§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYrose to call attention to a subject relating to the Army Estimates, which he could not introduce in Committee, because it did not relate to anything connected with the Estimates of the year. That subject referred to the payment of £19,385 for German Military Settlers in Vote No. 3, Army Estimates, 1860–1. In his opinion it was a blot upon our financial system that for two years past, they bad received no detailed account of the army expenditure, and yet they went on voting the Estimates without that information. At the present moment they had had no account of the details of the army expenditure of 1861–2, nor, of course, of the expenditure of 1862–3. Yet those two years' expenditure amounted to upwards of £30,000,000. It was singular that for so long a time they had been in the habit of voting the Estimates without the slightest evidence of the manner in which those enormous grants had been expended in the previous year. The last detailed account submitted was that of 1860–1, which was only delivered on the 30th of May, after the Army Estimates had all been voted, and was, consequently, of no avail fur the discussion of the army 1252 expenditure of last year. He wished to call the attention of the House more particularly to a certain payment of £19,385 fur German military settlers at the Cape. In the Estimates for 1860–1 it was true that the words "paid to German Military Settlers at the Cape" appeared; but they were printed in italics, which was the customary form when it was intended to intimate that there would be no call for that money in the current year. That being the case, it was a matter of much surprise to him, on examining the detailed account alluded to, of the expenditure of 1860–1, to find under Vote No. 3, called "For Miscellaneous Purposes," this item of £19,385. The Accountant General of the War Office, an able officer of considerable experience, seemed to say that this was an excess which, amongst others, was occasioned because Parliament had provided no pay for the German military settlers. Now, he (Sir Henry Willoughby) wished to ask, by what authority the Secretary for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made this payment of £19,385? The right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) some time since put a question on the subject to the Secretary of State, but received an answer which he (Sir Henry Willoughby) did not consider at all satisfactory. If the Government were to be held justified for the expenditure of the public money not actually voted by that House, then there was an end to any control exercised by that House. He thought it right to bring this question before the House, but he did not wish to make any Motion in the matter.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the Government had taken great credit fur reductions in the army and navy; but, looking closely into the Estimates, he did not believe there was any reduction in the force and expenditure of the army. The boasted reduction was in reference to the stores and manufacturing departments. He had hoped to find a great reduction in the number of our standing army, but it appeared that the army for the year was to consist of 436,000 men of various grades in the military service. The hon. and gallant Colonel opposite (Colonel North) seemed incredulous, but he would give the details. The number of men in the standing army was 147,000; from which he deducted 40,000 for the colonies, leaving 107,000 for home service. The pensioners amounted to 15,000, the marines on shore to 11,000, and the 1253 militia to 128,900, the Volunteers to 160,000, and the yeomanry cavalry to 4,000; milking a total of nearly 436,000 men. The cost of this enormous force amounted to about £15,000,000. If to this number were added the Native army of India, it would be seen that they had the largest military force of any country in Europe. In 1852, when the Government of Lord Derby was in office, the number of men in the army of all grades was 205,000 and the expenditure £9,100,000; in 1853, when Lord Aberdeen was Prime Minister, the number of men was 200,000, and the expenditure £8,550,000. Was it not astounding that the expenditure should now be £6,000,000 more than it was in 1852, and £6,500,000 more than it was in 1853? Where was the necessity of this increase? No Government of France had ever been more friendly towards this country than the present one, and he had seen a Return which showed that the number of the French army was only 336,000 men of all ranks, while the total number of the English army was, as he had shown, 436,000. What did this mean? Then there was our colonial expenditure, amounting to £4,250.000. No doubt, Gibraltar and Malta required a large military force to be kept up; but our other colonies ought to pay for any military aid they might require, and in this way we might reduce our expenditure £3,000,000 sterling.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that after the House had gone into Committee, he would show the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williams), that he had taken an inaccurate view of the number of our army and of the expenditure on its account. With regard to the question of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Willoughby), it was quite true that there was no item of £19,000 for the Military Settlers in the Estimates of 1860; but, under the provisions of the Appropriation Act, the Treasury sanctioned an application of the War Office with regard to the pay of the German settlers, as set out in a letter appended to the Estimates, and he believed the transaction was perfectly legal. The War Office sanctioned the transfer of money from one Vote to another, with the sanction of the Treasury at the time, and of the Parliament subsequently.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, the complaint was, that there being no Vote taken for the German settlers that year, there was no power so to appropriate the money. The 1254 explanation was that under the Appropriation Act there was power of transfer. But that power was confined to Votes in Committee of Supply, not to expenditure where no Vote had been taken; and there was an abuse of authority both in the War Office and in the Treasury.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Appropriation Act knew nothing of items; it dealt with general heads, and he contended that the payment for the German Military Settlers came under the general head of "Pay and Provisions fur Troops."
SIR FREDERIC SMITHcalled attention to the form in which the Estimates were drawn up. In some respects an improvement had been made, but in others in reverse was the case. It was impossible to analyse the Estimates critically and compare them with former ones, without an immense amount of labour. He also complained that an item was omitted from the present Estimates which had always been given in previous years—the Number of Men. The House should not be asked to vote money without first knowing the number of men who were to receive it.
SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved, that the first item to be submitted in Committee would be the Number of Men.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the £19,000 for the German Military Settlers never appeared in the Votes at all; and if items were to be paid out of the public money besides those contained in the Estimates, of what use was it for the House to go through them at all? He thought the Treasury had been betrayed into an excess of authority; and hoped that the item would be submitted for the consideration of the House.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.