The Press. — London, England, 1856-11-22 00:00:00

1106 The Exchequer (they state) is the great conservator of the revenues of the nr.tion. It does not exercise any authority over the administrative departments of receipt, nor over the departments of payment, any further than to guard against the illegal application of auy portion of the public income. The constitutional functions of its officers, who hold their situations for Ilk, are to provide for the safekeeping and proper appropriation of the public money. For this purpose it is charged with the receipt of the revenues, which are vested in its name and deposited in its care, until issued unties the authority of Parliament fur the services of the State; and it is paled with the power of denying its sanction to any demands upon it from whatever Minister or department they may be made, unless these demands are found iu accordance with the determination of the Legislature. The Commissioners here laid down with precision and clearness the object and prin ciple of the Exchequer, in reference to the functions of receipt and control, and all their recommendations were in conformity with that object and principle. As regards the functions of receipt, they recommended the payment of all public monies, " without ex ception," into the Exchequer, and that in future all payments of the public income to the credit of the Exchequer should be made wholly and directly into the Bank of England under two heads-Ist, the payments of the Receiver-General and other receivers of taxes, who are known and recognised public officers, which payment the Bank should he authorised to receive directly from those officers ; and, 2nd,! all other payments due to the public, which latter the Bank may be directed to receive on account of the Exchequer, on special authority from the Treasury. And as regards the funetions of control, they recom mend that a general credit be given in the first instance at the Exchequer by a royal order (with copies attached of the estimates on which the money referred to has been granted) to each department or office con cerned in the management of the public ex penditure, for such amount as Parliament shall have voted to such department, and that a special credit be subsequently given by warrants of the Treasury to make use of this credit. They detail with considerable minuteness the mode in which these orders and warrants are to be prepared and recorded ; and they conclude that portion of their Report by stating that if these regulations be established, the Treasury will be able, from month to month, to ascer tain how much of each grant of Parliament is exhausted, and how much remains to be ex pended. It will know whether each depart ment, or office of expenditure, disposes of the public money according to legal authority, and the Exchequer will also be able to prevent any appropriation of this public money except according to the directions of Parliament. We have considered it necessary to be some what minute in stating the recommendations and views of the Commission, because the most important question for the consideration of the Select Committee of last session—from which they appear to have shrunk, but to ' which we are now anxious to invite attention— isl, this, whether or not the functions of the 1 . Exchequer at the present time are calculated to effect the objects contemplated by the ' Commission either as regards receipt or con trol ; if not, whether any, or what, further alterations may be necessary, anti whether these alterations ought to be in the direction of increasing or diminishing the power of the Exchequer. The Act of Parliament in 1834 ' 4 William IV., chap. 15—certainly falls short of the Report of 1831. The Report, as we hive remarked, recommended that without any exception all the public monies should be in the first instance paid into the Bank of England to the Exchequer account. The Act of Parliament made no such pro vision, neither did the Treasury minute con sequent upon the passing of the act ; and, in point of fact, even up to the present day, a very considerable portion of the public reve nue never finds its way into the Exchequer, and, consequently, can be, and is, expended without the sanction of Parliament. This important subject has long been the Parliamentary hobby of Mr. WILLIAMS, and he deserves cr e dit f or th e ass id u i ty with which he has pursued it. His efforts were all fruit less till Mr. Disatim became Chancellor of the Exchequer. Though his term of office was brief, and though it can scarcely be said that even the customary consideration or 'in- THE PRESS. dulgence was slumn to him, Mr. DISRAELI found time to apply himself to this branch, as well as to many other branches, of administra tive reform : and tn Ole encouragement he gave to Mr. WiLiaANts,'e efforts, may be attri buted the measure which, since 1854, has brought an additioaal sum of four or five mil lions within the eehtrol of the House of Commons. Still, even the vmasure of 1854 is incom plete. So far from all public monies, " without exception," being paid into the Exchequer, as recommended by the Commission of 1831, it is stated by Lord MONTEAGLE that there are large exceptions. He admits, as regards the Woods and Forests, that the department pays into the Exchequer "just such balance as " seems fit to the Treasury." And it appears, from Appendix, page 623 to 629, that, as re gards the four principal departments of receipt for the year ending 31st March, 1856—the gross amount received being 70,893,8851—the amount actually paid into the Exchequer was 68,438,6311. ; leaving no less a sum than 2,455,2541. exempt from any Exchequer con trol. The particulars are as follows : Grose Paid into Receipts. Exchequer. Customs .. Inland revenue Post-uillce Crown lands X 70,893,88.5 £68,438,631 We are not at present discussing the expe diency or necessity of empowering depart ments to make payments out of revenue on its way to the Exchequer. The escapade of Sir BENJAMIN HALL, which has frightened away the wild fowl in St. James's-park, or his innocent fancies in providing Sabbath re creations in the other parks, may, or may not, he such as in an estimate would pass without comment in the House of Commons. But we adduce these instances to prove that the plan deliberately proposed by the Commission in 1831 has not yet been carried out, even since the act of 1854 ; and because we think it right that the public mind should be brought to bear upon the fact that, at the present moment, more than two millions of the public revenue is exempt from Exchequer control, and that, consequently, till functions of the Exchequer, as regards control of receipts and expenditure, is in this particular incomplete. We advert to this part of the evidence at the present time, because we believe that in it will be found the key to the collisions be tween the Exchequer and the Treasury. We believe that from the very outset the Treasury viewed with jealousy and repugnance any Exchequer control. We suspect that tile Bill of 18:34 was cur• tailed by Treasury influence, and from the tenor of the evidence of 1850 we surmise that, instead of extending that control, as the Comptroller desires, the Treasury would be willing to extinguish it altogether. When we have explained to our readers the other points in which the Exchequer control is incomplete and ineffective, we shall be ready to discuss the important question, whether the remedy is to be found in strength ening its control, or in transferring it to the Treasury. GENERAL WILLIAMS AND GENERAL KMETY. A PAMPHLET has been forwarded to us by General KXETY, written in consequence of what he conceives to be an injustice indicted on him self by General Wh.ttAms in his account, both written and spoken, of the defence of Kars. The subject is worth attention, as well because it can never be considered a light matter whether or no a meritorious officer has been shorn of his proper meed of praise, as because the advantage of maintaining a good under standing between Turkish and British officers is, under existing circumstances, of the highest importance. The main question at issue between these two officers is this :—ln his despatches and speeches General WILLIAMS certainly conveys the impression that General KMETY performed 'SATURDAY, only a subordinate part in the battle of the 29th of September. In the present pamphlet the latter claims credit for the exclusive super inteadence of the whole affair. There is also a second ground of comiAlaint—namely, that in conformity with the spirit of the above representations nu mention was made by the English General of the gallantry of the Turkish subalterns. As long as General Kmr.pi was under the idea that General WlLLiiims' despatch was to be looked upon merely as a report to his own Government of the conduct of their own officers, he did not feel called on to interfere. As soon, however, as General Wituams affects to speak as Commander-in-Chief of the Turkish army, it was necessary for General KNIETY to break silence. The river Kars divides the intrenehed:camp into two nearly equal parts ; on one side is the town and citadel of Kars, on the other the fortified heights, which were the exclusive object of the Russian attack. The head quarters of the beseiged were, of course, within the town, under the direct command of General WILLIAMS. General KMFTY was stationed on one of the two ranges into which the extramural heights were divided, which was called Tachmas Tabia, and the other, or Ingliz Tabia—so called from the English fortifications erected there—was occupied by subordinate Turkish officers. Now, in General WILLIAM& despatches we find General KMETY spoken of as a bravo General of Division, and in describing the attack on the Tachmas Tabia, the key of the whole position, he writes :—" General KMETY, "a gallant Hungarian officer, commanded the "division which occupied this eminence;" and elsewhere, " It was here that General KMETY "so conspicuously displayed his courage and "conduct." This language, though scarcely in General KmEry's own opinion adequate to the responsible position which he filled, might nevertheless have passed unnoticed had not the extraordinary omission of his name in General WiLuams' speeches induced him to put an interpretation upon it he should other wise have shrunk from. Within little more than a month from his return to England, General WILLIAMS delivered four orations, at various triumphal banquets, in only one of which, and that the third, was General KMETY even so much as alluded to. In a speech delivered at the Mansion-house, on the 9th of July, General WILLIAMS apologised for hiving hitherto omitted to mention the names of two gallant Hungarian generals KMETY and KotmAN—and immediately, without saying a word of their exploits, passed on to some other topic. "You introduced my name," says General KMETY, in his letter to the Times, "as if half forgotten, and as if of one who had "contributed but little to the events of the " campaign." We have already described the situation occupied by General KMETY on the day of the great battle. He commanded at the post of danger, and, by General WILLIAMS' own ad mission, behaved with distinguished courage. But the point which he wishes to establish in this pamphlet is, that he alone fought and won the battle of Kars. That is, that he ful filled all the duties of commander-in-chief, directed all the field operations, and was solely responsible for the movements of his troops. At page 13 of the pamphlet he tells us—" I "received the command of the whole of the " troops on the left bank of the river Kars ;" at page 17—" My command was not interfered " with, as I received no instruction or coininu " nication from head-quarters throughout the " whole of the contest which ensued." And the mere fact of General WILLIAMS having instructed him three months before to hold the position as long as ho could, will hardly be deemed any qualification of this statement. This, indeed, is the clue to the whole pamphlet, which is a remarkably lucid and concise narrative of the engagement. The General enables us to follow him throughout the day, and modestly, but clearly, sets forth the leading share which he took in its glorious result. The question before the public is now, there fore, purely a question of fact. If General KMETT'S facts are correct, we do not under stand how General WILLIAMS' conduct can be aig