OVER-EXPENDITURE BY THE STAFFORD GOVERNMENT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 471, 19 November 1869, Page 3

OVER-EXPENDITURE BY THE STAFFORD GOVERNMENT.

Sir, if the opposition had wanted to take' issue with the Government, instead of leading the House on a false scent, lion, members need not have gone to the item of permanent charges. There is a distinct and absolute assurance that the expenditure upon defencepurposes was over and above the authorised j amount. It is very well to pretend thi9 indignatiou on the question of permanent charges. If the late Government had felt I aggrieved at the statement which was made for many weeks in this House, that there had j been an excess of expenditure on defence purposes, they would liave come down an<l nsked for a Committee. This Government adopted a very tender course towards the late Government. When I first discovered that there had been an excess of expenditure on defence purposis-— Mr Stafford. — How much was it ? Mr Yogel. — The sum of £27,000 was ille- i gaily expended over and ab >ye the £40,000 special order ; an 1 then there remains the liabilities still belonging to the year, and which we estimate at £69,000. When I first discovered that excess of expenditure, it obtruded itself on my mind that the painful duty might devolve upon the Government of asking the House to direct, under the terir.s of the Public Hevenues Act, tb it legal proceedings should be taken against the late Government, especially when I found that a return laid on the Üble of the House was not < % orrect — a return about which ihere was so very much discussion — of the expenditure up to the end of May. lam bound to say now, tha* when I came to look into the matter — and I hope I did it eomewbat more than dispassionately, with the idea of being saved a painful task — I founi that, under the system of accounts which obtained — the lion, member may laugh, but he would not have like 1 to have been served with a writ for £27,000 ; I do not consider the matter as one of light moment — I found that there was evidence to show that the excess of expenditure wa3 intentional, and that a Government might very readily under the system of advances which prevailed, be betrayed into an excess of expenditure. Therefore I thought it was not necessary to do more than state, in the mi'dest possible manner, and without comment, what was the mere fact of the case. I nak any lion, member, who will look at the thing dispassionately, whether, in the terms I used in the statement, or in the remarks , I made in the House, I did not pass over as lightly as possible the particular point to which lam now referring ? If the Government had wished to embarras its predecess rs, to place them in any difficulty, or make injurious reflections upon them, it could have done so upon that subject ; but it did not do so. I am not unwilling to s.iy that I have not evidence to prove that the Government were aware that they were exceeding the estimates for defence purposes, including the £40,000. I h>pe lion, members will not think I am ungenerous in making this reference now, because I cannot help doing so when I find an hon. member coming down and endeavouring to divert the attention of the House to a matter which is, comparatively speaking, of less importance. The whole thing is stated clearly, and no hon. member who reads it carefully can fail to understand it. If the hon. member could have borne out his accusation!! — for this ia what they amount to — of viadictireness on the part of this Government against the late Government, he might huve referred to the excess of expenditure upon defence purposes, which is a much j more serious point.