The Press. — London, England, 1858-04-24 00:00:00

deemed amply sufficient to make out the eharge of misdemeanour. We cannot, of course, expect the French nation to appreciate with entire fairness the motives which influenced the Jury in giving their verdict. The press of France has fallen into the not unnatural error of supposing the acquittal to be " a triumph of demagogy." But if the province of the Jury were clearly under stood by our neighbours they would perceive that, far from being a triumph of demagogy, the verdict was simply the result of the axiom which gives a prisoner in all cases the benefit of any doubt that may be left by the evidence. Nor would they, if better informed, misunder- stand the cheers with which the verdict was receivo d. _TtIE PRESS, APRIL 24, 1858. will be called in question by a subordinate, especially if—and this is quite possible—it be a personal matter. Herein consists one of the many advantages of an independent examina tion and audit of accounts. From the evidence given by Mr. KIRBY at the trial, a short time ago, of a paymaster of the Surrey Militia, it is quite clear that the examination of the war accounts has, up to a late date, been conducted in a very slovenly manner. The knowledge that their accounts will ultimately be examined by an independent Board of Audit must tend in a great degree to make both the accountants and sub-accountants of a department more careful in the preparation of their accounts than they would otherwise be. The examina tion by independent auditors must prevent, too, the chief of a department from giving ex post facto authorities to cover any inaccuracies which may he discovered in an account during its examination previous to audit. We will dismiss this part of the subject by quoting a passage, relative to the system of local audit, from a Report, drawn up by Sir H. PARNELL, in 1840, on army and navy accounts, which, though written prior to the establishment of the Appropriation Audit in connection with the army and ordnance services, still, we think,bears upon the subject. " There exist great facilities " and expedition in passing accounts ; but " there is here a great defect in principle, not " fully met by the observations in the Report ; " that is, that all these departments (i e., the " army, navy, and ordnance) audit their own " accounts, and consequently will never object to " items of expenditure, however extravagant, which " they themselves have authorized. And al " though these officers exercise a most efficient " control over their sub-accountants (we doubt " whether this be the case now), they them " selves are free from any control whatever; " —this absence of responsibility is highly " objectionable." We can to-day only call attention to one more point—that the Com missioners of Audit have no power to make a public report as to any errors which may appear in any account, except as regards the army and navy services; and that the Lards of the Treasury have the power to allow to an accountant's credit any amount disallowed by the Commissioners of Audit, however unsatis• factory the vouchers may be which are pro duced in support of the charge. Frcm this it follows that the Lords of the Treasury, not the Commissioners of Audit, are the real auditors, and that the accounts of the country are con trolled by a political instead of an independent Board. Mr. MAXWELL'S answers to queries of the Audit Board, published in a Parliamentary paper on Agrioultural Statistics (Scotland), hear out the correctness of this statement. Such answers, some of which, to use the mildest term, were of a rather uncourteous character, would not, we think, have been addressed by that individual to the Commissioners of Audit had they really had the power to disallow the items queried. We give two of the queries and answers as a specimen:— "Si 6 Description of Query or ;Answer or Explanation the oucher. Observation. z 7 of the Accountant. CtasslV.—Post- It is requested 14 age, as per that the post postage-book, age - book re f...US 0 0 ferred to may be transmitted, duly certified Declined. " that the stunt " charged was "expendeLi " solely on ac " count of the "public ser (Signed) *vice." J. H. 3Lsgwgr.t.. Paid woman The Accountant 17 Ido not choose to go cleaning office.+ is requested to into these minor del tid small itte- furnish the de- tails. Vouchers are nishings, tailed accounts impossible, as such SS 14 1 , of particulars office exnenees are of these mixed with those of Coal, light, and charges, with the Society. The petty charges, sub . vouchers whole sum charged £lO o 0 in support for office expenses is thereof. :21. 14s. If the Audit Board thinks this ex travagant, and that rent, taxes, Loads, gas, attendance. cleaning and furnishings for three rooms, can be got elsewhere cheaper it may indicate the place. (Signed) J. H. Ma.kwai.l.. earuspantlnct. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC MONIES. THE reply of the CHANCELLOR of t he ENCIIE. QUER to the question put by Mr. RIDLEY, ask ing what course her Majesty's Government intended to pursue with reference to the Report of the Committee on Public Monies, must give general satisfaction, since it is another proof that Lord DERBY'S Ministry is not opposed to change when change is likely to be really beneficial, and that a Con servative Administration has no desire to keep the publio in the dark as to the manner in which the revenue of the country is expended, but wishes that the House of Commons should be satisfied as to whe ther its votes are appropriated to the services for which they were intended, or otherwise. The chief question for discussion with refe rence to the audit of the public accounts is, whether the Appropriation Audit, as at pre sent conducted by the Commissioners of Audit, shall be retained, leaving the exami nation in detail to be conducted fly each department, separately, by means of its own officers. To this we think that several grave objections may be raised. The Appropriation Audit is not, we conceive, nearly so satisfac tory a check as many of its supporters imagine. Lord MONTEAGLE'S papzr on this subject (Appendix 111. to Report of Committee on Public Monies) shows that it is merely the vouchers or books of the department, not the original vouchers on which the payments are made, which the officer of the Audit-office in spects in order that he may ascertain whether each amount is charged against the proper vote. The Chairman of the Audit Board states that "in most cases the auditor has no " access to actual evidence of proof of pay " meat, because that evidence does not even " exist in the departments themselves ;" and Mr. HOLLINGS, a War-office clerk, likewise stated before the Committee that the Appro priation Auditor did not as a rule examine the vouchers, and that he could not do so. Now, it would appear that if the Auditor does not see the original vouchers it is quite possible for an incorrect entry in the books of a depart ment to pass unchallenged by him, and that the certificate of the Auditors " that the various sums voted have been correctly " appropriated " is nothing more than a certi ficate that in the books of the Deportment they are charged against the proper votes. This is a very material difference. The original vouchers can alone furnish satisfactory evidence that each payment is chal ged against its own vote. Another objection we see in the present system of examining the army and navy accounts is, that the exami nation in detail is left to clerks, serving under the same chief as the accountants, and looking to him for promotion; and, what is still worse, expecting, perhaps, that the person whose ac counts they now examine may at a future Pei iod become their superior officer. Besides which, it is not likely that any item, however extravagant the charge may be, which has been sanctioned by the chief of a department, MR. BRIGHT AND NATIONAL INTERESTS. TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir,—lt is the necessity of the successful political agitator to be profuse in promises. He is, on the whole, a very fair interpreter of human nature ; he hopes to win on the ear of the multitude by raising their expectations, and binding them by interest to his special object. So long as the Anti-Corn-Law League had something to promise, so long as Mr. Bright could harangue in Manchester about the blessings that would certainly follow from free trade in corn, h e was a popu l ar politician ; he asked only for the voices of the crowd, and in exchange he promised them b rea d. Th e temptation was so great, the sacrifice so small, that it was next to impossible, on the part of the opera tives, not to shout " Bright for ever ! " For a brief period, when gold from Australia, united with emigra tion and cheap bread, caused an excessive activity in the labour market of the. north, Mr. Bright was in " high feather." But times changed—the Russian war and dear bread followed ; then came bread riots in London, Manchester, Nottingham, itc. Peace, high wages, cheap bread, promised by the prophet, were followed by war, low wages, often no wages, and dear bread. Mr. Bright's popularity faded, antagonism followed, and though elected for Manchester as a " Peace man," be was shamefully hooted in her streets for the faithfulness with which he adhered to his peace principles. That was disgraceful to Manchester, and ought to have taught Mr. Bright a lesson of value as to the worth of popular applause. On all social quetions he has been the opponent of the working men. He sneered at the London bakers, who asked the House of Commons to abolish night work in bakehouses by law ; they worked sixteen and eighteen hours a day, and many of those employed in the low-priced bake houses regularly spit blood. Mr. Bright ridiculed their petitions; they were the victims of bread un fairly cheapened, and could hardly have hoped for his support—but might well have been spared his sarcasm. To factory regulation Mr. Bright was a bitter opponent. The real object of his political life was never, perhaps, more ingeniously and distinctly revealed than in 1952, when, in a debate on the Militia Bill, he assured " the right honourable gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that he did not seem to know the connection of capital and labour. Taking the cotton manufacture, only profitable by being kept constantly at work : to take from the mills for the militia men engaged in this difficult and delicate operation, would be ruin to those manufacturers." This is the whole secret ; land, funds, Church, and Crown, must all be sacri ficed to the one interest of cotton. More than all these, the working men themselves roust sacrifice their incomes—the wages of their labour—to one in terest, founded on a foreign plant, the profits on the manufacture of which are so low, in the hey-day of its prosperity, that only constant work can yield a profit ! It is to this end that the fruit of the civiliza tion of ages is to be sacrificed. Yesterday the cry was cheap bread—it has proved a rank delusion ; to. day it is cheap government—which, if realized, would prove to the working men, for whom it is specially asked, a hollow mockery. The proportion of gain from cheap government, when measured against the actual loss arising from the operation of unrestricted competition on wages, cannot possibly, to a great ex tent, improve the condition of the producing classes. A judicious economy is much to be desired ; it should, however, be made to rest on its own merits ; and to put forth a reduction of taxes as a powerful remedial measure is rank quackery. How it would have fared with England had Lord Derby's Govern ment not carried their Militia Bill, is a question worthy of the attention of Mr. Bnght's constituents. Since the apotheosis of the triumph of the Free-trade movement in Manchester, which followed the repeal of the Corn Laws, the influence of the Free trade leaders has gradually declined, and during the Russian war was at the lowest. Hitherto, all attempts to resuscitate the old spirit have failed. In 1852 Mr. Bright actually threatened war; yes, the apostle of peace was in arms. Addressing the Derby Cabinet, Mr. Bright said,—" We make war against you ;" to prevent mistake as to his intension, be de clared that under certain circumstances there should be" a tumult in this country, to which that of 1852 was but as a whisper to a hurricane." The past his tory and the present facts are instructive. Lord Derby is in office ; the hurricane has still to come. Birmingham, so famous in 1852, Bright, so success ful in 1840, ara united; but Downing street stands where it dil, and Mr. Disraeli, the denounced of 1852, is again Chancellor of the Exchequer ! These things considered, it is not remarkable that another appeal should be made to the masses, and false pro ohecy should endeavour to hide its failure by any means most likely to serve its present and pressing necessities.—l am, sir, your obedient servant, April 12, 185,. Tani Lunn. 1