The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-20 00:00:00

SUPPLY.

The House then went into Committee of Supply, Mr.
BERNAL in the Chair.
Sir G. CLERK wished to ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer a question with respect to the naval expendi-
ture. It appeared that when all the outstanding demands
were considered, there was a deficiency of 421,0001.
He wished to know if the Honourable Gentle-
man intended to make any provision to meet
that excess. Would it not be proper to propose a vote
which would cover the whole demand ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
the Right Hon. Gentleman would remember that it was
not %Le account for the financial year, but from the lit of
January to the Ist of January.
Sir G. CLERK said that it was an account of out-
standing demands against the Naval service, laid upon
the table of the House on the 'eth of February. It ap-
peared by that account that the outstanding demands then
ascertained amounted to 1,400,000/. The whole sum
voted by Parli talent to matt those demands was only
1,000,000/. Therefore, there was an excess of expendi-
ture over the sum which had been voted of 400,000/. He
wished to know how that excess was to be met ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that not having had notice of the nature of the question
it was impossible that 1e coubi anse cc it.
Mr. lIERRIES and SIR E. NATCW3 K • ULL made a few ob-
servations, which were inaudible in the galte-y.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
ho had observed more than once on points of ac-
counts, that when because no notice had been given,
he had not been able to give an immediate explana-
tion, an attempt had been made to give it an appearance
of a want of fair dealing on his part.—(llear, hear.)
Now he had not the slightest desire of concealment asith
regard to any account, and if proper tic tice had been given
in the present instance, the Secretary of the Admiralty
would have been iq his place, and would have been able to
give the desired explanation.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN said that if any question of impor-
tance was to be put to any Member of the G,vern-
meat it was but fair, and to be expected, that
due notice should be given of it. But in
the present instance the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
laid on the table of the House an account of the navy debt,
which showed the amount due to be 400,0001, and when,
therefore, the Chancelb r of the Exchequer proposed that
a warrant should issue only for 165,000/., could there be
any more natural question, or ono that could be more
naturally expected, than how he could reconcile
the estimates? He must say, that if ever there was a
question which a Minister might expect, be thought it
would be one like the present.—( Hear, bear.)
Lord J, RUSSELL said that he was not,
account, and than his Right Hon. Friend, prepared for this ques-
tion, It was entirely a matter of any more
barauccounts were
de-
pended on the mode in
Office, ray-
ade out.—( Hear, hear, bewarh.i)ell
army, he knew that at the
Victu‘sTere always entered
regard to the
meets made on account of
the
to th© year in which the service'
re-
Bard to the navy by the
arrangement
madev d
bbyutth with i
Right
Hon. Gentlemen opposite,
w
any demand year 1840, for instance, was
entered in that year, though
paid in
. the
mashowednner
of the distinction to anncr
33, or 30. This 't of understanding
it before giving an answer.•
the
vcted in 1335, 36, 37,
With respect to the Right
of keeping accounts, and the recess) y
than the manner
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn), he( Lord J. Russell)
must say that be more candid
nothing could
in which he always brought subjects of th.s sort before the
Elouac.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Noble Lord drew a
distinction between the way in which the army and navy
accounts were kept. Now that had nothing whatever to
do with the question. According to the vote, 165,000/.
were demanded to meet the naval expenses, whereas the
total amount of expenditure was really 400,0001. That
was the subjc et that required explanation. He (Sir J.
Graham) thought that the vote ought to be postponed.
Sir G. CLERK said that the Noble Lord had no right
whatever, on the present occasion, to charge him with
being guilty of any want of courtesy against the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. He had rut the least doubt
that there was no wish on his (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer's) part to mystify the accounts, but really it
appeared to "la (Sir G. Clerk) that it was a ma•tar
which requited a few words of explanation,, bow