uses than those for which they had been appropriated by Parliament. bility of expendi It is therefore erroneous to suppose that the govern- Impossi ment can be absolutely prevented from any misapplica- wholly tion or expenditure in excess of the parliamentary grants. preventEven were it possible to do so, it would not be politic to thorised restrain the government from expending money, under ture. any circumstances, without the previous authority of Parliament. In the words of Mr. Macaulay (secretary to the Board of Audit), cases must constantly arise, in so complicated a system of government as ours, where it becomes the duty of the executive authorities, in the exercise of their discretionary powers, boldly to set aside the requirements of the legislature, trusting to the good Discresense of Parliament, when all the facts of the case shall tionary have been explained, to acquit them of all blame; and vested in it would be, not a public advantage, but a public ment. calamity, if the government were to be deprived of the means of so exercising their discretionary authority.' " To the same effect, we have a declaration by a committee of the House of Commons, that in special emergencies expenditure unauthorised by Parliament becomes absolutely essential. In all such cases the executive must take the responsibility of sanctioning whatever immediate urgency requires; and it has never been found that Parliament exhibited any reluctance to supply the means of meeting such expenditure.'i h powers govern unautho rised ex The best remedy against unauthorised and unjusti- Remedy fiable expenditure is to be found in the vigilant exercise against of the inquisitorial powers of Parliament. It is undoubtedly the business of the House of Commons to be responsible not only for the inception of all public expenditure, but also to follow the money raised by taxa 3 Hatsell, 206, &c. Debate in H. of C. June 23, 1828, on the misappropriation of public funds,' Rep. Com. on Public Moneys, Com. Pap. 1857, Sess. 2, v. 9, pp. 31, 81. h Rep. Com. Pub. Accts. Com. First Rep. Com. on Packet and penditure. Instances of expen govern ment tion until the last farthing is accounted for.' This duty is facilitated by the investigations of the auditor-general, who is a parliamentary officer, and is mainly performed through the instrumentality of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.k Ample provision has been made by Parliament to meet the case of extraordinary and unforeseen items of expenditure, by placing at the disposal of government the necessary funds to defray the same, by means of the 'treasury chest,' and the civil contingencies' funds, the nature and extent of which will be presently explained. It rarely happens that the aggregate of the army and navy or civil service votes is exceeded; but if, under any circumstances, the amount voted for a particular service has proved insufficient, it will be the duty of government to take an early opportunity of submitting a statement of the same to Parliament.' A suitable occasion for explanations on the subject will be found when considering, in committee of the whole House, a vote to make good the deficiency. But it is most desirable that the appropriation account of the votes upon which the deficiency had arisen should be examined and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts before any vote is taken to cover such deficiencies." m And here it may be appropriate to notice some diture by remarkable instances wherein the government have. assumed the responsibility of incurring expenditure without without the previous sanction of Parliament, and to of Parlia point out the proceedings taken by the House of Commons in such cases. authority ment. J Mr. Gladstone, Hans. D. v. 197, p. 633. See post, p. 67. 1 See post, p. 37. m Sums to make good excesses in grants for civil services are voted in committee of supply (Hans. D. v. 185, p. 1271), but excesses on army or navy grants are voted in a separate committee of the whole House; see post, p. 41. n Second Rep. Come. Pub. Accts. pp. v. 2; Com. Pap. 1870, v. 10; First Rep. Ib. p. iii.; Com. Pap. 1876, v. 8. dents. to Ger At the commencement of the French revolutionary war, Mr. Prece Pitt advanced enormous sums, amounting to upwards of 1,200,000l., to the Emperor of Germany, to aid in the defence of the 'general interests of Europe,' without the previous sanction of Parliament. Mr. Pitt's Upon the attention of the House of Commons being directed to this advances affair, it was proposed to pass a vote of censure on the minister, but many. his friends interposed, and induced the House to agree to an amendment, declaring that the proceeding in question, though not to be drawn into precedent, but upon occasion of special necessity, was, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, a justifiable and proper exercise of the discretion vested in his Majesty's ministers' by a former vote of credit. Observe also the proceedings of the House Increase of Commons, in 1805, in regard to Mr. Pitt's conduct in loaning to navy public money to Boyd, Benfield & Co., public contractors, to enable without authority them to fulfil their engagements with government. But when, in of Parlia 1840, after the prorogation of Parliament, the government ordered ment. an increase to be made to the navy, beyond that authorised by the legislature-although the circumstances which induced the government to assume this responsibility were exceptional and peculiargreat objection was taken in the House of Commons to the act, and it was declared by Sir R. Peel, and other leading members, that either a supplementary vote of credit, in anticipation of the emergency, should have been asked for, or else the special attention of the House should have been directed thereto by the crown, at the re-assembling of Parliament, in order to obtain indemnification for the transaction, either by a special Act of Indemnity, or in some other way, so as to prevent its being hereafter drawn into precedent. It was finally agreed to introduce a clause into the Appropriation Bill, for the purpose of recording the sense of the House on this proceeding.9 Again, so recently as March 7, 1859, resolutions were submitted to the Committee of Supply for the grant of 1,050,000l. to make good a deficiency in the appropriations for the army, and for the grant of 133,3837. 88. 9d. to defray an excess in the naval expenditure, over and above the sums voted for the service of the preceding year. This deficiency arose out of the emergencies of the Indian mutiny • Parl. Hist. November 13, 1796. A Bill of Indemnity to Mr. Pitt was afterwards passed nem. con. Stanhope's Pitt, v. 4, p. 311. But England sustained heavy losses by this loan, see Russell, Life of Fox, v. 3, P. 47. P Parl. D. v. 5, pp. 385-424. Mir. of Parl. 1841, pp. 481, 931; 4 & 5 Vict. c. 53, sec. 11, 12. See also a debate in the H. of C. on Excess of naval and military expendi ture. VOL. II. C China war. and the Chinese war. A large proportion of the liability incurred on behalf of the army was by way of an advance, to be repaid out of the Indian revenue: and the actual deficiency for the army service would have only amounted to about 180,000l. if the surpluses on certain other army votes could have been taken in aid; but owing to an alteration made in the Appropriation Act of 1856-7, these surpluses were obliged to be repaid into the Exchequer." Anyhow, a very considerable expenditure, in excess of the Appropriation Act of the year, had been incurred upon the responsibility of ministers. This proceeding did not give rise to any formal discussion in the House of Commons, but it was severely animadverted upon in the 'Parliamentary Remembrancer.' t S In the following year a similar occurrence took place, the history of which is especially noteworthy, as it points out the securities which have been devised, by the wisdom of Parliament, to ensure that no extraordinary responsibility in regard to the expenditure of money should be assumed by the government without the attention of the House of Commons being called thereto by accountable officers. The circumstances were as follows: Soon after the meeting of Parliament, in 1860, the government-being aware that an expenditure had been incurred by the naval and military departments, on account of the China war, for which no provision had been made in the ordinary grants for those services in the preceding session--submitted an estimate to the House of Commons, on February 21, to enable them to meet the anticipated excess of expenditure. On March 19, a vote of credit for 850,000l. for this service was reported from Committee of Supply. But 'under the legal restrictions applicable to votes in supply, no actual issue out of the vote of credit could be made at the Exchequer until Parliament had appropriated ways and means from which the issue could be legally met. It became necessary, therefore, to vote a sum in ways and means' to cover this vote. Accordingly, on March 21, such a vote was reported. 'Votes of ways and means (which are authorities to take moneys out of the Consolidated Fund), unlike votes in supply, have not legal effect until an Act has been passed confirming the grant of ways and means. The delay which was occasioned by the necessity of obtaining a Ways and Means Act to sanction the issue of the amount of the vote of credit out of the Consolidated Fund in the year for which it was granted, postponed the day on which the issue could be legally made at the Exchequer until March 31, 1860, the last day of the financial year 1859-60." Owing to this delay, the See Com. Pap. 1859, sess. 1, vol. 14, p. 589. * Hans. D. v. 152, p. 1405. The Ways and Means Act referred to did not receive the royal assent until March 31. vote in supply became in effect a deficiency vote, and therefore China war. applicable to make good an expenditure already defrayed, and not, as in all ordinary cases, a provision to meet prospective expenditure.' Accordingly, on receipt of advice of the Exchequer credit for the amount voted, the paymaster-general placed that amount to the credit of the 'treasury chest' in his books: from whence, agreeably to usage, the moneys required for the navy and army services in China had been advanced. This transaction was carefully investigated by the Committee on Public Accounts, in 1863, who did not see cause to question the regularity of the proceedings of any public department in respect thereto. But, in order to strengthen the check upon the government, and to prevent unauthorised expenditure, they reiterated a recommendation of the Committee on Public Moneys, in 1857, that 'all payments of the paymaster-general should be checked from day to day in the department in which they are authorised or made, by an officer appointed by the commissioners of audit,' whose duty it should be to follow from day to day the appropriation of every payment to its proper account, and to report immediately to the commissioners any excess of the vote sanctioned by Parliament, or other irregularity.'v of Blacas On February 18, 1867, the chancellor of the exchequer proposed Purchase a vote of 45,7217., to defray the cost of buying the Blacas collection collection of coins and antiquities for the British Museum. Ministers had, in of coins. the previous autumn, assumed the responsibility of this purchase, in order to secure this unique and valuable collection for the nation. Under the circumstances, the vote was agreed to, without opposition. of which unautho rised expenditure is de frayed. It may be asked, Out of what fund are the govern- Funds out ment able to make these enormous advances? If the comptroller-general is empowered, as we have seen, to interpose his authority, and forbid the issue of any money, except such as may be asked for by the Treasury under the express authority of Parliament, how is it that the government are able to obtain possession of the means to incur extraordinary expenditure, without a previous Act of Appropriation? The wisdom of Parliament has itself provided for this contingency. The public interests require that the government should possess the power of incurring expenses of in * Second Rep. of Com. on Pub. Accts. pp. iii.-vii. Com. Pap. 1863, v. 7. Hans. D. v. 185, p. 491. |