The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-12 00:00:00

PUBLIC MONEYS.

Lord R. MONTAGU moved 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 the 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 expended 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 al 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 moncy. Tlau uublic lord illnatnttad
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, in 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. He quoted also the 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.)
He cited resolutions of the house which denoted its
jealousy in regard to the appropriation of public money to
the purposes for which it had been voted, and appealed to
the confession of official witnesses that the whole public
expenditure did not go through the Audit-office, insisting,
therefore, that the Audit Board was a mere illusion and
sham. The remedy was to be found in the recommendation
of the Public Moneys Committee, which were embodied in
his resolution. .

Sir F. BARING said the house should consider whether
the proposal of Lord Robert was likely to produce the effects
he expected. He (Sir Francis) tho ught it would tend rather
to throw difficulties in the way of improvement. Lord
Robert had forgotten that every one of the points he had
adverted to had been considered by the Public Moneys Com-
mittee ; that the Committee had recommended remedies for
the faults in tb e system ; that some of those remedies had
been adopted, and that ethers could be carried out. The
house had, therefore, all it wanted, and if the resolution
were assented to every step in improvement would be
stopped till the proposed committee was appointed.
Sir G. BOWYER considered the control of Parliament
i►uperfect, that the remedy must be found in a system of
audit, and that the audit by the Board was unsatisfactory
and inefficient.

Mr. PEEL observed that most of the n
recommend t'
of the Public Moneys Committee had been carried into
effect, either by the Government or by Act of Parliament.
But it would be difficult for the committee to recognise
their recommendations in the resolution before the house;
for, though the words were the same, the sense was diffe-
rent, the resolution being made up of separate parts and
passages, with a total disregard of the sense. It had no
claim, therefore, to the favour of the house on the ground
of authority, but must stand upon its own merits alone. He
replied to the objections offered by Lord R. Montagu to the
system under which the public expenditure was controlled,
remarking that the largest portion of the public accounts
was audited by the Board, and there were reasons why the
other portion could be more effectually audited than by the
Board. If the resolution were adopted and the committee
appointed, the effect must be to supersede the house and
the Government in their respective constitutional functions,
Mr. J. WIIITE thought the inordinate growth of the
expenditure was owing to the gross neglect of Parliament
itself.

Mr. NE WDEGATE supported the resolution, the adop-
tion of which, he said, would only be reverting to the old
system of Parliamentary control over the public expendi-
ture. Though the resolution might not be in exact accord-
ance with the recommendations of the committee, it would
hasten the amendments they recommended.
Mr. AUGUSTUS SMITH likewise supported the reso-
lution. He believed, he said, that the appointment of such
a committee as it proposed afforded the only chance of a
useful examination of the estimates.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
that the resolution embraced matters so complicated
that they ought to form subjects of separate debate.
A part of tho matters had been disposed of already;
of others the Government had declared their intention to
dispose, and the resolution would obstruct the work of im-
provement by shutting out the Government from proceed-
ing in it. He thought the recommendations of the Public
Moneys Committee would be the best guide to the Govern-
ment and the house.

Sir S. NORTHCOTE suggested that, after what had
been said in the debate, it would be better not to press the
motion to a division. At the same time he did not see how
the resolution would interrupt the Govhrnment in the work
of improvement. He hoped they would introduce a Bill
to define the powers of the Board of Audit.
After a few remarks by Mr. W. WILLIAMS,
Lord R. MONTAGU replied, vindicating himself from
the charge made by Mr. Peel of employing the words of
the committee in such a manner as to convey by their dis-
location a different sense from that intended by the corn-
mi ee.

;at it ........
The
.trizebtehzidiiovnided, when there appeared—
.. 31
96
Mr. AIHNIaTi Majori t
NATIONAL MARITIME LAW.
neutraatltsention.
SRPNAmLaLritriose to move—" That the present state
o f
an d
maritime as affecting the rights of bel-
ligerentsdefined and unsatisfactory, and
calls for the early
Uu trusted he was not insensible either Majesty's Government."
le either to the difficulty or
the responsibility of submitting to i 1 house at the present
moment the motion that stood in 117 s name, and he should
l duty
'lava rejoiced on many accounts if thehad devolved
upon the hon. member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), who at
an early period of the session had giveu notl.9e of a similar