COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE. (Hansard, 5 August 1876)

§ General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR
stated that this important question of great excesses in the Naval expenditure over the sums voted by Parliament had been ably raised and clearly brought before the House by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), and as the debate was left incomplete, in order to allow of the First Lord of the Admiralty to be present, it was only necessary on this occasion to continue the subject by charging the Admiralty with having violated the Act of Parliament in largely exceeding on 11 of the Navy Votes the sums entered in the Estimate without the sanction of the House of Commons, and only a small excess with the sanction of the Treasury. On four Votes £42,900 had been exceeded with the sanction of the Treasury; but the sanction applied for by the Admiralty did not cover the excesses on these four Votes. On the seven other Votes the excesses were large, but no application of any kind was made to the Treasury for permission to exceed the sums voted by Parliament for the seven Votes or services. The words of the Appropriation Act appeared to be as full as could be necessary for the spending Departments to obtain the sanction of the Treasury before exceeding the amount voted by Parliament. The reading of that Act was not only clear, but positive as to the legal duties of the Navy and Army Departments—that they must keep within the Parliamentary limits of the money granted for the services, until the Treasury had allowed of an excess on the separate Votes. That allowance must be given before the liability was incurred by the Department. It was not consistent with the Act to obtain that sanction at the end of the year, but at the time, and before the debt, or liability was incurred; and the Treasury had no authority from Parliament to cover the debts or liabilities of either Army or Navy, by giving a covering letter of approval long after the liability had been created. The sanction must be given according to the Act before that liability, and it must be applied for by the Department immediately the necessity for incurring a liability arose, not after it had arisen. Then, again, the Treasury were strictly prohibited by the Appropriation Act from granting any permission to expend money in excess of 658 the total sum voted on all the Votes for either Army or Navy. The excesses on any one of the several Votes of either Army or Navy must be met by the Treasury sanctioning only the savings or surpluses on some of the other Votes. Indeed, the regulations issued to give practical effect to the Appropriation Act appeared to limit the application of surpluses to meet deficiencies to the items of the several Votes, whereas the surplus on one of the Navy Votes had been used to meet the deficiency on another Vote, a practice open to grave objections. The greatest of all objections was the great liability incurred by the Admiralty not only without the sanction of Parliament, but without any report or application being made by the Admiralty to the Treasury. The next feature was the way the Admiralty had of late years brought in Supplementary Estimates, after submitting the year's Estimates to the House of Commons. This practice destroyed all comparisons, and if added to these excess Estimates, the Naval Administration also incurred liabilities or expended money beyond all these estimated sums, then, indeed, control by the House of Commons was impossible. And if such irregularities were to be condoned, it was impossible the Chancellor of the Exchequer could control the finances of the country. The gross irregularities of the Admiralty proved that there was something wrong which ought to be put a stop to with a high hand. If he were Chancellor of the Exchequer the First Lord of the Admiralty would not dare to attempt, and the Treasury would not sanction, what had been done.

§ MR. RAMSAY
condemned the irregularities which had been admitted.

§ Mr. HUNT
said, the matter had been the subject of debate on two former occasions, when he himself made a statement at considerable length and expressed his dissatisfaction at what had been done. He had, however, when he came into office, to take up the Estimates of his Predecessor, who stated that he not been able to submit them to his own Cabinet. He would not dispute that there had been some irregularity, but in what he had done he had been in full and constant communication with the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had expressed his dissatisfaction before, and 659 would do so again, with the financial administration of the Admiralty; he had made fresh arrangements, and he hoped that these irregularities would not be complained of again.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
moved—
(1.) That it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account, for the year ended 31st March 1875, that the balances unexpended in respect of certain Votes for Navy Services for the said year amounted to the sum of £83,574 0s. 7d.

(2.) That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of the said sum of £83,574 0s. 7d. to provide in part for the expenditure incurred in excess of certain other Votes for Navy Services for the said year.

(3.) That the said application be sanctioned.

(4.) That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account, for the year ended 31st March 1875, that the balances unexpended in respect of certain Votes for Army Services for the said year amounted to the sum of £302,839 9s. 7d. and that the sum of £78,605 15s. 5d. has been realised in excess of the estimated Appropriations in aid; amounting together to the total sum of £381,445 5s.

(5.) That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of £281,213 11s. out of the said total sum, to provide for the expenditure incurred in excess of certain other Votes for Army Services for the said year.

(6.) That the said application be sanctioned.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
who had on the Paper an Amendment, to move, to leave out after "7d." in line 4 to end of line 9, in order to insert—
"2. That it appears by the same account that the expenditure in excess on certain other votes for the said year amounted to £419,733 19s.

"3. That, after applying the above surplus in diminution of the said excess, the Naval expenditure for the year 1874–5 is still in excess by £336,159 18s. 5d.

"4. That it appears that a part of this excess, amounting to £97,904 13s. 11d., is chargeable to the expenses of the Ashantee expedition.

"5. That, after appropriating this sum out of the unexpended balance of the vote of credit granted by Parliament for the Ashantee expedition, the Naval expenditure for the year 1874–5 is still £238,255 4s. 6d. in excess of the aggregate sum appropriated by Parliament in the 37 and 38 Vic. c. 56, for the Naval Services, and that the same was incurred without the previous sanction of Parliament, and without all the excess being forthwith reported to the Treasury as the necessity arose.

"6. That Her Majesty's Commissioners of the Treasury are unable to lay before Parlia- 660 ment the statement of sanctions by the Treasury which sec. 4 of 37 and 38 Vic, c. 56, requires, to defray in part out of surpluses on some votes the expenditure on other votes in excess of the appropriations, consequent on the applications from the Naval Department for that authority not having been forthwith fully and duly made to the Treasury, as the Act requires, for all of the several excesses.

"7. That by the vote passed in this Session on the Supplementary Estimates of the Naval Department, dated 10th March, 1876, the sum of £238,255 4s. 6d. has been appropriated in defraying the portion of Naval expenditure which was incurred in 1874–5 in excess of the aggregate sum which Parliament appropriated by the Act 37 and 38 Vic, c. 56, for the Naval Services.

"8. That the said appropriations be sanctioned."
said, he feared his Resolutions would not meet with the acceptance of the Government.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member was informal, and not germane to the subject. Therefore it could not be submitted to the Committee.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR,
while bowing to, but not accepting, the Chairman's ruling, declared the Resolutions, in the form they were submitted, were wholly without precedent. He declined, as an individual Member, to accept the Report of the Public Accounts Committee in a matter which was in itself illegal; and, with all respect to the Chair, he submitted that his own Resolutions were substantially in Order.

§ Mr. ANDERSON
appealed to the Government not to take any Opposed Business.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEUER
said, it was not intended to do so, but it was necessary to get this Vote in order to lay the foundation for the Appropriation Bill.

§ Mr. W. H. SMITH
justified the course pursued by the Treasury, which he contended was in strict accordance with precedent, and assured the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kincardine (Sir George Balfour) that the Resolutions now submitted to the Committee were framed in compliance with the Appropriation Act.