Part 5

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.

2235. And I to understand from you, that in your opinion the Admiralty should have laid down no general condition about horse power, but should have inquired into the capabilities of each particular ship; is that your view?--Certainly, that is one view; But as you said, just now, I had stated that the Peninsular and Oriental Company had originated that condition about horse power; that is the hinge upon which all the mischief has turned; and I will now, if I may be allowed, explain how it occurred.

2236. The hinge upon which all the mischief has turned, has been that condition about horse power?--Yes.

2237. Whatever imputations you have made against the Admiralty of favouritism, have turned upon improperly requiring a compliance with that condition?--I do not say that; I say the two things are quite distinct; but if you will allow me to state how it did occur, I can explain it; I have a statement here to show how it originated, and another statement to show what “horse power” really means. I beg to state that the question of horse power originated in 1840, and it was the proposal of the Peninsular and Oriental Company; it originated with them, and not with the Admiralty or the East India Company.

2254. Do you impute corrupt conduct to the Admiralty, in reference to the ship “India?”--Certainly not; I think the Committee are labouring under a mistake in that respect.

2255. If, in any part of your former examination, you have been understood to impute either to the Board of Admiralty, or to any other Government department, any favouritism towards the Peninsular and Oriental Company, to the exclusion of their competitors, you have been misunderstood?--As far as the facts are on record, I could get no answer to my tender; I imputed certainly not a corrupt motive, but I said that all along I believed they were under a mistake, induced by this nominal “horse power.”

2256. In answer to question 2216, you stated that in 1841 the steamer “India” was excluded, by the conditions imposed by the East India Company, but that the Peninsular and Oriental Company wished them to accept her?--Yes, that is so.

2257. It was, therefore, the East India Company, and not the Peninsular and Oriental Company, who insisted upon the higher amount of horse power?--The two things are quite distinct.

2258. Do you adhere to your answer to question 2216?--So far it is correct that she was excluded, but the Peninsular Company, after they had bought her, urged the East India Company to accept her, and said she was an efficient vessel; they had abused her before, but they then said she was efficient.

2259. Are you now speaking of 1841?--Yes.

2260. Whose property was the steamer “India” in the year 1841?--She was the property of the Comprehensive party, who sent her out; at the time this negotiation was going on she was in Calcutta; I do not know what particular month this alludes to.

2261. It does not signify where she was?--It occurred in this way: we will say it was in June; two months would alter the matter altogether; there was a negotiation; the Peninsular and Oriental Company told the representative of the “India” in this country, Mr. Mackillop, that they would amalgamate with him; but the moment they got the engagement signed, they abused the “India” as much as they could; but when they found they could get her for little or nothing, then they said they would take her for £23,000, and they said “We will take her if the East India Company will pay £20,000 for her hire.” And then they write to the East India Company, and they say, notwithstanding the condition about the 500-horse power, that she was an efficient vessel.

2262. That was the opinion of the Peninsular and Oriental Company?--Yes; after she was theirs.

2263. But at that time it was not the opinion of the East India Company, and they refused it?--Yes. If you will allow me to explain, I will show that there is a wide difference between the mail contract and the engagement made with the Peninsular Company.

2264. In your opinion the Admiralty, making the mail contract on behalf of the public, were bound to accept a vessel that was not good enough for the East India Company?--I never said so; but perhaps you will allow me to put in an explanation of the horse power; I have taken great pains in preparing it.

2265. This vessel, whatever be her merits, was rejected by the East India Company in 1841, though tendered by the Peninsular and Oriental Company at that time?--She was rejected in a different way----

2266. She was rejected, whatever the mode of rejection?--The mistake is this: you fancy me to have said that the nominal horse power was fixed by the East India Company or by the Government; now that is a mistake; neither the one nor the other fixed it.

2267. Can you answer the question whether the vessel was or was not rejected by the East India Company?--She was rejected because the Peninsular Company had proposed the condition with regard to 500-horse power.

2268. Was the steamer “India” tendered to the East India Company at the suit of the Peninsular and Oriental Company in the year 1841, and rejected by the East India Company?--I was not in this country at the time, but it must be in the records of the Company.

2269. Do you believe that your answer to question 2216 was a true answer?--Yes, it was a true answer.

2270. And your case now against the Admiralty is, that they rejected in 1844 the same ship which the East India Company had rejected in 1841?--I cannot see that they have any reference to each other.

2271. Do you complain of the steamer “India” being rejected by the Admiralty in 1844?--Yes.

2272. She having been rejected by the East India Company in 1841?--It was not for the same service, but for a very different service; but she was, in fact, employed upon the line.

2273. I understood you to complain, that in the year 1844, the Board of Admiralty laid down a certain condition with regard to the horse power of the vessels to be employed in conveying the mails between Suez and Calcutta, which condition excluded the steamer “India?”--Yes.

2274. I understood you also to say, that that very same condition as to the horse power had been previously laid down by the East India Company, and that in the year 1841 the steamer “India” was pressed upon the East India Company by the Peninsular and Oriental Company, who had expected to buy her as a good bargain; and that the East India Company, being so pressed, refused to accept her?--I can now explain it.

2275. Is all that true?--Partly so, but not in the way you put it.