Sir R. J. | Northcote, Sir S. H. |
| Collins, T. | Paull, H. |
| Cox, W. | Powell, F. S. |
| Dillwyn, L. L. | Powys-Lybbe, P. L. |
| Dunne, Col. | Smollett, P. B. |
| Fane, Col. J. W. | Taylor, Col. |
| Gard, R. S. | |
| Gore, J. R. O. | TELLERS. |
| Grenfell, H. R. | Mr. Corry |
| Hay, Sir J. C. D. | Mr. Ayrton |
§ MR. HENNESSYsaid, he thought the Chairman should report Progress. The effect of these late sittings on hon. Members was shown in the hon. Member for London going into the wrong lobby at four o'clock on the previous morning, and by the hon. Member for Lambeth, the leader of the economists, falling into a similar mistake—he could not suppose it intentional—on the present occasion.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he voted as he did because the result of voting on the opposite side would have been to increase the burdens of the public.
MR. HEYGATEcondemned the Vote because the new service was useless and unnecessary, because the contract was handed over exclusively to foreigners, and because the Government had not dealt fairly towards the House in delaying the question so long. It was not till the 19th of May that this Vote was brought forward, though the Government must have considered the question long before that time. He should move that the Chairman report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress."—(Mr. Heygate.)
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member not to press his Motion. The only effect of it would be to prolong the Session.
COLONEL DUNNEobserved, that the Government had set a bad example on the previous morning in counting out a valuable Bill. Such stratagems might be allowable 1029 in an Opposition, but not in the Government.
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought it would be well to have the Session prolonged a little, in order that the measure referred to might be passed.
MR. HEYGATEsaid, that if the Government would assure the Committee that nothing that was done to-night should commit the House to the contract he would withdraw his Motion.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Vote would not in the least degree bind the House to adopt the contract. All that was asked was a temporary provision for the service.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEapprehended that the contract could not be dealt with so effectually if they did not take it up at the time of Supply.
§ MR. SMOLLETTasked whether the subvention, which was in the case of the Ostend Service to take the place of a contract, would be laid on the table for the sanction of the House.
MR. LYGONsaid, he objected to any attempt to entrap the Committee when there was only a thin attendance, and at a late hour, into the acceptance of an objectionable measure.
MR. HEYGATEsaid, he was willing to withdraw the Motion on the understanding that the passing of the Vote would not commit the House to approval of the contract.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERassented.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolution to be reported on Monday next.