Chapter II: Part 2

1154. Would not any breach of contract come immediately to the knowledge of the Admiralty, through the report of the Admiralty agent?--Certainly.

1155. Therefore the absence of any such report is direct proof that the contract has not been broken, provided the Admiralty agent does his duty?--Certainly.

_Complaints made to the Admiralty against the Company._

1974. At your last examination you carried down a statement of any complaints, or in the absence of any complaints, to a certain date, with respect to the performance of the contracts of which we were then inquiring, of the vessels of the Oriental Company; have you furnished yourself since with any further particulars upon that subject?--This is a _précis_ of the correspondence respecting complaints of the manner in which the contract mail service in the Indian and China Seas has been performed.

1975. At what date does that _précis_ commence?--The 23rd of August, 1846.

1976. Does that _précis_ come down to the present time?--It does.

1977. Who is responsible for that being a correct statement of what has taken place?--Mr. Worth, the head of the packet department.

1978. Have you sufficiently examined that _précis_ to be able to give to the Committee a statement of the number of complaints which are contained in it?--I should say there were three or four complaints; I have read it through.

1979. Were any of those complaints on examination found to be just?--I think the last complaint is at present undergoing investigation.

1980. What is the date of the last complaint?--October, 1848.

1981. Will you state the general grounds of the complaints; were the complaints of the state of accommodation and the conduct of the officers on board, or of the time that the vessels occupied upon the voyage, whether beyond the limited time or not?--The first complaint states that “Lady Mary Wood” was much out of repair.

1982. What is the date of that?--The 23rd of August, 1846.

1983. From whom is that complaint?--Captain Ellice, the superintendent of the packet service at Southampton.

1984. He is a Government officer?--Yes; the complaint was that in consequence she exceeded the contract time by nineteen hours.

1985. By nineteen hours on the whole voyage, or between England and Suez?--The statement is, that in her last voyage from Hong Kong to Ceylon she exceeded the contract time by nineteen hours.

1986. How is it that the Government agent at Southampton makes a report of the state of a vessel in the Indian Seas; did he transmit a complaint from somebody else?--He transmitted a letter from the Admiralty agent on board.

1987. What was the result of that complaint?--“The contractor was acquainted that the Board of Admiralty had been informed that the ‘Lady Mary Wood’ was getting exceedingly out of repair, and requested to be informed when a vessel, such as is required by the contract, will be substituted for her. The contractors stated in reply that the information furnished to the Admiralty was exaggerated; this vessel had no defects but what could be made good on her return to Hong Kong, defects mostly caused by the severity of the passage from that port to Point de Galle; and they inclosed a copy of the carpenter’s report, and extract of the commander’s letter. They further stated, that (as the Admiralty is, no doubt, aware) in consequence of the recent demand in engineering and shipwright work, the builders have not possibly been able to fulfil their contracts in point of time; and the result is, that of six steam ships of 450-horse power building for them, not one is yet completed, though contracted to be delivered within the last year. They fully expect to be able to despatch one of those vessels in substitution of the ‘Lady Mary Wood,’ in November next, and a second of the same class and power about three months after, in substitution of the ‘Braganza.’”

1988. What is the date of that letter?--The 28th of August.

1989. What is the date of the complaint?--The 23rd of August.

1990. What is the date of the complaint transmitted?--That does not appear from the _précis_. The Admiralty agent employed on the voyage from Hong Kong to Ceylon writes this complaint, which reaches Captain Ellice about the 23rd August, 1846.

1991. What would be the ordinary length of communication between Ceylon and Southampton?--That is arranged by the contract; as I have had very little to do with the contracts in the Indian Seas, I am not prepared to say.

1992. Is it not about five months?[6]--Yes.

1993. Taking it at five months preceding this date of the complaint, they say that another vessel will be ready by November of the same year?--Yes.

1994. What was the result of the complaint as to the want of punctuality in the time?--The contractors were acquainted, on the 23rd of August, with this complaint, and what I have read is their explanation.

1995. The explanation which you have read is with reference to the non-repair of the vessel, it is not with reference to the time at all. Is there any letter from the Admiralty, either admitting the excuse to be satisfactory or otherwise?--The Admiralty seem to have admitted the excuse, for they minute the letter, acknowledging the receipt of it.

1996. Did the Admiralty officer on board the ship report anything respecting the improper state of the ship before leaving Hong Kong?--He stated that the “Lady Mary Wood” was much out of repair in her last voyage from Hong Kong to Ceylon.

1997. It was after his arrival in Ceylon that he made that report?--Yes.

1998. But he does not appear to have made any statement of that sort previous to the commencement of the voyage from Hong Kong?--There is nothing in the _précis_ to show that he did.

1999. What is the next complaint?--“On the 28th of September of the same year, Captain Ellice sent a copy of a letter from the Admiralty agent on board the ‘Lady Mary Wood,’ reporting that vessel having grounded on a bank of sand or mud off the town of Penang, and reporting the deficiency of night-signals on board her; and he states that the vessel was got off on the following day, in a fit state to proceed with the mails, and, it was supposed, would proceed with the mails to China.”

2000. What is the next complaint?--The next complaint is transmitted by Captain Ellice, who sends a report of the survey on the “Braganza,” held at Hong Kong; he sent this on the 21st of June, 1847.

2001. What is the result of the survey?--“A copy was sent to the contractors, and the contractors stated, in reply, that they had transmitted orders, some time ago, to their agent at Bombay, to have this vessel docked on the first opportunity, and had reason to believe that this had been done. They also stated that their new steamships ‘Pekin,’ of 1,200 tons and 430-horse power, and ‘Pottinger,’ of 1,400 tons and 450-horse power, are now stationed on the line between Point de Galle and China, in performance of the mail contract service.”

2002. What is the next complaint?--“On the 2nd of October, Captain Ellice transmitted an extract of a letter from the Admiralty agent on board the ‘Pekin,’ reporting the unfitness of that vessel for the mail service.” This forms a part of Lieutenant Waghorn’s complaint, and is already before the Committee.

2003. What was the result of that; was the complaint decided to be well-founded or not?--I think not.

2004. Was Lieutenant Waghorn a passenger on board that vessel?--I put in his letter on the last occasion.

2005. Will you proceed to the next complaint?--“On the 2nd of June, 1848, the Postmaster-general transmitted an extract of a letter from the post-office agent at Suez, stating that the ‘Haddington’ was detained at that port, waiting for the arrival of cargo, until one o’clock A.M. on the 11th ultimo, although the mails were put on board at ten minutes past five o’clock on the previous morning; and, further, that some of the packages forming the cargo were of an unnecessarily cumbersome size.”

2006. What was the result of that?--The contractors were called upon to state whether they can account for this delay; and in reply they state that they are not aware of this delay, but will call upon the agent at Suez for explanation; that the mails being transmitted by land from Alexandria to Suez, there is seldom any variation in the time of their transit, whilst the passengers and baggage, at the period of low Nile (May and June), are frequently retarded in getting the steamers round the bends of the river; and they apprehend that the Admiralty must have been misinformed as to the size of the packages, the weight of which are, by their regulation, limited to under 100 lbs., four of such packages forming a camel load for the desert passage.

2007. Is there any thing further upon that complaint, because the Company seem to doubt the fact?--Nothing further appears upon the subject of the complaint.

2008. Is there any subsequent report from the Company?--No subsequent report from the Company appears to have been received.

2009. Is there any subsequent complaint?--“On the 3rd of October, 1848, another complaint is made: The Indian and Australian Mail Steam Packet Company complain that the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company do not employ steam vessels of the size required by the contract, between Suez and Calcutta, and between Ceylon and Hong Kong, and offer to do the service at less expense.”

2010. What is the result of that?--“They were acquainted that they had omitted to state in what particulars they considered the contract with this Company is now infringed, that the Admiralty were not aware that any requirements of that contract are not now observed, excepting that the ‘Haddington,’ temporarily employed in the place of another vessel, is 442-horse power instead of 500-horse power.”

2011. Have you any other complaint?--There is no other complaint, but there is another communication from the Indian and Australian Steam Packet Company. They “enter into further explanation and remarks, and hope the contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Companies may be forthwith dissolved.” That is marked as “read.”

2012. With reference to the complaint to which your attention was called the last time you were examined, from Admiral Collier, what is the result of that?--I have here a paper endorsed, “Complaint of irregularities in the performance of the East India and China contract, in the case of the ‘Achilles.’”

2013. Is that the complaint referred to by Admiral Collier?--It is.

2014. Was there a letter or memorial of the merchants of Hong Kong transmitted by Admiral Collier to the Admiralty?--There was.

2015. What was the subject of that memorial or letter?--The merchants represented to Sir Francis Collier the serious inconvenience which they, “and, in particular, the Canton community, have suffered, and continue to suffer, by the frequent late arrival of the steamers conveying her Majesty’s mails. The delay seems to have arisen from the steamers being generally unable to keep the time contracted for by the Admiralty, for the performance of the several distances, as will be seen, we believe, by the reports sent home by the Admiralty agents, appointed to the several steamers. The time slowed is very ample, rendering it seldom necessary to exceed a speed of eight miles per hour; and had the steamers been the superior class of vessels contracted for by the Admiralty, and ‘keeping pace with the advanced state of science,’ no difficulty in performing the passages within the specified time ought ever to be experienced. An improvement has lately taken place in the class of boats, by the arrival of other steamers; but the system adopted, and particularly, of late, of overloading them, and to such an extent as to render it necessary to carry a large quantity of coal on deck, tends to perpetrate the evil, and to create even greater detention than before, while it greatly endangers the lives of her Majesty’s subjects, and the safety of her Majesty’s mails. It is our opinion, that on several occasions it may solely be attributed to unforeseen and fortunate circumstances that the steamers have been enabled to reach their destination. Considering the large sum given by her Majesty’s Government for the purpose of carrying the mails, and also that thereby the Peninsular and Oriental Company are enabled to have a monopoly of the traffic on this side of Egypt, we think the mercantile community have reason to expect that, at all events, the contract shall be faithfully adhered to, and that the steamers shall not be allowed to carry beyond a certain and safe amount of cargo;” and they request Sir Francis Collier to call the attention of the Lords of the Admiralty to the subject.

2016. Was that transmitted by Admiral Collier?--It was transmitted to the Admiralty by Admiral Collier.

2017. What was Sir Francis Collier’s remark or observation when he transmitted that memorial?--Sir Francis Collier’s letter does not appear to be in this correspondence, but I presume it can be produced.

2018. What was done in consequence of the transmission of that memorial?--“A letter appears to have been written on the 11th of April, 1849, by the Secretary of the Admiralty to the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, enclosing a copy of the memorial which had been received from Sir Francis Collier, and the Company were acquainted that the Board of Admiralty trusted that they had already taken steps to prevent the recurrence of the delays complained of.”

2019. Will you read any previous letter on the same subject which was laid before the Admiralty by the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company?--“Admiralty, 6th March, 1849.” (This is from the Secretary of the Admiralty to the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company.) “Gentlemen, it having been represented to my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty that the contract steam packet, ‘Achilles,’ was delayed in her voyage from Point de Galle to Hong Kong, in November last, she having sailed from the former place on the 29th of that month, and not arriving at Hong Kong until the 23rd of December; thus being 175 hours beyond the time allowed by the contract; I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to call your attention to the circumstance, and to acquaint you that it appears that the place intended for coals on board the ‘Achilles’ was occupied by opium chests, and the coals placed on deck, and the vessel overloaded; and that my Lords are informed that her arrival at Hong Kong, 175 hours after she was due, was owing to the excess of cargo, and to the negligent and lazy manner in which the vessel was coaled at Singapore.”

2020. What was the result of that letter?--The secretary of the Company answered it on the 10th of March, 1849--“I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, dated 6th instant, calling the attention of the Directors of the Company to a representation which has been made to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, that the Company’s contract steamer, ‘Achilles,’ was considerably delayed upon her voyage from Point de Galle to Hong Kong, in November last, and that such delay was owing to the excess of cargo, and to negligence in the coaling at Singapore. In reply, I am instructed to express the great regret with which the Directors have received this communication, and to acquaint you, for the information of their Lordships, that a rumour having already reached them that some representations of the kind had been addressed to their Lordships, the Directors, by the mail of the 24th of February, wrote to the Company’s superintendent at Bombay, calling upon him for full and immediate explanation of the circumstances. Until the receipt of his report it will be impossible for the Directors to say how far the allegations in question are well founded; but, in the meantime, they are anxious to state that their standing instructions to all the agents and officers of the Company are, that the punctual performance of the mail service is to be ever regarded by them as paramount to every other consideration, and that any departure from that principle will be visited by the Directors with the utmost severity. The Directors take this opportunity of acquainting you, for the information of their Lordships, that having found by experience that no commercial house, however high its respectability, can represent the Company so efficiently at foreign stations as an officer of their own, they, by the last steamer, despatched Captain Sparkes, lately the Company’s superintendent at Southampton, to relieve the firm at present acting as the Company’s agents at Singapore, in the superintendence of the Company’s affairs at that port, and they feel every confidence that he will actively and zealously discharge his duties at that station. The Directors also think it right to state, that from such information as they are at present in possession of, they have reason to consider that the representation which has been made to their Lordships is exaggerated, both as regards the extent of the delay of the ‘Achilles,’ and the alleged causes thereof.”

2021. This letter is of the date of the 10th of March, 1849; what is the date of the memorial of the merchants of Canton?--The 29th of December, 1848.

2022. Was there any corresponding complaint or representation from the Admiralty officer on board the vessel to the Lords of the Admiralty?--I cannot state.

2023. Was not the first letter which you read in consequence of the official representations made to the Admiralty, through their officer, as to the delay of the “Achilles,” previous to the reception of the memorial from Hong Kong?--I have no doubt it was.

2024. The Company say, in the letter of the 10th of March, that they can give no answer to the complaint made of misfeasance in the contract between Ceylon and China, til they shall receive a report from their agent at Bombay?--They state that they wrote to their superintendent at Bombay, calling upon him for an immediate explanation of the circumstances.

2025. Do you know that the service is now performed from Ceylon to China by a vessel that starts from Bombay, and picks up the mail there?--I believe it is so.

2026. What was the result of those communications; did the Admiralty come to any decision upon them?--On the 12th of March, the Admiralty acquainted the Company that they “were gratified to learn that they had despatched an officer of their own to act as superintendent at Singapore, and who may be able to prevent the recurrence of the delay complained of.”

2027. Nothing was done by the Admiralty but to express their satisfaction that the Company had sent out an agent to Singapore, as an answer to that complaint of the Company overloading their vessels, and being out of time?--The Admiralty subsequently sent forward the letter I have read from the merchants, stating, “that their Lordships trust you have already taken steps to prevent the recurrence of the delays complained of.” The Admiralty appear to have done nothing more; the matter is still in the course of investigation; it is not yet closed; the explanation has not yet been received from the Company.[7]

2028. Have you any other complaints?--No.

_Charge of corrupt Jobbing, and Favouritism by the Admiralty towards the Peninsular and Oriental Company._

Examination of Mr. Andrew Henderson--

2138. Am I to understand that you make two complaints: first, that there was no opportunity for tendering; and, secondly, that the price was too high?--Yes.

2139. Were you during the period, from the beginning, in 1844, to the time at which the contract was finally signed, in constant communication with the Admiralty?--I used to go to the Contract Packet Office, which was the only place I could go to; I could get no answer to my letter.

2140. Did it come before the Board?--It appears not; Mr. Sidney Herbert told me that he had never heard of it.

2141. On the 8th of August Mr. Sidney Herbert told you it was open to you to send in any contract that you wished?--Yes.

2142. Did you send in a contract, offering to do the service with efficient vessels for £60,000?--No; I gave this proof that it could be done; but I made no tender for it, because I had no vessel for it.

2143. Your opinion was, that £60,000 was an adequate price, and that the public in general, and you in particular, ought to have an opportunity of making a tender; did you tender to do the service at that price?--In reply to that question I may state, that early in December the representative of the “Precursor,” Sir George Larpent, and myself, waited upon the President of the Board of Control, and asked him to take care that our interests should be considered, and we received an assurance that they should be considered; and in the scheme for the mails it is particularly stated that those two vessels were ready, and it was suggested that they should take alternately the mails with the other two vessels.

2144. I ask you whether you did or did not offer to do the service for £60,000?--I can hardly say whether you can call it an offer, but I submitted a scheme by which it was shown that it could be done for £60,000; contracts were not advertised for, and therefore we were not in a position to send in contracts.

2145. You placed in the hands of Mr. Crofton Croker a lithographic statement, from which you considered the inference might be drawn that £60,000 would be sufficient for that service?--Yes.

2146. Was that statement anonymous, or was it guaranteed by any name?--It was guaranteed by my own name; and the same thing was stated in the plan submitted to Government; and that plan has, every bit of it, been carried out since.

2147. My only object is to come to an accurate understanding of the facts; I understand your grievance to be, that the more expensive tender, from the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company, was accepted by the Admiralty, when a cheaper contract might have been had from other parties, and that, in your judgment, £60,000 a year would have been ample for that service; is that so?--My complaint is, that the proposal of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company to undertake the Bombay mails was not accepted, but that they were allowed to adopt all my plans, and I was refused all participation in it. It could not be called a contract, it was not the time for a contract; contracts were never asked for; but there was clear evidence given that, if we were allowed to take it, it could be done for £60,000.

2148. You complain that an unfair advantage was allowed to be taken of you, by the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company?--Certainly; I complain that they were allowed to take advantage of my plans and to adopt them, and that I was not allowed to compete for the contract.

2149. In your plan, you said it could be done for £60,000?--Yes.

2150. Your general plan has been adopted by the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company?--Yes; my plan was distinctly opposed to theirs. Their plan was this: the vessels which were bound to go every month to Bengal, they purposed that those vessels should go to Bombay, and that once in every two months those vessels should go to Calcutta. That was, in point of fact, reducing the present communication, from a separate mail to Bombay and Calcutta, to one mail to Bombay.

2151. Your complaint was, that you were excluded from the opportunity of competing for the contract?--Yes; and that my plans were adopted.

2152. You have put it on record, that on the 6th of August the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated to you, that he had given no authority for the conclusion of the contract?--Yes, he said that he had nothing to do with it.

2153. On the 8th of August, two days afterwards, you have put it on record that the Secretary to the Admiralty told you that it was quite open to you to send in any tender you pleased?--Yes.

2154. And it was therefore open to the public in general, and to you in particular, to put in a tender thereupon?--I sent in a distinct tender for the China mail.

2155. But we were speaking of the service for which you say £60,000 was ample; viz. the Suez and Calcutta service. Confining yourself at present to that, you were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 6th of August, that the contract was not concluded, and you were told by the Secretary of the Admiralty, on the 8th of August, that it was open to you, in particular, to send in any tender for the conveyance of the mail from Suez to Calcutta?--I was engaged in the other one at the time.

2156. Then is there any grievance at all as regards your being deprived of the mail from Suez to Calcutta?--Certainly, a very great grievance.

2157. Be as good as to explain what that grievance is?--The grievance is, that the “India” and the “Precursor” were not allowed to participate in the advantage.

2158. Then, whether the sum paid for the service was £60,000 or £170,000, your grievance is, that the “India” and the “Precursor” did not come in for a share of it?--That is one point; but, on public grounds, I maintain that the sum given was a great deal too large, and that that sum was not given to merchants and shipowners in India, but to a London company.

2159. To whomever it was given, £60,000 would have been the sum for which shipowners would have been ready to do the service?--Yes.

2160. You had a knowledge of the fact, at the time the tender was open to you, that it could be done for £60,000?--I had not money enough to do it.

2161. Were you not in communication with all the principal shipowners who signed the petition?--Yes.

2162. Did you get up the petition which was presented on the 8th of August?--I did.

2163. Are those parties whose names were signed to it parties who had capital to compete for a good contract, if it was to be had?--Certainly.

2164. Did they, or any of them, send in a tender to the Board of Admiralty to do this service for £60,000?--No; they stated their belief that it was of no use to send in a tender, as it would not be attended to; that the contract would be sure to be given to the Peninsular and Oriental Company, whatever they chose to ask.

2165. Did you tell Mr. Green, and all the other parties who signed the petition, that Mr. Sidney Herbert had told you that it was open to you to send in a tender?--My impression is that it was known to them, but Mr. Green said, “No, let them alone; they are too strong for us.”

2166. Then it was known to Mr. Green, and all the other parties who petitioned, that they had an opportunity to make a tender?--The expression they used was, that it was taken out of their hands, and that it was of no use their doing it; but I do not know that I saw Mr. Green after that time.

2167. Do you mean to represent that the principal shipowners having information that the Secretary of the Admiralty had stated that the contract was open, were nevertheless of opinion, that if they offered to do the service for £60,000, the Board of Admiralty would still give the contract to a party who required a much larger sum?--I hardly know how to answer that question. I cannot say that I saw Mr. Green after the petition, but his impression was that it was of no use to compete with that powerful Company.

2168. Do you mean to represent to the Committee your opinion that while the Board of Admiralty told you that you might compete if you pleased, they had in point of fact made up their minds to give the contract to the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company at a much higher price?--That was our firm belief, that they had made up their minds to give it to them. This I know as a fact, that when the matter was handed over from the East India Company, and the East India Company had nothing to do with it, the Peninsular and Oriental Company asked £170,000, and they had it all their own way; but the East India Company said that they would not pay more than a certain amount annually; they were to pay a certain proportion, but they said, “We will do nothing of the kind; you may do as you like: we will have nothing to do with it beyond paying a certain amount.”

2169. Did it occur to you that if so scandalous a spirit of jobbing as you describe had actuated the Board of Admiralty, you might have put them completely in the wrong by offering a contract from parties competent to perform the service for £60,000, which you laid down as the proper sum?--I can answer the question in this way: it is all very well to say, “Why did you not send in a contract?” but it is a contract that required a large capital and great arrangements. It is impossible to make all those great arrangements in two days; the Peninsular Company, by obtaining under false pretences £20,000 for the Calcutta mail, had put all other parties out; and if you say, “Will you make a contract in a couple of days now for £60,000?” it is impossible; it requires a large fleet and great capital. Mr. Green has a large fleet, but they are employed in other parts; and his expression was, “It is of no use competing with the Peninsular Company, for they are too powerful for us; their influence is so great.”

2170. You mean to represent that all the shipowners in London acquiesced in the opinion that public money to a large amount was going to be given from favouritism to the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company; but that it was of no use, on account of the secret influence which the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company had got at the Admiralty, to contend with them?--That was my own individual belief, and the petitioners, I think, agreed in that.

2171. Did you lend a large share in the drawing up of this petition?--I did.

2172. Is it your composition?--I do not know that it is.

2173. In the petition you object not to one contract in particular, but to the system of contracts altogether?--We object not to the whole system of contracts, but to the system under which it has been carried on; in the first place, there are put into the contracts conditions which are never acted upon; that I consider extremely wrong; it keeps all honest men away.

2174. The stringent conditions put into the contracts keep all honest men away?--That is going too far; I mean to say that you are asked to agree to very strict conditions, which a man cannot honestly say, “I agree to.” If the condition says that if I am half an hour behind time I shall forfeit £500, a man naturally asks himself, “Shall I enter into the contract? for if those clauses are inserted, I am a ruined man, and therefore I cannot guarantee that.”

2175. If you and your friends had tendered this service for £60,000, you would have required more reasonable conditions?--I should have no objection to being bound to all reasonable conditions. The late contract for the mail to the Brazils is as it ought to be; there is no kind of trap of so many hours; the condition is simply this, the ships are to be efficient vessels.

2176. No honest man, in your opinion, would have undertaken such a contract as that which the Peninsular and Oriental Company undertook, for £60,000?--What I mean is this, that no honest man would undertake a thing which he was not competent to perform; for instance, he would not undertake that the passage shall be a certain number of hours; and putting in those strict conditions would prevent an honest man from taking part in it.

2177. I understood you to say, that no honest man would undertake, and therefore I presume you would not have recommended anybody to undertake, so strict a condition as that of which we are speaking?--I am afraid you are putting a wrong construction upon what I said; I say, no honest man would undertake a condition which he could not honestly say he could perform. If I bound myself to go in a certain number of hours between certain points, an honest man would say, if that was a great speed, “I cannot bind myself to accomplish that.”

2178. That would prevent an honest man from complying with the conditions imposed upon the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company?--That is putting it in the other way; I am certain that I would have taken the contract, because I know that Government would not exact the penalty.

2179. You would have taken it, though an honest man would not have taken it?--I am afraid you are misinterpreting me; you use the words “honest man” in a different sense from that in which I use them. I mean to say that an honest man could not honestly undertake to do a thing which was almost impracticable; but, as I know the Government would not have exacted the penalty, I would have taken the contract if I had had an opportunity; but I had no opportunity.

2180. You would have taken the contract?--Yes, anybody would take the contract for £170,000 a year; nobody would have refused it.

2181. You were under the impression that the Peninsular and Oriental Company were so strong that nobody could compete with them?--Yes, and that is the impression now.

2182. That was your impression at the time you lent your aid to the drawing up of that petition?--Yes, it was.

2183. It was the impression, you believe, of the parties who signed the petition?--Yes.

2184. Is that, in point of fact, one of the allegations of the petition?--I do not know.

2185. Are not the allegations of the petition totally of a different effect; are they not against contracts in general?--Certainly not against contracts in general; they are against contracts being given without fair competition; they are not against contracts generally, for contracts must be had somehow, but they should be fair and open.

2186. The prayer of the petition is “that public money granted for the purposes of steam navigation shall be applied, not for the exclusive advantage of any companies or individuals, but so that all engaged in shipping may fairly participate therein, or equally compete; therefore affording to your petitioners the opportunity of showing to your Honourable House the truth (if doubted) as to facts and principles of all the statements of this their humble petition.” If you were under the impression that the Admiralty were actuated by so corrupt a spirit that it was not of any use for solvent parties to send in tenders, will you explain to the Committee why it was that you left that out, as one of the allegations of the petition which you drew up at the time?--I do not understand the question.

2187. Your grievance was, that you were shut out from fair competition by a corrupt predetermination at the Admiralty to exclude you, and to give the contract, at all hazards, to the other Company?--In answer to that, I state the fact that I was not allowed to compete with them in any way.

2188. You have told me that you did not send in a tender to the Admiralty, and that you prepared a petition which you presented to Parliament; that petition contains no allegation of such a corrupt predetermination on the part of the Admiralty; having, therefore, such a feeling in your mind at the time, you neither put it to the test by sending in a tender to the Admiralty, nor did you venture to state that in the petition to the House of Commons?--The petition will speak for itself; it is there.

2189. There is no such allegation in the petition. What information has come to your knowledge, since you petitioned Parliament, which justifies you now in making such an improbable statement here, viz., that there was that corrupt predetermination at the Board of Admiralty?--I did not use the word “corrupt.”

2190. Have you learnt anything since you presented the petition, which justifies you in making a charge now, which you would not have been equally justified in making then: it appears that the petition presented on the 8th August, 1844, contains no such charge of favouritism against the Board of Admiralty; what information have you received since that time, which you think justifies you in making the charge now?--I think it is self*-evident that there most have been favouritism, or the public would have been admitted, and also from the way in which the contract has been carried out. The Peninsular Company have several times broken their contract, and no penalties have been exacted. There was one distinct case of favouritism, which was this: one of the reasons assigned to me why the China contract was given to them was, that the Peninsular and Oriental Company had offered to do it with vessels of 400-horse power for £45,000 a year; apparently at the same price as our tender. but ours was to be reduced the third year, and theirs was to continue at the same rate; but their condition was, that they were to find vessels, from the 1st July, 1846, of 400-horse power, and they failed to do so; and in consequence of their not providing those vessels, the vessels were overworked, and the mails were delayed; but yet the penalty has not been exacted, and that arises from favouritism.

2191. Is your impression that it is one part of the duty of the Admiralty to take care that the parties tendering are in the possession of efficient vessels, and are men of sufficient property and respectability to afford a security that the contract will be performed?--My opinion is, that a contract of that kind is a matter which ought not to be left to the Admiralty; it is a matter more concerning the Board of Trade than the Admiralty; and it is all a mistake for one department of the Board of Admiralty to have the management of it.

2192. Be so good as to inform me whether you think the Government, in making a contract, are bound to foresee, as far as may be possible, whether the parties will really be able to fulfil it. You have stated that the Peninsular and Oriental Company have repeatedly broken or not performed their contract. Do the Committee understand you to mean that it is one part of the duty of Government to take precautions beforehand, that the parties who make a contract shall be capable to perform the contract?--It is their duty, but I believe in that instance they neglected it.

2193. Do you think that if they had selected the owners of the steamer “India,” they would have selected people more competent to perform the contract?--To perform the China line; and I may state as the reason, that we gave them a distinct account of the number of ships at work there; the expense of the ships, and also a description of the seas; and the very letter which I wrote to them, as to the necessity of having a peculiar kind of vessel for the China seas, has turned out perfectly true; and the protest, of which we heard at the last meeting of the Committee, was in consequence of that. The letter sent in to the Admiralty stated that the Calcutta Company were in a better position to do that local service than the Peninsular and Oriental Company, who have so many interests to look after.

2194. The reason you did not compete with the Peninsular and Oriental Company between Suez and Calcutta, was the impression that you had that there was a determination at the Board of Admiralty to favour them. Did you make any attempt to compete with them between Ceylon and Hong Kong?--As to Suez and Calcutta contract, it is like asking a man who has his hands tied behind his back, to swim; as to Ceylon and Hong Kong contract, the answer is plain enough on record, that we sent a tender and got no answer.

2195. Am I right in understanding you to say, that you abstained from competing with regard to the service between Suez and Calcutta, because you thought the Peninsular and Oriental Company too strong for you?--That was one reason expressed by many persons; but if you ask my reason for not competing, it was this: when I proposed to tender, the “Precursor” party were in possession of the “Precursor,” but in the interim the Peninsular and Oriental Company very advantageously obtained possession of the “Precursor,” and we had no large vessels, and it was of no use tendering without them.

2196. The reasons for not tendering for the contract between Suez and Calcutta were two-fold; first, because there was favouritism at the Admiralty, and secondly, you had not the means of making the tender?--If the tenders were reasonable, I ought to have had the means, because we ought to have been allowed to build vessels; when they had bought the “Precursor,” we were not in so good a position as we had been in before.

2197. If it was an object with the Government to make the contract immediately, you would not be in a condition to make a tender?--There was no necessity for a new contract; there was no necessity for any change then, but it was got up by the Peninsular and Oriental Company, by political agitation.

2198. I understand you to say, that if there was to be a contract immediately, you were not in a condition to tender for it, as far as regards Suez and Calcutta?--I was in a position to tender for it, if reasonable tenders had been allowed.

2199. By reasonable tenders you mean that the Government, instead of taking for the service ships that were then ready to do it, should have waited eighteen months, in order that you might be put in the same position?--There was no necessity to wait, as the ships were bound to carry the mails, whether there was a new contract or not.

2200. Your opinion is, that there was no necessity for a new contract?--No, not for five years.

2201. In your opinion there ought to have been no contract at all?--Not for the Bengal and Suez line, for five years.

2202. What ships were bound to carry the mails?--The three ships which were bound to do the service were bound to maintain a monthly communication.

2203. By what engagement?--By an engagement with the East India Company they were bound to make a monthly communication for £20,000 a year.

2204. Was there any such arrangement with the East India Company?--Yes. I had ascertained that there was that arrangement by correspondence, which is the usual way with great companies.

2205. Did you ever read the correspondence which passed?--No; I know that certain deputations went; when I came home from India, I found among the papers of the East Indian Steam Company a document proving the terms upon which they were to undertake it.

2206. Was it not an offer of the East India Company to give £20,000 a year upon certain conditions?--Certainly not; there was no offer of the East India Company.

2207. Your impression of the correspondence that you saw was, that it was a distinct engagement on the part of the East India Company to give that sum, and a distinct engagement on the part of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company, at all hazards, to perform the service?--Yes; but I should go farther than that, in explanation.

2208. Your impression is, that it was an engagement binding upon both parties; that the East India Company were bound to pay that sum, and that the other parties were bound to perform the service, whether they liked it or not?--My answer to that is, that this £20,000 a year originated in an amalgamation, or at least a pretended amalgamation, between the East Indian Steam Company and the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company, in 1841. But inasmuch as on 14th October, 1839, the East India Company had replied to the East Indian Steam Company in London, and again in Calcutta, on the 27th of May, 1840, to the inhabitants of Calcutta generally, “that to any well-devised measures, by which the established means of communication might be extended, the Court would be ready to afford due encouragement; but in the present state of circumstances they are unwilling now to enter into any arrangement affecting the measures in progress regarding the communication between Suez and Bombay;” that letter and publication was considered as an engagement on the part of the East India Company to support the extension of a line between Calcutta and Suez. The consequence of that was, that the “Precursor” built for, and the “India” was employed upon that line, under the supposition that they would, when they had adopted this measure, be remunerated. A junction was proposed between the small section of the London shareholders of the East Indian Steam Company and the Peninsular and Oriental Company; and what I say is, that they communicated, either by deputation or by letter, with the East India Company, and proposed that they should give them a grant of £20,000 a year, holding forth that the three parties were to be united. This was a long time in abeyance, but some time in July, as it appears to me, the proposal of the Peninsular and Oriental Company was accepted by the East India Company; but at the time it was accepted, it was accepted upon the recorded opinion that the interests of the “India” and the “Precursor” party were likely to be amalgamated with those of the Peninsular and Oriental Company who had made the offer, and that upon certain terms which are there stated; they were granted the 20,000 a year provided they made four voyages the first year, six voyages the second year, and maintained a monthly communication the third, fourth, and fifth year, with vessels of 500-horse power, between Calcutta and Suez.

2209. Am I to understand you to state that the proposal or contract to which you referred the other day, that the steamers should be 500-horse power, originated with the East India Company?--No, it originated with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company.

2210. Then that excluded the “India?”--Yes; the conditions are already in evidence, in answer to question 1819.

2211. What was the date of that condition which required vessels of 1,600 tons and 500-horse power?--It was a proposal made originally by the Peninsular and Oriental Company, early in the year. I believe it was accepted about the middle of July, 1841; but I was not in this country at the time.

2212. From that time to the present, the “India” was excluded from the benefit of the arrangement?--She was excluded in this way----

2213. Was she of the requisite horse power?--I was going to state how it was proved that she was not.

2214. That arrangement was made in the year 1841?--Yes; the arrangement was made by the Court of Directors in July 1841.

2215. Then the “India” was from that time excluded from the benefit of the arrangement?--Under the clause requiring 500-horse power, the “India” was excluded; but the Peninsular and Oriental Company proposed to purchase her, and after a good deal of squabbling they offered us £23,000----

2216. We do not want to go into that matter; but I understood you to say that by the original conditions imposed by the East India Company, in 1841, the steamer “India” was excluded from the benefit of the arrangement?--She was excluded, but the Peninsular and Oriental Company asked them to accept her.

2217. In your former examination, in answer to question 1835, you stated, “The 500-horse power was put in purposely to exclude all but the Peninsular Company’s vessels.” Will you state upon what grounds you attribute to the Admiralty, in 1844, a condition which appears to have been in force against you, by the orders of the East India Company, as early as 1841?--I had intended to commence the examination by referring to my statement with respect to that very case. It is so put here that I really cannot understand it myself, and I must request to be allowed to make the explanation of horse power; if you will allow me to make the explanation of what I mean by horse power, I shall be able to make my answers intelligible.

2218. Are you a person of experience in nautical matters?--I profess to know all that a man who has devoted his life to the subject can know of the building and working of ships.

2219. And not only sailing ships, but steam vessels?--Yes.

2220. Are there two meanings to the term “horse power!”--No; “horse power” has no meaning at all; if you will allow me to give an explanation I can state what it is.

2221. Before you give your explanation, allow me to ask this question, whether you mean to say that the term “horse power” has no meaning?--It has no meaning as to the capacity of ships for carrying the mails; that I assert.

2222. Then when the East India Company, in 1841, put in a clause that no vessel employed in carrying the mails should be less than 500-horse power, they put in a clause which had no meaning at all?--The East India Company never put in the clause at all; it was put in by the Peninsular and Oriental Company, with the very object of excluding us.

2223. Whoever put it in, it had no meaning?--No, it has not, to my knowledge.

2224. Then, having no meaning, it had no operation or effect?--It had the effect of excluding any other vessels but their own, so long as it was allowed to remain.

2225. How did it have that effect?--The Peninsular and Oriental Company having vessels of 500-horse power, which no others had got, they of course obtained the contract.

2226. You came here, on the previous day, charging the Admiralty with having, in 1844, made a certain condition for the purpose of excluding you, and you have now stated that that condition was in force under the arrangement made by the East India Company as early as 1841. Will you have the goodness to explain to the Committee how it is that you attribute that to the Admiralty in 1844, which appears to have originated with the East India Company in 1841?--I was mistaken if I said it originated with the East India Company; it originated with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company. The horse power of a vessel gives no means of knowing what the efficiency of the vessel is. There is a good deal of the evidence of the former day which is of no use, unless you allow me to explain what horse power is. Those answers, as they stand, I cannot understand myself.

2227. Do you mean to say, that unless you are to be allowed to show that the ordinary words “horse power,” when introduced into a contract, render that contract unintelligible, you cannot explain your case?--I never said that. May I be allowed to state what I do mean; it takes a little time and a little trouble to explain the meaning of “horse power.” The putting in the “horse power” had no reference to the efficiency of the steam vessels.

2228. Whatever the horse power meant in 1841, it meant in 1844?--Yes; but you are mistaken in supposing that I attribute it to the East India Company putting in that condition; I attributed it to the Peninsular and Oriental Company.

2229. We have here a contract made in 1844, by the Admiralty on one side, and the Peninsular and Oriental Company on the other; and you charge the Admiralty with having introduced a certain condition for the purpose of excluding you, and of favouring the Peninsular and Oriental Company?--No; I said that the Peninsular and Oriental Company introduced the condition as to the 400-horse power.

2230. How did they introduce it?--Because they proposed it.

2231. Do you find fault with a competitor for having proposed vessels of a higher horse power than yourself?--I do; because they did it to keep all other Companies out.

2232. What would you have had the Admiralty do?--I would have had the Admiralty go and ascertain what the vessels were, and not go upon the nominal horse power.

2233. You complain of the Admiralty going upon the individual horse power?---I do; it is a wrong system.

2234. Why do you complain of the Admiralty having done that in 1844, which we find was part of the existing arrangement between the East India Company and the Peninsular and Oriental Company in 1841?--The question of horse power began with the Peninsular and Oriental Company in 1840.