1.—2

2

21. Then, supposing that part of the expenditure, which was charged in your books in 1875, had been arranged for, or contracted for, prior to 31st December, 1873, was it your opinion that, according to tho proper interpretation of the 55th section of the Act, the Treasury would have been able to charge that expenditure against the £200,000, although the actual payment charged in your books had been made after that date ?—That was my impression. 22. Was there any considerable part of the sum which was charged in your books after Ist January, 1874, money which, in your opinion, might have been charged back as having been incurred, under the interpretation of section, 55 prior to 31st December, 1873 ? —I never examined the books with a special view to ascertain that point. I have no doubt that a very large portion of it might have been taken for the purpose. 23. Have you reason to suppose that that was the impression that existed in the mind of Sir Julius Vogel, when you say he thought this balance of £240,000 was still available ? —I have no doubt that was his impression. 24. Then we are to understand that the reason why tho discovery of the difficulty was not made before March, 1875, really was that you considered the Treasury might have charged back that which you say was a " considerable portion ?" —I do not know that the discovery was in any way connected with that circumstance. It was discovered by the Commissioners of Audit, that the immigration expenditure charged against the vote of 1874-75 would certainly exhaust it long before the end of the financial year. 25. Supposing, however, that the interpretation of the clause allowed that charge to be made back, are we to understand that the amount which it is now proposed to indemnify the Treasurer for not having brought to charge, as required by law, would be w rell within the total sum which Parliament had contemplated would be required for immigration ? —I am not sure whether any sum of the expenditure which has been charged this year could have been charged back on tho unexpended appropriation. I think the omission to charge back to that permanent appropriation expenditure which should have been charged on it, was an omission of the previous year. That omission had this effect: —ln making out the Reserve Account of 1873-74 we reserved the whole balance of the immigration vote. The balance of that vote, capable of being reserved, would have been larger than £50,000, if the expenditure charged for immigration in 1873-74 had been charged back against the permanent appropriation of £200,000 in 1871. 26. Mr. J. Shephard.] I understood you to say that it was the Commissioners of Audit who first drew attention to the state of the account, but previously I understood from the Treasurer that it was he who drew attention to it in the first instance ; that he put himself in this position to prevent any wrong or apparent wrong being done ?—Not as Treasurer, but as Minister for Immigration. 27. It was he who did so ?—Yes. 28. Then had these accounts been dealt with due care in the previous year this difficulty would not have occurred ? —I think not, if the expenditure in the previous year had been properly charged. 29. In point of fact it is simply neglect in some department that has caused the difficulty with the Government? —I think so. I may state that the Treasury never questioned the propriety of the spending department expending one of its own votes; nor does it take any care, or watch with any care, whether the sum total of a vote is being rapidly approached, or whether there is a probability of its being over-expended. 30. The Chairman.] By the word "Treasury," do you mean the permanent officers of that department ?—Yes. 31. You would not include the Minister ?—No. 32. Mr. J. Shephard.] Tho table of figures that has been referred to* is dated 14th July, 1874. I presume that would be furnished to Sir Julius Vogel immediately previous to the delivery of the Financial Statement last year ? —Yes, when he was framing the immigration estimates. 33. The Accountant to the Treasury who signs this return gives the balance that actually expired on 31st December, 1873, as the balance unexpended, obviously leading a Minister, who was otherwise fully employed, to the conclusion that he could clearly deal with this balance ? —The return was a precise answer to a request made by Sir Julius Vogel for it. It was a return of unexpended balances. 34. Yes, but this balance had lapsed ? —I did not know that; that was not a question for the Treasury to determine. 35. It was on this return that Sir Julius Vogel based his immigration estimates, and he appears to have been misled by it, whereby the present difficulty has arisen ?—I have no doubt he was. lam sure he founded his estimates on that return; 30. And that balance did not at that time exist ?—lt did not exist as an available balance, as subsequently appeared. The Chairman.] Do you not think that the permanent officers of the Treasury (of course I mean the heads) should consider it their duty, besides being parts of an administrative machine, to be informed of the law under which they make their calculations ? For instance, they would make themselves acquainted with the annual Appropriation Act ? —Yes. 38. And made their calculations on that Act ?—Yes. 39. Then do you not think that it is generally the duty of the permanent heads of the Treasury to bo aware of any law- regulating the balance of payments from the Treasury, or requisitions on the Public Account ?—Yes. 40. Then it would follow that iv this particular case they omitted to see how the law stood when that return was, furnished to Sir Julius Vogel ?—Yes, I consider it my duty, as Secretary, to be aware of every law relating to the department with which I am connected ; but I do not consider it my duty to satisfy myself that a particular appropriation of this kind, or that the means which may appear to be placed by law at the service of any Minister, are so available. 41. In this case you considered it your duty merely to comply with the request of Sir Julius Vogel for some particular information ?—Yes. * The table of figures was attached to the correspondence read.

Mr. Batkin.

2nd Aug., 1875,