SUPPLY.—REPORT. (Hansard, 16 March 1858)

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, I wish to ask for some explanation from the Government in addition to that which has already been given with reference to this Vote. 259 The House will remember that last year, the Army Estimates were voted before the news of the Indian mutiny arrived, and the Votes of men, and for pay and provisions, were taken on the supposition that the ordinary number of troops only would be sent to India during the year. After the Army Estimates had been voted news of the Indian mutiny was received, and it became necessary to transfer an unusual number of men to India, the effect of this proceeding being that the pay and provisions of the regiments sent to India were provided by the East India Company, instead of being defrayed from the Army Estimates. It also became necessary for the Government to bring in a Bill to enable them to embody the militia, and a vote of £200,000 was taken to assist in the payment of the expenses of that embodiment. At the same time a statement was furnished to the Treasury by the War Department, in which it was represented that although the estimated expense of the embodied militia would exceed £200,000 there would nevertheless be a saving upon other branches of the Army Estimates, in consequence of the great number of men who would be transferred to India, and the repayment of whose expenses was to be expected from the Company, and that therefore the sum which had been voted for the embodiment of the Militia, together with the surplus voted for the Army Estimates, would probably suffice for the service of the army during the year. Now, I had not heard before I left office whether that anticipation was likely to be fulfilled. I had not been informed that any supplementary vote would be required for the Army Estimates. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for War proposed yesterday, however, in Committee of Supply, an additional vote of £500,000 for the expenses of the embodied militia. That vote was agreed to, and it was explained on the part of the Government that there was a real deficiency in the Army Estimates to the extent of £500,000, and that consequently £500,000 more than the sum voted last year would be required for the service of the present year. I don't doubt that that statement was correct, but before the Report is agreed to I am desirous of knowing what will be done with the large saving which must necessarily accrue from the number of regiments transferred to India, and whether the Estimates furnished by the War Department in the last Session, and which the Treasury at that 260 time were led to believe correct, have proved incorrect.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
Sir, this is really a much simpler question than the right hon. Gentleman seems to think. After the Army Estimates were voted last year, the House will recollect that a Bill for the embodiment of the militia passed so late as the 22nd of August. In consequence of that Bill being passed the sum of £200,000, provided for the militia in the Army Estimates, was exceeded by a sum of £500,000. The expenditure for the embodiment of the militia under that head amounted to £700,000, and therefore there is a clear deficiency of £500,000. We have thought that we were only taking a Parliamentary course in asking the House to vote that sum without seeing whether we could, under the Appropriation Act, by availing ourselves of surpluses in other items in order to meet deficiencies, find other means for obtaining that supply. It is our opinion that, whether we have this power under the Appropriation Act or not, the power given to the Government by that Act is one which ought only to be exercised by a Minister at a moment of emergency, and which certainly ought not to be exercised when Parliament is sitting, and when he can apply to this House in a straightforward manner. With regard to the other sources, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) says that it was estimated that surplus moneys to the amount, or more than the amount, now required, would be available from other military Votes. We shall be very glad if that turns out to be the case; but it is impossible that the accounts of this military expenditure can be collected in time for us to form any opinion as to what may be the amount of saving effected under that head. If, however, the amount of saving be equal to £500,000, or even a greater amount, we shall not be able to avail ourselves of it; because this surplus would so range under the head of acknowledged savings that it would form part of the Consolidated Fund. [Sir George LEWIS dissented. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but I have the highest authority to induce me to believe that the fact is as I state it. That authority is one who ably filled the office which I now have the honour to hold, and which was worthily filled recently by the right hon. Gentleman himself; and, therefore, I cannot relinquish that opinion. But whether that 261 be an accurate opinion or not, I hope the House will not disapprove of the course we have taken—namely, that where we have found a clear deficiency of £500,000, we have preferred coming before Parliament for a direct vote to supply that deficiency.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
If it is distinctly understood that what is saved upon the other Votes shall not be transferred I have not the smallest objection to the course that is being taken; but what I object to is, that there should unnecessarily be an increase of £500,000 in the Vote for the Army, because, if a saving equivalent to that sum is made upon pay and provisions, then, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman says, I apprehend it will be quite competent to the Government, under the Appropriation Act, to transfer that sum to other items. For example, they may spend that sum in barracks or fortifications, or some other item in the War Department.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
I think the fact of the Government applying for this Vote is the best assurance the House can have that any surplus that may be available on the item referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) will not be applied in the way he has just spoken of. If the anticipations expressed by the War Department last year prove correct, and a saving be effected, we shall acquaint the House with the fact; and the public shall have the benefit of the surplus.

§ SIR FRANCIS BARING
said, he wished to express his perfect concurrence and satisfaction with the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No doubt there was a power under the Appropriation Act of transferring small savings from one item to another; hut it was never contemplated that so large an amount as £500,000 should be transferred from the Active Service Estimates to those of the Militia, or from the Militia Estimates to those of the Active Service. This was one of those points on which he thought the House should be particularly careful. He was glad to find that Her Majesty's Government had laid down the principle very strictly, and he only hoped that they would adhere to it.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he thought the question of some importance, but it was undoubted that in the last year the course objected to by the right hon. Gentleman had been adopted. Thus no less a sum than £590,000 was 262 taken from a transport vote and applied to naval purposes, and from what had now fallen from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer he understood that right hon. Gentleman lamented that something of the same kind wag not done in this instance—namely, that a surplus existing on the Army Estimates was not, under the 27th clause of the Appropriation Act, applied to the expenses of the militia. Now, he (Sir Henry Willoughby) had no doubt the Government had pursued a constitutional course, upon finding a deficiency, in coming to this House to vote the money; but he thought the House wanted a further assurance from the Government that all sums of money not required for army services would be considered strictly as savings. What guarantee had they that the power given by the 27th clause would not still be exercised with regard to another item? The whole question pointed to the necessity of limiting the power given by this clause. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman below him (Sir James Graham) had rendered good service by procuring an appropriation audit, yet a loophole was furnished by the 27th clause, under which a million of surplus in one department might be taken to supply a million of deficiency in another, If the House meant to strike at the root of the evil they would come to a Resolution limiting the power of effecting such a transfer to sums under £50,000. It had given him great pleasure to notice how fairly and aboveboard the Government were acting in this particular, but still he should like some distinct assurance that when savings under other heads become known they would be placed in the Exchequer and devoted to such purposes as Parliament hereafter should direct.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman deserved great credit for having stated to the House the deficiency which existed in the sum which had been voted for the militia, and asked for the means of supplying it, instead of availing himself of the phraseology of the Ways and Means Act, and taking money which had been voted to one purpose and applying it in a different way. Such conduct, he thought, furnished the best guarantee the House could have that the same course would be taken not only by the present but by all future Governments. No doubt it was inexpedient to frame such a Ways and Means Act as would prevent 263 an appropriation which the exigencies of the public service, particularly in times of war, might render necessary. But this latitude was given by Parliament in the belief that provisions of the Appropriation Act would be made use of in the same spirit in which the power in question was given, and he thought no attempt should, for example, be made to conceal from Parliament the deficiency in one particular item of such a sum as £500,000. For the last two Sessions they had been occupied in inquiring into the whole subject of the appropriation and audit of the public money, and he supposed that that subject would come down before the House later in the year. It was, therefore, unnecessary now to enter into the question of the securities which were desirable on this point with a view to the public interest. Resolutions agreed to.