The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-25 00:00:00

part of persons in obtaining a contract that the house besi-

bated as to whether it should or should not be carried into ef-

ect, the mere question of the providence or improvidence of
the contract itself being scarcely ever brought under the con-

sideration of Parliament with any practical result. Now,.the
object with which the committee to which he had already re-
ferred had been appointed was to provide a remedy for that

state of things, and two suggestions had been made on the
subject, the one being that before any contract was entered
into a vote for the proposed service should be laid before the

house, and, that vote having been agreed to, the Govern-
ment should then Le at liberty to conclude the contract. To
that suggestion, however, arose the objections, that its adop-
tion would lead to two distinct discussions, and that by fix-

ing by anticipation the sum to be voted for the performance

of the contemplated service the advantage of that com-
petition by which the real market price of the work to be
done might be ascertained would be lost. The committee
had under those circumstances arrived at the conclusion

;hat the best course to adopt was to place on the shoulders

of the Government the full responsibility of making a con-
tract, accompanied by the condition that the terms of that

should forthwith, if Parliament happened to be sitting, be

Laid on the table of the house. The result of acting on that

recommendation, he might add, would be, that an efficient
control over the expenditure of the public money in those
cases would be established, for no Government would be
disposed to incur the unpopularity to which the immediate

exposure consequent upon the conclusion of a careless or
improvident contract must, under these circumstances, ine-

vitably lead. In dealing with the subject he did not wish to

allude to any special contract, but he might nevertheless
be permitted to glance for a moment at the case of the Cu-
nard contract in support of the views he entertained. That
contract, which was, he believed, carried out in the most
admirable and successful manner, had been renewed in
1858, so that instead of expiring in 1862, as it would have
done if it had been allowed to run its regular course, it
would not come to an end untillB67. Now, without enter-

ing into the question-as to the expediency of renewing the
contract four years before its term would have run out, he
should contend that there were important circumstances
overlooked in the matter, which of the contracts had in the
way which he proposed been laid en the table of the house
must have been taken into consideration. There was, for
,instance, the correspondence with Canada with reference
to the postal question, in the course of which correspondence
the Government of Canada represented to our own that an
injury was being done to them by the operation of the con-
tract, the consequence being that an understanding was
arrived at that matters should remain on the footing on
which they stood at the time, until the Cunard con-
tract had expired, the Government of Canada look-
ing upon that as a pledge that their complaints
should be considered before the contract was re-
newed. Then, again, when the question of the Galway
contract was first started, it was a matter well worthy of
deliberation whether, in the event of its being concluded, a
part of the mails transmitted by the Cunard line might not
be transferred for conveyance by the Galway line at the
expiration of the contract of the former in 1862, and a por-
tion of the expense of the Galway service be thus met. The
possibility of effecting such an arrangement had, however,
become completely out of the question when the Cunard
contract had been renewed. In the case of the Red Sea
and Indian telegraph the agreement had been confirmed by
a private bill ; but the agreement itself was not recited
either in the bill or in the schedule, and was not added till
it reached the House of Lords ; yet this was a contract in-
volving a charge of 41 per cent on a capital of £600,000
for a period of 50 years. The Acts of Parliament passed
in the case of the Atlantic Telegraph Company contained
clauses enabling the Government to enter into agreements
unfettered by any limitation Whatever ; and, being private
bills, these unusual powers passed without attracting the
attention of the house. The propositions recommended by
the committee, which were embodied in the resolutions
that he had now the honour to submit to the house, were
calculated to secure greater care and providence in taking
these large contracts, which ought not to be left to the dis-
cretion of tho Executive Government without that control
which the constitution required that Parliament should
exercise. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member concluded by
moving the following resolution :—" That in all contracts
extending over a period of years, and creating a public
charge, actual or prospective, entered into by the Govern-
mpnt for the conveyance of mails by sea, or for the pur-
pose of telegraphic communication beyond sea, there shall
be inserted the condition that the contract shall not be
binding until it has lain upon the table of the House of
Commons for one month without disapproval, unless, pre-
vious to the lapse of that period, it has been approved by
a resolution of the house. That every such contract when
executed shall forthwith, if Parliament be then sitting, or,
if Parliament be not then sitting, within fourteen days
after it assembles, be laid upon the table of the house,
accompanied by a minute of the Lords of, the Treasury set-
ting forth the grounds on which they have proceeded in au-
thorising it. That in cases where any such contract requires
to be confirmed by act of Parliament the bill for that pur-
pose shall not be introduced and dealt with as a private hill;
and that power tothe Government to enter into agreements
by which obligation at the public charge shall be under-
taken shall not be given in any private act."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would not
detain the house more than a few moments, after the clear
and dispassionate statement of his hon. friend. But it was
his agreeable duty to render, on the part of her Majesty's
Government, their warm acknowledgment to the committee
in general, and in particular to his hon. friend—(cheers)--
who during their important and laborious sittings had ful••
filled the difficult and critical duties of chairman in a manner
worthy df his high character. (Hear, hear.) The question
if the packet and telegraphic contracts was one in which
circumstances rendered it eminently desirable that the
House of Commons by an organ of its own should give par-
ticular attention to the system on which these contracts
were concluded. It was not necessary to refer to any par-
ticular case, nor was he speaking the sentiments exclusively
of either side of the house when he declared that an excess
of power had been exercised by the Executive Government,
which was felt on all hands to require limitation. The com-
mittee In dealing with the inquiry had shown very great
judgment and discretion, and the resolutions proposed were
well calculated to prevent a repetition of former errors on
the part of any Government, at the same time that they
avoided a difficulty quite as serious and involving perhaps
an equal amount of danger—namely, that which would be
caused by the interference of the House of Commons in
duties for which they were not qualified. Looking at the
resolutions with a critical eye, as the house was bound to
do in laying down rules for its future guidance, he thought
the committee had well steered their course between op-
posing dangers. By the word " contracts" in the first re-
solution they could not have meant to confine themselves
to the popular acceptation of the term, but must have in-
tended to include all such renewals, modifications, and
alterations of conditions as substantially amounted to a
new contract—(hear)--and it was well that this point should
be clearly understood by the public. The resolution de-
claring that the sanction of Parliament should not be
given to contracts by a private act he regarded as a wise one.
The house had, doubtless, in its recollection the case of the
Red Sea contract, which passed the House of Commons
without attention being drawn to the fact that it em-
powered the Government largely to pledge the public
credit .to undertakings by private parties. The bill weft
read a third time in the House of Lords, and it was not till
it came down again to the Commons that the right hon.
baronet the member for Carlisle called attention to its very
extensive provisions. The general opinion, however, was
that the matter had then proceeded too far, and that it
would then be an undue exercise of discretion to alter the
terms of the agreement, although there was no doubt that
had the house been aware of the circumstances when they
originally entertained the contract they would have taken
time to consider the subject. The fact that it was only by
the accident of an amendment having been introduced in
the Lords that the measure came to be narrowly examined
showed how unsatisfactory and insufficient a private bill
was fer the purpose, and how desirable it was that such
regulations as were laid down in those resolutions should
be adopted. Inasmuch as the case to be dealt with was
only a contract preliminary to a vote of money, and the
making of such a contract was a matter entirely belonging
to the Executive Government, his hon. friend and the
committee had exercised a very wise discretion in seeking
to limit the functions of the house to checking any abuse on
thi Tart of the Government, and not to directing by a posi-
tive reeeNtion that any particular contract should be
entered into. These resolutions were, he thought, well
adapted for their pe2Tose, and he again thanked his hon.
friend and the committee for the valuable results of their
labours. •
Mr. iiOEBUCK was anxious ill:St the resolutions should
not be adopted by the house without one word of warning.
It seemed to him that the resolutions mixed up two dis-
tinct offices belonging to two distinct authorities,., The
Government had an administrative power, for the due exer •
vise of which it was responsible ; but the moment the House
of Commons was called upon broadly and distinctly to give
its sanction to an act of the Government a great portion of
the responsibility of the Executive was taken away.
iSued-
pose a contract were entered into by the GoVerntnesievuati
atnhe
laid upon the table for a month. After that interval
house would have approved the contract. It might,
fotue
be said that the house was not asked to give direct indeed,a
sP
i fw
not
ouafter say,
ld
Executive
practicallyp ap-
proval; o v al ; but
gthen, t
sby
approvalkeepin g. backTh The house
disapprovaluseseTo.th:te,d,
Y
wards turn round on the Executive and."
ay
entered into an improvident contrac
might answer, " Youthheavteatbalkeeinorfrao-mmounstoh, urarnedspyoonusibnielivteyr.
The contract lay on
found fault with it. All we have to do is to make the con-
tract and submit it to you; wheenratloeufor ite" given
it
your
approval we are no longer (Hear, hear.)
Nothing that had beensaiadnisn_wthat debate had caused him
annoyance or displeasure. He only wished humbly to
point out to the house the danger of the course they were
about to take. They might depend on it, if.they mixed up
two distinct classes of duties, one of which belonged to the
Administration and the other to the House of Co'amons,
they would relieve the Executive of its responsibility, and
thereby introduce serious mischief. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. C. LEWIS did not think the circumstance of one
of those contracts having been laid on the table would
deprive the Executive Government of their motives for
caution. In a vast number of cases it would be impossible to
submit the contracts made by the Executive to Parliament.