Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

grants of 1796 to retrospective fervices fell under this refolution, and had been followed up with ftill further violations of the law. Mr. Grey's 7th refolution, therefore, was founded upon thefe obfervations, and he proceeded to call the attention of the house to the act paffed in 1782, in pursuance of a plan of reform, for regulating the office of payn.after-general of the forces. This, he obferved, had been repealed from fome defect in its conftruction, and a new one paffed under the prefent minifter, intended to remedy the evils arifing from balances remaining in the hands of the paymafter-general, and to fecure the regular payment of the army. This had been openly violated. In the firft account of the application of the vote of credit of 1796, the fum of 430,000l. was iffued to the paymafter-general, of which a balance of 83,300l. was actually now in his hands, contrary to the affurance which had on a former night been given to the houfe. With regard to the accumulation of balance in the hands of the paymafter-general, the act provided that the fums for the cloathing of the army fhould be iffued periodically; but by the account on the table, from midfummer 1794 to December 1795, no money had been iffued for this fervice; and part of the arrears were difcharged from the fupplies for the current year; yet no attempt had been made to account for the application of the fum originally diverted. Upon thefe facts Mr. Grey grounded four more refolutions, and proceeded to confider the difpofition paper. This document, he obferved, had originated in the extravagant reign of Charles II. and had been eftablished at the Revolution as a real account for the information of par

liament, how the fupplies were employed. This paper he now arraigned as completely falfe. It stated, that the fums voted for the army, &c. had been iffued and applied, where none had been iffued, and when that branch of the fervice was fill in arrear. It might be faid, this was only a form, and that under this form the paymastergeneral received from the treafury the fums required. But would the houfe fuffer the minifter to apply the public money as he thought proper, in defiance of folemn enactments of the legislature? On these topics, four other refolutions were founded by Mr. Grey, amounting in all to 15, the last of which stated that "in the inftances mentioned, his majefly's minifters had been guilty of prefenting falfe accounts, calculated to mislead the judgment of the houfe, of a flagrant violation of various acts of parliament, and of a grofs mifapplication of the public money."

Mr. Pitt obferved, that the first refolution ftated, that at all times, and under all circumstances, it was the indifpenfable duty of the house vigilantly to fuperintend the expenditure of the public money, and to inquire into the application of the grants. That it was the duty of parliament ftrictly to enforce the application of it to the letter of the act, required, he said, a retrofpective authority, which the house had not the means of enforcing. The act of appropriation, he agreed, applied, in binding and fpecific terms, to the regulation of the payment of the navy and army fervices. He admitted, alfo, that minifters did not attend to the minute fub-divifions mentioned in the act of appropriation; they only generally took care that no more fhould be iffued for the army out of the

fupplies

fupplies during the year, than the amount of the fum for which credit had been given. It should be alfo recollected, that the act had been precifely in the fame form fince the reign of George I. But admitting the breaches of the act in certain inftances, did it follow that minifters deferved the imputation of criminality, and the cen. fure of the house? It was certainly eafy to make a charge upon a deviation from the letter of an act: but it was right in the first place to afk, whether the deviation was or was not neceffary? whether it was unprecedented or founded on practice? and whether it was clandeftine, and done with an intent to deceive, or fanctioned by the decifions of the houfe? Extraordinaries were allowed by all to be neceffary, and certainly never more fo than in a war like the prefent. How were they to be paid for but by with-holding fome of the payments of the fervices regularly voted? This was the whole of the fubject, as far as principle was concerned. Since the reigns of William and of Anne, nay even in times of peace, there had not been one year in which extraordinaries had not been paid, and the appropriation at confequently violated. Confidering the variety of operations to which the views of minifters must be directed in a war like the prefent, and the neceffary changes which must take place, it would ill accord with the public fervice to bind them down to the strict letter of the act. "So much for guards, garrifons, &c." paffed when it was impoffible to judge precifely of the proper limitations. He was willing to allow, that the practice formerly exifted in fums far fhort of the prefent, but not fo fmall as had been ftated. In the reign of queen Anne,

between 300,000 and 400,000l. had been incurred; and the difference of the value of money then and now ought to be confidered. Extraordinaries were alfo incurred in the years 1740 and 1741, in the German and in the American wars. In the administration of Mr. Pelham, the expences were paid in a way different from the act of appropriation. In that of lord Wilmington, 1743, a cenfure was moved against the practice, which was negatived by a great majority. If any cenfure lay in this cafe, it was against parliament, not againft minifters, who merely carried into effect practices for the fervice of the country which had been fanctioned by parliament, not only in the above inftances, nor even only tacitly and indirectly, but by the report of the committee in 1782, which ftated the practice of extraordinaries as a grievance to the houfe. Even the act of appropriation itself afforded a vindication of the practice, fince part of it was to make good feveral millions of extraordinaries. The practice was further recognized by the pay-office act, and by a transaction in 1782, when the house thought it neceffary to vote a fum upon the army account, to give the paymafter a credit, to entitle the minifter during the recefs to referve it on account of extraordinaries, and to encrease the credit of the army beyond what was given for the regular fervice. He admitted that the fuccessful and undeniable defence was the neceffity of the cafe: yet, there were different ways in which the practice of extraordinaries had been recognized. In 1786 and 1791, fo far was parliament from fhutting their eyes to the extraordinaries, that, in each of these committees, there was an eftimate of their pro

bable

bable amount the one of 260,000ol. the other of 280,000l. arising out of them, and not provided for by parliament; but not one word againft the principle. The prefent minifters, he contended, not only adopted in this inftance every beneficial inftitution of Mr. Grenville, but the measures of colonel Barre. One of the charges against himfelf, he obferved, was, that he had conftantly propofed a vote of credit to a greater amount than had been hitherto voted: what was that but a compliance with the regulations of colonel Barre, to endeavour, as there was foreseen a neceffity for extraordinaries to a large amount, to eftimate the probable amount? Bills of exchange, as they were guided by the local regulations of the places they were drawn at, could not be estimated with precision. Confequently, the charge of not propofing full eftimates amounted only to having failed where no man in his fenfes could pretend to accuracy. That nothing was kept back from the public, he argued, from the vote of credit, which he had preffed to an unexampled extent. Had he gone beyond a probable eftimate, there must have been a dead fund provided, greatly to the injury of the public. He lamented, that, partly from the fluctuation in the prices of different articles,-partly from the impoffibility of forefeeing many neceffary expences, and partly from the errors in his calculation, large and heavy extraordinaries were ftill left. From feveral cir. cumstances befides the greater extent of the prefent war compared with the American, and the increafed dearnefs of provifions, there was, he contended, a balance in favour of the prefent war, and against the American, of 4,500,000l.

incurred in extraordinaries. The total amount of the deficiency of the navy and army, and of the unprovided of the ordnance, amounted in the three years of the prefent war to fixteen or feventeen millions; and in the American war the deficiency amounted to 23,000,000l. With refpect to the iffuing of bills by the paymaftergeneral, the warrant was ftrictly conformable to the letter and spirit of the act of parliament. The bank was to keep open a cash account with the paymafter-general; and it was generally understood that the bank would not charge itself with any thing but cash. When, therefore, the exchequer bills were iffued by warrant, and came into the bank, they acquainted the paymafter that they could not receive them as cafh; the bills were therefore difpofed of by him, not out of choice, but neceffity. Since that, the bank had agreed to receive them as cafh. It had, he obferved, been objected, that when the memorials for payment were prefented, the treafury had not, according to the ftatute, complied with the demand. At that time, however, there was no money in the treafury, nor was it poffible to make a punctual provifion for fums which could not be previously afcertained, and at a time which could not exactly be forefeen, without taking from the establishment, or the fums voted on eftimate, thofe fums which it became abfolutely indifpenfable to apply for that purpose. It feemed but juft upon confideration, that if any clafs were compelled to fuffer any temporary inconvenience, it fhould fall upon those best able to support it. Officers on the staff could not be fuppofed to want those fums which were abfolutely neceffary

for

for the other claffes. It was, Mr. Pitt further stated, impoffible to afcertain or meet the public expences by ways and means, however large, as the house had neither the power nor judgment to form an eftimate of their amount, to fay what would be the state of the confolidated fund, what the bank would agree to advance, or what the loan would produce. Was it, then, any reproach to the treasury not to foresee impoffibilities;-to afcertain ways and means which were in their nature unascertainable? The application of the vote of credit to past fervices was, he contended, juft and neceffary. Was it meant, he asked, that the army money was not to be ufed for extraordinaries, and that the exchequer bills were to be paid to a great lofs for the purpose of coming within the act of parliament? This, he contended, would be a material difadvantage to the public. He vindicated the difpofition paper, as not being in the leaft more liable to the charge of deceiving parliament than any paper of the fame nature fince the acceffion. It had, he stated, been laid upon the table, as a mere matter of course. It was an account of the fums expended for the public fervice in 1795 to March 1796. It was liable to be taken in two senses: first, with regard to the items refpectively applied, and a diftinct statement of the various heads of fervice, fuch as navy, ordnance, &c. and it was true it took notice of every item of expence, and drew a total of the whole, under the column of fums granted, and then gave the fums granted, and the fums paid; but in the prefent inftance, instead of any fums being annexed to the items, there were only oppofite perfect blanks.

Mr. Fox contended, that whoever had heard the defence fet up without hearing the accufation, muft have thought that the latter was against having incurred any extraordinaries at all; not that they had been incurred improvidently, or had been with-held improperly from the houfe; or, when incurred and provided for, the money voted for them had not been applied to their difcharge. Arguing generally, it was, no doubt, certain, that when neceffity demanded, the act of appropriation must be difpenfed with; and this fort of argument would apply to any other law; inevitable neceffity being an answer to every thing. The cafe which had been alluded to, and which was debated in 1743 or 1744, when the houfe had inquired into the difpofition of 40,000l. only proved, that 145 members of the houfe thought that the flighteft deviation from the appropriation was deferving of cenfure. But the accufation here was, not that the payment of a particular bill fhould not be made when it became neceffary for the fervice, but that the extraordinaries had been long with-held from the house. There was, he contended, a material difference between the fituation of minifters in the American war and now; it was then totally impoffible to put an end to extraordinaries. So far, however, was what had been advanced (viz. that the whole of our extraordinaries in three years amounted only to 4,000,000l.) from being true, that they exceeded this even in the prefent year. In the calculation that had been made to prove that the extraordinaries of the American war were greater than the prefent, deductions, Mr. Fox faid, had been made, which had not been allowed in the calcu

lations

lations for lord North; and in illuftration of this he stated the fums. The great matter to be explained, he obferved, was, why were the fums, voted by the houfe for extraordinary purpofes, not applied to their ori, ginal deftination? Why were they delayed after they were provided for? Why was the payment for the cloath ing of the army fo long delayed? That the money fo voted was applied neceffarily to other purpofes, was no reafon for delaying the payment one hour after the vote for the next fupply which included all thefe allowances, and made up all thefe deficiencies. The minifter anfwered this, he faid, by the avowal of a fyftem which tended to bring our finances into the greatest confufion, that new votes for old demands fhould, at the difcretion of the executive government, be applied to the difcharge of ftill newer demands: fo that, to the uncertainty of the application of money there would be no end. The minifter ought in future to declare, that though he called for money for a defcribed purpofe, he meant to apply it to another. He heartily wifhed for a fyftem, by which they might underftand what was doing, and, if neceffary, that the houfe might vote occafionally fo much for the deficiency of fupply of each preceding year. It would not be a more fubftantial violation of the law than the prefent practice, and certainly would be more intelligible to the public. Without fome alteration in the fyftem, neither the houfe of commons nor the public could ever know that money was applied to the purpofes to which the law deftined it. The pay mafter's act, he muft, he faid, ftill contend, had been pofitively and unneceffarily violated. If the bank

would not receive exchequer, bills, why id not government iffue money in another way for the purpose for which thefe bills were iffued? Had no arrangement been made with the bank, to what a fituation would they have been reduced! Mr. Fox very ably argued against the intration of the appropriation act, and ridiculed the idea of the conditions of it being flated as impoflible to be obferved by the very perfon who had had a flare in framing it. The act feemed to be left as a monument of the inefficacy of parliament-a monument of the motives of a man who merely intended to gain a little popularity. Mr. Fox animadverted with much force upon the fatal impreffions left upon the minds of the people by measures of this nature. feverely cenfured the infringement of the paymafter's act, refpecting which he afferted no excufe could be offered, as there was no precedent for the breach. It was, therefore, according even to the statement of minifters, knowingly and unneceffarily fet afide, and virtually made a fheet of waste paper. Mr. Steele vindicated the proceedings of minifters, and propofed the previous queftion; which was carried by a majority of 171. Ayes 209, noes 38.

He

Previous to the above difcuffion, the report of the committee of fupply upon the refolution for granting a fubfidy of 200,000l. to his Sardinian majefty, was prefented to the houfe, on the 3d of May. Mr. Fox obferved, that, from a material change of circumftances, this fubfidy did not stand upon the fame ground as formerly. It was then understood that he was to co-operate with the allies against France:

[ocr errors]

he had now manifefted a defire for peace. If it was our object to

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »