The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-26 00:00:00

THE ARMY ESTIMATES.

Gen. PEEL, having remarked upon the increase in ti :e
army and militia vote, asked whether the amount included
the cost of conveying the native Indian troops employed
last year in China. He also complained that the public
money was so frequently expended in the War Department
without being brought within the control of the house.
Col. SYKES wished to know what had become of the
last sums received of the China compensation money.
Mr. H. BENTINCK also remarked on the public money
being spent without the knowledge and authority of the
house, but said it would always be so while there was still
that absence of all independent action on the part of mem-
bers. Both the holders and the expectants of office had an
interest in keeping up the present state of things, and they,
acting in combination with the front benches,not of one only
but of both sides of the house, succeeded in passing estimates
of a most objectionable character. He did not mean in par-
ticular to refer to his right hon. and gallant friend (Gen.
Peel),because he believed he was at all times sincerely anxious
to prevent useless and improper expenditure ; but, never-
theless, he must take his share of the blame which was the
penalty of being found in bad company. (A. laugh.)
Sir J. ELPHINS CONE complained there was no Par-
liamentary control over the Indian expenditure. The Indian
navy had been abolished, and English vessels were kept on
the station and paid for by the taxpayers of this country.
He asked where the system was to stop.
Mr. BARING said the change had increased instead of
diminished the control of Parliament over the Indian expen-
diture, and no money could be voted for the navy without
the consent of the house. Discussing passed estimates was
a reflection on independent members of the house, who exa-
mined with great minuteness the votes as they were sub-
mitted to their consideration. The hon. member for West
Norfolk should study the estimates at the time, and take his
objections to them then, instead of leaving it till after the
money was spent. His attacks on the conduct of his leader
on his side of the house had been ably answered by the
course taken by the gallant member (Gen. Peel). There was
no doubt the vote referred to had been increased owing to
the China war ; but it had been properly spent by authority
of Parliament, under the powers of the clause in the Appro.
priation Act. The excess, however, was foreseen, and pro-
vision was made for it in vote No. 2. He did not mean to
say the estimates of 1861 were accurate in every material;
but they were more so than they had been before that period,
and they were indebted to the late Lord Herbert for the im-
provements then introduced into the estimates for the first
time, by the adoption of a revised system. So far from their
being inaccurate and excessive, there was a saving, on the
whole, of £261,000, which was repaid into the Treasury,
though there was en excess of £82,000 for regimental pay
and allowances, owing to the unexpected return from India
of two regiments; and, secondly, the necessity of having re-
course to recruiting, owing to the state of American affairs,
which increased the number of men to be provided for. He
denied there was an excess of £360,000, as stated by the
right hon. gentleman (Gen. Peel). In 1859, the number of
men was 5,000 more than the vote taken by that right hon,
gentleman.
Mr. F. PEEL explained that the excess in the estimates
1861-2 were owing to the China war, and was charged in
the vote of credit taken for that war. The cost of the Indian
troops sent to China was not included in the estimates of
that year, because the expense could not be ascertained when
the estimates were laid before Parliament. The detailed ex-
penditure had not been completely audited, and that was
the reason why it had not as yet been presented to Parlia-
ment. The money was taken from the China military trea-
sury chest, and would be returned to it.

Sir A. WILLOUGHBY complained of the state of the
accounts, and impressed upon the house to be cautious in
voting sums of credit. The charge of last year in the Ap-
propriation Act would, he thought, work well, and prevent
money from being spent in future, except on estimates sub-
mitted to the house. Money had been expended that had
not come before the house with full explanations, and he
instanced the £14,000 paid to the German Cape settlers. It
was an expenditure without any authority whatever.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER concurred
in opinion that the house, as a body, ought to be thankful
to any member who undertook the irksome task of challeng-
ing
,the public accounts. By the present change in the Ap-
propriation Act, the Treasury could not sanction the trans-
fer of one vote to another to meet the excess of expenditure
on that vote. It was impossible to prevent occasional ex-
cesses, owing to the vast and diversified demands of the
public service. It was important that the attention of
the house should be constantly directed to them, for, if
not, there was a temptation that was sure to operate
on the heads of departments, on asking for large sums
in favour of popular votes, and small sums in those
that were less popular. Nothing would more effec-
tually correct that tendency than making certain the
attention of the house to the estimates, and again con-
sidering de novo the character of those excesses. A trans-
fer of money could only be made by a distinct vote of that
house.

Mr DISRAELI said his right hon. friend (General Feel)
wished to show to the house, by the audited accounts for
1861, that his criticism on the estimates, when they were
submitted to Parliament, were justified, the justness of
which criticism was impugned at the time by her Majesty's
Government. He did not deny the advantage of the change
made in the appropriation clauses, but it was no answer to
the right hon. gentb,man's charge. All the extenuating
circumstances now mentioned by the hon. member for
Penryn were anticipated by the right hon. gentleman.
That gentleman had pointed out that a proper allowance had
not been made for the inevitable return to this country of
the regiments alluded to, and her Majesty's Government
disputed the accuracy of his observations wi' h regard to the
China vote. Circumstances had since shown that his right
hon. friend's criticisms in 1861 were sound and just.
After a few remarks from Mr. BARING in explanation,
the subject dropped.