RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 5 August 1876)

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR,
in rising to move— That it is inexpedient to consider any more Estimates of this kind until it is satisfactorily proved by proper statements as to how the funds previously advanced during the past five or six years by the India Office on account of the Military charges defrayed by the War Office for India have been used by the Treasury, whether in payment of War Office claims, or in swelling the Revenue of the kingdom, pointed out that when this money claim was first before the House, he had endeavoured to elicit information as to its details, but as the discussion took place long after 12 o'clock at night, there was no record, or at least a very defective 654 report, of the matters discussed, and he could only repeat that a most objection able course had been pursued towards India in reference to these charges, and especially in connection with what was called the unsettled account. Ever since 1870, when the rough-and-ready mode of settling the claims of the War Office against India for the military outlay at home by means of a capitation rate of £13 10s. per man in India being paid to the War Office to cover all expenses, was unwisely done away with, the War Office, in their annual balance sheet, had shown India to owe many hundreds of thousands of pounds, whereas she had actually paid up her debts, quarter by quarter as formerly, and was clear of debt to the War Office. It was not, therefore, right that India should be allowed to appear upon the accounts so deeply indebted to the Home Government as she did, the fact being, as he believed, that the India Office had paid direct to the Treasury the quarterly payments equal inamount to the former sums, but the Treasury appeared to have appropriated this money in order to swell the receipts of the Revenue—that was, instead of paying the War Office the expenses incurred for India, on account of Departments kept in England, the contributions from the India Office were dealt with as Revenue receipts, without any reference to the former liabilities borne by the War Office. This mode of enhancing the accounts of income of the United Kingdom was not done by the present Administration, but by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London; the question had been raised before the Public Accounts Committee, but it was left in a very unsatisfactory position, owing to the assertions of the Accountant General of the War Office being contradicted by the assertions of the Treasury officer, but having full confidence in the accuracy of the statement of the Accountant General, he preferred the statement of that officer, of the Treasury having kept back from the War Office the money due for military services for India which the India Office had paid over to the Treasury. The proper and best course in future would be for the India Office to receive from the War Office their bills of charges month by month, and let these two Departments settle the claims, 655 and thus exclude the Treasury from their past kind of mischievous meddling with affairs which they had mismanaged.

§ Mr. W. H. SMITH
said, that there was no doubt that India had defrayed the charges made upon her by the War Office, and the Public Accounts Committee had under consideration the form in which the accounts should in future be kept, and would report to the House next year on the subject.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
thought that too sanguine a view had been taken of affairs in Egypt.

§ MR. RAMSAY
complained that information as to the way in which this money 656 was distributed had not been given, as was promised last year.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, that the matter had been thoroughly considered by a Committee, and there would be a Report upon the subject.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH,
in reply to Sir H. Dr Ummond Wolff, said, that the Treasury fully recognized the services which had been devoted to the preparation of the Hertslet collection of Treaties, and the Treasury would undertake the cost.