Provisional orders. Public contracts. resolve, that the system of private legislation calls for the attention of Parliament and of government, and requires reform.▾ W Meanwhile, on June 13, Mr. F. S. Powell proposed a series of resolutions on private Bill legislation, with a view to the limitation of the same; but after a brief discussion the debate was adjourned. It was resumed on July 4, again adjourned, and not resumed. On June 17 the president of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) stated that the question was still under the consideration of government, although his own responsibility was mainly limited to an endeavour to ascertain how far the system of provisional orders could be improved and extended. On June 17, 1873, the president of the Board of Trade stated that the various departments were steadily increasing the number of provisional orders issued by them; and the Board of Trade might reasonably extend the system by enabling local authorities to obtain such orders for the erection of gas and water works, instead of their being compelled to proceed by Bill. But he had failed to discover any other method by which government could extend the system. In 1874, Mr. Dodson was asked whether he intended to reintroduce his above-mentioned resolutions of 1872. He replied that he preferred to leave the matter in the hands of the government. Meanwhile, in 1872, Mr. Theodore Martin, a parliamentary agent, published a pamphlet, in which he expressed his conviction, shared in, he believed, in the main by all his professional brethren, that the existing system of private Bill legislation is satisfactory to the suitors in Parliament, and that the reforms therein proposed by Mr. Dodson were objectionable. Contracts entered into by Public Departments. An important question--akin in principle to that which has been just considered-has arisen of late years with regard to contracts, to be entered into between any department of the executive government and other parties, for the performance of any work or service, the undertaking of which has been, or may afterwards be, authorised by Parliament. It is manifest that the responsibility of entering into such contracts properly rests upon the executive alone. But it is equally clear 210, pp. 507-529. ▾ Hans. D. v. × Ib. v. 217, p. 498. Ib. v. 218, p. 339. a contracts. that the government have no constitutional authority to Public make a contract which shall be binding on the House of Commons, by whom the necessary funds for carrying on the contract must be supplied; and that the consent of Parliament should be first obtained to all new contracts. 'It would not be wise to lay down the general and inflexible rule with regard to all our public departments, that it should be absolutely necessary before a contract for any service is entered into that a vote of Parliament should be taken for that particular sum.' Where the service is continuous, well defined, and involves no novelty, either in principle or action, it is customary to permit contracts to be entered into on the discretion of responsible departments before a vote is taken." On June 28, 1869, an amendment was proposed, in Committee of Supply, to reduce a vote for works on the Houses of Parliament by £2,500, with a view to censure the Office of Works for undertaking a new kind of decoration (with mosaics) in the Central Hall, because it had been contracted for previously to its being sanctioned by a parliamentary vote. After a short discussion, the amendment was negatived. But on July 8, on the report of the resolutions, an amendment was again moved, to reduce the vote by £5,500 in order to prevent certain structural alterations of the Central Hall, as well as to condemn the decoration thereof with mosaic work. Another amendment was then offered by the commissioner of works (Mr. Layard) to reduce the vote by £3,000 only, as a guarantee that the proposed structural alterations in the Central Hall should not be undertaken until approved by Parliament. With regard to the mosaic work, for which contracts had already been made, he admitted that he had acted prematurely, and threw himself upon the indulgence of the House. His amendment was then agreed to.d On July 26 the matter was again brought forward, by a motion for the appointment of a select committee to enquire into the circumstances under which a contract had been made by the Office of Works with a private company for the decoration of the Central Hall of the Westminster Palace; but upon satisfactory explanations being afforded by Mr. Layard the motion was withdrawn.e Furthermore, that if any contract be entered into by See Smith's Parl. Rememb. 1860, p. 75. Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in the Churchward case, 1865, cited post, p. 772. Mr. Gladstone, Hans. D. v. 197, p. 1439. © Hans. D. v. 197, p. 683. } d7b. pp. 1429-1445. • Ib. v. 198, pp. 708-720; v. 201, p. 394. It was afterwards determined by the Board of Works to abandon the mosaic decorations, Ib. v. 203, p. 916. contracts. Public any executive department for work to be performed, the cost of which will exceed the amount already voted by Parliament for the service to be contracted for, such contract should expressly state that payments on behalf of the same would be made out of moneys to be voted by Parliament;' and that application should be made to Parliament for a further appropriation to cover such increase of expenditure. This would afford an opportunity to the House of Commons to express its disapproval of the matter, if it should think fit to do so." Standing order con The principle of the control of Parliament, and especially of the House of Commons, over contracts, was first established, in the years 1859 and 1860, by a committee of the House of Commons appointed to enquire into certain transactions arising out of existing contracts for postal and telegraphic services. The proceedings of this committee, and of the House upon its reports, will come under review, in another part of this work (p. 767, &c.), in connection with the privileges of Parliament in matters of Supply. It will suffice here to state the conclusions arrived at, as the result of this enquiry, for the purpose of ensuring that due notice shall be given to Parliament of any contracts to be hereafter entered into by government, which may involve prospective expenditure to an amount beyond that which has been actually voted by Parliament for any specified service. By a standing order, adopted by the House of cerning Commons on March 4, 1861, it is provided that the contracts. chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means shall make a report to the House previously to the second reading of any private Bill, by which it is intended to authorise, confirm, or alter any contract with any department of the government, whereby a public charge has been or may be created; and such report, together f Hans. D. v. 217, p. 1100. with a copy of the contract, and of any resolution to be proposed in relation thereto, shall be circulated with. the votes two clear days at least before the day on which the resolution is to be considered in a committee of the whole House, which consideration shall not take place until after the time of private business; nor shall the report of any such resolution be considered until three clear days at least after the resolution shall have been agreed to by the Committee.' Moreover, in all new contracts for the conveyance Mail and telegraph of mails by sea, or for the purpose of telegraphic com- contracts. munications beyond sea, it has been resolved by the House of Commons that a condition shall be inserted that they shall not be binding until they have been approved of by a resolution of the House.h It is understood that all contracts should come before the House in such a state as that the House should be free to express its opinion thereupon, without incurring any pecuniary responsibility to the contractors. But it is undesirable to fetter the government, or the House, by the adoption of an abstract resolution in regard to the terms upon which all postal subsidies shall be granted hereafter.' In the years 1863 and 1867 special resolutions were passed by the House of Commons, approving of contracts which had been laid upon the table,-before the expiration of the month. But this was done under peculiar and exceptional circumstances. As a general rule, it has been agreed that the House should not be asked to share in the responsibility of the details of mail contracts,' and that it is far better that they should come into legal force on the sole responsibility of the executive, after an opportunity of rejecting them (by their Com. Jour. 1861, p. 89. S. O. China, and Australia mails, Hans. D. H. of Com. 1862, No. 78. v. 189, pp. 658-702, 1561. hCom. Jour. July 13, 1869. See debates on a proposed contract for the conveyance of the India, ♪ Hans. D. v. 190, pp. 2010–2020. *Com. Jour. 1863, pp. 389, 404. Hans. D. v. 190, p. 450. Contracts. remaining for one month upon the table) had been afforded to the House, than that the House should be called upon to affirm them by a positive vote.'1 In the event of any such contract being disapproved of, it is of course necessary that a substantive resolution should be proposed in relation thereto. Thus, on March 20, 1863, a resolution was moved to declare that the House was not prepared to grant a sum of money to the Galway Packet Company, whose contract had expired, but was proposed to be renewed. The motion was negatived, on division. On July 21, on the motion of the secretary to the Treasury, it was resolved (without debate) that the new contract with this company be approved. On March 12, 1869, on motion of a private member, the contracts entered into by the postmaster-general with Messrs. Cunard & Co. and Mr. Inman, for the conveyance of mails to the United States, were referred to a select committee, ministers consenting thereto. The committee reported in April, and on June 1 resolutions to enforce a more stringent rule in the submission of contracts to the judgment of the House were moved, but after long debate were withdrawn; the government having announced their intention to amend the present rule by substituting a plan whereby the judgment of the House should be distinctly taken upon every contract that might be hereafter laid upon the table." [This pledge was carried out by an amendment of the rule, which was agreed to, and made a standing order, on July 13, 1869.0] Another resolution, in regard to negotiations with the United States Government for a reduced rate of postage, which was proposed at the same time, being amended at the suggestion of ministers, was agreed to.P Though confined, in the letter, to a particular class of contracts, the above-mentioned resolution,―requiring that Parliament shall be notified of the intention of the government to enter into contracts which involve prospective expenditure, not limited to the service of the current financial year,-embodies a principle which is susceptible of general application. In the proceedings The chanc. of the ex. (Mr. See also May, Parl. Prac. ed. 1883, p. 655. For the Canadian law, requiring all postal service contracts to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, see 29 Vict. c. 5. ▸ Hans. D. v. 196, p. 1159. |