HC Deb 08 August 1878 vol 242 cc1615-7

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committe.)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

  1. (1.) "That it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account, for the year ended 31st March 1877, that the "balances unexpended in respect of certain Votes for Navy Services for the said year amounted to the sum of £166,546 6s. 6d.
  2. (2.) "That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of £129,508 12s. 3d., out of the said total sum of £166,546 6s. 10d., to provide for the expenditure incurred in excess of certain other Votes for Navy Services for the said year.
  3. (3.) "That the said application he sanctioned.
  4. (4.) "That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account, for the year ended 31st March 1877, that the balances unexpended in respect of certain Votes for Army Services for the said year amounted to the sum of £370,434 10s. 7d., and that the sum of £247,548 17s. 1d. has been realised in excess of the estimated Appropriations in aid, amounting together to the total sum of £617,983 7s. 8d. (That the sum of £2,714 10s. having been disallowed by a Committee of this House from the expenditure recorded in the said account, the gross surplus thereon is increased from the said sum of £617,983 7s. 8d. to £620,697 17s. 8d.)
  5. (5.) "That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of £476,728 1s. 10d. out of the said surplus to provide for the expenditure incurred in excess of certain other Votes for Army Services for the said year.
  6. (6.) "That the said application be sanctioned."

MR. MONK

asked if any Report had been laid on the Table with regard to the appropriation or misappropriation of the balances of the Votes proposed to be dealt with in the Resolution now before the Committee? Last Session a promise was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a Committee should be appointed to consider those cases in which the excess of Votes which ought to have been returned into the Treasury had been appropriated to other purposes. So far as he had been able to understand the Resolution read, it appeared that this was one of the excesses in point. He thought there should, therefore, be more information given before the Committee assented to the appropriation of this money.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he was aware that what the hon. Member stated did happen last year; but he was only recently made aware of this. Unfortunately, on account of the Ministerial changes, the matter had been overlooked until after the Public Accounts Committee, to whom it was intended to refer the subject, had closed their business. He would take care that it should be in future referred to that Committee.

MR. MONK

asked for explanations regarding the sum mentioned in the Resolution.

MR. W. H. SMITH

explained that the Accounts themselves had. been examined by the Public Accounts Committee, who had gone through the items on both sides. A less sum was sometimes paid under certain of the Army and Navy Votes than had been provided by Vote, and a larger sum had been spent on some other items than the Votes had provided for. In order to avoid the inconvenience of asking for more, in the whole, than was necessary, it was provided by Act of Parliament that the Treasury might authorize an expenditure in excess of the Vote when there were savings under another Vote in the same Department, and that the savings should be transferred to meet that excess. It was understood, however, that the subject should be taken into consideration by the Public Accounts Committee.

MR. MONK

said, the principle was radically wrong, and he was astonished that the subject, "having been brought before the House last Session" and a promise having been given that it should not occur again, the Government should have recurred to the old principle.

MR. DILLWYN

condemned the principle of these transferences.

MAJOR NOLAN

believed that this mode of dealing with public accounts was one of the gravest accusations brought against Napoleon the Third's Government, and had much to do with the downfall of his dynasty.

MR. DILLWYN

remarked that the sum involved seemed larger than it had ever been. He was sorry to trouble the Committee, but he must take the opinion of the Committee on this subject. No satisfactory explanation had been given.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, however objectionable the practice might be, it was at present sanctioned by Act of Parliament. He had stated that he was prepared to bring the subject before the Public Accounts Committee next Session.

MR. COURTNEY

said, if it was not necessary to pass that Resolution tonight he would move that Progress be reported. If £250,000 could be transferred in this way, the control of Parliament over the finances would be seriously diminished.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, it was necessary to pass the Resolution to-night, otherwise the introduction of the Appropriation Bill would be delayed.

MR. DILLWYN

said, if the system were sanctioned by Act of Parliament, it seemed as if hon. Members were asked to vote what they had no choice of declining to vote. On the assurance that this would not occur again, he would withdraw his opposition.

Resolutions agreed to; to be reported To-morrow.