CHAP. XII. Absence of Control. 249 proved to be futile. That officer was not in the Cabinet; in all matters of finance was wholly subordinate to the Treasury, and without any Original or Independent function in regard to the custody or au lit of public moneys required for Barrack buildings. ignored. 24. But there were existing at that time His Majesty's Commissioners for the audit of public accounts, who Audit Comheld a statutory authority under the 25 Geo. III. c. 52, missioners for the examination of the accounts of all imprest accountants, to whom money voted by Parliament had been entrusted. Therefore, to ignore these public functionaries under the pretext of an agreement by the BarrackmasterGeneral with the King, that they should not examine his accounts, was a doctrine so extravagant, that it could not receive sanction from any Constitutional Minister responsible to Parliament for the expenditure of public money. Controversy 25. The first controversy that appears to have arisen originated between the Barrackmster - General and the Secretary at War on matters of account. In 1795, with Secrethe Barrack-master-General having delivered in his tary at War. accounts for the years 1792-3, and to 24th June, 1794, the Secretary at War surcharged him therein with all the money, amounting to 48,6617. 7s. 6d., spent on barracks in the year 1792, through the agency of the commanding officers of cavalry, and subsequently declined to make any final audit of the Barrackmaster-General's accounts. over Barrackmaster-Gene ral. 26. Unfortunately, from circumstances, and especially the last, it happened that the Barrackmaster - General was suffered to act in matters of finance without No control ministerial supervision or control of any kind, and as a natural sequence, great irregularities of conduct were brought to light when the Commissioners of Military Enquiry, appointed by 45 Geo. III., c. 47, examined into, and reported upon, the affairs of the Department.' A.D. 1806. Reports of 27. It is impossible to read the Commissioners' Reports without a conviction that the great abuses originated (independently of the personal character of the officer) in the system which it was then attempted to in- on Military augurate utterly at variance with the principles Inquiry. - 14th Rep., 1806, p. 193. Committees that regulate the "Civil Administration of the Army." A military officer taken from the Executive Department of the Army was employed to frame estimates and expend public money under the nominal supervision and control of the Minister, who was to submit these estimates to Parliament. The control was so weak that it was practically useless, and as a consequence, all efficient check upon this officer's expenditure of public money was lost. with the Public Af fairs. 28. It was easy for him to mistake his position; to consider Controversy himself "in all respects with regard to the Barrack Auditors of Department what the Secretary at War was to the army at large," for-he was commissioned by the King, and he had obeyed the Commander-in-Chief—what right had the Auditors of public moneys to question the propriety of his expenditure? He would rather bear the supreme punishment -not of Parliamentary impeachment or civil trial, which are the real securities that the public are entitled to, but―" of censure of a Military Court for neglect of duty in his official capacity," than accept such responsibility. He alone could judge of the fairness of the expenditure on his department, and, therefore, no Auditor or other public servant ought to open up his accounts. 66 The only circumstance, therefore, to which the operation of the Auditors would go would be to inaccuracies in calculations, which might arise from the want of sufficient attention in subordinate persons in the office, it being evidently impossible that such minute parts of the business could be executed personally by the Barrackmaster-General; and thus, for the possibility of discovering, after a very laborious examination having taken place in the Barrack Office, an error of a trifling nature, a very considerable portion of the valuable time of the officers and clerks of the Auditors' Office must be wasted, when, by a more liberal examination upon some general principles, the accounts might be settled without delay, and the public interest be equally well guarded." 1 29. Whenever the Auditors entered upon their duties, the Accountant Barrackmaster - General, instead of producing and cumstances of vouching his accourts, made a statement of "the cir urges the cir 1 Barrackmaster's Statement in 4th Rep., 1806, p. 86. CHAP. XII. No Prevention of Fraud. 251 cumstances of his appointment as necessary to them to his appointform a just opinion on the matters about to be brought ment," before them," contending that he had a most solemn compact with the Monarch that his accounts should not be examined— suggestions obviously made to deter the Auditors from entering upon their public duties, the discharge of which were, as the accounting party would have had it believed, not only useless to the public but offensive to the Sovereign. Results of ment. 30. The Reports of the Commissioners of Military Inquiry enable any reader who is anxious to follow out the results of the scheme, to see (1) what success attended the appointit, (2) and the possible consequences of abandoning, as some desire, all financial control over the expenditure made by executive officers of the Army. As to sup 31. I. As to the supplies which were to be "good and in sufficient quality," and to be "provided on the best and most reasonable terms." To effect this object, in plies. December, 1794, the Barrackmaster-General did what any person totally ignorant of all commercial dealings would do,2 viz. : he agreed with one person (A. Davison) to take the whole matter off his hands, and save him from "all trouble and disappointment in the business;" but he did not make any effectual stipulation to protect the public from extravagance either in the price, quality, or quantity of the supply, or even in the issue of public money to this monopolist.3 As to pre 32. II. As to the profession" that no frauds were to be committed, or any advantage taken under pretence of perquisites or emoluments," the accounts of the Bar- vention of rackmaster-General show that he took a "liberal" view of his legitimate rights and privileges. Under the head 1 Barrackmaster's Statement in 4th Rep., 1806, p. 6. frauds. 2 3rd Rep., p. 8. 3 See Annual Register, vol. 1., p. 133, for the trial of this person, and vol. li., p. 135, for the sentence of twenty-one months' imprisonment in Newgate upon him. As to the previous incidents of his life, see vol. xlv., p. 119; vol. xlvi., p. 383; vol. xlix., p. 102, note; vol. li., p. 102, note. The defence was conducted upon the Barrackmaster-General's theory that it must be supposed to be impossible for a person in such high society to commit a fraud. 4 1st Rep., p. 88. of "contingencies," he introduced into his first account, rendered in 17951 (before any disallowances were suggested), a charge of 17. 18. per cent. to cover disallowances on all expenditure, which amounted to a total sum of 88,9437. on his final accounts. Departmental expenses. 33. III. As a "contingent office" expense," he purchased a personal residence, and furnished it at the cost of or contingent 80007., supplying himself with coals and candles at the public cost. His travelling expenses (60327. for eight years) were such as to call for remark from the Commissioners, who added that there were "no vouchers for these expenses, nor any detailed account of them in the Barrack Office." His salary had been increased to 87. a day (part of which had been twice charged), and a pension of 67. a day was granted to him for life out of the Barrack Expenditure on retirement from his appointment in 1804. Establish ment in 34. IV. As might be expected from his experience, the establishment charges largely increased, viz., in the creased. eight years (1796 to 1804), from 27,991 16s. 6d. to 74,0007., and-which could scarcely have been expected-viz., Barrackmasters were appointed to places where 10 barracks existed. Total amount un 10,000,000l. 35. One of the last traces of this discreditable transaction in the Parliamentary Papers is to be found in the Report of the Finance Commissioners of 1811. In March, accounted for, 1807, two Commissioners (appointed under the provisions of 47 Geo. III. c. 13, specially passed for this one object) began to examine the only accounts ever delivered by the Barrackmaster-General, viz., those up to 1795. When the Commissioners reported, they had gone through such statements of cash as had been found-and to make the result clear to themselves, and afterwards intelligible to others—had reduced the Barrackmaster-General's pecuniary transactions with the Secretary at War to the form of merchants' accounts (such 1 1st Rep., p. 10. 4 Ib., p. 142. 5 CHAP. XII. Reckless Expenditure. 253 as is "in use in every commercial country in Europe"); but the final accounts of his expenditure of 10,000,000l., and of his personal defalcations, had not then been completed. Reasons for ment of Bar ment. 36. In looking back at these transactions, it is impossible to do more than conjecture what could have been the real motive of suddenly improvising such a staff of the appointinexperienced persons to carry out such an important rack Depart undertaking. If the object was to withdraw a large official reexpenditure from the control of Parliament, by plac- sponsibility. ing it in the hands of persons holding commissions from the Sovereign and ignoring the authority of Parliament — or of persons unskilled in public affairs, ignorant of pecuniary or Parliamentary responsibility, untrained in the constitutional traditions of a large public department, and knowing only the rule of implicit obedience to a military superior, then the plan succeeded, at the cost of a vast waste of public money.1 unautho 37. When a department of the State, and all the public servants under it, are deliberately set aside, and their duties handed over to novices, the motive-whatever be its charactermust be great and overpowering; for though the result of such an experiment may be successful, yet if failure or waste ensues, the scandal of these consequences is rather to be borne by the authors than by the subordinate agents of the scheme, who, if honest, may have done their best to discharge the untried duties which they have been engaged to fulfil. In this in- Expenditure stance, anything more reckless than the expenditure reckless and cannot be conceived, or more wanting in official guarantees for the propriety of it. Thus, in one instance, a barrack for one thousand men was ordered by the Commanderin Chief, and sanctioned by the Secretary at War on the same day, verbally; and in another an expenditure of 88,000l. was immediately entered upon, with the order of the Commanderin-Chief, but without even the verbal sanction of the Secretary at War. But how could an inferior military officer hesitate to obey such a command, or-being under the Mutiny Act-be blamed for doing so? 2 rised. See further, 51 Com. Journ., p. 559; 7 H. D. (O.S.), pp. 237, 293, 1190, 1252; 8 ib., pp. 559, 843; 9 ib., p. 425. 24th Rep., p. 117. |