SUPPLY—REPORT. (Hansard, 12 March 1880)

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
asked for an explanation as to the nature of the Treasury Chest in South Africa? It appeared to him to be simply a euphuism for almost unlimited licence to the co- 920 lonial authorities and commanders to put their hands into the pockets of the British taxpayer. On a former occasion, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the source from which the military chest in South Africa was replenished. He had said that bills were drawn by the South African authorities on the Treasury in this country at a long date, and that they were paid some months afterwards. He (Sir George Campbell) wished to know if there was no check on the practice, and whether these bills were drawn with some previous authority from Her Majesty's Government? He would like also to know whether this practice was to be confined to the campaign in South Africa, or was to be extended to the other Colonies, so that military authorities might have power to establish a military chest, and supply it by bills drawn upon us? It seemed that this money they were now called on to vote was not expended upon British troops; but that some disturbance having taken place in this Colony, the Governor called on the Colonists to fight their own battle, and, for fighting their own battle, paid them out of the pocket of the British taxpayer. It seemed to him that there was great inconvenience attaching to this practice. The consequence of getting money so easily was that the Colonists would never repay the principal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a sanguine hope that they would repay it; but that hope was never likely to be fulfilled.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he was perfectly aware of the inconvenience that attached to the system of drawing upon the Treasury Chest; but, at the same time, it was by no means easy to find a remedy. It was absolutely necessary, when an Army was in the field, that there should be means of supplying that Army; and upon the requisition of the general commanding, the officer in charge of the Treasury Chest made advances upon the authority of the commander. That being done, he informed the Government at home, and provision was made in a proper manner by a Vote in Parliament for supplying the sums that had been so drawn. In this case, the draft was made, and the sum advanced on the order, not of any full authority, but of Lord Chelmsford, who was in command. He thought it necessary to make the draft, 921 and the money was paid by the commissariat officer. The Treasury was advised of it in the usual way, and provision had been made for it. The question of the mode in which the money should be supplied, whether it should be kept always on the spot, or whether they should adopt the more convenient practice of drawing bills on home, was a matter of detail. The question of authority for drawing on the Treasury Chest was one of serious character. He quite admitted it was open to considerable abuse, though he was not prepared to say it had been abused. On the other hand, it was a power they could not take away without causing considerable inconvenience in the field. He hoped they might be able to consider the matter, and see whether any better arrangement could be adopted. He would not go into the question of the prospects of re-payment further than to say that he thought the bon. Gentleman opposite (Sir George Campbell) somewhat understated the probability of their receiving substantial re-payment.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, it appeared to him they were discussing a question of money expended in war operations in South Africa instead of considering whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really power to order any expense on account of the war, without the previous sanction of the House of Commons. Although be quite agreed that the Commander-in-Chief must be allowed to exercise his judgment in respect to advancing money out of the Treasury Chest, still the exercise of that judgment ought not to be carried out without some justification with regard to his instructions and powers. It ought to be shown to the House what authority was given to the commanding officer in the field to use the public money, some of which, at least, appeared to have been sanctioned for war purposes beyond the range of the command of Lord Chelmsford. He, therefore, as the question had been raised as to the power of Lord Chelmsford to draw on the Treasury Chest, now raised the question of the right of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to supply any money on account of the war for South Africa.