§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, having regard to the Act 22 George 3, c. 45, commonly called "The Contractors' Act," and to a Correspondence in "The Times" newspaper of May 5 relative to Admiralty Contracts, by which it appears that a partner in a firm which includes a Member of Parliament may take a Contract in the way of the firm's regular business, but on his own account and in his own name, he is not of opinion that such a state of things, if legal, forms a strong argument for a re-consideration by the Government of the policy of that Act?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALSir, as regards the first part of the Question of the hon. Member, it seems to me that we should be unduly extending the operations of the Contractors' Act if we were to put so wide a construction upon it that no member of a firm in which a Member of Parliament was a partner could take a contract entirely in his own name without causing that Member of Parliament to vacate his seat. With respect to the second part of the Question, which is one of policy rather than law, that would have been more satisfactorily answered, by some Member of the Cabinet; but, speaking for myself, I must say that, although I doubt not the policy which dictated the Contractors' Act was sound at the time it was passed, I question whether it is necessary now, and I do not doubt that in many respects is is inconvenient.