The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-11 00:00:00

MOUTH.

Sir H. STRACEY asked the Secretary of State for War
if it was the intention of the Government to carry out the
purport of a correspondence between the Mayor of Yar-
mouth and the Secretary of State for War, in 1859, rela-
tive to rendering the port of Great Yarmouth in a proper
state of defence ? . .. _

Sir G. C. LEWIS said that it was not considered neces-
sary by Government to adopt any means to render the port
of Great Yarmouth in any more defensive position than
it occupied at present.
PUBLIC MONEYS.

Lord H. MONT.A.- 6-611ovecf that, in order to strengthen
the check upon the Government in regard to issues of money
for any public service whatever in excess of the sums voted
by Parliament, as well as to secure the just appropriation of
every payment voted to its proper account, a committee be
appointed, to be annually nominated by Mr. Speaker, for the
purpose of revising all estimates or accounts laid before
Parliament; and that it be an instruction to the committee
to report in what way the present duties and powers of the
Board of Audit should be extended or changed, with a
view to render such board responsible to Parliament alone,
and tho head of it not second in rank to any of the perma-
manent officers presiding over other departments, and
also to make the present system of audit available for the
purposes of the public service; and that it be a further in-
struction to such committee to report to this house the
exact period of the financial year when it would be desir-
able that the annual estimates should be presented to Par-
liament, so as to enable the necessary examination of such
estimates or accounts to be completed and reported upon by
such committee before this house proceeds to sanction such
estimates or accounts by a vote of payment in supply.
The hon. member referred to the authority of Mr. Laing
and Sir J. Graham on the subject in support of his motion.
He contended that the mode in which public money was
voted and expendcd was most disgraceful to the financial
administration of the country, and was far inferior in prin-
ciple and practice to the system adopted in private places of
business. The noble lord referred to the time of William
111. to show that public money had been improperly applied,
and that legislation was rendered necessary to remedy the
evil. He said that the fact was that a certain amount
might be voted for a particular department of
the public service, and that was supposed to re -
present the wishes of Parliament. But what
was the reality ? Why, assuredly in the existing sys-
tem a vote might be granted by Parliament for
a specific object, and yet the money might be applied
to an entirely different object. (Hear, hear.)
The noble lord cited the authority of different distinguished
persons, examined before a committee appointed to inquire
into the manner in which the public accounts were
audited to show that the Treasury entirely disregarded the
views of Parliament in reference to a specific application
of votes of money. The noble lord illustrated
his position by reference to various items of public expen-
diture in which certain votes of money had been diverted to
objects different to those for which they were granted.
He quoted extracts from the committee appointed to inquire
into the subject in 1854, is support of what he
asserted, and contended that a practice had grown
up in regard to Parliamentary votes by which the
constitutional authority of the house was certainly super-
seded. H. quoted 0100 tho authority of M. Fould in regard
to the functions of a legislative assembly as related to the
grants of, and control over, public money. (Hear, hear.)
[LEFT SPEAKING].