§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1904, 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 £272,038 9s. 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 £174,087 14s. 2d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services exceeded the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £97,950 15s. 5d.
- (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain grants for Navy Services fell short of the total estimated receipts by the sum of £5,310 9s. 8d 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
1456 by a total sum of £121,284 10s. 2d., 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 £115,974 0s. 6d.
- (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—
§ And whereas by a Vote of Parliament during the present session (House of Commons Paper, No. 265, of 1905) a further sum of £100 has been granted for the expenditure of the year 1903–4, and the appropriation of additional receipts in aid of such expenditure has been sanctioned to the amount of £97,850 15s. 5d.
§ And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have 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."1457
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
said the Resolution in simple words meant that £250,000 had been spent for purposes for which it was never voted, and that another £250,000 had been raised by the Admiralty and had never been spent. He wished to draw attention to one item which unfortunately was growing year by year and to ask one or two Questions, hoping to get a promise that some step would be taken to prevent its further increase. The item referred to the victualling of the Navy. The Committee would no doubt remember that some three years ago a new system of victualling was introduced into the Navy, and the idea was that the sailors were going to be better fed. Nothing of the kind had happened, and they found that the money had gone in what was euphemistically called "savings in lieu of food" in the Estimates. It had gone in cash and not in meat or any kind of food to sailors. They therefore had the curious result that they were asked to transfer the sum of £66,000, in addition to £520,000 originally voted for the purpose. That was a growing evil, and some steps ought to be taken to deal with it. In the current Estimates the evil was even greater than in the year under discussion, for it had grown from £520,000 to £730,000, whereas in 1903–4 £586,000 was paid in lieu of food as compared with a total of £1,250,000 provided for the actual food of the sailor. In the present Estimates there was £730,000 paid in lieu of food compared with a total of £1,000,000 devoted to the actual food of the Navy. That simply meant that the intentions of the House were being made of non-effect. He considered it was quite time some inquiry was held into the system. It was a bad system and ought to be abolished.
§ MR HIGHAM (Yorkshire, W. R., Sowerby)
said the hon. Gentleman had stated that a large amount had been spent on purposes for which it was not voted, but the position was worse than that, because nearly £200,000 had been expended which ought not to have been spent, and the surpluses of £150,000 to put against that were only nominal surpluses, expenditure having simply been postponed till another year. The remarks of the hon. Member for Halifax 1458 did not, therefore, meet the merits of the case.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge)
said he thought there was some misapprehension in the minds of the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken, because the expenditure on victualling occurred in a manner which did not involve the extra expenditure as it appeared on the Paper. It was not expected that the new scheme would involve such large "savings in lieu of food." Curiously, for the first three months that anticipation was realised; then there was a change, and it became the fashion in the Navy to take money instead of food. Men preferred to take money and buy food. Where the difficulty arose this year was that food had been provided to meet anticipated requirements, and "savings" then had to be found as well as food. The food, however, remained and was used up during the current year. There was no waste, and therefore it was an apparent and not a real extra expenditure.
§ MR. PRETYMAN
said that £250,000 was not an excess. The increase in "savings" was balanced by a decrease in expenditure on food. Sailors preferred to buy food locally to taking that which was supplied, and he did not think it was wise to interfere too much in such matters. Reforms in that direction were best initiated by the Navy itself. He admitted that on the face of it the criticisms were perfectly justified. It did not seem a sound thing that money should be taken instead of food, but it was a very old custom in the Navy and was greatly followed, and he did not think it would be wise to attempt to force a change. He did not admit that the system was altogether satisfactory, but any change would come better from the Navy itself than from the House.
§ MR. BRIGHT (Shropshire, Oswestry)
said he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could explain the item "irrecoverables."
§ MR. PRETYMAN
said he was afraid he could not explain the details. The amount was made up of a very large number of small items, such as petty thefts, and losses of stores which could not be recovered from the individuals responsible for various reasons.
|Number of Vote.||Navy services, 1903–1904 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||Wages etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coastguard, and Royal Marines||43,638||16||5||271||6||3|
|2||Victualing and clothing for the Navy||82,112||2||7||11,180||16||11|
|3||Medical Establishments and Services||3,692||4||5||601||9||10|
|7||Royal Naval Reserves||13,384||3||1||3,337||18||11|
|8||Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc|
|Sec. 3||Contract work||8,123||18||2||2,053||4||5|
|10||Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad||56,029||18||3||5,770||8||6|
|11||Miscellaneous Effective Services||92,483||17||9||5,357||15||1|
|13||Half Pay, Reserved and Retired pay||6,612||11||0||704||0||0|
|14||Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances||4,590||19||11||822||1||3|
|15||Civil Pensions and Gratuities||6,818||18||4||90||11||7|
|Amount written off as irrecoverable||6,464||3||4|
|Add Excess Vote||100||0||0|
|Net Deficit, £97,850 15 5||Net Surplus, £115,974 0 6|
|Net Surplus £18,123 5 1|
§ Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1904, as corrected in accordance with the Third Report of the Committee of Public Accounts of the present session, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—
§ MR. PRETYMAN
said the item was not on the Estimates. There was to be an Appropriation Account in any case.
§ estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £742,114 16s. Id, 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 £1,079,388 0s. 9d, as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross actual1461
§ expenditure for the whole of the Army Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £337,273 4s. 8d.
§ (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £405,336 0s. 2d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £309,669 1s. 6d., 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 fell short of the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £95,666 18s. 8d.
§ (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—
§ And whereas the Lor. is Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on 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.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
§ MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)
entered a protest against what he considered an unbusinesslike proceeding. The authority of Parliament over expenditure was neutralised by the practice of diverting money voted for one purpose to the fulfilment of another purpose. In this 1462 case there had been such a diversion of £1,000,000. If it were desired to make this the occasion for a long discussion, it would be quite easy to discuss it at considerable length, but on this occasion they did not desire to do so. They regarded this proposal as a serious infraction of the rights of Parliament, which had culminated in the diversion of £1,000,000 from one purpose to another purpose for which it was not originally intended. The result of this practice was that their discussions in Committee of Supply were unreal. He would take the Volunteer Vote as an example. In this matter the War Office had laughed at the House of Commons because they knew that they could spend the money just as they pleased, and not as Parliament pleased. In the case of the Volunteers the estimated actual gross expenditure was £46,865 less, whereas the War Office salaries and miscellaneous charges were £18,000 more. It simply meant that although the House decided that the money should be spent upon the Volunteers, the Secretary for War decided that something else should be done with the money. The right horn Gentleman did this behind the back of Parliament, and they were now being asked to consent to the transfer of this money. It might be again put forward that matters had been complicated by the war, but he hoped the Committee would not be too ready to believe that the war had anything to do with it. He did not propose to discuss this important question at further length, and all he wished to do was to enter a protest against what he considered was a wrong system of. finance. Under the system now adopted by the Government, it did not appear to matter at all whether an estimate of expenditure was right or wrong, because the decision which Parliament arrived at could be deliberately over-ridden by the Secretary of State for War. He understood that it was not possible to move an Amendment, but in order to test the matter, he would move that all the sums mentioned in the Resolution be sanctioned, with the exception of Item 5, amounting to £46,865, the sum for the Volunteers.
said that, although he agreed that this was a rather remarkable statement, it would be contrary to precedent to accept the Amendment which had been moved. Although the Amendment could not be moved, the Committee was at liberty to reject the whole system upon which the hon. Member had commented, but it would be out of order to attempt to correct the figures in the account. If the item referred to in the Amendment were struck out, the money would then go into the new Sinking Fund.
§ MAJOR SEELY
said he would content, himself with the. protest he had made. It was quite possible that Amendments had not been permitted in former years, because the statement had, perhaps, not been so remarkable as in this case. He trusted hon. Members would vote against the whole of this Resolution as a protest against a bad system of finance which rendered nugatory the authority of Parliament.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.)
said his belief was that there never would be a change in the principle illustrated by the Resolution, because in an Empire so large as ours, and with an expenditure so; vast, no mortal man could foresee with absolute accuracy every item of expenditure that would be incurred. Considering the totals of expenditure the variations were exceedingly small. The items had been affected by the war and its cessation. This system must continue as long as the practice was continued of returning to the Consolidated Fund any money which was not expended.
§ MR. FULLER (Wiltshire, Westbury)
asked for some explanation of the fact that all the money voted for the Volunteers had not been expended on them.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
explained that this was due to the fact that a I smaller number of Volunteers attended camp than was expected, and to other similar causes. It had nothing to do with the policy of the War Office. There was an item of £13,000 due to the fact that it was not possible during the year to 1464 make a commencement with the formation of transport for the Volunteers. Another item of £10,000 was due to the fact that the number of officers under instruction fell considerably short of the estimate. These items indicated no policy, and the whole sum was exceedingly small.
§ MR. GUEST (Pymouth)
said the reply of the right hon. Gentleman amounted to the contention that because this was a bad system they must endure it. He had told them that mortal man could not devise a more accurate estimate. It might be true that the War Office was incapable of producing a more accurate estimate, but at any rate that did not apply to the other services. With regard to the Militia, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor estimated for £183,000 more than was actually spent. He thought that represented a very large miscalculation, and 10 per cent, was a large margin even for the War Office. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would explain that item. There was also another item for works, buildings, and repairs, for which £93,000 too much was asked. He thought the House was entitled to a fuller explanation in regard to the £109,000 than they had received from the hon. Gentleman. He entirely agreed with his hon. friend that this was a bad system of finance. It undermined the authority and control of Parliament and destroyed the value of the criticism which was directed against the Administration.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER
said there was one satisfactory thing about the Answer of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman said the whole thing was due to the war. There would be no possible excuse for its recurrence in future. He supposed that the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that in future years this would be a small item when there was no war to account for it. It was quite true that there had been larger differences, but he thought they had only occurred in war time. This was the largest amount that had occurred in this way except in time of war. He thought it was absolutely necessary to protest against such a large misappropriation of money.
§ MR. BRIGHT
said the protests from his side of the House were timely at present. He wanted to know more about the £109,000 under the head of "Balances Irrecoverable." Why should there be such a large amount? If it was a matter of bad debts then the business methods of the War Office must be very bad indeed. When a business was well managed the debts, were small.
§ MR. CHARLES ALLEN (Gloucestershire, Stroud)
said he understood the Secretary of State to say that fewer Volunteer officers had submitted themselves for training. He should, like to know whether that was still going on, and, if so, whether there was any special reason to account for it. Was it because the war was over, or was it due to a feeling of disquietude in the Volunteer force?
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield)
said that a very small number of Volunteers went into camp last year, and a very small number of officers presented themselves for training. A very large number of men had been going into ramp this year and all the money that could be found for that purpose would be used. The hon. Members who had asked about the accounts would find the whole of the information they wanted in the schedule to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It contained the most minute explanations of the item "Balances Irrecoverable." In regard to the Militia accounts he assured hon. Members that it was no part of the policy of the War Department to induce the House of Commons to vote money for the Militia with the idea of using the balances for other services.
§ SIR JAMES JOICEY (Durham, Ches-ter-le-Street)
said it was a very bad system to give a Department power to apply money to some purpose different from that for which it was voted. If the expenditure on any particular service exceeded the amount voted for it by Parliament, a Supplementary Estimate ought to be presented so that it might be discussed. He hoped the Government would take steps to avoid this bad system in future.
§ MR. WHITLEY
asked if they could have an assurance that the Treasury were taking a strict view on these matters.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.)
said that the power which the Treasury possessed in this matter had always been exercised with the greatest possible desire to avoid allowing unnecessary liberty to the Departments. The Treasury would maintain the strictest possible supervision over the Departments in order to avoid extra expenditure.
§ SIR A. HAYTER (Walsall)
said that from his experience in the Public Accounts Committee he agreed that the power possessed by the Treasury to supervise these accounts was necessary.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 169; Noes,55. (Division List No. 331.)1467
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Balcarres, Lord||Blundell, Colonel Henry|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Brodriek, Rt. Hon. St. John|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Brymer, William Ernest|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.||Balfour, RtHn. GeraldW. (Leeds||Bull, William James|
|Arrol, Sir William||Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Butcher, John George|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Banner, John S. Harmood-||Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. SirH.||Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Bentinek, Lord Henry C.||Cautley, Henry Strother|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Bingham, Lard||Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A. (Worc.|
|Chapman, Edward||Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Heath, Sir James(Staffords. NW||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hill, Henry Staveley||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Hope, J. P. (Sheffield, Brightside||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E||Hoult, Joseph||Percy, Earl|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole.||Howard, John (KentFaversham||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Pilkington, Colonel Richard|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Hunt, Rowland||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)||Plummer, Sir Walter R.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. -Edward|
|Davenport, W. Bromley-||Keswick, William||Purvis, Robert|
|Davies, SirHoratio D Chatham||Knowles, Sir Lees||Pym, C. Guy.|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Laurie, Lieut. -General||Rankin, Sir James|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE.||Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Doughty, Sir George||Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End||Renwick, George|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lee, ArthurH. (Hants, Fareham||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Doxford Sir William Theodore||Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Dyke, Rt Hn. Sir William Hart||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Fellowes, Rt. HnAilwyn Edward1||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (BristolS.||Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r||Lowe, Francis William||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst;||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Smith, H. C(North'mb. Tyneside|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Finlay, Rt Hn Sir R. B(Inv'rn'ss||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Macdona, John Cumming||Stroyan, John|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edw Ard Algernon||Maconochie, A. W.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Majendie, James A. H.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Forster, Henry William||Marks, Harry Hananel||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Foster, PhilipS(Warwick, S. W.||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Tuff, Charles|
|Gardner, Ernest||Massey-Mainwaring Hn. W. F.||Tumour, Viscount|
|Garfit, William||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)||Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.|
|Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Wards, Colonel C. E.|
|Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South||Milvain, Thomas||Wilby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E (Taunton|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury,||Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.||Morpeth, Viscount||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Morrell, George Herbert||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Gretton, John||Morrison, James Archibald||Wylie, Alexander|
|Groves, James Grimble||Mount, William Arthur|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Murray, Charles J. Coventry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood, and Viscount Valentia|
|Hamilton, Marq. of(L'donderry||Murray, Ccl. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Allen, Charles P.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Baker, Joseph Allan||Higham, John Sharp||Shackleton, David James|
|Barran, Rowl nd Hirst||Joicey, Sir James||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Black, Alexander William||Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Caldwell, Jame||Jones, William Carnarvonshire||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.||Thompson, Dr. EC. (Monagh'n, N|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lamont, Norman||Toulmin, George|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Lawson, Sir Wilfred (Cornwall)||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||Lyell, Charles Henry||Weir, James Galloway|
|Fenwick, Charles||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Markham, Arthur Basil||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Moss, Samuel||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Harcourt, Lewis||Richards Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Major Seely and Mr. Guest|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Number of Vote.||Army services, 1903–1904 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||Pay, etc., of Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments)||180,560||0||0||32,546||17||4|
|2||Medical Establishments: Pay, etc.||69,254||2||7||28,109||15||0|
|3||Militia: Pay, Bounty, etc||183,430||8||4||1,101||11||10|
|4||Imperial Yeomanry: Pay and Allowances||64,367||12||7||135||2||6|
|5||Volunteer Corps: Pav and Allowances||46,865||3||0||1,465||13||5|
|6||Transport and Remounts||318,972||19||3||152,584||19||4|
|7||Provisions. Forage, and other Supplies||104,383||9||4||189,651||6||10|
|8||Clothing Establishments, and Services||17,647||7||10||78,317||15||4|
|9||Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair||380,789||2||8||132,296||19||10|
|10||Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Cost, including Staff for Engineer Services||93,864||16||1||53,918||17||3|
|11||Establishments for Military Education||1,576||13||11||4,715||19||5|
|12||Miscellaneous Effective Services||65,778||16||4||31,391||14||5|
|13||War Office: Salaries and Miscellaneous charges||18,848||0||10||273||7||3|
|14||Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc||141,930||10||0||4,031||4||7|
|15||Non effective Charges for Men, etc||17,754||9||0||4,452||0||5|
|16||Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances||5,796||5||10||12||16||11|
|Net Surplus, £337,273 4 8||Net Deficit, £95,666 18 8|
|Net Surplus £241,606 6 0|
§ Resolutions to be reported this day.