COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 18 July 1864)

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that as the proceeding which he was about to ask the Committee to take was a novel one, he felt it his duty to say a few words to explain the object of the Resolutions which he had just handed to the Speaker. Up to last year the Reports of the Army and Navy expenditure were laid upon the table soon after the meeting of Parliament, and they passed, so to speak, sub silentio; but the Committee on Public Accounts had recommended that those Reports should not only be laid on the table, but should be subjected to a confirmatory Vote of the House. The only question was as to the form in which that Vote should be taken, and the same Committee had recommended the pleasure of Parliament should be taken this year in the form which he now proposed. The advances on certain Votes for the Navy were more than covered by the surplus on other Votes; and he was about to ask the Committee to confirm a decision at which the Treasury had arrived, appropriating the surplus on certain Votes of last year to the payment of the advances on certain other Votes of last year.

§ MR. LYGON
asked whether the Committee was to understand that the further action was to relieve the Commissioners of Audit or the Treasury, or any other body, from any responsibility?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the Appropriation Act as framed last year in conformity with the recommendation of the Committee on Public Accounts gave the Treasury lo do only provisionally what before last Session it had done as a final act. Up to last year the Treasury had power to sanction the application by the Admiralty of any surplus on Votes passed by that House to meet advances on other Votes, and the effect of that arrangement was to pass the money without the transaction being submitted to the further and final approval of the House, though the transfer was brought under the notice of the House, inasmuch as the correspondence between the Departments was printed; but no Vote of the House was asked which would have enabled hon. Members to agree to dissent from the transfer. Under the new arrangement the appropriation was merely a provisional transaction, to be completed only when it was sanctioned by the subsequent Vote of the House. The main question which had arisen was whether the matter should be brought under the notice of the House by a simple Resolution or by a revoting of the money. This Resolution had nothing to do with the payment of money. The transaction was complete, and all that was wanted was the authority of Parliament. The effect of asking the House to pass this Resolution was simply to give them the opportunity, if they thought fit, of disapproving of any of these transfers from one Vote to another.

MR. CORRY
asked what would be the result if the House refused its sanction to these transfers?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the reply to this question must be very much like Speaker Onslow's reply when asked what would be the consequence of his naming a Member? This was a class of transactions which followed the same principle as Votes for Civil Contingencies. It was necessary to intrust the Government with certain discretionary powers of spending money, and if these powers were misused, a Vote of Censure might be moved.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, the effect of the change had been to give to this House a control which they did not possess before 1697 Even the Treasury had heretofore no control over the different Departments, which could supply a deficiency in one Vote out of the surplus upon another without check. By the new regulations, however, not a shilling could be so transferred without the sanction of the Treasury. This was a provisional arrangement, and if the House did not approve it they might pass a Vote of Censure.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
thought that the better arrangement would be to repay into the Exchequer the surplus upon any Vote, and then let Parliament revote it next Session.