NAVY ESTIMATES, 1903–4. (Hansard, 18 March 1903)

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said he proposed to move that the amount be reduced by £50, in order that he might call attention to the situation in which tin's matter now stood. They had the matter under consideration on the previous day, when he called attention to the fact that hon. Members had not had an opportunity of seeing the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the point. He had since obtained a copy of the report. This was one of the most extraordinary eases of financial irregularity that had ever come before the House of Commons. Sir Walter Armstrong might be a good judge of pictures and of works of art, but evidently he could not keep simple accounts—simple on the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury. Simple as they were he had failed to keep them properly. He had not paid over the money when he should have done, he had 1111 not delivered the accounts at the proper time, and, in fact, he had committed every kind of irregularity. In acknowledgment, presumably, of his great financial ability the Treasury recently agreed to raise his salary. The remedy proposed to cope with the present difficulty was altogether inadequate. He would not trouble the House by again reading the catalogue of financial enormities committed by this gentleman; they were all duly set forth in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, but he would call attention to the report of the Public Accounts Committee which expressed regret that, notwithstanding a previous warning, this accounting officer had again neglected to present his accounts in correct form and at the proper time. The Secretary to the Treasury had admitted the whole case, but instead of doing as would ordinarily have been done, insisting on this official performing his duty or giving place to some one else, he said the only remedy that commended itself to the Treasury was to try and make Sir Walter do the work, and if he failed, to keep the accounts themselves. Surely that was a most inadequate method of dealing with an officer who committed financial irregularities of that kind. The amount involved might be small, but the principle at stake was tremendous. In too many cases the Controller and Auditor-General was unable to adequately perform his duty and secure a complete audit, but when he was able to draw attention to financial irregularities, the Treasury ought to apply more effective remedies. He hoped even now that the Secretary to the Treasury would render it unnecessary to press the Motion for a reduction by giving a more satisfactory account of the intentions of the Department.

*THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. HAYES FISHER, Fulham)
said he thought on the previous day he had satisfied the Committee with his explanation. He fully admitted that there had been financial irregularity on the part of Sir Walter Armstrong. The Treasury had complained, the Controller and Auditor-General had complained, and the Public Accounts Committee had fully investigated the matter and had administered a reprimand. He had been asked what the Treasury were going 1112 to do in the matter. His reply was that they would; try and get Sir Walter Armstrong to keep the accounts properly, and if they could not succeed in that, then the Treasury Remembrance would see that it was done for him. It was only fair and just to Sir Walter Armstrong to say who he was. He was a man very eminent in the Art world; he had done valuable service for the National Galley in Ireland, and for his services he only received £500 a year. If he were to be pilloried by the House of Commons and if their censure were overdone, he would probably throw up his appointment. He would not be the loser, but the nation would. It was sometimes the case that a man of artistic temperament was not very accurate in keeping accounts, but after what had been said he would, no doubt, be anxious in the future to keep his accounts in proper form. If he did not do so, then he would be afforded the necessary help, for they were most anxious not to lose his services to the nation. He hoped, therefore, his hon. friend would not press his vote of censure.

§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
said the Secretary to the Treasury misapprehended the point of the debate. There was no desire to attack Sir Walter Armstrong, the object was to learn why the Treasury, realising the difficulty, did not make other arrangements for dealing with these accounts. Why not appoint another accounting officer?