1152. Would not the Admiralty agent on board those packets be
cognizant of any breach of contract which had occurred?--Certainly.
1153. Do not they make reports to the Admiralty through the officers
conducting the packet service at Southampton?--Certainly.
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._