HC Deb 30 March 1849 vol 104 cc61-8

On the Motion for receiving the report of the Committee of Supply, on a vote of 323,787l., for Navy excess,

MR. HUME

rose to move, pursuant to notice— That it appears by the report of the Board of Audit, that the Expenditure for Naval Services for the year 1847–48, per Act of 10 and 11 Victoria, c. 107, exceeded the grants (including appropriations in aid) voted by Parliament, to the amount of 323,787l: That the sum voted by Parliament for the formation of the Dock Yard Battalions, in the year 1847–48, was 20,000l., and the actual Expenditure amounted to 72,399l 19s. 3d., being in excess of the vote 52,399l. 19s. 3d., and forms part of the excess: That this House concurs in the opinion expressed by the Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury," That with regard to this large excess (for the Dock Yard Battalions) the Expenditure was entirely within the control of the Board of Admiralty; 'and, that the proper course would have been to have postponed the enrolment of men beyond the numbers provided for by Parliament:' That when a certain amount of Expenditure for a particular service has been determined upon by Parliament, it is the bounden duty of the department which has that Service under its charge and control, to take care that the Expenditure does not exceed the amount placed at its disposal for that purpose. He contended that it was most important that the terms of the Appropriation Act should be adhered to, which distinctly declared that the gross amount voted in any department should not be exceeded. The excess on one item—wages at home—had been mainly incurred by the dockyard battalion, and amounted to upwards of 52,000l. A vote of only 20,000l. was asked for, and 72,000l. had been expended. If such proceedings were allowed, the check and control of that House over the expenditure was gone. When this fact was brought under the notice of the Lords of the Treasury, they expressed their disapprobation in such suitable language that he (Mr. Hume) made their remarks the terms of his Motion. That was all that could be done by any department. He did not desire by his Motion to cast the least reflection on the late First Lord of the Admiralty, for whom he had the greatest respect. All that he wished was that the House should concur in the opinion expressed by the Lords of the Treasury, and so strengthen the hands of the Government to prevent any such excess from occurring in future.

MR. WARD

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had on this occasion discharged a public duty with good feeling and good taste, for whilst he censured the system, he said all that was desirable to say respecting the noble Lord who was at the head of the Admiralty when this excess took place. In most of the observations of his hon. Friend he was disposed to incur. He admitted the justice of the rule he laid down, and that it could not be too strictly adhered to. He also admitted that it was a matter of regret the Board of Admiralty had not applied to Parliament before the expenditure so much exceeded the vote. But there was no intention of deceiving the House, because if they know the amount of men who would have enrolled themselves, they would have stated it to the House. A greater number had enrolled themselves than was expected. The dockyards offered the most vulnerable point of attack to an enemy. They were almost wholly defenceless, and it was not thought right that between forty and fifty ships in the harbours, in various stages of preparation, should be left wholly unprotected by land or by sea. A force was, therefore, organised for their protection. But it was said they ought to have postponed enrolling any men beyond the number voted. If they adopted that course, they would have a less efficient force, and a greater expenditure. The men had got two suits of uniform instead of only a fatigue dress, as was originally intimated, which would last them for seven years—that was to say five years from the present time. The expenditure was no doubt large for the first year, but it would not be so large again. They had now provided a corps of 9,000 efficient men at an annual cost of 18,000l. for the future. They had been inspected and approved of by Sir Harry Smith, and he believed that any person who saw them performing their evolutions would come to the same conclusion. The enrolled artificers in the dockyards of Copenhagen were found to be formidable competitors in the last war with Denmark. The dockyard battalions hero would, he had no doubt, be found equally efficient. That, he admitted, was no justification for having incurred this excess without the sanction of Parliament. But his hon. Friend might rest assured that, under the present administration of the Admiralty, such an excess was not likely to occur again.

SIR H. WILLOUGHBY

said, the question was important in point of principle, for it involved this—whether there existed in this country any effective control over the expenditure? And he had come to the conclusion that there did not, because it could be shown that this excess of expenditure took place in direct defiance of the vote of that House, and without the knowledge of the superior department of the Lords of the Treasury. He put it to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury, whether any circumstance was more likely to cast discredit on his administration than this case, which came out a year and a half after the occurrence, because it was a fact that the Treasury knew no more of that expenditure than he (Sir H. Willoughby) did? The Appropriation Act settled that if any department made application to the Treasury, and if there was a surplus of the money voted to be spent on any branch of the service, that then the Treasury had the power to appropriate that surplus to any given service. But in this particular case there was neither an application to the Treasury, nor was there a surplus, because all the surplus was gone. He was ready to admit, where a Government could not help itself in any case, such as of a sudden war arising, or when provisions were becoming dearer, that that might alter the case. That might form grounds for a justification of the increase of the expenditure; but in this case the department in London for a home service, without the slightest hesitation, exceeded the vote of that House by upwards of 323,000l., and actually did that without application to the Treasury, and when it was well known that there was no surplus. His argument was this, that what the Admiralty had done in this case might be done in any other department, and that the question was, therefore, most important in point of principle. He should cordially support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose.

SIR F. BARING

said, he believed that no important difference in point of principle prevailed between him and his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose on that matter. He was quite ready to admit that great care should be taken by the members of every public department not to exceed the estimates; and in saying that he was expressing, not only his own opinion, but the opinion also of his colleagues. The Lords of the Treasury had expressed their disapproval of the proceeding in question in language so perfectly satisfactory that his hon. Friend had actually taken their words as his text; and in the opinion they had expressed, he (Sir F. Baring) entirely concurred. The only question, therefore, then at issue was, whether the circumstance was one which called for a special vote of the House as proposed by his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had said that he did not mean to cast any censure upon any individual; and that was one reason why he (Sir F. Baring) thought it was not desirable that they should depart from their usual course and adopt that Motion. The expenditure in question had been incurred at a time when there had been considerable alarm for the public safety, and when it had been found desirable to render the defences of our coast more efficient. He was an advocate for the principle of his hon. friend, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not think he was opposed to it when he differed from him on this Motion. [Mr. HUME: Then agree to it.] I cannot do that, for this is the last day on which a money vote can be passed before Easter, so that I must press for the money. I hope, however, that it will not be understood from my vote that I am not as anxious to keep within the estimates as my hon. Friend.

SIR G. CLERK

said, he believed the House was unanimously of opinion that an excess of expenditure in any department over the amount voted by the House was a great irregularity. He had the fullest confidence in the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, he was not disposed to enter into the merits of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Hume's) resolutions. It certainly was extremely irregular that the expenditure of one great department should exceed the vote. He wished he could be equally confident that the vote they were about to pass would be the last occasion on which the House would be called on to make good a deficiency of last year. He was afraid it would be found that the expenditure of the current financial year, now approaching its close, would considerably exceed the estimates voted by Parliament. He believed that the deficiency arose from an error in the principle of calculating the wages of the men. Having, however, confidence in the financial management of the present First Lord of the Admiralty, he should not feel disposed to press the resolutions against the wish of Her Majesty's Government.

MR. WARD

said, he had distinctly stated the other night that there would be an excess in the Navy expenditure for the current year, as compared with the estimate, as there was a larger charge than had been anticipated in Vote No. 1 for the wages of men, and also in Vote No. 17 for the freight service of the Army and Ordnance, for which the Board of Admiralty were not responsible, as they had merely been the agents for other departments.

SIR W. MOLES WORTH

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose merely asked the House to disapprove of a certain system. He did not desire to inflict pain on any individual. This case was not an isolated case, because, for a series of years Parliament had been regularly and systematically misinformed with regard to the naval establishment of the country. The number of men borne was always greater than the number of men voted, and there was, therefore, an excess of expenditure in the two first items voted—wages and victuals. They were also misinformed with respect to the expense of works in progress. There were certain works in 1844–45 which they were told would cost 700,000l., but when they were completed they were found to cost 1,700,000l. If that House was to exercise any control over the expenditure, it was their duty to put on record a resolution like that now proposed by his hon. Friend.

MR. HERRIES

never remembered, during all his long acquaintance with the Parliamentary career of the hon. Member for Montrose, to have heard him so complimentary or forbearing. He could not see, however, that the circumstances of the case altogether warranted so much forbearance. There were two points to be kept in view, as it appeared to him, in looking at this question. There was, besides the excess itself, which perhaps was somewhat inevitable, the fact that no timely notice of that excess had been given to the superior department. The Admiralty ought to have reported in due time to the Lords of the Treasury, and have received their approbation or disapprobation of their proceedings. He had on many occasions maintained that doctrine, and experience only served to convince him that no department ought to incur expenditure not sanctioned by Parliament without reference to the department which had the control of the public purse. In this respect the Admiralty bad signally failed, for it had incurred an expenditure considerably beyond that anticipated in the estimates. There might have been sufficient reasons for it; but none had been given, to his mind, such as to justify the Admiralty in not having recourse to that department which might have sanctioned it on its own responsibility, and thus have relieved the Admiralty from blame. His right hon. Friend the. Member for Dover, who had great experience in this department, and to whose labours there the public had reason to be grateful, seemed to hesitate to support the Motion, because he had confidence in the right hon. Baronet who now held the office of First Lord of the Admiralty; but surely, without making invidious comparisons, that confidence would have been equally well justified in reference to the late First Lord. If the hon. Member for Montrose was content not to press his Motion to a division, at all events he ought to record it on the journals of the House. In fact, be knew no case in which the House, being called upon to notice a subject, could record its opinion upon it more fairly or considerately. If the hon. Member for Montrose declined this, he really hardly knew on what grounds he could have made his Motion at all.

LORD J. RUSSELL

said, with respect to the merits of the question there appeared to be no difference of opinion. The Motion contained the very words used by the Lords of the Treasury in expressing their opinion on this transaction; and he (Lord J. Russell), therefore, did not differ on this point from the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. With regard to the number of men borne and voted, he thought it right to say—having been in constant communication with the late First Lord of the Admiralty—that he had entertained hopes of being able to bring the number of men borne nearer the number voted. This being the case—there being this general agreement as to the merits of the question, he really put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, whether it was desirable to have a division, when the two parties, going out on different sides, would, in reality, entertain no difference of opinion? The right hon. Gentleman could not but feel, that placing this Motion on the journals of the House, would be a reflection on the character of the late First Lord of the Admiralty, there being, at the same time, no disposition to impugn his conduct.

CAPTAIN HARRIS

said, he totally disapproved of the whole expenditure incurred on this item, as to the embodying the dockyard artisans, and thought it had proved extremely impolitic.

MR. HENLEY

thought the question certainly ought to go to a division, unless the noble Lord at the head of the Government would consent to place the Motion on the Journals of the House; for having been raised, it could not be allowed to drop. The reason assigned for going no further by his right hon. Friend the Member for Dover, that he had entire confidence in the present First Lord of the Admiralty, was most extraordinary; for great as was the confidence in the present Lord, he believed the whole country had as great confidence in the late Lord Auckland. But the Admiralty was not the whole Government; and was his right hon. Friend prepared to extend his confidence to every other department of the Government? He should certainly support the Motion.

MR. ROBERT PALMER

said, as there appeared to be no difference of opinion as to the merits of the question, and as he understood the hon. Member for Montrose not to object to the vote, but to be desirous only to record his opinion, he begged to suggest whether he might not attain his object by withdrawing his Amendment, and bringing forward his resolution as a distinct proposition.

MR. HUME

had no objection to the arrangement if the noble Lord at the head of the Government would consent to allow the resolution to be placed on the Votes; and he trusted the House would acquit him of having any wish to press it forward in a vexatious manner.

LORD J. RUSSELL

said, his only objection, as he had already stated, to placing the resolution on the journals, was a feeling with regard to the memory of the Earl of Auckland, who had conducted the Admiralty to the general satisfaction of the country. He left the matter in the hands of the House, and as all such imputations had been universally disavowed, he had no objection to the resolution as enforcing the necessity of a constitutional check on expenditure.

MR. HERRIES

begged most distinctly to disavow any desire to make the imputation which had been suggested, and no such inference, he trusted, would be drawn from anything which had fallen from him. He thought the course suggested by the hon. Member for Berkshire would reconcile all opinions.

The resolution of the Committee of Supply was then agreed to, and the resolution proposed by Mr. Hume was afterwards put and agreed to.

MR. HUME

hoped the Government would send a copy of his resolution to every department of the public service.