HC Deb 09 August 1904 vol 139 cc1671-88

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1903, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz:—

(a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £388,335 5s. 7d., 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 £437,337 3s. 0d., 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 £49,001 17s. 5d.

(b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Grants for Navy Services fell short of the total estimated receipts by the sum of £4,598 15s. 4d., 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 £207,119 8s. 0d., 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 £202,520 12s. 8d.

(c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

1. Resolved, that the application of such sums be sanctioned.

Schedule.
Number of Vote. Navy Services, 1902–1903. 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, etc. of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines 119,682 16 6 … … 6,668 4 6
2 Victualling and Clothing for the Navy 12,203 12 7 … … 13,090 4 0
3 Medical Establishments and Services … 4,575 15 0 1,083 0 6
4 Martial Law 437 17 5 … 45 8 7
5 Educational Services … 4,805 11 7 … 131 18 4
6 Scientific Services … 1,215 7 8 … 2,004 3 1
7 Royal Naval Reserves … 22,764 2 1 35 6 5
8 Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.
Sec. 1 Personnel 188,522 13 7 … … 1,210 7 8
Sec. 2 Materiel … 243,960 11 7 … 132,921 4 11
Sec. 3 Contract Work … 53,937 6 11 … 9,912 7 1
9 Naval Armaments … 66,440 15 5 … 37,807 9 7
10 Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad … 39,183 12 10 3,357 14 6
11 Miscellaneous Effective Services 45,859 17 4 … … 1,183 10 4
12 Admiralty Office 4,454 14 0 … … 10 8 1
13 half-pay, Reserved and Retired Pay … 454 19 11 … 745 8 0
14 Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances 6,584 9 8 … … 1,434 2 5
15 Civil Pensions and Gratuities 3,639 14 5 … 77 5 4
Amount written off as irrecoverable 6,949 10 1
388,335 5 7 437,337 3 0 4,598 15 4 207,119 8 0
Net Surplus, £49,001 17 5 Net Surplus, £202,520 12 8
Surplus surrendereed to the Exchequer £251,522 10 1

Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1903, and

£. s. d.
Total Surpluses 617,270 4 0
Total Deficits 365,747 13 11
Net Surplus £251,522 10 1

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.

the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz:—

(a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £2,235,435 4s. 2d. 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 £2,266,558 17s. 4d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £31,123 13s. 261.;

(b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £523,014 8s. 7d., 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 £938,463 11s. 9d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual

Schedule.
Number of Vote Army Services, 1902–1903. Votes. Cross 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, etc., of Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments) … 1,028,191 3 0 … 7,958 15 7
2 Medical Establishments: Pay, etc. … 31,748 10 7 … 10,727 19 10
3 Militia: Pay, Bounty, etc. 324,011 2 9 … 612 7 11
4 Imperial Yeomanry: Pay and Allowances … 248,246 2 10 … 73 1 2
5 Volunteer Coups: Pay and Allowances 23,391 15 2 … 1,672 1 3
6 Transport and Remounts 624,534 10 4 … 246,678 7 6
7 Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies … 359,562 0 7 67,354 14 9
8 Clothing Establislonents, and Services … 402,078 19 10 … 207,828 6 10
9 Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair … 182,606 9 3 27,700 12 3
10 Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Cost, including staff for Engineer Services 670,280 2 6 … … 185,595 14 1
11 Establishments for Military Education 4,591 15 2 … … 5,321 7 7
12 Miscellaneous Effective Services 291,872 9 5 … … 519,286 5 5
13 War Office: Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges 34,424 0 10 … 120 0 4
14 Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc. 253,696 5 1 … 68,069 3 9
15 Non-effective Charges for Men, etc. … 12,532 1 6 112,464 17 1
16 Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances … 1,593 9 9 14 5 0
Balances irrecoverable 8,633 2 11
2,235,435 4 2 2,266,558 17 4 523,014 8 7 938,463 11 9
Net Surplus, £31,123 13 2. Net Surplus, £415,449 3 2.
Surplus surrendereed to the Exchequer £446,572 16 4

receipts in aid of the Grants for Army Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £415,449 3s. 2d.;

(c) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz:—

£ s. d.
Total Surpluses 2,613,688 15 8
Total Deficits 2,167,115 19 4
Net Surplus £446,572 16 4

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge as Exchequer Grants for certain Army Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriation 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 Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.

2. Resolved, that the application of such sums be sanctioned.

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)

said there were certain items to which he desired to call attention, and especially an item of £279,000 partly for China and partly for Somaliland. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] It might become hon. Members opposite to take no notice of expenditure, but on the Opposition side of the House they intended to look into the details of all this kind of expenditure which he agreed had already been passed, but which they had to examine with an eve to the future in order that the deficiences of the past might be noticed. The surplus which by this Resolution it was proposed to apply to the reduction of debt was £446,572, hut really the sum dealt with under this Resolution was larger than that, because it consisted of surpluses amounting to £2,613,688 and deficits representing £2,167,115, which had been transferred from various Votes to meet the exigencies of the War Office during the period of the war. These transferences from one Vote to another amounted to 6 per cent. of the total expenditure of £79,000,000, and that was a large percentage for which some explanation should be given. All these transferences had been made subject to the consent of the Treasury, but it was clear from the Report of the Public Accounts Committee that that sanction had not always been obtained in the past! There were one or two things which he wished to point out to the Committee. There had been a large saving under the new Militia Reserve of £150,000, and this money was only saved in consequence of the failure of the proposals of the Secretary for India, which were not brought to a satisfactory conclusion. In the same way on the Yeomanry Vote a considerable sum of money had been saved because a number of men whom the Secretary of State hoped to enlist had failed to come up to his expectations. Then there was the item of £279,000 for expenses in China and Somaliland. He wished to know the proportions in which this amount was divided. Another item—of about £500,000—was for expenditure on buildings in South Africa, and he would like to know upon what buildings the money had been expended. He wished to know what buildings they were. He understood that ther was going to he a reduction in the garrison of South Africa, and he wished to know exactly upon what buildings all this money had been spent. It could not have been spent upon barracks, because if there was to be no permanent garrison permanent barracks would not be required. The money might have been spent upon hut-merits. He noticed that in the current year £3,500,000 had been spent out of capital, and he wished to know exactly upon what class of building this money had been spent. They had a large Vote for barracks in this country, and surely out of that Vote sufficient money might have been found to build what barracks were required in South Africa.

He now came to an important point which concerned the Secretary for India. If hon. Members would look on page 2 of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee they would see there that the Secretary for War had sanctioned a payment to General Knox and his aide-de-camp of full allowances for periods extending from the 30th of October, 1902, to the 1st of January, 1903. At the time when the Secretary of State for India sanctioned these allowances to these two officers two other officers were actually doing the work for which General Knox and his aide-de-camp were being paid, When this question came up the Treasury refused to sanction the proposals of the Secretary of State, and they did so because there was a regulation which provided that staff pay should only be paid to an officer who was actually discharging the duties of Ins appointment. Neither of these two officers were actually discharging the duties for which they were being paid, because there were two other officers doing their work. The right hon. Gentleman thereupon used part of the £5,000 which, in accordance with the recommendation of the Dawkins Committee, he was allowed to spend on his own responsibility, thus getting outside the ruling of the Treasury and the wording of the pay warrant. Such a proceeding could not be passed over in silence, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory explanation. He did not like to suggest that the Secretary of State had abused his responsibility, but there was a point at which that responsibility should be checked, and this money ought to be spent only upon those objects for which it was granted.

The hon. Member asked several Questions with regard to remounts. Horses bought in America for $140 were sold two or three days afterwards for $42. The Remount Department at the end of the war lost £10 a head on horses bought in the open market in Hungary at from £12 to £15. Surely those horses in the open market were worth more than £5. There had disappeared 34.000 horses, costing on an average between £35 and £40, and 6,000 mules, costing on an average £25 to £30, and no trace of them could be found. Whether they were killed in action, or lost on the veldt, or disposed of by some crafty contractor was not known. There ought to be a more satisfactory account of their disappearance than the House had got. He hoped that care would be taken in future to see that a new system of accounting in the Army would be adopted, so that if they had again to embark on an enterprise of this magnitude they might have some security that the accounts would be better managed than they were at the present moment.

There was another unsatisfactory thing referred to in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. At page 6 the facts were set out in considerable detail. A large number of stores were got rid of at below the minimum price at which traders were invited to tender. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that a trial had taken place in South Africa in which the name of Colonel Morgan, a distinguished officer of the Army Service Corps, was introduced. It was stated that that officer himself profited from sales at prices considerably below the minimum. He understood that the matter was sub judice in this country. He wanted to know whether the War Office were going to wait until that trial was determined before they themselves instituted an independent inquiry with regard to what took place. There was one important point which, he thought, the Secretary of State for India would be delighted to clear up. The Committee said in their Report that they had learned that the reserve of ammunition in store was not at a higher standard than it was before the war. He remembered that the right hon. Gentleman was very curious on a former occasion as to the amount of ammunition kept in this country. A statement was made by the Prime Minister during the course of the war that there was not more than one box of ammunition in this country. Taking that statement in conjunction with the eagerness of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India on the subject, they might have anticipated a more favourable Report from the Committee. The Report also stated that 50,000,000 rounds of ammunition had been brought back from South Africa in bad condition. He hoped the Committee would hear that some effort had been made, or was being made, to remedy the injury to the country's finances resulting from the abandonment of that damaged ammunition.

MR. MCKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

said that every one who read the Report of the Public Accounts Committee could not fail to come to the conclusion that the late Secretary for War was of a very arbitrary temperament. Again and again the Committee stated that the Regulations had been disobeyed, money had been spent without, authority, and the sanction of the Treasury had not been obtained. In short, the Report from beginning to end was a sustained condemnation of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India when he was Secretary for War. It had always been a mystery how the millions spent on the Army during that war had been got rid of; but now that mystery was explained in this Report. Stores had been obtained, and no account had been given of them; and in some cases, so far as the re-sale of stores was concerned, one could not avoid the belief that somebody was not acting in good faith. Take, for instance, the tobacco sent out to South Africa. 580,000 lbs. were disposed of on sale at 2d. per lb, while the price paid for it was 9½d. per 1b. It was not because the tobacco was in bad condition, because 980,000 lbs of tobacco were sold to Tommy Atkins at such a price as to recoup the loss on the other sale. In dealing with such a subject as tobacco, one would like to know why such a high price as 9½d. per lb. was paid for it? The ordinary price was only 5d. or 6d. per lb., and this tobacco must have been of very exceptional quality. Then it appeared that the Committee called attention to the quality of the oats which were re-sold at a loss of 1s. 6d. per quarter; although compensation had been given to certain contractors at the rate of 6s. 10d. per quarter. All these facts showed that there was no proper control over the expenditure of the Army. It was true that these accounts had now been passed by the Public Accounts Committee, but this Committee had a right to ask that there should be at least some pretence of businesslike conduct in the management of Army expenditure. At present there was no such pretence, and until the right hon. Gentleman could give the Committee some satisfactory explanation in regard to some of these details, they ought not to sanction the surplus expenditure now proposed.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,) Surrey, Guildford

said that the hon. Gentleman's observations were devoted to the accounts for the war period.

MR. MCKENNA

No; after the war as well.

MR. BRODRICK

said that the whole point of the hon. Gentleman's observations were directed, as he understood, to the war period. It should be remembered that enormous supplies had, of course, to be ordered during that period. The War Office were obliged to order stores months in advance for 250,000 troops. As to the remounts, the orders were given on the opinion of the people on the spot. The only question was whether they should sell the horses on the spot, that was to say, at the places where they were in South Africa, and incur a loss, or ship the horses to this country at a large cost for transport and then find that the horses would be sold probably at a greater loss. In regard to other articles, such as tobacco, the military authorities were, of course, responsible, but he did not believe that they could have done other than they did. He could, of course, if the Committee desired it, enter into the various details. The Public Accounts Committee I were, however, bound to take notice of any deviations; but it was impossible to conduct a great war without deviations. As to the 614 horses for the Yeomanry, they were bound to dispose of them at the termination of the war. The only other alternative was to take them over, and that would have necessitated the acquisition of a large amount of stabling accommodation, after which the horses might have been handed over to the Yeomanry in consideration of a certain payment. That would have meant trying, for the first time, a system of Government horses, which would be available for I Government service at certain periods of the year. The accounts did not indicate any lack of capacity or any mismanagement on the part of the War Office; and he thought that the Department deserved a little more credit for its work during the two and a half years the war was being waged than hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to extend to it.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

said he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that they could not criticise too closely the expenditure on a great war. They could not expect to have a perfect system under such circumstances of emergency; but that was not the point. The point was that a gross breach of the Regulations had been committed by the Department. The right hon. Gentleman had still to meet charges, brought very largely against him personally and against the Department, of gross breaches of the Regulations and unconstitutional practices. He had ignored absolutely what was done with regard to the military railways. There was an expenditure of £1,250,000 incurred without the authority of Parliament. Money was spent in 1902 in respect of the war, not merely without the sanction of Parliament, but without the sanction of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman did not ask the sanction of the Treasury, and, although Parliament sat until December, he made no attempt to obtain a Supplementary Estimate. Not until March, 1904, after the money had been spent, did Parliament hear anything about it. That was grossly unconstitutional procedure. As to the decentralisation and Army Corps accounts the action revealed by the Report constituted one of the grossest things of the kind that he had seen. The Army Regulations prescribed that a man should not draw pay except in respect of duties he was actually discharging. The officers concerned were promoted from one appointment to another; they certainly could not discharge the duties of both. The Treasury disallowed the payment, but the right hon. Gentleman, in defiance both of the Treasury and of the Regulations, appropriated the money out of the fund given for a totally different purpose. The right hon. Gentlemen was "a defaulting authority," and if he had been a Welsh county council a coercion Bill would have been introduced forthwith. Some defence ought really to be given of this extraordinary proceeding. The incident indicated the way in which the spending Departments treated the Treasury. There was no real supervision over the expenditure of any of the Departments. The surpluses themselves ought to have been enormously greater. The stores were sold under conditions which practically forced the Government to accept any price that was offered. The money of the taxpayer had been squandered without any proper scrutiny, and no defence whatever was forth-coming.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

complained of the discussion of so important a question having to be taken at one o'clock in the morning, but it was nevertheless the duty of the Committee carefully to consider the matter. There was considerable force in the plea of the right hon. Gentleman that under the pressure of war irregularities were certain to occur, but when in the year after the war there was an actual mistake on the two sides of £4,750,000 in the Army Estimates and Accounts, it was necessary that attention should be drawn to the fact. The right hon. Gentleman's explanation was right satisfactory. There were many points deserving of severe condemnation. On the question of waste arid extravagance the right hon. Gentleman had entirely failed to meet the points raised by the hen. Member for Bristol with regard to the disappearance of 40,000 horses and mules and the re-sale of Hungarian horses at a loss of £10 apiece. But the more serious matter was the personal action of the Secretary of State in regard to Sir C. Knox and the Imperial Railways. According to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, the Treasury objected to certain proposed payments to Sir C. Knox and another officer, but the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless proceeded to make the payments out of funds never intended for the purpose. That was a most irregular proceeding which not even the pressure of war, had it existed, could have justified. As to Imperial Railways, £1,250,000 was paid without any sanction whatever, and, as had appeared from recent discussions, £900,000 of that money was practically lost.

MR. BRODRICK

pointed out that in the discussion referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a most elaborate explanation of the transaction, and had taken upon the Treasury the whole responsibility.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said that as a matter of fact five different explanations had been given and they now had a sixth. But the deed was done, and they could only hope that what had transpired would be taken to heart by the War Office. If the Secretary of State for War would apply his mind to these somewhat minor matters instead of to extensive Army schemes, there might be in future some remedy for what he could only describe as a disgraceful state of things.

*THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT,) Cheshire, Macclesfield

said the hon. Member had done his right hon. friend an injustice in charging him with the responsibility for the payment of the salaries of Sir C. Knox and the other officers in question, If any one was primarily responsible for that it was he himself.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he went by the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, page 2.

*MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT

said that shortly after he went to the War office he found that Sir C. Knox had been in receipt of pay which the Treasury had disallowed. The question was not whether or not the War Office proposed to give Sir C. Knox certain pay, but whether or not Sir C. Knox should be called upon to refund money which had been paid to him as salary in connection with the post to which he had been appointed. Whether or not the appointment was wrongly made, he thought it would be extremely unjust upon Sir C. Knox to require the repayment, and he represented this view to the Treasury, who, however, remained obdurate. He then asked the Treasury, in the name of his right hon. friend, whether, having regard to the circumstances of the case, they would allow the money to be paid out of the £5,000 allowed to the Secretary of State. The reply was that the £5,000 was granted to the Secretary of State for any expenditure he thought fit to incur, and from that he took it that they raised no objection. After having been paid this money it would be extremely unfair to call upon him to refund it. With regard to the £5,000 which had been referred to, it had been most jealously and carefully administered. Every single payment out of that sum came under his own personal observation, and the Committee might rest assured that he would not allow a single penny of that money to be expended unless he was perfectly certain it was being expended under the conditions laid down by the Treasury and in such a way as the Public Accounts Committee would have no reason to complain of.

With reference to the Imperial military railways he wished to point out that there was no necessity for obtaining either the sanction of Parliament or the Treasury so long as the money was being expended as a war charge for transport, and the other necessities of military operations in South Africa. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had already informed the House that he regarded the delay in tanning to Parliament for sanction as a bad precedent which ought not to be repeated, and he should have thought that that statement would have ended the matter. He could not add anything more to what had already been said upon this point by his right hon. friend. The hon. Member for Bristol had stated that now for the first time the Comptroller and Auditor-General had obtained the consent of the Treasury for all the expenditure contained in the Appropriation Account, but it was not so. What the Public Accounts Committee's Report stated was "That the Auditor-General, in accordance with the wish of your Committee, declares that no part of the expenditure in these Apropriation Accounts has been incurred without the authority of Parliament." The hon. Member opposite had asked what class of buildings this money had been spent upon in South Africa. The money had been spent mainly upon hut accommodation and bungalows for married officers. With regard to remounts, this again was a loss consequent upon the war. When the war came suddenly to an end they had to sell the horses for what they would fetch. This necessarily involved very heavy loss. The hon. Member referred to them as having possibly been lost on the veldt. They were not lost at all. There were 174 units in South Africa, chiefly Irregulars, who failed to give any account at all of their animals. It was most desirable that in future better supervision should he kept over these matters, and that arrangements should be made for accountants accompanying the troops when on service. That matter was engaging the attention of his right hon. friend, and he was sure that provision would be made for it.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

said the double payment referred to in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee was all due to the tremendous haste of the Secretary of State for India to get his Army Corps scheme adopted and to his having appointed men and paid their salaries when they had no duties to perform. That scheme had now been entirely swept away by his successor at the War Office. A question which had never been answered was whether the Treasury refused to sanction the appointments at the time they were made in October, 1902, for, of course, that was the point on which the whole thing turned. This was a somewhat serious matter, because the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, which was signed by supporters of the Government, stated that the Committee agreed with the Comptroller and Auditor-General that this was an abnormal and unusual payment. His hon. friend the Member for East Bristol was justified in bringing this to the notice of the House. Another matter on which the Committee should get some information was the immense amount of money which had been paid to the Chartered Company and of which very little had been accounted for. There was a sum of £1,728,000 which had been so raid, and the Report stated that there had been continual complaints that no vouchers had been forthcoming for a very large proportion of the payments. He was very glad that the Public Accounts Committee spoke very strongly against the handing over of large sums of money to commercial companie like this, or to outside bodies of any kind whatever. As showing the way business was carried on he might mention that there was a cargo of 999 mules shipped to Beira and of these 158 died on the voyage, while the remaining 841 could not be traced. A contract for oats was entered into by the War Office and afterwards cancelled, and the contractors received compensation at the rate of 6s. 10½d. per quarter though at the time the order was cancelled a quantity of oats which had already been delivered was resold at a loss of only 1s. 6d. per quarter. Surely it would have been better to have allowed the contract to be fulfilled, and then to resell the oats.

MR. J. H. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

said that as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, he wished to say a few words on a subject which had not been touched upon. The first Report of the Committee dealt specially with this Vote, and, therefore, he had no hesitation in submitting a quotation from it. The Report referred to the practice of transferring the savings on one Vote to meet the deficiencies on another, thereby, in many cases, going behind Parliament, and setting up new services which Parliament had never sanctioned. The Report contained the following:— Your Committee feel that they must call attention to the constant practice of obtaining Treasury Authority for the application of Savings under one Vote to meet the deficiency on another and a totally different Service. In the case of Civil Service Votes, this can only be done to the extent of applying the Savings under one sub-head of a Vote to meet the deficiency under another sub-head, and there is nothing unconstitutional in this practice, as the formal vote of the House of Commons applies only to the total amount of each Estimate, though we are of opinion that even here the Treasury should exercise care that the money is not spent in any way which seriously differs from the details presented to Parliament. But the case of the Navy and Army Votes is very different. Here the Departments may, with the consent of the Treasury, spend in a manner entirely at variance with the grants as voted by the House of Commons, and they may even start a new Service not contemplated when the Votes were passed. This practice appears to us to be growing, and we think that the attention of the House of Commons should be called to it as seriously affecting the control of Parliament over the public expenditure. During the years 1902–3, savings amounting to about £568,000 have been applied to meet deficiencies reaching the aggregate sum of £345,000. In 1901–2, the savings were £230,000, and the deficiencies £142,000; and in 1900–1, these amounts were respectively £276,000 and £265,000. The Committee proceeded to point out that in 1901 the amount so dealt with was £541,000; in the following year. £374,000; and in the year under review, £913 000. This was not so much a grievance on the part of the Treasury as on the part of the House of Commons. The Public Accounts Committee had had this matter before them for many years, but they had never made such pointed reference to it as they had done in this Report. The Public Accounts Committee said that this practice had gone much too far. Without discussing this point any further he asked that this question should receive the very serious attention of the Government and that in future years some regard should be had to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.

Resolutions to be reported this day.