§ Order for Committee read.
Mr. W. WILLIAMSsaid, this was the first time that the Appropriation Bill had been printed and presented in its proper form. Yesterday the Bill was read a second time; and now the House was called upon to go into Committee; but he would appeal to the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone going into Committee until to-morrow. He objected to the Government taking power in this Bill to apply the Votes for the army and navy in any way they might think proper. There were sixteen important Votes relating to the former and twenty-one for the latter, which had all been gone through and discussed in that House, and in passing these Votes they believed they I were confining the Government to the money voted; but under the 30th clause of this Bill, the Government would be able to spend any sum of one Vote for another purpose. He should take the sense of the House upon striking out this proviso, which, be believed, would be most mischievous.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Wilson) or the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain in what respects this Appropriation Bill differed from those which had been introduced in previous years. The hon. Baronet also complained that under the present system of audit the House was not, until after an interval of two years, 559 informed of the exact appropriation of the sums which it had voted, and thus its control over the public expenditure was practically destroved. For instance, last year the House voted a sum of £3,800,000 for the militia. Of this, a sum of £1,000,000 was not expended upon that force, and of its appropriation the House was yet entirely uninformed. It was most important that something should be done to improve our system of audit.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, it was quite true that not near £3,800,000 was expended upon the militia last year. Under the Appropriation Act the Government, no doubt, had power to apply a surplus under one Vote to meet a deficiency under another; but he apprehended that this was intended to meet the case of small deficiencies, and that it was never contemplated that so large a sum as £1,000,000 should be transferred from one Vote to another— especially when the surplus had arisen in the militia, which was hardly to be considered a military department at all. The militia was a service the supplies for which ought to be voted by themselves, and not mixed up with the general army Supplies. Acting on old constitutional principles, many hon. Gentlemen were favourable to a large militia force, believing that it would enable the country to reduce the standing army. He wished, before concluding, to ask the Secretary for the Treasury when the promised account of the advance from the Civil Contingencies Fund would be produced?
§ MR. WILSONreplied, that if the public accounts had been kept as well during the last twenty years as they had been during the last five or six, there would have been no difficulty in producing the account referred to the day after it had been moved for. The Treasury had attempted to revise the accounts of the Civil Contingencies for a long series of years past, with the view of showing that the whole of the money voted by the House could be duly accounted for; but, after proceeding with the execution of the task for some time, they found that it was an utterly hopeless one and must be abandoned. They had, however, succeeded in accomplishing their object as far as concerned the last ten years, the whole of the accounts for that period had been balanced to a shilling, and he would have much pleasure in laying them on the table to-morrow. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Lambeth, it was quite true the House 560 had thought fit to entrust the Treasury with the power of applying the surplus of one Vote to the deficiency of another, but only in the same department; and that arrangement had been found of the greatest utility. Indeed, the public service could hardly have been carried on without it. The army and ordnance had this year been united, but the items would be classed under different heads. Thus all those sums which were analogous to the expenditure under the old ordnance department, such as the wages for artificers, charges for barrack furniture, clothing, works, and the like, would form one division; and the surplus under one head would be only applicable to the deficiencies under the same. If it had ever been the rule not to regard the militia as a military service, the last two years had certainly been an exception, for large sums had been granted for the express purpose of rendering the militia an arm of the regular service. As to the supposed sum which had been transferred from the militia Votes, and expended elsewhere, he was not able to give any precise answer until certain accounts had been received from abroad. Meantime, it did not seem probable that £1,000,000 belonging to the militia should have been expended on military departments, seeing that the surplus on the military departments amounted itself to upwards of £2,000,000.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONwished to put a question to the hon. Member for Dublin University relative to a Bill on the table connected with considerations of finance. That measure proposed to extend the exemption from the paper duty, now enjoyed by Bibles, Prayer-books, &c., to the educational works used in the University of Dublin; and he wished to know what was to be done with it, and how it was regarded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He (Mr. Gibson) had received several communications on the subject.
§ MR. SPEAKERreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he was discussing a different Order of the Day from the one before the House.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONmeant to discuss it as a question of finance. One exemption from a particular tax generally gave rise to claims for further exemptions; and the system of granting immunity from the paper duty had lately been enlarged by the Treasury. ["Order!"] He begged pardon, but he intended to observe order. He imagined that any question 561 affecting Ways and Means, or the income of the country, was perfectly regular.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe House is now discussing a Bill to appropriate the Votes granted in Supply—a question which has nothing to do with Ways and Means.
§ MR. MILNER GIBSONthought, with all respect, that they were engaged in appropriating Ways and Means, to furnish the Supplies, and that anything tending to diminish those Ways and Means was pertinent to the discussion. However, he would not press the matter further than to inquire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right, hon. Gentleman (Mr. Napier) what course they meant to pursue on this question of finance.
MR. NAPIERwished, if not irregular, to say that the Bill referred to by the right hon. Gentleman contemplated, among other objects, the exemption from taxation of books of the character which had been described. ["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman must postpone his observations until the Order of the Day comes on to which he is referring.
§ MR. HENLEY, referring to the remarks of the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Wilson), said, he wished to ask in what state the accounts were now, and whether there had been any money appropriated, but not accounted for? because to go back for ten years seemed very unsatisfactory.
§ MR. WILSONsaid, he did not at all mean to imply that the Votes previous to the last ten years had been misappropriated. Formerly there had been several Paymasters, and it had in consequence been impossible to trace the accounts; but since there had only been one Paymaster and one office, no difficulty had been experienced.
§ House in Committee.
§ Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
§ Clause 8,
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that the clause proposed to repeal two Acts passed in the course of the present Session, and he should like to have some explanation of the matter.
§ MR. WILSONsaid, that at the beginning of the present Session an Act had been passed giving the Government power to raise £5,000,000 by way of annuities, and a clause was inserted enabling them to apply this money for Supply services. As this money had not been so applied, it was 562 thought to be the simplest way to repeal the clause of the Act alluded to.
§ Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 9 to 29, inclusive.
§ Clause 30,
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he intended to give the Committee an opportunity of dividing upon this clause, which contained a proviso giving the Government power to apply the amount granted for one service to the exigencies of another service, so long as it was in the same department. In the case of the army and navy the Comptroller of the Exchequer had no control over the sums voted, except in the aggregate—a power which he possessed in all other cases. The House was engaged night after night in discussing the Votes, supposing that the sums they granted would be dedicated to the particular services for which they were voted. But it was no such thing, the Government paid no attention whatever to the rule. He begged to move that the proviso in the clause which gave the Government this power should be struck out.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the House would not accede to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. This clause of the Appropriation Act was drawn up exactly in the form in which it had passed since 1832. Before that time the Government had the power of appropriating the whole of the revenue as one Vote; but since then a stricter practice had been introduced under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham). It was the duty of the various naval and military departments to keep within the limits of the amount granted by Parliament; but in the event of their exceeding in any Vote, it was permitted to the Treasury to allow the excess of any one Vote to go to another. It was, however, found necessary to make some relaxation, and to provide for the separation of certain Votes in what were called the Army Estimates. In this way a division was permitted to be made somewhat analogous to that which formerly existed between the Ordnance and Army Estimates.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMobserved, that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made him responsible for this proviso. But it should be remembered that the proviso was introduced simultaneously with the strict rule of appropriation. The strict application of the rule, as first 563 introduced, was found to interfere with the business of various departments, and some relaxation, therefore, became necessary. Having first recommended to Parliament the more stringent rule, he afterwards proposed the relaxation in question. Subsequently to this relaxation another recommendation was adopted, by which a concurrent audit was provided for; and the effect of this was that annually, with regard to the army, navy, and ordnance, an account, vouched by the Board of Audit, was laid on the table of the House, setting forth any excess beyond the Vote of Parliament permitted by the Treasury to be applied in aid of any other Vote. The objection to this account was, that it came too late to be of service. He would, therefore, ask his right hon. Friend whether he had any objection to communicate to the House at the beginning of each Session, before the Votes of the year were brought in, a statement of every case in which the relaxation was asked and allowed by the Treasury, and also a similar return at the close of the financial year? If his right hon. Friend would give that assurance he thought the arrangement would be satisfactory to the House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was no doubt desirable that information on this subject should be furnished to Parliament at the earliest possible period. That information, however, could not be given in a complete form till the annual audit had taken place and all the transfers had been adjusted. He did not believe, therefore, it would be possible to furnish the accounts in the manner desired by the right hon. Gentleman; but he had no difficulty in saying that, so far as it was possible, he would lay before Parliament from time to time the assents given by the Treasury to applications for relaxation. He hoped that assurance would be satisfactory to his right hon. Friend.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) that some relaxation must be made in the rule of appropriation, as the Government departments could not be conducted without some small concession of this kind. In reply to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury he (Sir F. Baring) had certainly no positive information to rely upon; but he certainly thought he was justified, from the Government returns themselves, in concluding that the excess of the militia returns had been devoted 564 to the army services, and he should be much surprised if it did not turn out that this was the case.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYshould like to know what were the actual powers given to the Treasury by the Bill? Did the clause they were now considering give them power to take the money voted, say, for clothing, and appropriate it to works? He doubted whether the power which the Government possessed under this clause was not enormous, and he thought there ought to be some check upon its exercise. He should be glad to know what power the Treasury really possessed under this clause.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he would answer this question by illustrations drawn from two Votes connected with the Admiralty Department—the one being that for the payment of the wages of seamen—a Vote which the House always granted with the utmost alacrity—the other a Vote for naval works, which was generally regarded with some degree of jealousy by the House. Now let him suppose the Vote for wages to be £2,000,000, while the Vote for works amounted to £500,000, and that in the case of the former there happened to be a surplus over expenditure of £100,000, which the Board of Admiralty desired to apply to make up a deficiency in the latter to a similar amount:—In order to effect that transfer the Board of Admiralty would be obliged to make application to the Treasury, setting forth the reasons for the proposal and asking their assent to its adoption. It was true that this adjustment of the Votes was of rare occurrence, but it was also occasionally of necessary occurrence. The Treasury had, however, that supreme control and authority—and if the reasons were found to be satisfactory, permission was given by the Treasury to make the transfer. That result, however, was generally arrived at towards the close of the year, and although the proceedings connected with it were ultimately brought under the consideration of Parliament, yet nearly twelvemonths must elapse before such was the case. Now that, he considered, to be too long a period for Parliament to remain unacquainted with the appropriation, and he should therefore suggest that at the close of the financial year the Government should lay upon the table of the House all the applications which might have emanated from the different public departments for permission to apply the surplus of one Vote to meet 565 the deficiency of another. Full particulars in these transactions would thus be placed in the hands of the House, generally speaking, within a month of their occurrence; explanations with respect to them might be demanded, and they might be censured or approved of as the House should think fit. That mode of dealing with the subject would, he thought, be found to impose a check of as substantial a character upon Ministers as would be required.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, that no one was better, or, indeed, so well acquainted with this subject as the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), but he denied that such a return would be any check on the practice; for even if the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet were carried out, these applications and provisions would not come before Parliament until the principal Estimates of the year had been voted, because the Estimates of the great services were almost invariably voted before the close of the financial year. If, for example, £500,000 were voted for buildings and works, and that Vote was exceeded by £100,000 in the following year, another £500,000 would be asked for without the House knowing anything of the previous excess. This was no question of crippling a department, because it was a case of work done and money spent, and the only question was, how the money was to be raised. He doubted whether the excess ought not to come before Parliament and he voted as a supplementary Estimate, when the sum exceeded a certain amount. Parliament would then have the opportunity of considering with the Estimates of the year, how far it chose to give a further sum for the object for which the excess had been incurred.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, the real question was, what degree of confidence was to be placed in the Administration? A certain degree of confidence must be placed in the Administration, whatever rules the House might adopt, and what they had to consider was the degree. The suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) certainly went to the root of the complaint; but its adoption would be attended with this great disadvantage, that the great body of the Estimates would then be framed upon an excess model. The fear of coming to Parliament with a Supplementary Estimate would lead the Admiralty and other departments to form their Estimates upon a scale greater than they believed to be necessary for the public 566 service, and it would not be easy for the House of Commons to contend against a system of that kind. He thought that the principle of confidence was a just one, and between the two suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he preferred the offer which the Government had made. It appeared to him that if the plan of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) were adopted the House might find itself voting away the chief Estimates without knowing the excess which might have taken place; but if, when the Treasury allowed the appropriation of the surplus of one department, a document were placed upon the table explaining the circumstances such a check might not be complete, but would be to some extent satisfactory, and would be likely to prevent any improper conduct on the part of the Administration. Under all the circumstances, he was inclined to accept the offer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, that in every instance when the Government thus availed themselves of the confidence reposed in them by the Legislature, Parliament should be informed of it by the necessary record being placed on the table of the House. He should prefer this to the scheme of the right hon. Baronet, and he hoped therefore that, subject to this understanding, no alteration would be made in the language of the proviso.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the Committee would not be under the impression that there was any doubt as to the general enforcement of the rule that each department kept within the distinct Vote taken on account of it. That was the rule imposed on the naval and military departments, and they were not able to depart from it without express permission from the Treasury. Whenever they were desirous of obtaining permission to apply for the purposes of one department the excess upon the Vote taken for another, they had to make out a special case. A letter must be written showing the grounds of the application, and the general rule laid down by the Treasury was, that the case must be shown to be unexpected and urgent. Of course, the Treasury did not share the particular feeling which might animate the department at the moment; they would consider the matter impartially, and would not give their consent unless a fair and reasonable case was made out. These applications 567 were made from time to time during the Session and during the recess. With reference to the remarks of his right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham), there would be no objection to lay before the House, as soon as Parliament met, a return of the applications made to the Treasury since the beginning of the financial year by any of the departments, and the cases in which those applications had been granted, together with the whole correspondence, or an abstract, if necessary. That might be laid before Parliament at the beginning of the Session, and a similar return might be from time to time presented; but he thought it would not be desirable to lay before the House each application as it occurred, unless there was some special ground for it. He hoped his hon. Friend would not divide the Committee on the subject.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the terms of the right hon. Baronet's suggestion, he would withdraw his proposition. In point of fact, however, if the present system were allowed to continue, it was a perfect farce for the House of Commons to vote certain amounts under certain heads. They might as well vote the whole "Estimate for the army in one round sum, and adopt a similar course as to the navy; or they might go a little further, for if the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) were carried out, there would be no necessity for any Vote at all, and it would be said, "Let us place confidence in the Government, and leave it all to them."
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would perhaps consider the subject, and embody the suggestion which had been made to him in a proviso, to be added to the clause upon bringing up the report.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas under the impression that he had acceded to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend, and had promised everything which was wished for. He was not at this moment aware that there would be any difficulty in embodying this suggestion in a proviso, and he should take the subject into consideration.
§ Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 31 to 35 were also agreed to.
§ Clause 36, which provides for the appropriation of surplus half-pay.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there was an 568 expression in the clause which he thought most objectionable. It was enacted that if the sum voted on account of half-pay were more than was necessary Her Majesty—that was, the Government—should be empowered to dispose of such overplus to "officers who are maimed or have lost their limbs in the late wars, or such others as, by reason of their long service or otherwise, Her Majesty shall judge to be proper objects of charity." Now, it was discreditable for the House to adopt such an expression. Officers maimed in the service ought to be provided for in a proper manner, instead of being treated in this way, as "objects of charity."
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Remaining Clauses agreed to.
§ The House resumed.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment.