The Sun.
London, England, 1865-11-23 00:00:00

comments of ours, we shall endeavour to place be-
fore our readers as succinctly as possible the circum-
stances under which the intervention of the Court
of Queen's Bench has been sought, and the points
which have been raised for the decision of that tri-
bunal. In the month of April, 1859, the Commis-
sioners of the Admiralty, on the part of her Ma-
jesty's Government, entered into a contract with a
gentleman named Churchward, for the conveyance
of the mails between Dover and the ports of Calais
and Ostend. To the terms of that contract we will
afterwards more particularly refer, but, for the
present, it will suffice to say that Mr. Churchward
agreed to provide suitable steamers for the carriage
of the mails, and the Government contracted to
pay him an annual subsidy of £lB,OOO for his
services. It was further provided that the contract
should continue in force for 11 years—namely, until
1870. From the date of the contract until the year
1863, it would seem that the agreement was faith-
fully carried out by both the parties to it, and it is
not suggested that any breach was committed either
by Mr. Churchward or her Majesty's Government.
In the June of that year, however, the House of
Commons passed a resolution to the effect that no
further moneys should be paid to Mr. Churchward
for the performance of his services, and the Govern-
ment thereupon entrusted the carriage of the mails
between Dover and the continent to other persons.
The grounds on which the House of Commons
passed this resolution are not on the record in the
Queen's Bench, but those who remember the debate,
which took place upon the vote will recollect that
the reason assigned was that the contract between
Mr. Churchward and the Government had been
obtained by unworthy if not corrupt means, and
was such that public policy demanded its repudia-
tion. Mr. Churchward received from the Govern-
ment payment for his services up to the date (June
20, 1863) on which the Admiralty ceased to em-
ploy him, and he now, by Petition of Right, sues
the Crown for damages sustained by him in
consequence of the rescision of the contract by
her Majesty's Ministers. He does not sue for
the subsidy to which he was entitled if be had con-
tinued to perform the contract, but as he estimates
his damges at £1.26,000, which would have been the
total of his receipts from the Government during the
seven years which the contract had still to run
when it was rescinded, the claim he advances is
practically the same as if he demanded the payment
of the subsidy until 1870. To this claim the Crown
has replied by alleging that the remuneration to be
given to Mr. Churchward for his services was by
the terms of the contract to be paid out of moneys
to be voted and appropriated by Parliament for
that purpose ; that no such moneys have been so
appropriated, and that consequently the petitioner
has no ground of action. To thisplea the petitioner
has demurred, or, in plain language, he asserts that
the non-appropriation of money by Parliament for
the contractor does not deprive the latter of his right
to sue the Crown for damages for the wrongful res-
cision of his contract. There is also a demurrer on
the part of the Crown as to whether the suit has
been brought by Petition of Right ; but into that
question it will not be necessary to enter. The
most material part of the agreement between
Mr. Churchward and the Government, and that
on the construction of which the decision of the
court will mainly turn, is that which refers to the
means by which the contractor is to obtain pay-
ment for his services. The as agreement sets forth
that the Commissioners of thea Admiralty will, in
consideration of the due performance by Mr. Church-
ward of the covenants entered into by him, pay to
him " a sum out of moneys to be provided by Par-
liament, after the rate of £lB,OOO per annum, by
quarterly payments," &3. Such being the terms of
the contract, the question presents itself for consi-
deration whether the condition of Parliament pro-
viding the necessary funds is to be regarded as pre-
cedent or subsequent—whether, in fact, the contract
ought to be read, " We will employ you if Parlia-
ment will provide the funds for payment," or, " We
will employ you and pay you out of funds to be pro-
vided by Parliament." In the former instance, it is
conceded on all hands that Mr. Churchward would
have no cause of action for the breach of contract ;
but in the latter, which is the construction for which
his counsel contend, it is urged that he is entitled
to sue the Crown for the loss he has sustained
by the repudiation of the contract. Even, how-
ever, admitting the latter construction to be the
proper one, it is contended for the Crown that
the claim advanced against the Executive for dam-
ages is one which, on grounds of public policy, can-
not be sustained. It is this latter point which pos-
sesses the greatest interest for the public at large-
Although the suite is instituted nominally against
the Queen, it is admitted that, if the plaintiff
should prove successful, the damages claimed
would be paid out of the public purse. The true
issue, therefore, which is raised is—whether the
Government of this country can bind Parliament
to pay subsidies extending over long terms of years
merely by concluding contracts to that effect. Now,
if there is any principle more clearly established than
another in the English Constitution, it is that the
House of Commons shall vote all supplies, and that
Parliament shall by a specific act, passed in each
session, direct the manner in which the moneys
voted by the House of Commons shall be appro-
wiated. This principle is not only clearly estab-
_ _

lished, but was fully recognised in the contract en-
tered into with Mr. Churchward, when it was stated
that the subsidy was to be paid out of moneys ap-
propriated by Parliament for that purpose. And g
it had not been so recognised, and any attempt had
been made by the Government to bind Parliament
to vote the necessary subsidy, the contract would
have been manifestly void. But whilst conceding
the right of Parliament to appropriate the public
money in whatever manner it pleases, it is neverthe-
less contended that the public may be compelled to
pay under another form, namely, as damages, the
sums of money which it would have paid as a sub-
sidy, if the Legislature had not. exercised its un-
doubted right of declaring that no such subsidy
should be paid. The principle involved in both cool
would seem, to ordinary minds, to be the same---
namely, that the control of the public money cannot
be taken by Government out of the hands of Par'
liament. It remains to he seen, however, whether
a different view will be taken by the Court of
Queen's Bench.