HC Deb 04 August 1902 vol 112 cc621-43

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1901, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.—

  1. (a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £288,156 6s. 11d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £290,951 1s. 4d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £2,794 14s. 5d.
  2. (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Grants for Navy Services fell short of the total estimated receipts by the sum of £41,286 5s. 11d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule, while the receipts in aid of other Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £81,862 6s. 11d.; as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule, so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Navy Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £40,576 1s.
    3. 622
  3. (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—Total Surpluses, £356,223 Os. 10d.; Total Deficits, £312,852 5s. 5d.; Net Surplus, £43,370 15s. 5d.

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Navy Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.

1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned." — (Mr. Auxten Chamberlain.)

(12.25.) MR. LLOYD - GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

said there ought to be some protest made against this sort of thing, which went on year after year. The House of Commons had really never closely investigated these surpluses. On the face of the statement, it appeared that there was an actual profit, but that was exceedingly misleading. The real explanation was this, so far as he had been able to follow the accounts. The money which seemed to be saved on one branch was utilised to cover the growing expenditure on another branch — expenditure, be it observed, which had not been authorised by Parliament at all. The Treasury only came to Parliament after the expenditure had actually been incurred. It was the Navy last year that was he greatest sinner. Under the head of materie. he found that the Estimate had been exceeded by pound;160,198, instead of the Department coming to Parliament for a Supplementary Estimate. If there was a Supplementary Estimate, it would be necessary to give an explanation of what the money was wanted for. The money which Parliament had voted to other purposes was appropriated to these excesses. That was a bad principle, and if it were applied in any trading concern it would not be very long until it came to the Bankruptcy Court. We were expending £400,000,000 a year. Why was the expenditure growing at an alarming rate? He ventured to say that one reason was that, on account of these surreptitious methods, the House of Commons had not, up to the present time, taken the trouble to scrutinise the expenditure closely. The growth of the expenditure was real, while the savings were purely apparent. There was a saving on naval armaments, but that was because the armaments which had been contracted for had not been delivered in time. The result was that all this expenditure would come in next year. It was not really a saving. He would not say the accounts were cooked, but they were presented in a very extraordinary manner. Under the shipbuilding Vote there was an increase of £160,000 for materials. He assumed that that was due to increased prices, so that that was a real increase, whereas the alleged savings on other Votes were shams. The Votes really meant that there had been an increase of £300,000 in the ordinary expenditure, but the accounts were presented in such a way as to make it appear that they were rejoicing in a surplus of £40,000. How had the surplus of £11,000 in wages been brought about? Was it in consequence of there being fewer men, or that, reductions had been made in the salaries of the highly-paid officials, or was it in consequence of the reduction of the wages of the men? There was also a saving in connection with the Royal Navy Reserve, our policy was to increase that force. Seeing that prices of iron and steel had greatly fallen during the past year, some explanation should be given of the increase of £160,000 for material. He would also like to know what the amounts "written off as irrecoverable" referred to.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said that no one listening to the speech of the hon. Member would have supposed that this was a Resolution which had been moved for many years in succession, and until last year, whichever Party had been in power, had been passed without question. It was an entirely new practice to try and raise upon this Resolution the whole of the questions which had been debated at length on other occasions in the House and in its Committees. The figures were those of the year ended March 31st, 1901—therefore the fall in the prices of iron and steel in the present year could not affect them—and they had been examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and were presented in the form adopted by him.

MR. DALZIEL

Was he satisfied with them?

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

His criticisms are in the Report.

MR. DALZIEL

Then he was not satisfied.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said that was not a fair statement of the attitude of that official. After the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the accounts were referred to the Public Accounts Committee, under a Chairman chosen, in accordance with the universal practice, from the Opposition, and were the subject of careful and pro-longed inquiry. To say that accounts subjected to such scrutiny were flung at the House without any explanation, and in a form almost to be described as cooked—

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he had not said they were cooked.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

No; the hon. Member said "he would not say they were cooked," indicating a difficulty in otherwise describing them. Such a suggestion, he was about to say, was a gross exaggeration. He begged the Committee not to neutralise all the work which had been done by the Public Accounts Committee by re-examining these accounts as if no Committee had sat upon them. If the great expenditure of time and labour given by the Public Accounts Committee to these matters was to be regarded as of no account, it would be very difficult to got Members to give their services on that body. Coming to the questions asked by the hon. Member, the excess on material was due in part to high prices in the year to which the accounts referred, and in part to larger purchases being made than had been anticipated at the time of the drawing up of the Estimates. The surplus on naval armaments simply meant that less had been expended than had been estimated for. It was not a saving in the sense that the money would not have to be spent in the future, and the Treasury had never pretended or suggested that it was. It was owing to the inability of the Admiralty to procure all the armour plate they had estimated for. The under-ex-penditure on wages under Vote 1 was due to the fact that during the year the numbers were under-borne, and not to any reduction on the wages of our seamen. The same explanation applied to the Royal Navy Reserve. If the hon. Member had followed the discussions on Naval Estimates, he would have been aware that the Admiralty had found it necessary to make alterations in their scheme for a Naval Reserve, that they had not been successful in obtaining all the men they wanted under the old proposals, and that in the year in question the full number of men were not forthcoming. On the general question, the would again remind the Committee that these Estimates had to be prepared some months before oven the beginning of the financial year. A considerable proportion were framed to meet the requirements of foreign stations, communication with which was slow and difficult, and where, therefore, the local estimates had to be prepared still further in advance. No private business in the world could estimate accurately and fully in every particular its expenditure for fifteen months ahead. If the Admiralty were not allowed to take advantage of savings which might be effected on certain Votes to meet increased demands in others, instead of economy being effected, they would be forced into extravagance, and money would be unnecessarily expended in order to avoid the surrender of balances at the end of the year. Not only was it an absolute practical necessity, in dealing with such large estimates, concerning so big a concern as the naval defence of the Empire, to have such a power vested in those responsible, to be used with the concurrence of the Treasury, but it was also one of the best safeguards for the careful and judicious expenditure of the money voted by Parliament.

MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.)

said the fact that both the representatives of the Admiralty were absent while this matter was being discussed was a proof of the unbusinesslike methods of that Department. He protested against this Resolution being regarded as a formal matter. It contained questions which could not be dealt with on any other occasion. Apparently millions of money were voted for certain purposes, and the officials of the Department used it just as they pleased. Surely that was an unconstitutional method of dealing with the money of the State. Under what Act did the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury authorise the expenditure of money for purposes totally different from those for which it was voted by the House of Commons? Money intended for the wages of seamen was used for purposes of martial law and the purchase of shipbuilding materials. The most charitable expression that could be used towards the accounts was that they were careless and unbusinesslike, and it was simply scandalous that such an important Resolution should be brought forward at an hour when adequate discussion was impossible. It was a backstairs method of obtaining money for purposes for which the House of Commons would never vote it.

MR. DALZIEL

was rather surprised at the tone adopted by the Financial Secretary. He seemed to regard it almost as a piece of impertinence that any questions should be asked on this matter. It was not for the hon. Gentleman to say what was the proper time for private Members to discuss matters they had to take whatever time they could get, and if the hon. Gentleman desired to get his Resolution through the House without undue discussion, he should adopt a somewhat milder tone. The grievance raised by this Resolution was an old one. Without the authority of the House of Commons, the expenditure of the country had been increased to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds That the Comptroller and Auditor General was not satisfied with the system was shown by the fact that he had alluded to the "falsification of Estimates." Resolutions of this kind were being submitted year after year, but the figures involved were getting bigger and bigger, and it was impossible to tell where this thing was going to end. It was, therefore, time that some protest should be made, and he would be prepared to go into the division lobby with his hon. friend against the Resolution.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the Financial Secretary had laid down the novel constitutional principle that once a Committee of the House of Commons had examined into a question, no matter what its conclusions were, those conclusions were not to be debated. That was absurd, as the duty of the Committee was to scrutinise minute details and report to the House any dereliction of duty, so that proper cognisance might be taken of it. The Public Accounts Committee had censured this method of proceeding, and pointed out the very evil to which

he had referred, and the Financial Sec retary had admitted that the savings were not real savings. The result was that, without obtaining supplementary Votes from the House of Commons, the naval expenditure of the year was being increased, merely at the dictates of the officials of the Department. One item of saving was due to large rejections of cordite. Were the firms which submitted this bad quality cordite the same as had been condemned on a previous occasion? Instead of lecturing private Members for endeavouring to obtain information for the taxpayers, and glozing over such matters as these, the Financial Secretary would do better if he tried to give reasonable explanations of the unsatisfactory condition of things which had been disclosed. If this was the first time these Resolutions had been so debated, all he could say was that a very good precedent had been created.

(1.13.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 139; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 365.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Fisher, William Hayes M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Fison, Frederick William Majendie, James A. H.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W Manners, Lord Cecil
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Galloway, William Johnson Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.
Arrol, Sir William Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond. Milvain, Thomas
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Morgan, David J (Walthamstow
Bailey, James (Walworth) Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormaby-(Salop Morrell, George Herbert
Balcarres, Lord Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.) Mount, William Arthur
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Murray, Rt Hon A Graham (Bute
Banbury, Frederick George Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd' x Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Beckett, Ernest William Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. Nicholson, William Graham
Blundell, Colonel Henry Harris, Frederick Leverton Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bond, Edward Haslett, Sir James Horner O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hay, Hon. Claude George Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Brotherton, Edward Allen Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Penn, John
Bullard, Sir Harry Higginbottom, S. W. Pretyman, Ernest George
Carlile, William Walter Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cautley, Henry Strother Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside Purvis, Robert
Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire Houston, Robert Paterson Randles, John S.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Reid, James (Greenock)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Keswick, William Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Kimber, Henry Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Chapman, Edward Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Charrinton, Spencer Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Churchill, Winston Spencer Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Rutherford, John
Clive, Captain Percy A. Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln
Cranborne, Lord Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)
Davenport, William Bromley- Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Bristol, S Simeon, Sir Barrington
Dickson, Charles Scott Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G. Ellison Spear, John Ward
Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward Macdona, John Gumming Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk
Finch, George H. Maconochie, A. W. Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Stone, Sir Benjamin Warde. Colonel C. E. Wylie, Alexander
Stroyan, John Webb, Colonel William George Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Welby, Lt. Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n
Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Thornton, Percy M. Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne Sir William Walrond and
Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Kdw. M. Willox, Sir John Archibald Mr. Anstruther.
Valeutia, Viscount Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. K. Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh Kearley, Hudson E. Paulton, James Mellor
Caldwell, James Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Power, Patrick Joseph
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Levy, Maurice Rea, Russell
Crean, Eugene Lewis, John Herbert Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cremer, William Randal Lough, Thomas Roberts, John Bryn (Eition)
Cullinan, J. Lundon, W. Roberts, John H. (Denbigh)
Delany, William MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Roche, John
Dillon, John M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Roe, Sir Thomas
Donelan, Captain A. Mansfield, Horace Rendall Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Doogan, P. C. Moss, Samuel Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Duffy, William J. Murnaghan, George Sullivan, Donal
Edwards, Frank Murphy, John Tennant, Harold John
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Nannetti, Joseph P. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Farrell. Jamus Patrick Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n Gower)
Ferguson. R. C. Munro (Leith) Norman, Henry Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Weir, James Galloway
Githooly, James O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Griffith, Ellis J. O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Wilson, Henry J. (York, E. R.)
Harrington, Timothy O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chavles Seale- O'Kelly, James (Roseommon, N Mr. Dalzel and Mr. Lloyd-
Horniman, Frederick John O'Malley, William George.
Jameson, Major J. Eustace O'Mara, James

Resloved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

SCHEDULE.
Number of Vote. Navy Services, 1900–1901. Votes. Gross Expenditure. Appropriations in Aid.
Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure. Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure. Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts. Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.
1. 2. 3. 4.
£ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d.
1 Wages, &c. of officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines 11,357 18 5 9,056 6 3
2 Victualling and Clothing for the Navy 64,885 6 8 24,127 18 4
3 Medical Establishments and Ser vices 7,374 15 2 173 9 9
4 Martial Law 3,925 14 9 130 12 7
5 Educational Services 927 8 11 595 10 2
6 Scientific Services 4,574 5 4 10,060 0 1
7 Royal Naval Reserves 49,731 0 8 80 19 6
8 Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.—
Sec. 1. Personnel 124 12 5 354 4 0
Sec. 2. Materiel 160,198 4 2 15,655 12 6
Sec. 3. Contract Work 7 777 11 10 22,123 12 6
9 Naval Armaments 190,984 3 9 35,726 14 4
10 Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad 17,206 5 9 1,476 12 9
11 Miscellaneous Effective Services 29, 188 11 3 1,441 1 9
12 Admiralty Office 2,918 2 7 7 11 10
13 Half-pay, Reserved and Retired Pay 10,992 0 10 806 18 5
14 Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassion ate Allowances 954 19 3 1,277 5 9
15 Civil Pensions and Gratuities 3,627 10 7 26 2 4
16 Additional Naval Force for Service in Australasian Waters 42 16 0 28 0 0
Amount written off as irrecoverable 6,315 19 11
288,156 6 11 290,951 1 4 41,286 5 11 81,862 6 11
Net Surplus, £2,794 14 5 Net Surplus, £40,576 1 0
Surplus surrendered to the Exchequer £43,370 15 5

Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1901, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz:—

  1. (a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £5,028,840 19s. 4d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £4,095,960 2s. 10d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services exceeded the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £932,880 16s. 6d.;
  2. (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £267,988 18s. 11d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £1,856,725 18s. Id., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Army Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £1,588,736 19s. 2d.;
  3. (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—Total Surpluses, £4,226,776 5s. 7d.; Total Deficits, £3,570,920 2s. 11d.; Net Surplus, £655,856 2s. 8d.

And whereas by a Vote of Parliament during the present session (House of Commons Paper, No. 79, of 1902) a further sum of £100 has been granted for the expenditure of the year 1900–1901, and the appropriation of additional receipts in aid of such expenditure has been sanctioned to the amount £932,780 16s. 6d.

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have tern porarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other grants for Army Services.

2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."— (Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)

(1.28.) MR. DILLON

said the only logical outcome of the attitude taken by the Financial Secretary on the last Resolution would be the abolition of the Public Accounts Committee, and the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The purpose of the Public Accounts Committee was to give information to the House. Were they to be told that that information was to be ignored, or were they to be debarred from discussing the matters revealed, or lectured if they attempted to discuss them? The Secretary to the Treasury had said that up to last year it was the practice to pass these Resolutions without discussion. That might be true, but it had always been observed in Parliamentary procedure that if opportunities of discussion were shut off in one direction, discussion inevitably broke out in new and unexpected places. If it was true that these particular Resolutions had not been discussed in the past, the fact that they were now being debated was probably due to the new procedure Rules, under which the greater part of Supply was forced through the committee without a word of discussion or explanation. Another reason was that the practice of transferring balances from one Vote to another did not exist in connection with the civil Service Estimates, but was peculiar to the Army and Navy. It was a higly dangerous practice, because all the experts of the Treasury admitted that it resulted in great Laxity of Treasury control if not carefully watched. On account he supposed, of the practice referred to by the Secretary of the Treasury, namely the passing of these Votes year after year Sub silebntio, these irregularities had grown, and this year, particularly in the Army Estimates, the surpluses and adjustments were on an enormous scale. It would be said that it was difficult to estimate as closely in time of war as in time of peace. That was to some extent a justification of the excesses, but it was also a reason for the discussion and full examination of the extraordinary differences between the estimate and the expenditure. There could not be the slightest doubt that this practice had led to progressive and increasing laxity in preparing the accounts of the great departments. As showing to what extent that laxity had gone, the hon. Member quoted the Report (page 226) of the Auditor General as follows— In concluding this Report I have to add that many ether cases of incomplete vouching of charges included as final payments in the Accounts have been met with, besides those specially referred to. It has been impossible not to recognise the pressure and difficulties inseparable from a state of war, and in numerous instances vouchers have been accepted which in ordinary times would have been required to be more complete and conclusive, So far as possible, where supporting evidenceseemed weak, further information has been sought and obtained from the War Office authorities, who have assisted in this respect to the best of their ability. As an illustration underlying imperfect vouching, I may mention that certain charges amounting to £2,174 were embodied in the Cape Chief Paymaster's accounts for October, 1900, which related to the payment of compensation due to native chiefs for loss of oxen and wagons, ordered to be made good by a Board of Inquiry. The bills supporting these charges were made out in favour of a District Commissioner, and were fully certified, but no receipts were attached showing that payment had actually been made to the natives entitled to receive compensation. Failing acknowledgment by the natives themselves of the sums in question, I requested to be furnished with a covering voucher from the District Commissioner, by whom, I assumed, the disbursements had been made; but, instead of this, the War Office informed me that the General Officer Commanding had reported that the compensation had not been paid, as the natives could not be traced, and that the sum of £2,174 had therefore been re-credited to Army funds. Therefore the Auditor General was furnished in the preliminary account with a statement that this money had been paid in compensation to the native chief; and it was only when he noticed there was no voucher that he found out that the money had not been paid at all.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said the hon. Member had not read the concluding sentence of the paragraph, which was as follows— It appears that the War Office, in examining the Cape Chief Paymaster's Accounts, had noticed the absence of receipts, as my Department subsequently did in audit, and the recovery was made upon their earlier action in the matter.

MR. DILLON

said the account was sent to the Auditor General in such a form that it left a false impression. It was perfectly plain also, from what the Auditor General said in his Report in regard to the fines levied on the unfortunate people in South Africa, that no proper system of accounting or vouching had been adopted. He called attention to the statement that the sums shown for sales of stock captured in South Africa were given on the declaration of the auctioneers themselves. Was not that a monstrous state of things? There was nothing to show to the Auditor General that enormous sums might not have disappeared in the course of these proceedings. It appeared from the report of the Public Accounts Committee that in many cases they were not satisfied by the vouchers and accounts placed before them. The War Office ought to have had an accounting officer at every one of these auctions. The upshot of the reports of the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee was that the War Office accounts this year were extremely loose and unsatisfactory. Making all reasonable allowance for the exigencies of war-time, there were two or three heads under which even these exigencies did not excuse the War Office for the condition in which the accounts were presented. He was convinced that the real way to effect economy was to make an effort to increase the pressure on the great spending Departments to exercise economy and to make them feel that their proceedings would be scrutinised more and more jealously every year in the House of Commons. The practice really gave the War Office a blank cheque, and the officials formed the conviction that they were not bound to make any serious effort closely to estimate their expenditure, and that no fault would be found with them if great-differences were subsequently realized. A worse conviction could not exist, as it led to looseness and carelessness on the part of those concerned, arid it was fatal to any serious attempt at economy. The existence of that conviction at the Admiralty and the War Office was largely responsible for the recent monstrous expansion of Estimates. He sincerely hoped that the practice of debating these Resolutions would be followed in future years, so that officials might know that their operations would be closely scrutinised and explanations demanded if the Estimates were found to be very wide of the mark.

(1.50.) MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said that hon. Members had misunderstood his previous remarks if they thought he intended to convey the idea that no attention should be paid to the results of the labours of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. The Reports presented by that Committee were often of value to the House of Commons, and those presented this session were as valuable as any which had been submitted. But it was the practice that those Reports should be considered by the Treasury. That Department then issued a Minute calling the attention of officials to any remarks the Public Accounts Committee had felt it their duty to make, and, as a general rule, supporting the recommendations of the Committee. The hon. Member for East Mayo had dealt with a matter of considerable importance. These accounts were War Accounts. For the first time in the course of the war the expenditure was provided for by Estimates, instead of a lump sum being taken by a Vote of Credit. That was done in order to secure the closer watching of the expenditure and to give the House of Commons a stricter control. The Committee would recognise the enormous difficulty of forecasting the exact expenditure involved in great military operations, and no doubt the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General showed how great had been the departures from the Estimates. The criticisms of the Public Accounts Committee in reference to the manner in which the accounts were vouched and kept would have the serious attention of the War Office and the Treasury. But the same accurate vouching of every detail could not be expected in time of war as was secured in, times of peace. That was especially true of the recent war, in which operations had been extended over so enormous an area. Inconsequence of the absence of accounting-officers on the spot, the receipt or word of one man had often to be taken where under ordinary circumstances the testimony of a second man would be required. But even making these allowances, he did not say that in the early stages of the war the best system was discovered, but he did contend that a strenuous effort was made by those on the spot to obtain the best results they could, and that as soon as a weak point was found they set to work to remedy it. It would always happen that when articles had to be bought by the thousand instead of the hundred, or by the ton instead of the pound, it would be impossible to observe the same rigid economy as in the piping times of peace. As the war went on the vouching became more perfect, and the control over expenditure better regulated. The officers mainly responsible had done their best under extremely difficult circumstances to discharge their duties properly and to preserve as completely as possible a record of all their transactions. He hoped that if the Committee criticised the War Office or the Treasury for the use they had made of the power conferred upon them by Parliament to authorise these transfers, they would bear in mind the extraordinary difficulties under which their representatives in South Africa had worked, and he thought the Committee would admit that under such circumstances they would have been more than human if they had made no mistakes at all.

MR. O'MARA

contended that the whole question of Army administration was raised by this Resolution. An additional sum of £2,300,000 had been required for transport and remounts, and that had been met by a transfer of practically the same amount from the Vote for the wages of men. If this sort of thing had happened only on one occasion, it could be understood; but it was a policy of many years standing. What was the use of the House of Commons voting money for increasing the pay of the soldiers when it was spent in this fashion? The question of the contract for Maxim guns was a glaring instance of the unbusiness - like methods—to say the least—of the Department. In April, 1899, a contract for three years was entered into for guns at £105 each, although it was certain that prices would soon fall and that the guns could be made at Woolwich for £50 apiece. It was an extraordinary transaction, and he protested against the Committee having to pass these matters at two o'clock in the morning.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

admitted that in the case of a war it was very difficult to obtain proper vouchers for expenditure. His criticism, however, was not so much as to the method in which the accounts had been kept, as to the dangerous innovation of obtaining, in the guise of these transfers, the sanction of the House of Commons to increased expenditure. For instance, there was £2,300,000 for transport and remounts. The ordinary and supplementary Estimates provided an opportunity for the House of Commons to discuss the matters involved, but by means of these transfers all inconvenient questions were avoided. This particular Department was the one in regard to which there had been the most crying scandals. The War Office apparently did not want any more exposures, and so, instead of coming to the House of Commons with a Supplementary Estimate, they obtained £2,000,000 from the Vote for gratuities to the soldiers at the end of the war. They took the money intended for good men, and spent it on bad horses. Such a practice was bad from every point of view. If the Departments concerned knew that millions would not be allowed to slip through without scrutiny at two or three o'clock in the morning, they would be much more careful in their Estimates and expenditure, and it would be much better for the administration, the Departments, and the House of Commons itself.

MR. COURTENAYWARNER

thought the accounts revealed a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, and if matters were not looked into, other Departments would adopt similarly extravagant practices. The knowledge that the Committee would go into all these matters would be a great restraint on the spending Departments, and prevent much future extravagance. The Financial Secretary had spoken of the impossibility of having auditing officers on the field.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I said you could not have an accounting-officer with every force, under the conditions which prevailed in South Africa.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER

said that that was exactly what the Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned as taking place with our own forces in China, and what the Public Accounts Committee recommended should be done in connection with all expeditionary forces. This seemed to illustrate the unwillingness of the War Office to allow any decentralisation. He hoped that in the future, if this system of accounts could not be altered, the matter would be brought on at an hour when it could be properly discussed.

*MR. WEIR

thought the system was a thoroughly bad one. It would be better to give the War Office a lump sum during a war, to be accounted for at the finish, instead of allowing them to conduct their business on the present unsound system. As long as he was in the House he would protest against the practice of using earmarked money for purposes not sanctioned by the House of Commons.

MR. DALZIEL

complained of the absence of the representatives of the Departments concerned. They were not paying the Committee that respect to which it was entitled. There were many points on which information was required. The habit of Departments to take millions out of one pocket and put them into another was wholly unsatisfactory, and if the debate in any way checked the practice it would have served a very useful purpose.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

(2.43.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122; Noes, 60. (Division List No. 366.)

AYES.
Acland Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Purvis, Robert
Allhusen, August's Henry Eden Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(S'lop Randles, John S.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Reid, James (Greenock)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Arrol, Sir William Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Harris, Frederick Leverton Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Rutherford, John
Balcarres, Lord Hay, Hon. Claude George Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r. Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Beckett, Ernest William Hope, J. F. (Sh'ffield, Brightside Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Simeon, Sir Barrington
Bond, Edward Keswick, William Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Spear, John Ward
Brotherton, Edward Allen Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Bullard, Sir Harry Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Carlile, William Walter Leverson-Gower, F'rd'rick N. S. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Cautley, Henry Strother Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stroyan, John
Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Chamberlain, J. Aust'n (Wore'r Macdona, John Cumming Valentia, Viscount
Chapman, Edward Maconochie, A. W. Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Charrington, Spencer M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire Warde, Colonel C. E.
Churchill, Winston Spencer Majendie, James A. H. Webb, Colonel William George
Clive, Captain Percy A. Manners, Lord Cecil Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E (Taunton
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Maxwell, W. J. H. Dumfriessh. Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Cranborne, Lord Milvain, Thomas Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Montagu, G. (Huntingdon Willox, Sir John Archibald
Dickson, Charles Scott Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Morrell, George Herbert Wodehouse, Rt Hon. E. R. (Bath
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Mount, William Arthur Wylie, Alexander
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Murray. Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Finch, George H. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Nicholson, William Graham
Fisher, William Hayes Nicol, Donald Ninian TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fison, Frederick William O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Sir William Walrond and
Foster, Philip S (Warwick, SW. Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Mr. Anstruther.
Galloway, William Johnson Penn, John
Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond. Pretyman, Ernest George
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- O'Malley, William
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh Horniman, Frederick John O'Mara, James
Caldwell, James Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Levy, Maurice Paulton, James Mellor
Crean, Eugene Lloyd-George, David Power, Patrick Joseph
Cremer, William Randal Lough, Thomas Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cullinan, J. Lundon, W. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Dalziel, James Henry Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Delany, William M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Roche, John
Dillon, John Mansfield, Horace Rendall Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Donelan, Captain A. Moss, Samuel Sullivan, Donal
Doogan, P. C. Murnaghan, George Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r
Durfy, William J. Murphy, John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Edwards, Frank Nannetti, Joseph P. Weir, James Galloway
Farrell, James Patrick Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith O'Brien, Kendal Tipperary, Mid Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, P. J, (Tipperary, N.
Gilhooly, James O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Griffith, Ellis J. O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Mr. Herbert Lewis and
Harrington, Timothy O'Donnell, T. (Kerry,'W.) Mr. Warner.
Hayden, John Patrick O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

(2.50.) Question put accordingly, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122; Noes, 60. (Division List No. 367.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F. Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Purvis, Robert
Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Randles, John S.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Reid, James (Greenock)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Greene, W. Rayrnond-(Cambs.) Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson
Arrol, Sir William Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Harris, Frederick Leverton Rolleston, Sir John F.L.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Rutherford, John
Balcarres, Lord Hay, Hon. Claude George Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Beckett, Ernest William Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Simeon, Sir Barrington
Bond, Edward Keswick, William Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Spear, John Ward
Brotherton, Edward Allen Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Bullard, Sir Harry Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Carlile, William Walter Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Cautley, Henry Strother Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stroyan, John
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison Tomlinson, Sir William Edw. M.
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Macdona, John Cumming Valentia, Viscount
Chapman, Edward Maconochie, A. W. Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Charrington, Spencer M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire Warde, Colonel C. E.
Churchill, Winston Spencer Majendie, James A. H. Webb, Colonel William George
Clive, Captain Percy A. Manners, Lord Cecil Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C E (Taunton
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfries-sh. Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Cranborne, Lord Milvain, Thomas Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Dickson, Charles Scott Morgan, David J (Walthamstow Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Morrell, George Herbert Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Mount, William Arthur Wylie, Alexander
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Finch, George H. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Nicholson, William Graham
Fisher, William Hayes Nicol, Donald Ninian TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fison, Frederick William O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torreus Sir William Walrond and
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Mr. Anstruther.
Galloway, William Johnson Penn, John
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond. Pretyman, Ernest George
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Horniman, Frederick John O'Mara, James
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Caldwell, James Levy, Maurice Paulton, James Mellor
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Lewis, John Herbert Power, Patrick Joseph
Crean, Eugene Lloyd-George, David Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Cremer, William Randal Lough, Thomas Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Cullinan, J. Lundon, W. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Dalziel, James Henry MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Roche, John
Delany, William M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Dillon, John Mansfield, Horace Rendall Sullivan, Donal
Doogan, P. C. Moss, Samuel Thomas, J. A (Glamorg'n, Gower
Duffy, William J. Murnaghan, George Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Edwards, Frank Murphy, John Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Farrell, James Patrick Nannetti, Joseph P. Weir, James Galloway
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary, Mid Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Gilhooly, James O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Griffith, Ellis J. O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Harrington, Timothy O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Captain Donelan and Mr.
Hayden, John Patrick O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Patrick O'Brien.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- O'Malley, William

Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

SCHEDULE.
Number of Vote. Army Services, 1900–1901. Votes. Gross Expenditure. Appropriations in Aid.
Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure. Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure. Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts. Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.
1. 2. 3. 4.
£ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d.
1 Pay, &c., of Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments) 2,330,005 5 7 81,366 10 5
2 Medical Establishments— Pay, &c. 285,798 19 1 5,457 16 6
3 Militia— Pay, Bounty, &c. 124,344 10 4 3,266 0 11
4 Yeomanry Cavalry — Pay and Allowances 36,997 3 4 3 0 0
5 Volunteer Corps — Pay and Allowances 59,727 17 11 524 11 0
6 Transport and Remounts 2,322,117 12 9 491,791 3 4
7 Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies 1,208,700 8 5 613,383 3 3
8 Clothing Establishments, and Services 314,612 4 7 74,683 11 3
9 Warlike and other Stores — Supply and Repair 1,033,738 1 7 315,653 10 2
10 Works, Buildings, and Repairs — Cost, including Staff for Engineer Services 1,062,419 4 5 43,061 1 1
11 Establishments for Military Education 3,391 1 1 3,549 7 0
12 Miscellaneous Effective Services 33,280 0 10 347,422 9 10
13 War Office — Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges 38,984 7 9 951 12 8
14 Non-effective Charges for Officers, &c. 196,344 10 6 75,554 7 7
15 Non-effective Charges for Men, &c. 64,843 6 4 68,006 19 10
16 Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances 2,078 3 9 39 12 2
Balances irrecoverable 7,418 3 11
5,028,840 19 4 4,095,960 2 10 267,988 18 11 1,856,725 18 1
Add Excess Vote 100 0 0
4,096,060 2 10
Net Deficit, £932,780 16 6 Net Surplus, £ 1,588,736 19 2
Net Surplus £655,956 2 8

Resolutions to be reported tomorrow.