SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES— PACKET SERVICE.

HC Deb 18 May 1863 vol 170 cc1855-922

Supply considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. PEEL

said, he rose to move a Vote on account of £250,000, as part of the year's Estimate for the packet service, and he would call attention to the circumstance which affected equally the Vote on account and the entire Vote, that not only did the Estimate enumerate in the usual manner the various services among which the sum voted was to be appropriated, but it also named one particular service for the purpose of stating that no portion of the sum to be voted would be applied to payment for that service. He would endeavour to explain why the Government had considered it their duty to take such an unusual course, but he first wished to state that among the services enumerated were four in respect of which new contracts had been either agreed to or were proposed to be entered into. Those four services were the Galway, the Brazilian, the West Indian, and the Cape. It was intended that the new contracts for all those services should not be binding until, in accordance with a Resolution of that House, they had lain on the table for the period of a month without being disapproved by the House. The Government had not been able to lay those contracts on the table up to that moment, and they trusted that, without inconvenience, it would be possible to defer taking that part of the Estimate until the contracts had met with approval. The Galway Contract was still the subject of correspondence with the company. The contracts for Brazil and the Cape were in draught, and would be shortly signed, and instructions had been given to prepare the West Indian contract. With regard to the Cape service, the old contract expired in September or October last, and the Government being dissatisfied with the amount of contribution which up to that time they had received from the Government of Cape Colony, refrained from advertising for a contract to commence from its expiration. The service was expensive, and the amount received from the Cape was inconsiderable. The Government therefore informed the Cape Government that they were not prepared to continue the service, unless the Cape would agree to bear one-half the net loss; and understanding that the requisition would be likely to be assented to by the Colony, the Government authorized the old contractors to continue the service temporarily. Upon receiving a definite answer of assent from the Cape, they advertised for tenders; and as the offer of the old company was the most favourable, they accepted it; but the Government had stipulated that the service then going on, voyage by voyage, should be paid, from the time of acceptance, at the rate of the new contract, by which a saving to the public of £1,000 a voyage would be effected. He stated this, because it was possible that a portion of the Vote on account would be applied to payments under that agreement.

He would then proceed to explain the circumstances under which the Government had introduced the special words into the Estimate to which he had referred. They had been introduced for the purpose of giving effect to a Vote of the House which was tantamount to a declaration that it did not consider that the contract of Mr. Churchward ought to be fulfilled, having regard to the circumstance that he had resorted to corrupt expedients for the purpose of inducing the Government to prolong it. As far as Mr. Churchward was concerned, it did not matter at all that the late Government was not in the least influenced by those expedients, or that the Members of the Government upon whom the responsibility of deciding rested were not even cognizant of his having resorted to those expedients. If there had been no opinion of the House upon record, it might have been objected that the Government was taking the initiative for the purpose of relieving themselves of a contract which was binding on them, and that the proper and regular course would have been to submit a Vote for services to be performed by Mr. Churchward under his contract, leaving it to the Committee to adopt or reject that Vote, having reference to the Report of the Select Committee which had had the subject under its consideration. But the case was otherwise. The opinion of the House had been pronounced, and that opinion, deliberately and solemnly pronounced at the time, had not since been reversed. It must therefore be viewed as embodying the settled conclusion of the House upon the subject, and it became the duty of the Government, as they stated at the time would be the case, to follow the course which was indicated to them by the House. Having received no intimation of any desire on the part of the House to change the opinion at which they arrived when the subject was last under discussion, the Government had prepared the Estimate conformably to that opinion.

To explain the circumstances which led the House to come to the Vote to which he had referred, he must recur to the beginning of the year 1859. At that time, Mr. Churchward was the contractor for the services from Dover to Calais, and from Dover to Ostend, under a contract which, supposing a previous year's notice had been given, would have expired in the month of June 1863. He was paid for the ordinary services £15,500 a year; and for extra services at a rate fixed by the contract Mr. Churchward, at the beginning of 1859, appeared to have been dissatisfied with the rate of remuneration which he received for the extra service. He complained that the number of Indian mails which he had to bring over from Calais by special boats had considerably increased, and also that the bulk of the Australian mails had become so large, that once a month he was obliged to provide special vessels for the purpose of transmitting them from this country to Calais. Under those circumstances, he made a further claim on the Government in January 1859. He was then asked to state what arrangements would meet the views for the future which he entertained, and he stated that what he desired was, first of all, that his contract, which was to terminate in June 1863, should be prospectively extended from that year to 1870; and next that he should have for his extra service a commuted fixed pay at the rate of £2,500 a year. Those proposals were favourably entertained by the Admiralty. They were forwarded to the Treasury with the recommendation of the Board of Admiralty that they should be accepted, and after some delay the sanction of the Treasury was given; a new contract was made, annulling that in existence, and taking effect from April 1859 to the middle of 1870, and providing also that Mr. Churchward should be paid a subsidy of £18,000 per annum. Now, it happened that the proceedings of that gentleman, to which he had just adverted, had taken place on the eve of a general election; and when the new Parliament met, a Committee having been moved for the purpose of investigating the general subject of packet and telegraphic contracts, and the relative authorities of the Executive and Parliament over those contracts, an hon. Member (Mr. Rich), now no longer in the House, called attention to the manner in which Mr. Churchward had negotiated for the extension of his contract. The consequence was, that the Committee which was appointed in 1859 proceeded in the first instance to investigate the subject of the extension of the contract, and made a Report before the end of the Session, from which he would ask permission to read an extract referring to Mr. Churchward himself. It was as follows:— It is in evidence before your Committee, that Mr. Churchward, one of the contractors, on the eve of the last general election, at the time when the extension of his contract was under consideration at the Treasury, volunteered his support as an influential elector for Dover to the hon. Captain Carnegie, one of the Lords of the Admiralty, if he should become a candidate for that borough, on the expectation that his contract was to be extended; and expressed his intention, if required, to vote for two Government candidates for Dover. Your Committee think it right to add, that the renewal of the contract had been recommended by the Admiralty to the Treasury at least six weeks before the date of the conversation referred to. The Committee then went on to exonerate the Government from all blame, and proceeded to say— While most anxious for the fulfilment of all engagements entered into in good faith between the Government and individuals, the Committee submits for the consideration of the House whether Mr. Churchward, in having resorted to corrupt expedients, affecting injuriously the character of the representation of the people in Parliament, has not rendered it impossible for the House of Commons, with due regard to its honour and dignity, to vote the sums of money necessary to fulfil the agreement to extend his contract from the 20th of June 1863 to the 26th of April 1870. That Report was presented to Parliament by the Select Committee in the month of August 1859, just previous to the termination of the Session. Shortly after the commencement of the next Session, an hon. Gentleman, now no more—Captain Leicester Vernon—who was a Member of the Committee, moved the following Resolution:— That this House, having considered the Report and the Evidence presented by the Select Commitee on Packet and Telegraph Contracts, is of opinion, that the contract entered into on the 26th of April 1859 between the Commissioners of the Admiralty and J. G. Churchward ought to be fulfilled. That Resolution was very fully discussed, and was negatived by a majority of forty-five in a House consisting of nearly 300 Members. He did not think it, on that occasion, necessary to argue the question, whether the decision at which the Committee of 1859 arrived was or was not right. He would simply say, that the Committee was composed of Members of position and authority; that it was presided over by the hon. Member for Rochdale; that it was constituted in equal parts from the two sides of the House; and that its decisions, though not unanimous, were still carried by such large majorities as to show, that these majorities consisting of Members from both sides of the House, the decisions come to were not merely the expression of party or political views, but the result of the judgment of Gentlemen dealing with the question submitted to them for investigation in a spirit of justice and of reason. He must further observe that the conclusion at which the Committee arrived was not opposed to the probabilities in the case. There could be no doubt that it was a great object with Mr. Churchward to obtain the extension of his contract. The subsidy which he was paid, though not excessive, was certainly liberal. He had entered into a contract with the French Government, which was to last up to the year 1870, and he had frequently stated that it was impossible to work that contract profitably to himself unless he could obtain the extension for which he asked of his contract with the English Government, so as to make it conterminous with that between him and the French. The decision of the Committee under those circumstances, though there was undoubtedly conflicting testimony given before it with regard to the language used in conversation between Mr. Churchward and Captain Carnegie, yet had the advantage of having been based upon testimony which the Committee themselves heard, while they had the whole case in all its bearings and relations under their notice in one view. Hon. Members were therefore, he must say, justified in assuming that the view of the matter taken by the Committee was the true one—namely, that Mr. Churchward did offer, in conversation with Captain Carnegie, to sell his political influence in the borough of Dover as the price of the extension of his contract. The House of Commons, in 1860, had that Report before it; and being invited by a Member of the Committee to declare that the contract ought to be fulfilled, had, as he had before stated, negatived the proposal by a large majority. Now, he need not say that it could be no ordinary circumstance which could induce the House of Commons—always so anxious to give every contractor the benefit of all the engagements into which he happened to enter with the Government, even in cases where it might deem those engagements disadvantageous to the public—to decide that they would not fulfil the particular contract in question. But if there ever was a case in which the House was morally and legally right in the course which it adopted, it was the present. The offence with which Mr. Churchward was charged was a breach of the privileges of the House; it was an attempt to interfere with the freedom of election, and with the independent choice of a Member of Parliament. It was, moreover, an attempt to make that interference a groundwork for a corrupt bargain, by which he was to bind not only the Executive, but the Parliament of the country. Was it, then, natural that the House of Commons, unless obliged to do so, should give any assistance to Mr. Churchward to carry to a successful issue a contract for the attainment of which he had resorted to so corrupt an expedient? It was not a case which the House could ignore. They must cither distinctly support Mr. Churchward or as distinctly refuse to take that course, because the words of the contract were that the payment for the services to be rendered should be made out of monies to be provided by Parliament, and were inserted for the express purpose of reminding contractors that they must depend for the payment for their services upon annual sums to be freely voted by that House. It appeared to him that the House might, under the circumstances, fairly refuse to make any further provision for the services to be rendered under the contract. There were in the contract itself many conditions, the breach of any one of which would justify the Government in annulling and setting it aside. Would, then, the House of Commons require too much if it insisted upon the fulfilment of that condition which was a vital and essential part of every contract—namely, that the parties entering into it should be free from any charge of having resorted to corrupt expedients?

Some hon. Gentlemen might be disposed to observe upon the circumstance that the vote of the House of Commons to which he had been referring was pronounced in the beginning of the year 1860, and that it was now 1863; and to ask for some explanation as to what had taken place in the interval between those dates. It should be remembered that in 1859, when Mr. Churchward entered into the present contract, he had another, which would have lasted until the month of June 1863, and it was clear that he would not have surrendered that contract except in the expectation of receiving a better one in its stead; and the passage from the Report of the Committee, which he had read, showed that all they desired was that Mr. Churchward should not have the benefit of the extension of his contract from the 20th of June 1863 to the 20th of April 1870. That being the case, shortly after the vote of the year 1860, the Treasury placed themselves in communication with Mr. Churchward and the Post Office, with the view of coining to an understanding as to the manner in which the service should be performed between that date and the present time. That correspondence, which he would read, would show that the ques- tion had not been prejudiced by the contract remaining in operation up to the present time, but that the Committee was as free to deal with the matter as it would have been if it had come before it immediately after the vote in 1860. The first letter, which was from the Post Office to the Treasury, dated 19th May 1860, was to this effect— My Lords,—In accordance with the wish expressed verbally by Mr. Laing to Mr. F. Hill, Mr. Churchward was requested to call at this office for the purpose of discussing the course to be pursued in reference to the mail service between Dover and Calais and Dover and Ostend, under the late decision of the House of Commons; and in consequence of the personal communication which took place he has addressed a letter to this Department, in which he states that he is willing to continue to perform all the services specified in his contract of April 1859, upon the terms of that contract, up to the time when the contract of June 1855 would have expired—that is, June 1863, without prejudice to his right to submit the question of the validity of the contract of 1859 to a court of law, should the Government then offer him new terms or propose any alterations which he is unwilling to accept. To that letter the following answer was given:— Write to the Post Office that my Lords have no objection to the arrangement recommended by the Postmaster General—namely, that the services between Dover and Calais should continue up to June 1863, as it would have done if the renewal of the contract in 1859 had never been obtained; with this single exception that the payment of the extra services should be made at the commuted rate of £2,500 a year, instead of by the piece, as agreed to in 1859; such a commutation appearing to be more convenient, and, on the whole, not more burdensome for the public. Under this arrangement Mr. Churchward will, of course, retain whatever legal right he may consider himself to possess in June 1863; but it must be understood that Her Majesty's Government do nothing to admit the validity of any such claims, or to prejudice the decision of the House of Commons. It must be understood, also, that the Government can only pledge themselves to propose and support in Parliament a Vote for the services as proposed up to June 1863, and cannot bind the decision of the House of Commons, though they see no reason to anticipate any difficulty in obtaining such Votes for the period in question. That correspondence showed that the Dover and Ostend service had been carried on, up to the present time, under the contract of 1859 and the agreement made by these letters. That agreement was about to terminate, and it therefore became n question for the House to decide whether it would provide funds for the continuance of Mr. Churchward's services under this contract. He was quite aware that that question would be decided by the House upon considerations of the highest character, affecting the integrity and interest of the public service, the honour and dignity of that House, and with a due regard to what was required with a view to discourage contractors from relying upon any expedients except straightforwardness and fair dealing in negotiating with the Government to obtain contracts which they might desire.

At the same time, it might be convenient that he should state to the Committee what steps the Government had taken in anticipation of the House declining to provide funds for the continuance of that contract of Mr. Churchward after the following June. In the first place they gave a year's notice to Mr. Churchward that they should take the course which they were adopting. At present the two services from Dover were combined in one contract, but it was thought that it would be more convenient that they should be separated, and upon that footing they advertised for tenders. With regard to Dover and Ostend, they had received a tender from the Belgian Government offering to perform the service which was performed by Mr. Churchward. That service was one of three nights a week. The Belgian Government performed the service of the other three nights. They had lately established a day service on every day of the week, and they had now offered to perform the whole service for a subsidy of £4,000 a year. That was a proposal which was advantageous to this country, and it had been accepted; the acceptance being made conditional upon the refusal of the House to continue Mr. Churchward's contract after June next. [An hon. MEMBER: What did Mr. Churchward get?] It was usually estimated that about two-thirds of the subsidy paid under Mr. Churchward's contract was paid for the Ostend service. With regard to the Calais service, the Government had received several tenders, and had accepted one of a Mr. Harrington, who undertook to perform the service for seven years at the rate of £5,000 a year, receiving a premium of £5 on every occasion in which the journey was performed in less than the time allowed, and being paid for any special packets which might be employed to convey the India, China, and Australian mail. The number of special boats so required had, owing to the improved arrangements of the French railways, been greatly diminished; and therefore, at a liberal calculation, these extra payments would not amount to more than £3,000 a year, making altogether £8,000. Adding to that sum the amount to be paid to the Belgian Government, they should in the future pay £12,000 a year for what was now costing £18,600. Mr. Harrington's tender had been accepted on the same terms as that of the Belgian Government. Mr. Harrington at first said that he could not rest satisfied with a conditional contract, but he had since written to say that he did not intend to withdraw his tender, but that he was anxious that he should not be required to commence his service from the month of June, but should be allowed an interval of a few months to prepare his vessels. He had made all the observations which he thought it necessary to offer to the Committee in explanation of the Vote. His object was not to influence the judgment of the Committee, but simply to recall the necessary facts to their recollection, and to place the question in a convenient form for them to decide whether they would or would not provide funds for the future performance of services by Mr. Churchward under his contract of 1859. With these remarks, he would conclude by placing his Motion in the hands of the hon. Gentleman.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £250,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, towards defraying the Charge of the Post Office Packet Service, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of 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 day 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 NORTHCOTE

said, the Vote, as explained by the right hon. Gentleman, was a very novel and peculiar one; and there had been some doubt upon his own mind and the minds of those with whom he had conferred, both as to the effect with which this Vote, if passed, would be attended, and the mode in which those who objected to the course proposed by the Government should take of giving their objections effect. But he thought, that after the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave the other night, he might assume that by moving the omissions of all the latter part of the Vote having reference to Mr. Churchward—that was to say, of all the words following the simple appropriation of the money to the cost of the Packet Service up to the year ending the 31st March 1864—he should substantially raise the issue which those on that side of the House desired to take, and which the Government had declared they would accept as a challenge of the merits of their policy in reference to this contract. He would therefore move the omission of all words after "1864." The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury, in the speech he had just delivered, had rendered his task easier to himself, though not, perhaps, more satisfactory to the Committee, by resting his whole case upon the Report of the Select Committee of 1859 and on what he called the Resolution passed by the House on the 27th of March, 1860, but which was in reality no Resolution at all. [Mr. PEEL: The Vote.] The right hon. Gentleman now corrected himself; but he had spoken of it once or twice as the Resolution passed in March, 1860—resting his whole case on that Vote and that Report, the right hon. Gentleman abstained from going into the grounds on which the Committee founded its Report, or those on which the House came to its decision on the 27th of March following. Hon. Gentlemen, who had not paid any great amount of attention to the subject, might have been led by the way in which the right hon. Gentleman put the question before the House into the supposition that the proceedings of that Committee and the Vote of the Home had virtually decided the question, and that nothing was now left to the House but either to confirm or reverse a decision already arrived at. But he begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman, and to inform such Members as were not acquainted with the facts, that such was by no means a fair account of the state of the case; and in proof of that assertion he would gladly have referred to one of the Colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman, but he was sorry to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just left the House without waiting to hear the answer to the speech which he had delivered from the Government Bench. In order to show that Parliament was not concluded by anything which had hitherto taken place, he would refer to the debate on Captain Leicester Vernon's Motion, brought forward on the 27th of March, 1860, which was to the effect— That this House, having considered the Report and Evidence presented by the Select Committee on Packet and Telegraphic Contracts, is of opinion that the Contract entered into between the Admiralty and Mr. Churchward ought to be fulfilled." [3 Hansard, clvii. 1331.] Mr. Laing, at that time Secretary to the Treasury, resisted the Motion on the part of the Government, and contended that the question at issue was the continuation of the contract from 1863 to 1870, and he said that Mr. Churchward would be no loser by the course which the Government proposed, as the payments to him at the specified rate would be continued on the footing of the contract of 1859 till 1863; and Mr. Laing then went on to say— At the end of 1863 Mr. Churchward would be in as good a position as any one else, able to compete with others; or his contract might be renewed from year to year until the Government chose to call for new tenders." [3 Hansard, clvii. 1371.] The expressions made use of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were still stronger; for, in the course of the debate which followed Mr. Laing's speech, different Members expressed their opinion, that if Captain Leicester Vernon's Motion were rejected, the effect would be that Mr. Churchward would be punished, and punished far more severely than he deserved. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said— It is a mistake to suppose that Mr. Churchward is suffering in his receipts in consequence of any proceedings of the present Government. The difference between the old and the new contract is this—that the new contract gives Mr. Churchward a claim to a fixed sum, whereas under the old contract he was to charge for the special services which he performed." [3 Hansard, clvii. 1408.] The chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say that there was no foundation for the assertion that the payment to Mr. Churchward, under the Resolution of the Committee, for services he was actually performing, would be less than that which he would be entitled to claim under the new contract; and he added— The real difference lies in the renewal of the contract from 1863 to 1870, and the course which Parliament may think fit to take upon the point is a matter hereafter to be decided. In that passage all that had been said by Mr. Laing was confirmed and strengthened by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a point which was extremely important in its bearing upon the result of the division, because if hon. Members had understood in 1860 that the question on which they were really asked to vote at the time was, whether Mr. Churchward's contract should or should not be finally put an end to, a different conclusion might, and he believed would, have been arrived at. What the Government then contended for was, that in adopting Captain Leicester Yemen's Resolution the House would be passing censure upon the Committee of 1859, and reversing the sentence of the majority of that Committee by a special vote, at the same time that they would be doing this without necessity, because Mr. Churchward was to be no worse off at the time, and his subsequent position was to be a matter for future consideration. That was the position of affairs in 1860, and the House consequently approached the subject now, not concluded by any vote, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would have them believe, but as perfectly free to act in any way they thought proper as they were the day before Captain Leicester Vernon made his Motion. The case rested, then, upon that Report of 1859; and though it was perfectly true that the House ought to treat with every proper respect a Report emanating from a Committee so constituted, they ought not to accept its conclusions blindly. He would presently inquire into the grounds upon which those conclusions rested; at present he denied that the vote upon Captain Leicester Vernon's Motion added one feather weight to the authority of that document. In the discussion on that Motion, the Government not only chose to place the question on a false issue, but the whole course which they had since pursued, and, to use an Hibernicism, the course they had refrained from taking, told strongly against them. What was the natural and proper course for them to pursue, if they thought it a necessary consequence of the Report of 1859 that the contract should be set aside? They ought to have taken some positive definite course for placing that view before the House, and eliciting an expression of its opinion. They knew perfectly well that this contract was legally binding, and that if it were brought into a court of law they would find very great difficulty in opposing it. But the Government said, "We know it to be the desire of the House that the contract shall be put an end to." If that desire weighed so strongly with them, they ought to have brought in a Bill putting an end to the contract, and relieved themselves by an Act of Parliament from the necessity of making the payments for which it stipulated. [A laugh.] The Solicitor General laughed—he was not going to put his legal knowledge in comparison with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he would ask him whether he was perfectly satisfied with the course the Government were about to pursue, and whether he thought the Vote now proposed would place the Government in an unimpeachable position in a court of law? If the Government were convinced that it was necessary to set aside this contract, in justice and in fairness they ought to have taken steps to procure from the House a positive and definite and not a mere negative decision, obtained on false pretences and false issues. So far from that, they allowed Mr. Churchward to continue operations, not under the contract of 1855, but under that of 1859. They were willing to take advantage of anything in the terms of the contract which the previous Government had concluded for them; they called on Mr. Churchward to build ships under it; they had even called on him within the last twelve months to procure two new ships at an expense of £40,000, in order to carry out the terms of that contract:—and then at last they turned round and said, "We will throw you over; we mean to give the contract to somebody else." But what became of the assurance made in the face of the House of Commons that in 1863 Mr. Churchward should be in as good a position as anybody else? Mr. Harrington, Mr. Maples, and other parties had sent in their tenders, and they were before the House. The Government knew very well that Mr. Churchward was precluded from tendering, lest his doing so might be taken hereafter in an action at law as an admission of the invalidity of his present contract. If the question had to be tried in a court of law, the Government were quite aware that they had no good and valid defence, and therefore they were desirous—he did not wish to use the word "entrap" in any offensive sense—but to lead Mr. Churchward into some act, or to induce him to make some slip, which would have the effect of placing him at their mercy. Mr. Churchward was not, as Mr. Laing said he would be, in as good a position as anybody else. He was absolutely thrown overboard, and after having served the Government well and faithfully, he now found the contract taken out of his hands and given to somebody else. The House was perfectly free to deal with the question as it thought right.

And now he would venture to say one or two words upon the inconvenience of the particular form in which the Government proposed to deal with it. There existed a legal, valid, and binding contract between Her Majesty, on the one hand, and Mr. Churchward, on the other—the Solicitor General sneered at his law, but would hardly venture to question this—and the contract would be in force until 1870. What was the defence of the Government in case Mr. Churchward, by a petition of right, sought to recover from the Crown upon a breach of contract? According to the Government, the contract provided that the money which Mr. Churchward claimed should be money voted by Parliament, and that if Parliament voted no money, then there would be no fund out of which he could claim to be paid. Now, this was a point which he (Sir Stafford Northcote) would not attempt to argue as a lawyer, but as a man of common sense, knowing something of the practices of this House; and he would ask, whether this was not the state of the case—that this House could not vote money except upon the proposal and initiative of the Ministers of the Crown? If, therefore, the Ministers declined to bring forward a Vote, how was it possible that money could be provided by Parliament to meet a claim? Or were the House to understand that the Government set up a right to act in this way with Mr. Churchward or any other contractor, for reasons which seemed to them good—first to engage that he should perform certain services, to be paid out of monies voted by Parliament, and then to decline to submit a Vote to pay for those services? Did they think that they would be able to make good such a position in a court of law? He apprehended not. The fact was, that the Government ought to have done what the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted was natural. They should have come forward and proposed this Vote on behalf of Mr. Churchward, at the same time, if they thought it necessary, calling attention to the fact, that the House of Commons had, by means of its Select Committee, and also, to a certain extent, by the rejection of Captain Vernon's Motion, shown a dis- inclination to provide the money; and having made this proposal as Ministers of the Crown, they should have left it to the House of Commons to decide whether they would vote or refuse the money. But what would a court of law say to their defence that no money had been provided by Parliament to meet Mr. Churchward's claims, when they themselves had taken no means to provide the requisite funds? He did not pretend to say what view a court of law might take; but the probable result would be a verdict for Mr. Churchward, and an awkward collision between this House and the courts of law. He hoped the House would well weigh the possible inconvenience and danger of such a result, before the termination of this debate. But there was another point to which he would refer. There was nothing whatever in this particular form of Vote which, if it were adopted, would at all prove that the House declined to give any money to Mr. Churchward. It was said, indeed, that the money now asked for was not on account of Mr. Churchward's contract; but there was nothing to prevent the Government from proposing a Vote on account of that contract to-morrow. Therefore, until the House passed the Appropriation Act, it would be impossible for Mr. Churchward to know that the House really refused to provide this money. Then what would be his position? His contract came to an end on the 20th of June. The Appropriation Act could not be passed for at least a mouth afterwards, and meanwhile Mr. Churchward would have no right to recover in any court of law until he could show that the contract was broken. His action, therefore, must be brought later in the year; but if meanwhile he failed in performing any part of his services, this would be used against him. From the 20th of June, therefore, until the Appropriation Act passed, and perhaps longer, he would have to run his boats in order to show his readiness to fulfil his contract, or the Government would have a remedy against him, though there would be no money to pay him with. Did the House intend that Mr. Churchward should run his boats empty until the Appropriation Act passed, or until he had obtained the verdict of a court of law, or even until 1870?—because it must be remembered that the refusal of the House to vote the money this Session did not prove that it would not be provided before 1870. These were some of the in- conveniences of the course proposed. And now what were the advantages put forward on the other side as resulting from the termination of this contract? He was quite aware that a more important question was behind; he would deal with that by-and-by; but, supposing that no corruption was imputed, what were the advantages of the new arrangement which the Government offered? The right hon. Gentleman had paraded them before the House, and had said that he was going to propose arrangements which would save the country £6,000 out of £18,000 a year. Now, in the first place, he (Sir Stafford Northcote) complained very much of the extreme disadvantage at which the House was placed by the conduct of the Government. What, after all, was the main object which the Committee of 1859 and 1860 had in view with regard to these contracts for mail packet services? It was to bring all the details of all contracts as much as possible under the notice of the House before the Government came to any conclusion respecting them. Yet on that very evening the Government had been on the point of asking the House to vote the money for four new contracts of which the House knew nothing. Had it not been for the notice of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop), the Government would have taken this objectionable course, and would have given the go-by to the Resolutions of the Committee upon which, for this particular purpose, the Government set such store. With respect to Mr. Churchward, the House was in possession of no correspondence; there was not a line to show how the Government had been dealing with Mr. Churchward since 1859. The House had, indeed, been put in possession of one or two letters which had passed between the Treasury and the Post Office, but it had none of the communications with Mr. Churchward himself, and none relating to these tenders—nothing to give the House the information they ought to possess. They had heard of Mr. Harrington having made and withdrawn a tender, and of Mr. Harrington having not withdrawn it, or having withdrawn his withdrawal. In point of fact, after the right hon. Gentleman's statement, he was utterly at a loss to know what Mr. Harrington had or had not done, and he hoped that this information would be given to the House in a way in which it might be understood. This much was pretty clear —that on the 21st of June there would be mails to carry and no contractor except Mr. Churchward to carry them; because Mr. Harrington, if his tender were accepted, would not be ready for at least six months from that time. Mr. Churchward's readiness to assist the public was so well known that, no doubt, the Government reckoned upon getting his services for nothing; and unless they so reckoned, what else did they look to? He had asked the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty that evening, whether any communications had taken place between the Post Office and the Admiralty on this subject; and the effect of the noble Lord's reply was, that there had been such communications—that the Post Office authorities wished to know whether the Admiralty would provide vessels to help them out of the scrape; to which the Admiralty said, "It would be very inconvenient; they could not do so at all." Then what was to be done? All sorts of sinister rumours prevailed, though he did not himself attach too much weight to them. It was said that communications were going on with the French Government; but he did not know whether this was possible, because it happened that Mr. Churchward was the contractor with the French Government, and the Government would hardly ask him to do as a contractor with the French Government what as an English contractor they would not permit him to do. Or were the Government going to cut off a mail, and to reduce the service from two mails a day to one, for that was reported to be their idea? Persons who were interested in the postal communications between England and France were becoming very uneasy, and all the more so because of late those communications had grown to be of great importance and necessity, partly in consequence of the commercial treaty, and partly also owing to the acceleration of the postal services across the Channel, which was due to Mr. Churchward. Probably the right hon. Gentleman had not thought it worth his while to read the blue-book further than the Report of the Committee; but the evidence of Mr. Hill and of other officers of the Government, who were by no means very favourable to Mr. Churchward, contained a distinct acknowledgment that it was owing to Mr. Churchward's exertions, his public spirit and ingenuity, first, that a contract service had been established at all between Dover and Calais, instead of the old Admiralty packet service which used to cost £25,000 a year, which Mr. Churchward persuaded them to give up, but to which the Government now seemed willing to return; and, next, that it was also owing to Mr. Churchward that the mails between England and France had been accelerated by twelve or, as to some parts of the country, by twenty-four hours. Now, he asked the Government, what were they going to do? They said they had made a good bargain with the Belgian Government, and another good bargain with Mr. Harrington, which had never come before the House. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) admitted that the bargain with the Belgian Government, as it appeared on paper, might be a good one; for if a person already performed half the service, he was in a better position to perform the other; half than an independent party could be. This subject was mooted on a former occasion, and Mr. Churchward, having the English half of the service, had offered to take the Belgian half on the same terms as those now spoken of; but the Belgian Government declined to have their mails carried by another Government; they said they looked on the carriage of their mails as a national undertaking. However, in this country, mail contracts were at present out of favour with a certain class of politicians who had great influence with her Majesty's Government, who said that we ought not to keep up such a service when we could get our mails carried without it. But he asked whether this matter of carrying the Belgian mails could not have been arranged with Mr. Churchward himself? This point was one that had long been thought of as connected with that gentleman's contract. On a former occasion, when the question of renewing Mr. Churchward's contract was under consideration, it was one of the reasons the Postmaster General gave for not supporting a renewal—that the Belgian Government might be desirous to take the matter into their own hands. That did not escape the notice of the Committee in 1859; and in his evidence before that Committee he himself (Sir S. Northcote) referred to it as a matter of speculation, alluding at the same time to the fact that Mr. Churchward had proposed to come to terms with the Belgian Government in the event of such an offer being made, or to make arrangements with our Government on the question of withdrawing from that portion of the service. That was the position taken by Mr. Churchward in 1859, and to that position he had adhered up to the present time; but the Government had not allowed him to occupy as advantageous a position as that held by any independent person, and he had not been able to come forward in the manner he would otherwise have done. If his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were present, he should appeal to him as to whether Mr. Churchward had not expressed his willingness to discuss with the Government any proposal they might like to make for the purpose of revising or altering any part of the service. If they had any feasible proposition to make on this point, it would have been perfectly possible for them to make it to Mr. Churchward; and he undertook to say it would have been met in the most friendly and liberal spirit by him. He set aside that branch of the case, because they could not look to any saving as regarded the Belgian service. It was to the Calais contract they must look for the saving. The two services did not stand on the same footing. In the evidence given by him in 1849, Captain Baldock gave an account of the relative cost of the two services. He said that the Calais service represented two-fifths, and the Ostend service three-fifths, of the whole. That was for the mere ordinary service, without the additional services which of late years had been paid for by the Government. Those additional services related to the conveyance of the Indian mails. Mr. Churchward's contract was £15,500 a year for the two services. Two-fifths of that was £6,200, which would be the cost of the Calais service without the extra services. The payment for the additional services brought that amount up to £8,700. The tender of Mr. Harrington was £8,000, as against £8,700; but the Indian mail was to be specially paid for, which would make a difference of £360. It was also to be observed that Mr. Churchward performed, within his contract, twelve voyages a year to carry distinguished personages, the value of which was represented by £240 a year. Adding those two sums to the £8,000, Mr. Harrington's contract was brought up to £8,600—so that there was only a difference of £100 between the two contracts, which would be the whole saving on the Calais service. [Mr. PEEL: The £8,000 is for one year. It is not that amount for seven years.] Well, but which of these two alternatives had been accepted? If £8,000 were to be paid, there were in addition premiums which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give for fast passages. Mr. Churchward informed him, that taking the voyages he had performed last year, or, at all events, taking what he was able to do now, he could earn £1,200 a year by the proposed premiums on quick voyages. That, of course, was a matter of speculation; but Mr. Harrington, or any one else, might reasonably look forward to making a good deal of money by those premiums. There would, therefore, be not only no saving, but an actual loss on Mr. Harrington's contract. Was this contract to be for a year, and was that year to include the six months during which Mr. Harrington was to do nothing? He conceded to the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Harrington might have made a tender somewhat under that of Mr. Churchward; but what assurance had they that the former gentleman would be able to carry out his contract? They knew that before now contractors had come forward and made ridiculously low offers, which in practice they had not been able to carry out. He remarked that the late Mr. Wilson came down to that House, and boasted when he made, what he called an extremely good bargain with the European and Australian Company, and set aside the well-known Peninsular and Oriental Company. What had been the result? The company to whom the contract was given had not a single vessel ready. They were in the position which Mr. Harrington appeared to be now placed in. They had to ask for time; they could not begin when they ought to have commenced; and when they did begin, they almost at once broke down. At last the thing was given up in disgust, but not until the colony had been almost driven to rebellion by the way in which the mail service had been performed; and the Government had to go back to the Peninsular and Oriental Company and give them higher terms to conduct the service than they had offered to do it for originally. When such contracts were first entered into, and before they were put to the test, they answered very well for the purposes of parade, and to afford matter for speeches on the hustings; but should not the Government look for an assurance that the work would be done? Mr. Churchward had overcome his first difficulties. It was true, that when he commenced the service, he was obliged to come and ask for an extension of time and for more assistance, and that for a long time his contract had been kept on its legs by the assistance of the Government; but those difficulties having been overcome, and he now having the French contract as well as the English, and being able to work them together, there was every guarantee that he would perform the service in the highly efficient way it was at present carried out, and make the contract beneficial to himself and to the public. The Postmaster General had acknowledged in the most public manner in Parliament that the service was most admirably conducted. They knew nothing of Mr. Harrington, but his withdrawals and re-withdrawals showed that he had no great confidence in himself. He was certainly causing a momentary inconvenience to the public service, and it might lead to much greater inconvenience in future. And what, besides, were the Government going to do? For such a saving as was to be effected in this case they were going, as far as possible, to bring about a collision between the House of Commons and a court of law. They were going to subject Mr. Churchward to the extreme inconvenience of running his boats without payment—they were going to establish a precedent which would render it impossible for Government contractors to enter into contracts for the public service; and, further, they were going to run the risk of all these inconveniences without the prospect of any solid advantage. He quite understood the nature of the answer which the Government would probably make, and he should not shrink from grappling with it. No doubt they would admit all the inconveniences, all the detriment, and all the possible dangers, and then would turn round and say, "It is no fault of ours; it is the fault of the Government which made this contract, and of Mr. Churchward, who entered into this contract in a corrupt manner. It is better for the House of Commons to run all this risk and inflict all this injury than to sanction, even in an indirect manner, a transaction tainted with fraud and corruption." He admitted that that would be a perfectly good answer, but he denied that there was the slightest evidence to bear out this charge of corruption. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to have read the Report, and he denied his right to come down, and in that off-hand manner make a charge against Mr. Churchward, as if it were proved, and everybody admitted it—he denied the right of the right hon. Gentleman to get up and fling the Report in their faces, and at the same time ignore all the evidence published with the Report. After having quoted the Report, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was perfectly clear that Mr. Churchward had offered to sell his vote to Captain Carnegie for an extension of the contract. But where was the evidence of that? Taking every word of the evidence of Captain Carnegie to be strictly and literally true it amounted to this—that Mr. Churchward, before a word was said about the contract, had offered his support to Captain Carnegie, and after telling him what support he was likely to obtain at Dover, and advising him as to the sort of opponents whom he would have to meet, he went on to make an allusion to his anxiety about his contract, and, added Captain Carnegie, "I thought the matter so imprudent that I left the room, and the subject dropped." Viewing Captain Carnegie's statement in the most unfavourable light, it was simply this:—Mr. Churchward wished to support the Admiralty candidates. Some people said that he intended to give one vote to Captain Carnegie and the other to Mr. Osborne, so that he might have a friend on both sides; and his reference to the contract was simply to interest Captain Carnegie in pressing forward the settlement of his contract, which it had been proposed to defer till after the election. Where was the evidence of a corrupt bargain having been made, or attempted to be made? The facts of the case were very simple and straightforward. In the beginning of January, long before a dissolution was thought of, an application was made by Mr. Churchward for payment in respect of his additional services. The question whether he ought to be compensated for those services was discussed between the Admiralty and the Post Office and the Treasury, towards the latter part of January, long before the dissolution; and Mr. Churchward, having been asked by the Government to name the form in which he would take compensation, asked for a sum of money smaller than that to which the Government thought he had a right, and requested to have his contract extended to 1870. The Admiralty considered his proposition, reported favourably of it, and recommended it to the Treasury. This was long before the dissolution was thought of. The Postmaster General referred the matter back to the Treasury early in March, and his report was against the extension of the contract; but all Postmasters Gene- ral, since Lord Canning's time at least, had opposed the extension of contracts which had some time to run. This, too, was long before the dissolution. The report was then considered at the Treasury by the Chief Clerk, who made a minute approving of the Post Office view of the question, and it then went to the Permanent Under Secretary, who took the Admiralty view. All these steps were taken long before Lord Derby's Government was supposed to be in peril, and before a dissolution was thought of; and the matter was considered entirely on its merits. But just at the moment when the question came before him (Sir Stafford Northcote) as Financial Secretary, the division took place in that House which ultimately led to the dissolution. That was the state of the case when the matter came before him as Financial Secretary of the Treasury. It came before him with this even balance of opinion on one side and the other. He looked hastily at the papers, and his first impression was to take the view of the Post Office. Just at that time his right hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir William Jolliffe), who was then busily engaged in the conduct of the business of the elections, understanding that Mr. Churchward had some sort of business in hand at the Treasury, but not knowing what it was, warned him (Sir Stafford Northcote), that as Mr. Churchward was a man closely connected with electioneering politics, it would be better to get his business done, if possible, before the dissolution came on, or else to put it off until after the election, so that people might not be able to say that it had any connection with the election. He then made a minute to the effect that the reasoning of the Postmaster General against the contract was apparently right, and that he thought it was desirable that Mr. Churchward should take the larger sum and relinquish the extension. He requested Mr. Hamilton to communicate with Mr. Churchward, and see whether some arrangement could not be come to with him on this basis. Some days elapsed, and Mr. Churchward wrote back pointing out that the extension was the only thing that would serve his purpose, and that the other arrangement was not suitable. Bearing in mind, then, the advice which had been given him by his right hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield, and feeling that any thing done in the matter at that moment might be misconstrued, he put the papers aside and did nothing on them for a week. Of course, he had heard nothing whatever at this time of the conversation between Captain Carnegie and Mr. Churchward in the private room at the Admiralty. At the end of a week he had a conversation with Mr. Churchward at the Treasury, in which he stated to him, as one reason for not proceeding with the matter at once, that there was an election going on, and that what took place during the election was likely to be misconstrued. Mr. Churchward said then to him (Sir Stafford Northcote), as he had said to Captain Carnegie, that that was very hard upon him; and certainly a more reasonable remark for him to make could not be conceived. It did seem hard on Mr. Churchward, that after he had been urging the matter on for months, and when, after the long delays of the public offices which had annoyed and injured him, it was just arriving at a solution, he should be told that it was to be put off for another five or six weeks on account of an election with which it had nothing in the world to do. It was that consideration which decided him to take up the matter again, and to endeavour to come to a decision upon it. He felt that he could not justify to himself the injury which he was doing Mr. Churchward by delaying the settlement of a matter which was in no way connected with the election. He felt, too, that if he had put off the decision, he would not have avoided the imputation of corrupt motives. If he had at last granted the extension, his doing so would have been attributed to electioneering motives, and he would have been accused of trying to conceal them by the delay. If, on the other hand, he had said that he could not recommend the confirmation of the contract, it would then have been said that he was playing Mr. Churchward false—that Mr. Churchward was tempted to vote for the Government candidate by this matter being held in suspense, and then, when that service was got from him, his request was in the end rejected. Under all the circumstances, he fell that he should be doing a great hardship and injustice to Mr. Churchward, and serving no purpose whatever, if he had acted in that manner. He should not have cleared his own character from any suspicion which might attach to it, or have been able to separate the matter from the election in the minds of those who were determined to connect them. This was a case in which he stood before the House of Commons and the public. If the Members of that House thought that he was actuated by a desire to tempt Mr. Churchward to serve his party, he ought to be stigmatized; but if they thought he did not deserve to be stigmatized, then he could not see how Mr. Churchward should be stigmatized. It appeared to him that the whole matter turned on that point. If the Committee which sat in 1859 had reported against him, his course would have been plain. He should have appealed from the Committee to that House; and if the House had confirmed the Committee's Report there would have been no other step for him to adopt but to resign his seat in that House. The Committee, however, were just enough, after hearing all the evidence, to pronounce a clear and unanimous verdict, acquitting himself and other Members of the Government. At the same time, there was connected with that acquittal that which was to his mind most painful—an accusation stigmatizing a man who could not be regarded as guilty, unless he (Sir Stafford Northcote) likewise was guilty, and who must be innocent if he was regarded as innocent. Let the House take the conversation which Captain Carnegie said took place between him and Mr. Churchward, and see what it amounted to. According to one hypothesis it was perfectly consistent with innocence for Mr. Churchward to say, that deferring the matter of the contract until after the election was too hard; but if it was meant to imply that by deferring it until after the election some one meant to secure Mr. Churchward's services for the election by keeping this matter as a bait for those services, then a case of guilt was established; but not so much against Mr. Churchward as against those who held out the bait. If wrong had been done, it had not been done by Mr. Churchward, but to Mr. Churchward. There was nobody in a position to defer the contract but himself and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer; and as that right hon. Gentleman acted on his report, he (Sir Stafford Northcote) alone was guilty of this gross breach of public duty, if it was committed at all. Let the House consider what allegations were made, and what were proved. The allegations made by Mr. Rich and the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), resting merely, as they stated, on reports which they had heard, were of the most serious character. They reflected on the Government of Lord Derby, and on certain officers of that Government, and they went to the length of representing that those officers who intended in the first place to refuse, or who had refused, this contract, were induced afterwards to grant it, in order to obtain the services of a political partisan during the election. That was said, but it was not proved. He had never seen Mr. Churchward except in connection with this contract, and he was not likely to see him again, but he felt that injustice was done to the man. He had often and often thought the matter over, and cross-questioned himself frequently as to the motives with which he and Mr. Churchward acted, and he was perfectly satisfied that Mr. Churchward acted with entire good faith from the beginning to the end. That gentleman argued his case extremely well, and a great deal was to be said on that side of the question. He was satisfied at the time, and to this day he remained satisfied, that the bargain made by the Government with which he was connected was a good, fair, and reasonable bargain; at any rate, he protested its being upset in a manner which condemned and cast a stigma on a man on whom he did not believe that in this respect any stigma should rest. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) had appealed to the House to decide this question on high ground, declaring that a regard for the purity and good character of that House should be superior to all other considerations. But could they, he asked, determine the matter in the way proposed? They had already passed a vote of acquittal on those, who must have been the tempters, and a vote of censure on the man who, if there was any temptation, must have been the tempted. How would this be regarded by foreign countries and the English public when they saw the House of Commons, after investigating a matter involving so serious a charge against Members of the Government of the day, having seats in that House, come to a verdict absolving those Gentlemen who were members of their own assembly, and at the same time practically reverse that sentence by passing a vote of censure on the contractor, who was not there to defend himself? The course pursued struck him as being most unfair and un-English. Mr. Churchward was never allowed to come before that House, or to go before a court of law to make his defence. Mr. Churchward had expressed his readiness to have the case argued in a court of law, and to have witnesses examined on oath; and it was the case that in the Dover Election Committee, where witnesses were examined on oath, the allegations of corruption against the former Government were not proved. Within the last few months Mr. Churchward had offered again to refer this matter either to a court of law or to the arbitration of Sir John Coleridge or Mr. Stuart Wortley. If they allowed Mr. Churchward to be thus ousted and thrust aside, they would throw a stain upon the character of the House which it would be difficult to wipe away. He should apologize to the Committee for saying that the only case which he could compare with such a proceeding was one which happened when he was at school. A boy threw a book across the schoolroom at another boy, and hit him on the head; the schoolmaster, who did not see who threw the book, seized the boy who was hit—"Because," said he, "as I cannot find the boy who threw the book, I will punish you at whom it was thrown." So it was with the Government; as they could not find the proper person to punish, they said they would punish the man of whom they only knew that he had been their faithful contractor for a number of years, that he had done good service, that he was pressing his claim at a moment when he was in considerable difficulty—and pressing it in perfect good faith, because, at that moment, an election took place with which he had nothing more to do than any other man in England. He would appeal to the justice of the House of Commons against such a proceeding. He begged to move to omit all the words in the Resolution after "1864."

Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words after the words "March 1864," to the end of the Question.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Resolution,"

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE

I think, Mr. Massey, this is a very unusual proceeding. I never remember a case in which an Amendment on the object or destination of a Vote has been moved in a Committee of Supply. I always understood that a Committee of Supply might refuse a Vote or diminish it; but the proposal on the part of the hon. Baronet is to amend the Resolution; and if we once allow a Vote of Supply to be amended, we shall then embark in a career which will enable us at any future time to alter the financial constitution of this House. The hon. Baronet said it was the rule that no money should be granted except upon the application of the Crown; but if we are to amend the destination of Votes of Supply, then in point of fact we altogether vary the destination of the Votes, and may grant money for purposes for which the Crown never asked it. But I must say I do not look upon the hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) as the original offender in this matter. I think the offence consists in proposing a Vote on such conditions as these. It is inconsistent with the functions of a Committee of Supply to be asked to express an opinion on a matter upon which it is the duty of the House itself to express an opinion. All the functions of a Committee of Supply are to grant a Vote, to refuse it, or to diminish it. But what has been sought in the present case is to obtain a definite expression of opinion as to what shall be done with respect to a particular contract with a particular person. Now, that is not one of the constitutional functions of this Committee. Such an opinion might be fairly sought from the House for the purpose of guiding its actions or deliberations, but it is not one which we as a Committee of Supply can be called upon to give. Was it ever known that a Resolution in Committee of Supply like this was ever reported to the House? Supposing this Resolution carried, and that you, Mr. Massey, bring up the Report from the Bar, and that the Clerk read it at the table, and the House be asked to agree to it. In that case the House would be asked to agree, not to the grant of a sum of money, but to something which is absolutely irrelevant. There is really a blot on this proposal. I must say I think the proposal in this shape involves a question far more important as regards the functions of this House than any matter relating to Mr. Churchward. I would submit then, to the authorities of the House, whether it will not be worth while to deliberate on this matter before we are asked to do that which has never yet been done in Committee of Supply, and before we adopt a course which is a manifest departure from the recognised usages of Parliament.

MR. WALPOLE

There is a great deal of force in what has fallen from the right bon. Gentleman (Mr. E. P. Bouverie); but he made one observation in which I do not concur. The right hon. Gentleman says the Amendment is one to which we ought to take exception, though my hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) was not the original offender, inasmuch as the offence—if offence it be—consists in the proposal of the Government. Now, I think that my hon. Friend, by his Amendment, will set the Committee of Supply right, because, by leaving out all the words after "1864," he thus puts the Resolution in the proper shape. I entirely concur with my light hon. Friend as to the unconstitutional course of taking a Vote in Committee of Supply in this way. You are asking a Committee of Supply to decide a question which the House ought to decide. What will be the consequence of taking the Vote in that way? The Vote will be reported; and when it is reported, are you going to embody it in the Appropriation Act? Here we are in Committee of Supply, to discharge certain functions as to the way a particular sum of money is to be voted. But you are indirectly asking us to decide as to a particular course. The best way, perhaps, for us to act would be, to put it to you, Mr. Massey, to say whether, without moving the Amendment, we ought not to take notice at once that the question ought not to be put in that form. But if you, Sir, think it ought—and upon that point I think my right hon. Friend's speech conclusive—I would submit whether you have any precedent of a Resolution having been put in that way; and if you have no precedent, the Committee of Supply would do well to pause before it passes the Resolution.

MR. MASSEY

The Vote proposed by Her Majesty's Government is certainly one of a very special character; but I do not consider it any part of my duty to pronounce an opinion as to the discretion of Her Majesty's Government in submitting such a Resolution to the Committee. The question I have to determine is whether the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford is in order. Her Majesty's Government proposes a Vote which would include a sum of money for a service to which they desire no part of the sum to be applied; and to effect that object they have appended to the Resolution certain words restricting the appropriation of the money. The object of the Amendment is to remove that restriction; it does not enlarge the Vote or divert the Vote from any purpose to which it would otherwise have been applicable. Therefore, so far as the Amendment is concerned—and that is the only question I have to deal with at present—I have no hesitation in saying that it is admissible.

SIR MORTON PETO

said, that when he stated that in 1860, when the question of the contract was before the House, he had voted with the majority, it would not be supposed that in the observations he was about to address to them that he had any particular sympathy for Mr. Churchward. But he felt that the question submitted for consideration was far removed from party or political considerations. That they should be called upon to go into a question which ought to have been settled three years ago was not fair either to the House, the late Government, or to Mr. Churchward. The Government, from the way they had acted, had practically shut the door against themselves. If they said to Mr. Churchward, "We will not recognise in any way your contract of 1859, but will take the opinion of the House upon it," their conduct would have been straightforward. But they did nothing of the kind. They made payments under the new contract, gave orders to their officials to act upon that contract, and, moreover, they were perfectly prepared to take the benefits which the new contract gave them over the old. That being so, the Committee ought not to have heard anything more of that contract that night. It had not been shown that Mr. Churchward had been a defaulter, or that he had not fulfilled his contract. He thought that the Government would have exercised a sounder discretion in burying the heartburnings and political animosity of a previous election. He was sorry that the Government had thought it necessary to put the question before the House of Commons. If the Government had considered it right to bring any substantive Motion before the House of Commons, it ought to have been done three years ago.

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether a Vote taken in the manner proposed, would interfere with the assertion of any legal right which Mr. Churchward might be supposed to possess against the Government.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that any legal right which Mr. Churchward might have under the latter contract would remain unaffected by any decision of the House, except in so far as upon the proper construction of the terms of the contract the refusal of the House to vote the money for payment of Mr. Churchward would afford a defence in a court of law.

MR. AYRTON

said, that if the effect of the proposed proceeding would be to prejudice Mr. Churchward's rights before a court of law, the House ought to hesitate to adopt it. Whatever the merits or demerits of the case might he, Mr. Churchward ought to be able to assert his rights unembarrassed by the decision of the Committee. Apart from that objection, it was both perplexing and embarrassing to propose a Vote for the packet service and then to introduce into it a parenthesis about Mr. Churchward. The Government had an obvious course to pursue if they wished to raise the question. They should have brought in a separate Estimate for that particular service, and allowed the Committee to proceed with the usual estimate for the general service. There was another very great objection to discussing the question at that time, inasmuch as the Committee were passing a Vote on account. If they were voting the Estimate itself, there would be a proper mode of raising the question on two items—one of £8,000 for the mail service from Dover to Calais, and one of £4,000 from Dover to Ostend. The House would then be told that it was a new contract, and they could ask to see it. He would recommend that the Government should be content to take a Vote on account, and then, when the Committee came to the Estimate in detail, it would be competent to any hon. Member to move to omit the items relative to a new contract, as a violation of good faith. If the Government declined to adopt that suggestion, he should vote for the Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he differed from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) in this—that while he took part in the discussion and the division when the proposal was made to the House three years ago that the contract of 1859 ought to be carried out, his opinion remained unchanged. But he had not risen for the purpose of discussing the evidence upon which the Report of the Select Committee was founded, or the sufficiency of that evidence to warrant the conclusion at which it arrived. His object was simply to point out why the present form of bringing the matter before the House of Commons had been adopted. The Report of the Select Committee was entitled to be much respect that the matter could not be permitted to rest there. The proposal to which he referred was also rejected, and the Government thought it unbecoming, in the face of that double expression of opinion, to proceed to ask for Supply in the ordinary form, with the intention that money should be voted to Mr. Churchward in prolongation of the contract until 1870. The correspondence read by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Peel) clearly showed that all the arrangements under which, from the time of the Vote in 1860, Mr. Churchward had carried on the packet service, were arrangements to which he was a consenting party. That being so, the question remained, if the terms in the contract to which reference had so frequently been made—if the words "monies to be provided by Parliament," had any force, did it not follow that Parliament in one form or other must have the opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the question? If that was nut intended, then the terms he had quoted were a mere waste of words, and were a semblance and pretence of a condition, without being a condition at all. That brought them to the question, was that the proper form? Well, unless it was, be confessed that he was at a loss to imagine what form could be the proper one for submitting the matter to their consideration. He would admit that it was a special and unusual form, as special and unusual as the transactions out of which it sprang. Following a special Report by a Committee and a special Vote of that House, it would be very wrong indeed if the Vote taken under these special circumstances did not present some special features.

MR. MALINS

said, that he also took part in the debate of 1860. Like his hon. and learned Friend, he retained the opinions he expressed then, but he was happy to say they were totally different from those of his hon. and learned Friend. He was sorry that his hon. and learned Friend had committed himself to the opinion that the course proposed was a proper course, for he (Mr. Malins) thought it was as shabby and unbecoming a proceeding as ever was adopted by any Government. The Committee would perhaps allow him to draw attention to the fact that the Vote was a Vote on account; and when they were taking a Vote on account on the 18th of May, one might have supposed that the Government would have been satisfied to take a Vote which would clear them from all payments up to the 20th June. The contract of Mr. Churchward of 1855 lasted until the 20th June. The Government, in taking a Vote on account, went out of their way, and adopted a course which he believed to be thoroughly unconstitutional. While making a provision for the payment of Mr. Churchward for the conveyance of mails between Dover, Calais, and Ostend to the 20th June 1863, they went out of their way to ask the Committee to do what was not its function—to pronounce a judicial decision against Mr. Churchward—before the Estimate for the services performed subsequently to the 20th June were brought under consideration. The precise dates were important. The question was thoroughly discussed in 1860, on that memorable 27th March; and although there was a majority of forty-five against the hon. Member who then brought forward the question, and in favour of the Government, yet there was an explicit declaration made by the Government that the discussion was not in any way to prejudice Mr. Churchward. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: What declaration?] He supposed the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place when it was read that evening. He did not wonder that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was taken by surprise. [The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER: Hear, hear!] The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be surprised when he referred to that debate, and read his own words. But, under these circumstances, he asked if that was a fair course for the Government to take? He never for one moment supposed, until he received a note that morning, that the question of Mr. Churchward was again to be brought before the House, because if any result was to flow from that debate on the 27th March 1860, he, as a reasonable man, thought that contract was either to be accepted or repudiated; and if the contract was to be repudiated, he should have expected an immediate repudiation, and not that the Government would have acted upon it for three years before any attempt at repudiation was made. Now, let them recall to recollection that the whole of that most ridiculous and trumpery charge which had been made against the Government constituted by his hon. Friends sitting below him, with regard to the corrupt contract, rested upon a conversation alleged to have taken place between Captain Carnegie, a temporary Lord of the Admiralty, and Mr. Churchward. His hon. Friend the Member for Stamford had gone generally into the question, but he had not stated the dates so precisely as he (Mr. Malins) was able to do. The Government of the Earl of Derby came into office in the month of February 1858. It continued in office uninterruptedly till an adverse vote was given against it on the 31st March 1859. He had stated on a former occasion that which he begged to repeat, that it was not until the middle of March 1859 that the noble Lord, then Member for the City of London, and now Secretary for Foreign Affairs, gave notice of that Motion, which drove that Government from power. Now, it was in evidence in the blue-book that Mr. Churchward made an application to the Government, when there was no election contemplated or expected, at the end of the year 1858. On the 6th January 1859 he made a formal application to the Government to renew his contract. That led to a correspondence. He was invited to make a tender to the Admiralty, and finally, on the 13th February 1859, Mr. Churchward sent a formal proposal for the renewal, or rather extension, of his contract, from June 1863 to the year 1870. That proposal was formally accepted by the Admiralty on the 23rd February. Now, on the 23rd February nobody had a general election in contemplation. Nobody expected that the Government were about to be turned out. The Government were conducting their business without any apparent immediate danger, though, being in a minority, they were necessarily placed at the mercy of their opponents whenever they thought it expedient to take an adverse vote. All the business was concluded on the 23rd February. His proposal, having been made to and accepted by the Admiralty, became to all intents and purposes a binding contract. It was true that it had to be submitted to the Treasury, but that was merely a formal matter, and in due time the Treasury ratified the contract. In that state of things the noble Lord the Member for the City of London gave his notice of Motion on Reform. The Motion came on for discussion on the 31st March, and the Government of the Earl of Derby were outvoted in that House. That event occurred on a Friday, and on the following Monday it was announced that the Government would appeal to the country by a dissolution of Parliament. The conversation with Captain Carnegie, of which so much had been heard, took place on the 2nd of April, after the dissolution had been announced, and six weeks after the contract had been made with Mr. Churchward. That gentleman obtained his contract originally from the Liberal Government at £15,500 a year, which was increased by the Earl of Derby's Government to £18,000 on account of the extraordinary exertions of Mr. Churchward and the expenses he had been put to; and he was to build two new steam-vessels, costing £16,000 each. Upon the faith of that contract Mr. Churchward incurred fresh expenses, and upon the 26th of April the contract was signed, sealed, and delivered. Then came the discussion in that House on the 27th of March 1860. Did the Government intend to act upon the Resolutions of that date? If so, it was incumbent upon them to have given notice to Mr. Churchward that he was acting under his contract of 1855. But on the 1st of July 1859, after the Earl of Derby had left office, the present Government paid Mr. Churchward £4,500, the first quarter's allowance, and they had continued to pay at the rate of £18,000 per annum up to the present time. No repudiation of the contract had been made, and he asked the Solicitor General to explain upon what legal principles the Committee were now invited to express a judicial opinion upon the conduct of a man who had never been put upon his trial. Was it because a Committee had reported that of two contradictory statements they believed one, which was different to that of a gentleman who had performed great public services, as the Government had admitted? But it must not be forgotten that there was a conflict of evidence, and he considered that Mr. Churchward was as worthy of credit as Captain Carnegie. He had the authority of the hon. Member for Dover to state, that although he received Mr. Churchward's support, the subject of the contract was never mentioned between them; and, indeed, any other course would have been the act of an idiot, for Mr. Churchward was at the time in possession of the contract. He (Mr. Malins) challenged the Government to state to the House any one fact that was misrepresented by Mr. Churchward when he obtained the renewal of the contract in 1859; and if that gentleman desired to exercise any corruption over the Government, it was not likely he would have gone to the new Lord, a man scarcely warm in his seat, and not conversant with the duties of the office; but he would rather have gone to the First Lord of the Admiralty, the right hon. Member for Droitwich. But on the strength of a conversation alleged by Captain Carnegie to have taken place, but denied by Mr. Churchward, the Committee was asked by a side wind to give a judicial opinion on a matter within the province of a judicial tribunal. In the language of the Secretary for the Treasury, the contract was not to be allowed to go on, on account of the corrupt and fraudulent conduct of Mr. Churchward. It was admitted that the form of the Resolution was irregular. The Chairman declined to say whether it was regular; but he (Mr. Malins) declared that the form of the Resolution was condemnatory of itself. It could not be proper for the Secretary to the Treasury, when proposing a Vote in Supply to Her Majesty, to support that Vote by charging one of Her Majesty's subjects with fraud in obtaining a certain contract. If such a charge were well founded, that was not the place for inquiring into it. If it were intended to make such a charge, why had not the Government repudiated the contract, and furnished Mr. Churchward with an opportunity of bringing the subject before a judicial tribunal? The Attorney General had been asked what effect the decision of the House of Commons, if unfavourable, would have on the question when brought before a court of law, and had replied in vague language, which seemed to imply that Mr. Churchward would not be prejudiced further than this, that it was the opinion of the House of Commons not to pay him the money; and that because the contract to Mr. Churchward was to be paid out of monies to be voted by Parliament. He (Mr. Malins) would ask his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General if he was prepared to endorse the opinion, that if the money was not voted by Parliament Mr. Churchward was not to be paid; and he would also ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he was prepared to abide by such an opinion; so that if a person devoted his lifetime to the fulfilment of a contract into which he entered with Her Majesty's Government, he was not to be paid if the Government would not ask Paliament for the money? If that were a contract between individuals, the Government would not have a leg to stand upon; and the Committee would not, he trusted, sanction the course which they now proposed to take.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, he must protest against so much of the public time of the House being taken up with Mr. Churchward's affairs. He had been asked to postpone some public business on the ground of the Vote, but he repudiated it. He did not think the House of Commons was the place to discuss Mr. Church ward's private claims. It was nearly ten o'clock, and they ought to be in Supply. The impression produced upon his mind was, that Mr. Churchward had a good many friends in that House, who had come down primed and loaded to support his clause. His case ought, however, be thought, to be left in the hands of the Government, who, though he differed from them on many points, might safely be intrusted to do justice in the matter. He should therefore deem it to be his duty to vote against Mr. Churchward in the present instance.

MR. COBDEN

—Mr. Massey, I have but a few words to say, as it is not my intention to enter at all into a discussion of the legal question; but having been intrusted with the responsible post of Chairman of the Committee by whom this subject was considered, I wish to be allowed to make a few observations. The truth is, the whole question is one which lies in a nutshell. It turns entirely upon the evidence of one gentleman. In the year 1859, on my return from America, when I had been two years out of Parliament, and had taken no part in the general election which had just come off, and was wholly unconnected with the previous discussions on this subject, which might be supposed to have assumed somewhat of a party character—I was made Chairman of that Committee, composed of many abler and more experienced men than myself, probably because I was supposed to occupy an unbiassed position in the matter. The first thing I encountered was a personal question, which it is at all times very disagreeable to find mixed up with a public transaction. It appears that early in 1859, a remark made in this House by, I believe, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), reflecting on the conduct of Captain Carnegie, who had been connected with the Government and was involved in some electioneering or political controversy, drew from Captain Carnegie a letter to the public papers explaining the reasons why he refused to stand for the borough of Dover. He stated that he could not, in justice to his own sense of honour, become a candidate for Dover on the terms on which it was desired he should do so. I found that the matter was in some way mixed up with the Dover packet contract, and one of the first things into which the Committee entered was an inquiry into the circumstances connected with the renewal of that contract. The whole point at issue turns on the evidence given by Captain Carnegie; almost everything which can be said on the subject is mere surplusage outside of this gentleman's testimony. Captain Carnegie came before the Committee an unwilling witness—for we had almost to compel his attendance—and nobody who reads his evidence can fail to perceive that it was given with the utmost reluctance. His statement was, that at the time of the general election in 1859 he filled the office of a Lord of the Admiralty; that it had been thought desirable he should seek a seat in Parliament, and that it was proposed he should try Dover. He described how, being in a public office, in the presence of a gentleman whose name it is unnecessary to mention, Mr. Churchward came to him and spoke of his being possibly a candidate for that borough. He added that Mr. Churchward then proposed to give him his support at Dover, and coupled with that proposal the condition of having the contract renewed for his postal service from Dover to Calais. That is the whole question; there is nothing outside it which we need trouble ourselves about. The point is, whether Captain Carnegie's evidence in the matter can be trusted or not. He passed through the most searching examination. But what other motive could Captain Carnegie have had, situated as he was as a Lord of the Admiralty, in refusing to go to Dover but a repugnance to the connexion with Mr. Churchward? He said he was astonished at the indiscreet way the proposal was made to him, a proposal which in itself was as undisguised and indiscreet as any human being could make, that he could not have imagined it possible it would have been made to him. It must be borne in mind that Captain Carnegie, as a Lord of the Admiralty, would be called upon to exercise a surveillance over Mr. Churchward. [Cries of No, no!] I heard hon. Gentlemen opposite say "No." Now, I beg to say I know more about the matter than they do. I have served upon more Committees of the House than those hon. Members; and I know that every packet on its arrival and departure has to be examined by an inspector, which inspector is appointed by the Admiralty; and therefore, of course, he has the power of fining a contractor or otherwise; of administering rigid justice in these cases or being lenient and allowing the party to escape. That was the scruple which Captain Carnegie had. Holding the high position which he occupied, he said to himself, "Here is a proposal made to me undisguisedly to forward the scheme of this gentleman for a renewal of the contract, and then he will in return give me his support, as having great influence at Dover." We had to-night a very candid statement from the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford on the subject. He said he decided in his own mind against the renewal of the contract, and gave us the reasons why he had been induced to change his opinion. I do not enter on the question of motives, because the Committee carefully avoided impeaching the conduct of the Government; but it did so happen that the Government decided to take the course which Mr. Churchward wished. What was it that Mr. Churchward wished at that time? It was to renew in the spring of 1859 a contract that did not expire until 1863; and it was to renew that contract in 1863 for seven years—that is, up to 1870. Now, if it had been a question of renewing a contract for a packet service from England to the West Indies, or even between Liverpool and New York, there might have been some kind of excuse for looking a few years before, because in a great service like cither of these, there are great preparations to make; but the postal service between Dover and Calais requires no such provision as that. Every one knows that you may in six months organize a postal service sufficient to carry on communication between Dover and Calais; and therefore I say that at that actual moment of the election there was no motive for pressing that question in the way in which it was pressed. I am not going to read any of the evidence of Captain Carnegie, which extended over a considerable time, but I will read what is stated in the Index—the substance, as given by those who sum up the proceedings of our Committees. At page 486 it says, under the head "Carnegie"— At the interview early in April, Mr. Churchward spoke freely and openly on the subject of the contract, and seemed anxious that it should be renewed before the Dover election was over. Examination as to the actual words used—witness clearly understood that Mr. Churchward's support of him at the election was contingent upon a renewal of the contract. And then it gives a long list of pages to which the Index refers. Again it says:—"Remark by Mr. Churchward, that 'they' were anxious." I may mention that the word "they" is put between inverted commas because Captain Carnegie was cross-examined as to the meaning of that word, and declined to interpret it. It had no antecedents, and he declined to define it further— Remark by Mr. Churchward that 'they' were anxious to defer signing the renewal of the contract until after the election; and that if 'they' wanted him to return two Government candidates, he should feel obliged to do so, but that he would rather support witness and Mr. Osborne. There was a painful discrepancy, indeed a painful contradiction of testimony, upon the point; but I think I shall not be contradicted by any Member of the Committee when I say that we were unanimously disposed to believe Captain Carnegie rather than any witness that was opposed to him. ["No, no!"] I did not think that there would be anybody who would say otherwise. That seemed to be the opinion of the Members of the Committee, because no one attempted to set up the testimony of any one else in opposition to that of Captain Carnegie. Well, now, what does this amount to, if Captain Carnegie spoke the truth? Why, it was undoubtedly an attempt to suborn a high functionary, to induce him to dispose of public money, and to accept a bribe. It amounts to that, or it amounts to nothing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford says, "But why not stigmatize roe? If you stigmatize Mr. Churchward, I ought to be stigmatized; because if he is guilty, I must be." ["Hear, hear!"] Some one said "Hear, hear!" If he had not, I should not have said that this was the most shallow view in the world. Suppose that a contractor went into one of your public offices with his pockets well lined with bank notes instead of promises of votes; suppose he offered some of those notes to one of your functionaries, and offered to bribe him for a contract; should you consider that it was a less criminal act on the part of that person because the bribe was not accepted? It is not necessary that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford should have yielded to this temptation in order to constitute what I should call an offence on the part of Mr. Churchward. He did not succeed. The reason was that Captain Carnegie was a very conscientious man, and rather than go to Dover on the understanding that he was to receive the support of Mr. Churchward under circumstances that might lead to the suspicion that he had a corrupt motive, he declined to stand at all. Then the question arises, what are we to do now? I think, that when these facts are brought before us, there cannot be any doubt or hesitation as to what we should do. The Committee suggests that we should consider the con tract null and void; but I hear that there are legal difficulties. Some people argue that we cannot legally refuse to pay the money. Well, then, I would not pay it in any way but a legal way. I quite join with hon. Gentlemen in that view. If they think that Mr. Churchward has a legal claim, let him establish that claim; and, for my part. I would vote money to enable him to establish his claim—to pay all the legal expenses of a trial—rather than I would agree to grant the money for this contract after the Report of the Committee. What will the public say out of doors? Really we ought to affect a virtue if we have it not. A Committee of this House reports that a person goes to a public office, wanting to bribe a Lord of the Admiralty to assist in bestowing a contract by the most corrupt I means; and what is the sort of bribe that is offered? Why, it is the very kind of bribery that ought to be most repugnant to this House. On the one hand, we have before us, as the House of Commons, a case in which an attempt is made upon the virtue of a public functionary whom we are here especially to superintend and watch; and, on the other hand, the bribe offered us is an attempt to dispose, by corrupt means, of, the votes of constituents, in whose purity and independence I should think that we, as the House of Commons, ought to be most deeply interested. Therefore, standing as we do in the face of the country, we have every motive to show that we are disposed to do our duty in the matter. There is nothing before the House but the question, "Is Captain Carnegie entitled to credit?" If he is, there is no doubt what the House ought to do. It ought to act upon the Resolution of the Committee. Let the party enforce his claim by a court of law if he can; but do not let the House of Commons, in the face of the Report of its Select Committee, take a course which will be virtually condoning both corruption and bribery.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

There are some questions into which the hon. Member who has just sat down has entered, in regard to which I shall in a moment ask leave to say a word or two; but, before doing so, I will ask the Committee, which I am glad to see is more numerous than it was a short time ago, to consider two questions, which seem to me to be of vital importance, with regard to our forms of procedure and with regard to the duty of the executive Government, First, with regard to our forms of procedure in Committee of Supply. A question has been raised of which no solution has yet been given, and which, I am convinced, is of the gravest importance, with regard not not only to this, but to future cases of the same kind. We are asked by the Government to pass in Committee of Supply a Vote which the Government themselves, and every one who has spoken, acknowledge to be utterly and entirely without precedent in the annals of the House of Commons. The Attorney General has said very frankly that the Government have been advised to propose a Vote of this kind, by which I conclude that the hon. and learned Gentleman means that they have been advised by the Law Officers, for whom he spoke. I shall consider by-and-by what end was proposed to be attained by that advice; but first let me ask the Committee to consider to what a Vote of this kind would lead us. As I understand it, there is no rule more sacred in the practice of the House of Commons than that it is the Appropriation Bill, and the Appropriation Bill alone, which can appropriate, either negatively or affirmatively, the Supplies of the year; and that you cannot by any device anticipate the enactments of that Bill. So far is this carried, that I remember an instance in which an attempt was made by the Government of the day to anticipate the Appropriation Bill, not by a Vote in Committee of Supply, for no one ever thought of that before, but by a clause inserted in another Bill proposed to Parliament in the usual way; and by whom was the objection taken to that? By the Speaker of the House, who said that— Before the question was put, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to what appeared to him to be an irregularity in its proceedings. The clause now before them was a clause of appropriation introduced into a Bill to provide for the ordinary ways and means of the year. Now, it was quite unusual and unprecedented to introduce a clause of appropriation into a Bill of this description at this period of the Session. The sacred rule of the House of Commons is this:—You may have an Appropriation Bill in the year, but you can only have one, and you cannot even in another Bill introduce a clause of Appropriation of Supplies; much more cannot you introduce a clause of appropriation into a Vote of Committee of Supply. Let me ask the Committee to go a little further. If the Government are right in this proposal, what is the consequence? If the Government can propose a clause of appropriation, of course every hon. Member can propose what he thinks would be convenient, either in affirmance or negation of their appropriation. If the Government can say, "We ask the Committee for £100,000 on account, and we ask the Committee to resolve that no part of that shall be applied in the discharge of a particular contract," what is the result? Any hon. Member who entertains a particular view in regard to any contract with which the Government may have entered, may propose a similar pendant to the Vote so asked on account. Every Member may raise such an issue as well as the Government, and we shall therefore have issues raised by this and that other Member in order to strike at some particular contract or appropriation of money to which he may object, if the precedent be once set which is now sought to be established. Besides, I want to know what the Committee of Supply has got before it on the subject of this contract with Mr. Churchward at all. What does the Committee know about that contract at all? The Committee of Supply has no more to say to the contract of Mr. Churchward than it has to say to the Reform Bill or any other document whatever. The Committee of Supply has no Report of the Committee before it. It has no issue before it but one, and that is whether it will grant or refuse the amount submitted to it by the Government. I therefore warn the Committee against being led into a proceeding full of irregularity and inconvenience—a proceeding which, if it pass now, must become a precedent to the House and fatal to the business of the Committee of Supply. What is all this done for? I will tell yon what is the object. I think I know it as well as if I saw it explained in writing before me. The Attorney General as good as confessed it. Mr. Churchward is told he may bring his notion at law; and here I must say I admire the caution of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), who said, "Mr. Churchward, as far as I am concerned, should have every assistance to bring his action at law; nay, more, I would rather vote the money if it could be recovered, and let a court of law decide the question." [Mr. COBDEN: I said I would rather pay the expenses of the suit.] I did not know that the offer had been so personal a one. Mr. Churchward is told. "You may bring your action at law." Well, Mr. Churchward says, "I want to bring an action at law; and I will complain that the Postmaster General has broken the contract which binds the executive Government; that he has terminated, rescinded it; that he won't allow me to continue to carry the mails, and has given me notice to cease doing so. I will bring my action against him, and claim damages for the profits I should have made if the contract had not been terminated in that summary way." Of course, it occurs to the executive Government that this is rather a serious proceeding, and they take the advice of the Law Advisers of the Crown. What will they say, "Be so good as to tell us what ground of hope there is for a successful issue if such an action is brought." They know, if nothing he done by the House of Commons, Mr. Churchward is certain to recover. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: Hear, hear!] My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General concurs. Then Mr. Churchwhrd is certain to recover damages for the breach of contract, and for being interrupted in the performance of the service; and what is to be the defence of the Government? I will tell you. If the Appropriation Bill for the year is passed before the action is brought, it will be held up, and it will be said, "You don't mean to say you have lost anything by the contract being at an end? Look at what the House of Commons has done; they have appropriated all the money for the year, and therefore it was rather a kindness to you that the contract was stopped on the 20th of June; for if you had carried the mails till now, you would not have received one farthing of money for it." That would go to the reduction of damages. But the Law Officers say, we must remember that the 20th of June is coming very close. On that day the Postmaster General has threatened Mr. Churchward that his contract will be at an end. The action will be brought immediately; the Appropriation Bill will not be passed, and we shall be at Mr. Churchward's mercy. Therefore, says the Attorney General, I advised the Government to do what has never been done before—to bring in a clause which shall anticipate the Appropriation Bill. Now, I challenge my hon. and learned Friend who sits opposite me—is not that the object? Now, I appeal with confidence to the hon. Member for Rochdale, does he think that consistent with an offer to Mr. Churchward to bring his action to establish his claim in a court of law, and get what damages he can? And the House of Commons and the Committee of Supply are asked to depart from established practice and create a precedent—for what? In order that we may make ourselves parties to a proceeding which, if carried on elsewhere, would be called sharp practice, unworthy of the name of law. I trust we shall not lend ourselves to any proceeding of that kind. Let the action be brought, let it be tried, and let the right succeed; if not established, let it fail; but do not let us, to accommodate the Executive, who feel and see that they must be cast in that action in the present state of things, pass a Resolution to mitigate the damages on the part of the Government.

There is another point of equal importance, not merely as regards the practice of the House, but as regards public faith, the convenience of public contractors and the course taken by the executive Government in regard to contractors. We have heard from the Attorney General that the payment to contractors is to be made out of monies to be provided by Parliament; and he says there can be no doubt, if Parliament refused these monies, they would not be paid. But how is Parliament to have the option of refusing the monies unless Parliament be asked whether it will refuse or grant them? I want to hear from the Attorney General, how can the House of Commons refuse to grant money unless it be asked by the Government? The constitutional doctrine is this, that just as it is in the power of the House of Commons to refuse to vote any particular sum of money in fulfilment of any contract, the bounden duty of the executive Government, for the time being, is to propose to Parliament the sum which is adequate to fulfil that contract. And so, as was stated by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets' (Mr. Aryton), or by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), the course of the Government was perfectly open and clear—to lay on the table an Estimate with reference to the contract in question, to tell the House or the Committee that the Government did not pledge themselves to that money or did not entreat it, but would leave it to the judgment of the House whether it should be voted or not. But the peculiarity in this case is that we have here a legal contract—the Government do not deny it. The contract bears that it is to be satisfied out of monies to be voted by Parliament; Parliament cannot vote the monies unless the Executive ask for them; and what I want to know is, when this particular view entered into the mind of the Government with regard to this Vote; because I have had put into my hands a letter which I suppose is a genuine one; it came from one part of the Government, and perhaps another part of the Government may not be aware of it. That is one of the incon- veniences of this case. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury read to us a correspondence which appeared to be mere minutes of instruction for letters to be written, and was, in fact, no correspondence at all. The letter to which I refer was written by the Secretary of the Post Office no longer ago than the 25th of March of the present year. It is written to Mr. Churchward and has reference to the Belgian contract. And what does Sir Rowland Hill say? He says he is directed by the Postmaster General to inform Mr. Churchward that the tenders which have been accepted "will only come into force in the event of Parliament declining to enable this department" to make the necessary payments for carrying out the existing contracts. But what does a letter of that kind written to a contractor mean? Does it not convey this as plainly as possible, "We, the Government, will propose to Parliament the necessary Vote; remember that Parliament may decline to grant it; but if it does not decline, then your contract goes on as before." I have no doubt it will be said on the part of the Government, that the opportunity of voting or of refusing to vote the money would have been given to Parliament, if it had not been for the decision of the House in March 1860. I say that decision had nothing at all to do with the question. I confess I always thought Captain Leicester Vernon's Motion most mistaken and ill-timed. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Hear, hear!] And I will tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer why. Captain Vernon's Motion declared that a contract entered into for a specified period ought to be fulfilled; whereas the Act of 1854 says that at all times, from year to year, no matter how long may be the duration of a contract, the monies set aside to fulfil that contract are to be provided by Parliament, and the payments are only to be made out of monies so appropriated by Parliament. The object of that Act was to make Parliament the dominus of the contract. But by asking Parliament to declare beforehand that a particular contract shall be fulfilled throughout the whole of its duration, you neutralize and put an end to that Act of 1854; and the Motion therefore, in my humble judgment, was mistaken. But I do not rest the case upon that ground. We heard to-night some of the reasons which led to the majority on that occasion. The hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir M. Peto) has stated that in the Vote which he then gave he by no means meant to prejudge the question as to the mode in which the service might be performed in 1863; all he intended was, to express disapproval of a Motion reversing the decision of a Committee only a few days after it had concluded its deliberation upstairs. And what were the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said— The real difference lies in the renewal of the contract from 1863 to 1870, and the course which Parliament may think fit to take upon the point is a matter hereafter to be decided. If any case is made to show the sufferings of Mr. Churchward, in consequence of that renewal being withheld, out of proportion to the offence he has committed, that case is entirely open to consideration. The language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly recognises that in 1863 Parliament will be called upon to consider the subject; and therefore, I say, the Vote of March 1860 in no way absolves the Government from the duty otherwise devolving upon them of putting forward an Estimate providing for the service of the year in such a shape as to enable Parliament either to consent or refuse—in the words of Sir Rowland Hill "to decline"—to make the necessary provision.

I will not go into the labyrinth of evidence taken before the Committee of 1860, but I venture to think that the time will come when the Report of that Committee will be looked on with amazement. They reported that the Dover contract was not advantageous in a pecuniary point of view, but in the most complete and absolute manner they, at the same time, absolved every Member of the Government which had entered into the contract from the imputation of corrupt or improper motives. Their Report was based on the evidence of three witnesses, principally with reference to a conversation at which all three were said to have been present. Mr. Murray, however, did not hear the conversation at all, and Mr. Churchward and Captain Carnegie are directly opposed in their recollection of what took place. Mr. Churchward was only examined as a witness—he was no party to the investigation, and he had no means of defending himself beyond that sort of fair play which Members of the Committee were inclined to give him. How, then, does the matter stand? Mr. Churchward denies the conversation which Captain Carnegie says took place. The bearing of this alleged conversation was, that if Captain Carnegie would go to Dover, Mr. Churchward offered to support him, and that he referred to his contract with the Government, expressing anxiety to have it expedited and completed. Captain Carnegie admitted before the Committee that he did not know when this conversation took place that the contract had already received the approval of the Board of Admiralty some six weeks previously, and hinted, that if he had been aware of that fact, he should probably have gone down and stood for Dover. That was the man on whose testimony, opposed to Mr. Churchward's, the Committee arrived at their Report. And what is that Report? I leave it to the sense and justice of the House to say whether a man was ever condemned on a statement of this kind— It is in evidence before your Committee, that Mr. Churchward, on the eve of the election, volunteered to support a particular candidate, in the expectation that the contract was to be extended. The Committee do not pledge themselves to a word as having passed directly on this subject between two persons, or to anything which would bind them to a positive finding; but they take refuge in the statement that "support was volunteered upon an expectation." Is there any other case in which a parallel expression is used? I confess, that whenever I look at this Report, I do so simply with astonishment. I can understand the view taken by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden); it was logical and plain. He prepared a draught Report, in which it was declared, in the strongest terms, that there had been improper practices. But that Report was negatived; how, then, can the Committee insinuate that such practices did really exist? At the time men felt warmly, and their minds were excited; but, in calmer moments, I entertain no doubt that those who come after us, if not we ourselves, will feel that this Report was a mistake. For the rights of any man to be prejudiced by such a visionary statement as I have just read, would be to suppose the House of Commons capable of an act of gross injustice, such as I should never expect to see them perform.

What, however, is the position of the Committee with respect to this question? I submit that it is wholly irregular to ask us to come to a decision upon the materials put before us by the Government. Where are the papers describing all that has taken place between Mr. Churchward and the Government since 1859? Where is the correspondence, fragments and scraps of which the Secretary to the Treasury has read us out of that box? Where are the letters from the sureties, asking the Government whether they consider the contract binding or not, and whether they consequently are to be held to their engagements, and where the answer of the Government to those letters? Where is the correspondence with Mr. Churchward, fixing the duties which he is to perform, and the steamers he is to build, under the stipulations of the contract of 1859? Above all, if the Committee of Supply are now to form a judgment on the expediency of this contract and its advantage for the public service, I want to know where are the materials for enabling them to do so? What of those tenders we have heard about? Where is Mr. Harrington's tender? I am afraid few hon. Members were in the House when that remarkable tender was described, It appears the Belgian Government have notified that they intend to perform the service between Dover and Ostend, and that we shall perhaps have our own mails carried in and out of our own ports by the Belgian Government. But what about the service between Dover and Calais? Mr. Harrington, it seems, has made a tender, and a most mysterious tender it is, because it is to be £8,000 if for one year, and £5,000 if for five, six, or seven years. But that is not all. There are to be bonuses given, as the Secretary to the Treasury tells us, by which, although there is a certain sum named per annum, the amount may be run up £3,000 more; so that you do not know whether the whole charge will be £8,000 or £11,000. But there is another circumstance to be noticed. Mr. Harrington withdraws his tender; but then, says the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Harrington has written a letter stating that he did not mean to withdraw it. But he wrote another letter in which he explains that his withdrawal of his withdrawal depends upon the Government giving him six months of an interval to think over whether be should withdraw his withdrawal or not. The noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty tells us that the Post Office in their extremity appealed to the Admiralty to be kind enough to perform the service during this little interval of breathing time, for Mr. Harrington to make up his mind whether he will accept the contract or not. And what said the Admiralty? "Oh, no! we are very fond of sailing our steamers; but we do not like to sail them if they are to arrive at a particular hour, for they are not punctual, and we don't want their per- formances to be judged by the quickness of the passage between Dover and Calais; so we won't carry the mails at all." The matter, therefore, stands thus, that the public at this moment are at the mercy of Mr. Harrington, who may or may not decide to withdraw his withdrawal. Again, who are Mr. Harrington's sureties? And is there any assurance, that if at the end of six months he makes up his mind to take the contract, he will really perform the service? In coming to its conclusion, then, let the Committee bear in mind that we have the evidence of the Postmaster General and everybody else that the service has been admirably and efficiently performed; that it is a service which brings in to the Government a clear gain such as it has never had before; and further, that if this contract is discontinued, we have not the least certainty that we shall have the mails carried at all. The simple question I would ask the Committee is, "Ought we not to have the option of considering whether we shall refuse or grant the supplies for the carrying on of this contract?" The Government says, "No; we don't ask you to refuse the means of providing for Mr. Churchward's contract, I but we ask you to declare in the shape of an anticipatory appropriation, that no part of this money shall be applied to the purposes of that contract." I hope, therefore, for the sake of order, for the sake of fair dealing between the Executive and its contractors, for the sake of the public advantage and public expediency, and lastly for the sake of that which I am sure the House of Commons will never overlook—namely, justice for a man whom I believe to be wronged and injured, that the Committee will accept the Amendment now before it.

MR. HUBBARD

said, that having had the honour to serve on the Committee appointed to consider the Question, he was anxious to make a few remarks. The interest of the taxpayers had, he thought, been somewhat overlooked in the hasty arrangements made with Mr. Churchward. In all the correspondence on this matter, Mr. Churchward had assumed that the conveyance of the mails, before the service was conducted under contract, had cost the Government £25,000 a year, and had caused it to be inferred that by his undertaking it for £15,500, the difference between the two sums—namely, £9,500, had been annually saved to the country. That assumption had never been questioned by any Administration, and the Treasury Minute relating to the contract of 1859 was based upon it. It was, however, very far from being accurate. Indeed, if it were true that Mr. Churchward performed the service for £9,000 less than it had hitherto cost the Government, how did it happen, that whilst he asserted it to be an exceedingly losing contract, he should be also so excessively anxious to obtain a renewal of it? In an appendix to the papers relating to those contracts, there was a statement of the subsidies that were paid in 1853 by the Government. It therein appeared that the cost of the packet service between Dover and Calais and Ostend, according to the contract then existing, was £24,657, and that he took to be the source of Mr. Churchward's round figure of £25,000. Looking at the Report made on that matter, and bearing the signatures of Lord Canning and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote), he found the remark that the service had been satisfactorily performed as regarded both the mails and passengers; but as the lines were those upon which the passenger and parcel traffic was very great, the services might be considered self-supporting; and therefore they recommended that tenders should be publicly invited for its performance. Well, what did he (Mr. Hubbard) infer from that? Why, that the receipts from the passengers and parcels upon those lines of communication were so great, that they were of themselves sufficient to support the service; and that in order to carry out the principle of economy, the compilers of that Report recommended tenders to be invited. The Parliamentary papers of 1848 contained a Return of the Post Office service from Boulogne, Calais, and Ostend, which gave the number of vessels engaged. It appeared the gross expense of the service was then £18,566, and the net expenses £6,224. The receipts from passenger and parcel traffic were therefore £12,342. If, then, so large a sum was received from the traffic in 1848, he should like to know in 1852, when the gross expense of the service was £25,000, what was the average amount received from passenger and parcel traffic? He thought that that was an important question, which ought clearly to have been answered before the Government had entered into the contract with Mr. Churchward and now before they consented to extend it. Until that fact was satisfactorily answered, he thought that the country would remain under an entire delusion as to the cost of the service. It appeared to him, that so far from Mr. Churchward saving the country upwards of £9,000, he had been drawing largely upon its resources. But, apart from that point, he must say, if the bargain were an improvident one, and that it were shown that the contract could be cancelled in a fair and honourable manner, he should be delighted, in the interest of the taxpayer, to see it cancelled. But when he heard the speech of the Secretary of the Treasury, and was told the grounds upon which his (Mr. Hubbard's) vote was challenged, viz., that Mr. Churchward should be punished for his political intrigues, he (Mr. Hubbard) felt that the way to punish a man for political immorality was certainly not by breaking a bargain solemnly entered into with him, when the services which he had undertaken to render had been well and efficiently performed. He believed that Captain Carnegie, when examined before the Committee, gave his evidence with the utmost earnestness and sincerity, and said nothing which was not based on his honest convictions. But it must also be admitted that the charge against Mr. Churchward rested entirely on that gallant officer's evidence. Where the evidence of one man had to be balanced against that of another, the charge, whatever it was, could not be said to be proved; and he thought that in a case like the present, where mercantile honesty was concerned, the Committee would be going beyond its province if it attempted to be the administrator of public morality. The offence was entirely one of intentions, for it was admitted that Mr. Churchward, whatever he might have said, made no impression on those to whom he addressed himself, and nothing could be more certain than that the Government had committed itself to the renewal of the contract six weeks before the reported conversation with Captain Carnegie. It had been truly stated that in the Select Committee the crucial clause of the Report was adopted by a majority of two; but he might add that on that occasion the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford and a noble Lord who had likewise been a member of the Derby Administration refused to take any part in the division: had they attended the adverse report must have been carried, if at all, by the casting vote of the Chairman, and they were absent only because, with a delicacy highly honourable to them, they declined to interfere with a decision which involved a judgment on their public conduct. On the whole, then, although he looked upon the Dover contract, in a commercial point of view, with great disapproval, believing it to be against the public interest, and although he should be glad of a fair opportunity of cancelling it, yet he could not consent to the breaking of a contract against which there was nothing more to allege than that there was some reason to suspect the political honesty of the contractor.

Two Members, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL and Mr. NICOL, both rising in their places to speak, the CHAIRMAN called upon Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, as being first in his eye, but several Members calling upon Mr. NICOL to speak;

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Solicitor General do now speak,"—(Mr. Serjeant Pigott.)

MR. DISRAELI

said, he understood that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Nicol) did not wish to trespass upon the Committee at any length; and as he probably desired to speak upon some personal point, perhaps the Committee would not object to hear him first.

MR. SERJEANT PIGOTT

said, he would withdraw his Motion, his only object had been to relieve the Committee from an embarrassment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Whereupon Mr. Nicol proceeded to address the Committee.

MR. NICOL

stated that he was invited to stand for Dover at the same meeting with Captain Carnegie, and he could solemnly declare that Mr. Churchward never addressed him directly or indirectly on the subject of his contract. The fact was, that the contract had been settled two months before, and it could not have been affected in any way by anything which Mr. Churchward might have said to Captain Carnegie. It was admitted on all hands that Mr. Churchward had performed the service satisfactorily, and surely the Committee would not allow the Government to reward him with the repudiation of his contract? He might also add, that he felt sure, if his hon. Colleague were present, he would also say that Mr. Churchward had never addressed a single word to him on the subject.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

The Committee will believe me when I say that it was with great unwillingness I stood in the way of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. On all occasions I am most ready to give place to any hon. Member who wishes to address the House. In the present instance my difficulty was, that while there appeared to be a desire on the part of some hon. Members that I should proceed, I was not at the moment aware of the peculiar claims of the hon. Member for Dover. Having thus, I hope, put myself right with the Committee, I shall endeavour to deal with the question before us. Various questions of form, more or less important, have been raised, and also various personal questions; but to my mind there is one question of greater importance than all, which lies at the bottom of this discussion; and it is, whether the control of Parliament over public expenditure on contracts of this description, and entered into under these peculiar circumstances, is to be a substantial or a sham control. I quite agree that, as a general rule, contracts entered into by the executive Government ought to be adopted and honoured by Parliament. I also agree that, as a general rule, contracts bonâ fide entered into, and under ordinary circumstances, will be adopted and ratified by Parliament, although they may be in such a form as that now before us. But I protest, on the part of the public, against the idea that it is, or ought to be, in the power of any Government to enter into any contract on behalf and in the name of Parliament, to be carried out by means of monies to be provided by Parliament, and then that Parliament is to be told, when the question is whether it shall supply the requisite funds, "Oh, if you reject the contract, you will be guilty of a breach of faith." I say that this particular contract was entered into under circumstances which rendered it peculiarly necessary that Parliament should stand upon its right to determine the question on its merits, and not as prejudged by the executive Government. Under what circumstances was the contract made, in what form, and why did it assume that form? The contract was made, as we know, in the heat of a general election. [Cries of No!] The contract was made in the heat of a general election. ["No, no!"] Those hon. Gentlemen who cry "No!" will perhaps permit me to remind them of the dates. The Treasury Minute, until which there was no engagement in any sense whatever, was not made till the 15th of April. Parliament was dissolved on the 19th, notice of the dissolution having been given some time before. The contract itself was made on the 26th of April, while the election was going on. [Mr. MALINS: It was made in February.] The hon. and learned Member for Walling-ford repeats the oft-told tale that the contract was made in February. All that happened then was this, that one of the officials of the Admiralty, the First Lord not having been so much as consulted, forwarded Mr. Churchward's proposal to the Treasury, recommending it for their favourable consideration; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford has informed us, the matter was under the consideration of the Treasury during the month of March and the early part of the month of April. It was not until the 15th of April, four days before the dissolution, that the Treasury came to any conclusion on the subject, and the contract was made, as I have said, on the 26th of April, during the heat of the general election. I have not, at present, said a word about the preliminary circumstances, I am only vindicating the right of the House to say that it will not be trifled with on this matter. We are not to be told that it is a breach of faith not to vote this money if, on the merits of the case, the Committee should still think that it ought not to be voted. The contract is drawn up in a particular form, and the Resolutions which we propose are the legitimate and natural results of that form, if it is the opinion of the House that the money ought not to be provided. There are, of course, two parties to the contract, Mr. Churchward and the Government. Mr. Churchward agrees, for a certain length of time, to perform certain services, and to keep up a sufficient number of ships, &c., for those purposes. The Government, on the other hand, agree, to do only one thing, and that is to pay Mr. Churchward so much a year for those services out of money to be provided by Parliament. Had Parliament authorized the Government to take from them the power of judging whether they will provide that money or not? ["No!"] No; but nine-tenths of the argument seems to say so. We have been told repeatedly that we are not free judges of this question, that we are not to determine the question on its merits, and that we are guilty of a breach of faith if we do so. I say the words were deliberately inserted in the contract, and, moreover, we were informed, by the Ministers who made the contract themselves, that the effect of those words was to make the contract subject to the revision of the House. I may remind hon. Members of the origin of the phrase. My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford had his attention directed to the subject in consequence of the House having refused to ratify the expenditure of a certain sum for a chapel at Paris; and he suggested that the words, "to be paid out of monies provided by Parliament," should, for greater caution, be introduced into the Galway contract, which preceded that made by the same Government with Mr. Churchward. The Galway contract was the subject of discussion in the House on the day when the Committee on the Packet Contracts was appointed, 7th July 1859. Upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli), referring to some observations of the present Lord Camperdown, said— With regard to the contract which appeared to have excited so much alarm in the mind of the noble Lord who last spoke, it might be satisfactory to him to learn that it would be in the power of the House, when a Vote of money was proposed, to reject it entirely. Formerly, when contracts of this nature were concluded, inasmuch as the expenditure was defrayed from the Post Office revenue, they were not subject to the pleasure of Parliament; but speaking from recollection, he believed that in the present instance it was for the first time specially provided that the contract should depend upon the approval of Parliament, and the House of Commons would therefore have a fair and complete opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the policy recommended by the late Government." [3 Hansard, cliv. 821.] Again, on the 14th of July, in the same year, my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Lygon), then the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, stated that— Certain words were introduced into the contract, signed on the 6th of April for Dover, as had been done also in the case of Galway, providing that the contractors should be paid out of money to be voted by Parliament; thus, in fact, rendering the contract subject to ratification by the House." [3 Hansard, cliv. 1222.] Therefore, it has been distinctly admitted that the contract is subject to revision by the House, and no one can impute a breach of faith to the House for not ratifying it. As soon as the new Parliament met, and the Government was changed, the Committee of Inquiry was appointed. The Report of that Committee, which was made at the end of the same Session, being distinctly against the contract, it was brought before the House on the earliest opportunity by an hon. and gallant Member who is now no more. It has been said that the duty of the Government, tinder the present cir- cumstances, is to propose that the money should be voted for performing the contract. What might have been the duty of the Government if the House had pronounced no opinion on the subject, it is not now necessary to speculate. But the hon. and gallant Member of whom I have spoken distinctly raised the issue that the contract ought to be fulfilled. That was a recognition that the House was the proper judge of the question; and when the House decided that the contract should not be fulfilled, there was no moral claim to override its conclusion. I differ from some of the observations of the hon. Member for Stamford, and I am rather surprised to hear them fall from him, because nothing could be more becoming, graceful, or honourable than the latter part of his speech, in which he took blame to himself, which no one desired to cast upon him, in order that Mr. Churchward should be sheltered. The earlier part of his speech was, however, such as I should rather have expected to hear on a different occasion than in a debate in this place. A pleading more at variance with the documents on which it was founded I cannot conceive. My hon. Friend interprets quite wrongly what passed on the occasion of the former debate. He says that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a sort of appeal to hon. Members not to prejudge the question, to defer the whole matter till 1863, and to throw no discredit on the labours of the Committee. My understanding of the debate is totally different. Mr. Laing said— There was a distinct assertion by a great majority of the Committee, and one not confined to any political party, that it was proved by the evidence that Mr. Churchward did attempt to exercise corrupt influence on the Government, in the hope of obtaining the renewal of his contract." [3 Hansard, clvii. 1365.] Mr. Laing was willing to rest the whole matter upon that ground, and upon the ground derived from the effect of the words which stated that payment was to be made out of monies to be provided by Parliament. Mr. Laing added, that if Mr. Churchward gave up this agreement, he would be in just as good a position as any one else for the purpose of competing for any new contract in 1863. On the same occasion my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said— Does not every man, woman, and child know, that the monies so voted by Parliament are freely voted, and can it be supposed that Mr. Churchward, in accepting that contract, was not aware that it was subject to the free exercise of the discretion of Parliament? We are now arrived at the time when it is necessary to exercise that discretion, and I will grant that we are bound to exercise a just, wise, and liberal discretion. But does wisdom, justice, or liberality bind us to support a contract of this nature by our own free voluntary vote, when an impartially-selected Committee of this House has reported that the party, in order to obtain that contract, has resorted to corrupt and degrading considerations? That is, in point of fact, the whole question; and on that question the House will vote. The Government do not wish to influence the vote of the House; they look rather for an indication of its will, and by that indication their future course will be directed." [3 Hansard, clvii. 1412.] This question is really more for the Committee than for the Government. It is for the Committee to consider whether or not they will reverse the previous vote of the House. But, as my right hon. Friend stated during the former debate, the course of the Government was necessarily guided by that vote, and they had, accordingly, not felt themselves at liberty now to disregard it. Now, I really ask whether my hon. and learned Friend opposite seriously thinks, that after this House deliberately negatived that Motion by a majority of forty-five, the Government could with propriety have come down, and laid on the table a proposition to supply the money for Mr. Churchward's contract? Why, the conclusion from such a proceeding would be that the Government should not only propose the Vote, but support it. ["No!"] My right hon. Friend says "No;" but would the Government be keeping faith with the House, or giving any satisfaction to Mr. Churchward, by proposing the Vote and then asking the House to reject it? I apprehend that the Government took that course which best became them, in deference to their own engagements, to the authority of the House, and to what was due to Mr. Churchward himself. They have proposed a Vote which differs from that recommended on the other side of the House in this respect—that, instead of contradicting, it adopts the decision of the House; whereas the proposed Amendment, if carried, would be a declaration on the part of the House that it would place no restriction on the payment of monies of this kind. The House has as much the opportunity and the power to reverse its former decision, and to provide money for the performance of the contract, by adopting the Amendment now before it, as it would have had if the Government had asked it directly to do the same thing. I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) as to the object of the Vote as proposed by the Government. That object is to take care that the House is not entrapped into doing that which the contract does not bind it to do without its own consent. If the House voted money for the packet service generally, without any specific appropriation to, or exclusion of particular services, Parliament then would be said to have provided means for the fulfilment of this contract. But we understand that Parliament does not mean that; and if the House does not mean to ratify the contract by providing the means for carrying it out, then the House will take care to mark on the face of the Vote that the money is not intended for any general purpose, and is not to be available for the fulfilment of the contract now under discussion. I do not pretend to be so familiar as many other hon. Members with the form in which Votes for money are taken, but I think my hon. and learned friend opposite fell into an error in his remarks with regard to what he supposed to be the impropriety of anticipating the Appropriation Act by Votes in Committee of Supply. Now, I thought that all Votes in Supply were Votes in anticipation of the Appropriation Act, and were afterwards transferred into that Act. If it is meant that the money provided by this Vote should in no part go towards Mr. Churchward's contract, the House should say so now; for this is the proper time to state for what purpose the money is to be voted, and that purpose is to carry into effect the intention of Parliament as declared in 1860. If carried, we in our conscience believe that it will be a complete answer to any action on account of the contract, because there would be no breach of contract, as the contract itself provided for no payments except out of monies to be supplied by Parliament.

The hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) has expressed his intention to take a course different from that which he took in 1860. If my hon. Friend had said that he had re-considered the question, and found that he was in error before, it would be quite right, and in no degree surprising, that he should alter his course; but my hon. Friend gave a totally different reason for his change of conduct. He said that the Government had acted on the contract in the interval, and that the question ought to have been determined before. But if Parliament did not mean to ratify the contract of 1859, it would not take advantage of that to deprive Mr. Churchward of the advantages which he would have had if that contract had not been made. The recommendation of the Select Committee had reference only to the period subsequent to the 20th of June 1863. After the House came to the Vote on the subject, Mr. Churchward was invited without delay to call at the Treasury, and then the proposal was made to him to go on until the 20th of June 1863, when his former contract would have expired, upon the terms of the contract of 1859, which were the same with the terms of the former contract, with this difference only—that payments for extraordinary services should be commuted into the payment of a fixed sum of money, according to Mr. Churchward's own desire. The Government said, that if Mr. Churchward was willing to go on upon those terms until the former contract would have expired, they would apply to Parliament to make the necessary payments, upon the understanding that the position of neither party was to be prejudiced when June 1863 arrived. Then both parties were to be entitled to insist on whatever rights they might conceive themselves to possess. Mr. Churchward wrote a letter accepting the proposal, without prejudice to his legal claims under the contract of 1859, and with the understanding that in June 1863 he would have the right, if he thought fit, to submit the validity of the contract of 1859 to a court of law. A Treasury Minute was then drawn up, to the effect that there existed no objection on the part of the Treasury to the arrangement; and it was distinctly expressed, that under this arrangement Mr. Churchward would, of course, retain any legal rights he might consider himself to possess in June 1863; but, at the same time, it must be understood that the Government did nothing to admit the validity of any such claims, or to prejudice the decision of the House of Commons. Any legal rights which Mr. Churchward has were reserved, with the knowledge, on both sides, that his only right would be, to be paid out of monies to be provided by Parliament, and that Parliament had said that it was not prepared to provide these monies from June 1863 to 1870. In substance, then, it was the old arrangement—there was no advantage taken on the part of the Government of the contract of 1859. And so faithfully have the Government acted that they gave Mr. Churchward a year's notice, so that in all respects his position might be the same as it would have been if the former contract had continued.

And now a few words upon what may be called the general merits of the case. But, first, I cannot help thinking that there are considerations of importance involved in this matter more than have received justice from those who have spoken on the other side of the House. I ask the Committee just to follow me through the principal dates upon which this case mainly depends. In 1857 there had been a cessation of a former correspondence which Mr. Churchward had carried on with the Admiralty for the purpose of obtaining a similar renewal of the contract. In January 1859 that correspondence was revived, and on the 23rd of February the Admiralty, under circumstances which I have already mentioned, without the knowledge of the First Lord, without any real inquiry into the facts at all, expressed an opinion in favour of the renewal of the contract. What followed when the matter got to the Treasury was this. Upon the 10th of March it was referred to the Post Office, and the Postmaster General made a strong report against the extension of the contract. Mr. Stephenson endorsed the memorandum and expressed his entire concurrence in the objections which had been taken. Mr. Hamilton, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, made a memorandum expressing a difference of opinion and giving his reasons. Just then there was a critical time; the Government had been defeated on the Reform Bill, dissolution was resolved upon, and in the interval Mr. Churchward and his friends urged the matter forward. Before the 1st of April a letter was written by Mr. Murray, a gentleman with whom I have the honour to be acquainted, and from that acquaintance I am sure whatever he has stated may be taken as the statement of a man of honour according to his belief of the facts. Mr. Murray, shortly before the 1st April, wrote a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgnorth (Mr. Whitmore), then one of the Lords of the Treasury. In that letter Mr. Murray said, "We are anxious to expedite Mr. Churchward's matter, as we want him to go down to Dover to canvass." Now, I ask the Committee to observe the critical position of things at that moment. And here let me observe that my apprehension of this matter does not depend simply on the particular conversation with Captain Carnegie, as to which there is some difference of recollection among three gentlemen, whom I assume to be, all men of honour. Mr. Murray thinks that Captain Carnegie's memory may be in error, because something had passed in conversation between himself and Captain Carnegie which the latter might have confounded with a conversation which he held with Mr. Churchward. It was evident from that very thing that Mr. Churchward was pressing his influence with everybody in office that he could apply to, to get the matter expedited. Well, I say that is a very serious matter. The whole case stood thus. Mr. Churchward's proposal was disapproved by the Post Office; it was disapproved by Mr. Stephenson, and by the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford himself. It was not until the 13th of April that the difficulties which my hon. Friend experienced were removed. We all know my hon. Friend, and I am bound to say, that if there were a case infinitely stronger against other people, one single word from my hon. Friend would convince me of the purity, sincerity, and honour of everything which he himself did. But does that determine the question before us, if we find the contractor and his friends set in motion indirect means, among persons of inferior importance, in order that at that critical time the contract might be extended? It is impossible to trace the ins and outs of this kind of influence. It is impossible to tell what wheels within wheels there might be. If in this case we were to acquit Mr. Churchward of endeavouring to mix up political with other considerations, merely because he was obliged to obtain the assent of some who could not be influenced by those considerations, it would be impossible in many instances to get over the obscure boundary line between that which is corrupt and that which is honest in public affairs. But there are principles of our law which should guide us here. We know, that when a corrupt agency is employed, no evidence whatever that the person on whose behalf it was employed derived no actual benefit from that agency will release him from the consequences. Mr. Churchward's position in this particular case was perfectly clear. He tells us he was able to command, and did command, fifty votes at Dover, not one of whom failed him in the result; and, according to Captain Carnegie, he said, "They want to throw over the contract until after the elections. I want to vote for you and Mr. Osborne." That would be entirely neutralizing the vote; and that statement, coming from a gentleman of such loose politics, that he himself tells us he always votes for the Government—a gentleman who, himself, says he has one eye to his own interests and another to the interests of Dover—is quite sufficient to fix him with corruption. Well, Sir, we say now we will not hold ourselves bound by a contract obtained under those circumstances. The House has always exercised a most wise jealousy as to the mixture of Government contracts with Parliamentary influence. We know that any person who accepts a Government contract is ipso facto disqualified from sitting in this House while he holds it, because the constitution is jealous lest the political influence which belongs to a Member of Parliament may be employed to obtain the contract, or to affect the interests or the obligations of the contractor under it. But where is the difference between such a man and a Government contractor seeking an extension of the contract, when there is no pretence of urgency as to time, when four years of his contract are yet to run, taking advantage of the pressure of a general election, in a political crisis on which the fate of the Administration depends, in order to effect the immediate settlement of his claim; and doing all he can, whether successfully or not, to enlist the influence of those Members of the Government who are at once watching over the contract and over the elections? It is for the Committee now to determine whether they continue of the same mind as before or not. But this, at least, I do say, that the Government have done their duty in pursuing the only course which it was open to them to pursue—in, bringing the matter under the consideration of the House, in a form and manner consistent with, and necessarily resulting from, the former decision of the House itself.

COLONEL DICKSON

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had favoured the Committee with a dissertation on "loose politics," but such a dissertation could not possibly come with a worse grace from any one than from the Solicitor General himself. The question was, whether this contract was entered into by the late Government from corrupt motives. No proof of these corrupt motives had been attempted to be given. Two matters were involved in the Resolution—one, the character of the gentleman who entered into this contract; the other, the character of the Government by which it had been granted. He trusted that the Committee would not be guilty of such a breach of faith with a public servant who had faithfully performed the duty intrusted to him as the passing of the Resolution would involve.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Resolution."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 176; Noes 168: Majority 8.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

AYES.
Adeane, H. J.	Ellice, E. (St. Ands.)
Agar-Ellis, hn. L. G. F.	Enfield, Viscount
Angerstein, W.	Ennis, J.
Antrobus, A.	Esmonde, J.
Atherton, Sir W.	Evans, T. W.
Aytoun, R. S.	Ewart, W.
Bagwell, J.	Ewing, H. E. Crum-
Baines, E.	Fermoy, Lord
Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.	Finlay, A. S.
Baring, T. G.	Fitzroy, Lord F. J.
Barnes, T.	Fitzwilliam, hon. C. W. W.
Bass, M. T.
Baxter, W. E.	Forster, C.
Beamish, F. B,	Forster, W. E.
Beaumont, S. A.	Foster, W. O.
Bellew, R. M.	Fortescue, hon. F. D.
Berkeley, Col. F. W. F.	Fortescue, C. S.
Black, A.	Gavin, Major
Blencowe, J. G.	Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Bonham-Carter, J.	Gilpin, C.
Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.	Gladstone, rt. hon. W.
Bouverie, hon. P. P.	Goldsmid, Sir F. H.
Bowyer, Sir G.	Gower, G. W. G. L.
Bright, J.	Greene, J.
Briscoe, J. I.	Gregson, S.
Bruce, Lord E.	Grenfell, H. R.
Bruce, H. A.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Buchanan, W.	Gurdon, B.
Buxton, C.	Hadfield, G.
Caird, J.	Hanbury, R.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E.	Handley, J.
Cavendish, Lord G.	Hardcastle, J. A.
Cholmeley, Sir M. J.	Hartington, Marq. of
Clay, J.	Hayter, rt. hon. Sir W. G.
Clifford, C.C.
Clifton, Sir R. J.	Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.
Cobbett, J. M.	Herbert, rt. hon. H. A.
Cobden, R.	Hibbert, J. T.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Hodgkinson, G,
Coningham, W.	Hodgson, K. D.
Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.	Holland, E.
Crawford, R. W.	Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Crossley, Sir F.	Hutt, rt. hon. W.
Dalglish, R.	Ingham, R.
Davey, R.	King, hon. P. J. L.
Denman, hon. G.	Kingscote, Colonel
Dering, Sir E. C.	Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Dillwyn, L. L.	Knatchbull-Hugessen, E.
Dodson, J. G.
Douglas, Sir C.	Layard, A. H.
Doulton, F.	Lanigan, J.
Dundas, F.	Legh, Major C.
Dunlop, A. M.	Locke, J.

Lowe, rt. hon. R.	Ramsden, Sir J. W.
Mackie, J.	Ricardo, O.
Mackinnon, W. A.(Lymington)	Robartes, T. J. A.
	Russell, H.
Mainwaring, T.	Russell, A.
Marjoribanks, D. C.	Russell, Sir W.
Marsh, M. H.	Scott, Sir W.
Martin, P. W.	Seely, C.
Martin, J.	Shelley, Sir J. V.
Merry, J.	Smith, J. B.
Mildmay, H, F.	Smith, M. T.
Miller, W.	Smith, Augustus
Mills, J. R.	Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W. M.
Moffatt, G.
Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.	Stacpoole, W.
Monsell, rt. hon. W.	Stansfeld, J.
Morris, D.	Sykes, Colonel W. H.
Morrison, W.	Talbot, C. R. M.
Norris, J. T.	Thompson, H. S.
North, F.	Thornhill, W. P.
O'Conor Don, The	Tite, W.
Ogilvy, Sir J.	Tomline, G.
Onslow, G.	Turner, J. A.
Paget, C.	Vane, Lord H.
Paget, Lord A.	Vernon, H. F.
Paget, Lord C.	Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Palmer, Sir R.	Vivian, H. H.
Palmerston, Viscount	Walter, J.
Pease, H.	Watkins, Colonel L.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.	Western, S.
Peel, rt. hon. F.	Westhead, J. P. Brown-
Pigott, Serjeant	White, J.
Pilkington, J.	White, L.
Pinney, Colonel	Williams, W.
Ponsonby, hon. A.	Wyvill, M.
Potter, E.
Price, R. G.	TELLERS.
Pritchard, J.	Mr. Brand
Pugh, D.	Sir W. Dunbar
Puller, C. W. G.

NOES.
Adderley, rt. hon. C. B.	Cochrane, A.D. R. W. B.
Addington, hon. W. W.	Codrington, Sir W.
Annesley, hon. Col. H.	Cole, hon. H.
Archdall, Captain M.	Cole, hon. J. L.
Astell, J. H.	Collins, T.
Bailey, C.	Corry, rt. hon. H. L.
Barbour, J. D.	Cox, W.
Barrow, W. H.	Cubitt, G.
Barttelot, Colonel	Damer, S. D.
Bathurst, A. A.	Dickson, Colonel
Beecroft, G. S.	Disraeli, rt. hon. B.
Bentinck, G. C.	Du Cane, C.
Beresford, D. W. P.	Duncombe, hon. W. E.
Bernard, hon. Col.	Edwards, Colonel
Blackburn, P.	Elmley, Viscount
Bond, J. W. M'G.	Elphinstone, Sir J. D.
Bovill, W.	Fane, Colonel J. W.
Bramley-Moore, J.	Farquhar, Sir M.
Bridges, Sir B. W.	Fellowes, E.
Brooks, R.	Fergusson, Sir J.
Bruce, Major C.	Ferrand, W.
Bruce, Sir H. H.	Filmer, Sir E.
Bruen, H.	FitzGerald, W. R. S.
Burghley, Lord	Forde, Colonel
Cairns, Sir H. M'C.	Forester, rt. hon. Gen.
Cave, S.	Gard, R. S.
Cecil, Lord R.	George, J.
Chapman, J.	Gilpin, Colonel
Clive, Capt. hon. G. W.	Goddard, A. L.
Cobbold, J. C.	Gore, J. R. O.

Graham, Lord W.	Noel, hon. G. J.
Greaves, E.	North, Colonel
Greenall, G.	Northcote, Sir S. H.
Gray, Captain	O'Neill, E.
Grey de Wilton, Visct.	Pakenham, Colonel
Grogan, Sir E.	Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Papillon, P. O.
Hamilton, Major	Parker, Major W.
Hamilton, Viscount	Peto, Sir S. M.
Hardy, G.	Pevensey, Viscount
Hardy, J.	Potts, G.
Hay, Sir J. C. D.	Powell, F. S.
Hennessy, J. P.	Powell, J. J.
Howes, E.	Redmond, J. E.
Hubbard, J. G.	Repton, G.W. J.
Humberston, P. S.	Ridley, Sir M. W.
Hunt, G. W.	Rowley, hon. R. T.
Jermyn, Earl	Sclater-Booth, G.
Jervis, Captain	Scott, Lord H.
Jolliffe, rt. hon. Sir W. G. H.	Selwyn, C. J.
	Seymer, H. K.
Jolliffe, H. H.	Sheridan, H. B.
Kekewich, S. T.	Smith, M.
Kelly, Sir F.	Smith, S. G.
Kennard, R. W.	Somes, J.
Ker, D. S.	Stanhope, J. B.
Kerrison, Sir E. C.	Stanhope, Lord
Knatchbull, W. F.	Stanley, Lord
Knight, F. W.	Setwart, Sir M. R. S.
Knox, Colonel	Stuart, Lieut. Col. W.
Lacon, Sir E.	Sturt, H. G.
Laird, J.	Sturt, Lt.-Col. N.
Langton, W. G.	Sullivan, M.
Leader, N. P.	Talbot, hon. W. C.
Legh, W. J.	Tempest, Lord A. V.
Lennox, Lord G. G.	Thynne, Lord E.
Lennox, Lord H. G.	Thynne, Lord H.
Lennox, C. S. B. H. K.	Torrens, R.
Lever, J. O.	Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.
Liddell, hon. H. G.	Trevor, Lord A. E. H.
Lindsay, hon. Gen.	Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.
Longfield, R.	Turner, C.
Lovaine, Lord	Vance, J.
Lyall, G.	Vandeleur, Colonel
Lygon, hon. F.	Vansittart, W.
Lytton, rt. hon. Sir E. G. E.L. B.	Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
	Whiteside, rt. hon. J.
Maguire, J. F,	Woodd, B. T.
Malcolm, J. W.	Wyld, J.
Malins, R.	Wyndham, hon. P.
Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.	Wynn, Sir W. W.
Mills, A.	Wynne, C. G.
Montagu, Lord R.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Morgan, hon. Major
Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.	TELLERS.
	Colonel Taylor
Naas, Lord	Mr. Whitmore
Nicol, W.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he wished to inquire when the Resolution would be reported?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it had better be reported on the following day.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he considered it important to raise the general question on the merits, according to the usual practice of the House. A new mode of taking Votes had been introduced, a Resolution having been agreed to on a subject which was not a matter of Supply, and the Committee would do well to consider whether an opportunity should not be given of determining the real merits of the question. Nothing could be more simple. The House ought to have an opportunity of considering the new contract which had been substituted for the old one; but at that moment the new one was not even before them.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he had mentioned the subject, not with a view to try the merits of the question again, though he did not hold himself precluded from that course, but merely with reference to the expediency of discussing the mode in which the Vote had been brought before the Committee. The House had before them an important question, upon which there would probably be a lengthened discussion, and it would be most inopportune at the close of such a discussion to call upon the House to inquire into the propriety of retaining certain constitutional forms of great importance.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the difficulty was that the service had to be provided for. It was true that an important question would come before the House on the following day, and probably it would not be in the power of the House to discuss the Report of the Resolution until a very late hour. With reference to the state of the service, he did not think the Government would be justified in naming any later day than Thursday in the following week.

House resumed.

Resolution to be reported on Thursday 28th May.

Committee to sit again on Thursday 28th May.