The Press. — London, England, 1857-01-31 00:00:00

100 times worse, he presents such an extraordi nary instance of self-stultification that we naturally call attention to the fact as to any other wonderful exhibition of human weak ness. Was not the very Association which Mr. ROEBUCK represents formed for the express purpose of putting the middle class in the place of the aristocracy ? And yet, by Mr. Roast:cies own admission, that middle class goes "down on its belly" before the most ignorant lordling. Was it not their constant theme that Englishmen would go anywhere and do anything—that English pluck and enterprise could carry everything before it, if relieved from the incubus of aristocratic domination? And yet it appears that every class, down to the very lowest of all, is servile and corrupt. Where, then, is this Englishman of the Reformers ? Must he not be, if we believe Mr. ROEBUCK, a mere ideal ? and must not Englishmen, as the masters of the world, be au empty species, without individuals to fill it ? We may indeed have other and more theo retical objections against the whole tone and tendency of Mr. ROEBUCK'S politics. But what we wish to point out on the present occasion is, the utter want of the most ordi nary logical power which his speeches evince. If neither the aristocracy nor the middle class is fit to govern, why we must have the Chartists ; and what then becomes of all the cosy Liberals who now gather round Mr. ROEBUCK? The people will never put down the gentleman to make the mill-owner king. Aud this must be quite apparent to the worthy Chairman, if not to all the dupes who support him. If he believes in what he said the other day at Sheffield, his proper place would be alongside Mr ERNEST JONES ; if he does not, in a much more disagreeable locality. Mr. ROEBUCK will, in all probability, con tinue to be a prominent personage in politics. He is applauded by the lower classes because he is fluent, and tolerated by the upper be cause he is feeble. The latter know that he is their best friend, the former do not know that he is their worst enemy. He must settle the account with himself. Patriot or demagogue, we do not decide which. But we cannot have much admiration for the leadership of one who continually makes his cause ridiculous by representing its progress as impossible. PUBLIC MONIES. WE stated that it remains for us to notice the remedies propotted to be applied to the exist ing defects in the management of our public monies. We have shown from the evidence-- the evidence equally of Lord MONTEAGLE and Mr. ANDERSON-of the Exchequer and of the Treasury, that the Exchequer check is in adequate—that it is ineffectual as regards the rotual appropriation even of the monies which pass through the Exchequer—that monies issued from the Exchequer under her Majesty's sign -manual for one purpose, may be and are applied by her Majesty's Paymaster- General, under the authority of the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, to another purpose—and that, irrespective alto gether of the various charges on the collection of the revenue (such as drawbacks, and the expenses of collecting the Customs and Excise, &c. &a.), a very large proportion of her Ma jesty's revenue never finds its way into her Majesty's Exchequer at all. We have quoted a very significant question put by Sir JAMES GRAHAM, from which, and the answer to it, it would appear that it is within the range of possibility that the public monies of the country might even be made available for electioneering purposes. It cannot be sup posed that such a state of things will be allowed to continue. In justice, however, to our public function aries, we are bound to add that, while it is fair to argue even upon a possibility in such matters, we do not in the slightest degree, or for a, single moment, impute to any of our public finctionaries malversation as regards the use of the public money. No MITI understands to Mr. HATTER—" that other Treasury," indicated by THE PEESS. Sir JAMES GRAHAM—and no man discharges it more efficiently. We have no doubt that he applies the Government patronage—for it is his business—most judiciously in purchasing support for Government ; but we do not believe he would dip his fingers into the national till even to retain Lord PALMERSTON in office. It is true—(the subject is a painful one to revert to)—we have had men amongst the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury of whom we should not venture to say so much; but her Majesty's Treasury was then prostituted to the purposes of an Irish cabal. The Treasury was the reward of ser vices rendered in overthrowing the Govern ment of Lord DERBY; and consequent upon that overthrow there are Royal orders in existence in which the signature of her Majesty is contaminated by the counter signature of JOHN SADLEIR. But our public officers are men of integrity. We believe there is no country in the world in which there prevails anything like the amount of honour and integrity, as well as efficiency, that prevails in this country among our per manent public functionaries. It is they, in truth, who carry on the business of the Govern ment—it is they who keep the great machine in working order—it is they who regulate its motion, and guard it against accidents, when directed by inexperienced or reckless statesmen. Sufficient consideration, we think, is not given to the value of our permanent public officers in the departments of the State. They are seldom before the public—they are little known out of their departments—their useful path is without display, tulit alter honoree —and the public are not aware of the debt which they owe them. Therefore, in adverting to the possibility of abuse, again we say we convey no imputation upon our public officers. We stated, in one of our early articles on this important subject, that the question as to the mode of improving the control over the management of our public monies resolved itself into a contest between the Exchequer and the Treasury. And the question really is whether the Exchequer control shall be ren• fiered complete and effectual; or whether the Treasury is to be made responsible for the application of all public monies according to the votes and intentions of Parliament. Each of these views is strongly and ably advocated in the evidence. It cannot be denied that the Commissioners of 1831 intended to constitute in the Exche quer a complete control : nothing can be more explicit than their language. The Exchequer, they state, is the great conservator of the reve, nuts of the nation ; the constitutional functions of its officers, who hold their situations for life, are to provide for the safe keeping and proper appropriation of the public money. They quote Mr. ELLIS, the Clerk of the Yells, who in his letter to the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER of March 2, 1828, states that the Exchequer is at least coeval with the Norman Conquest, and that it has been from its earliest institu tion looked to as a check upon the Lord High Treasurer, and a protection for the King, as well as for the subject, in the custody, pay ment, and issue of the public money. The whole Report of the Commissioners is founded upon the principle thus laid down. They recommend— That the gross receipts of public money—whether arising from taxes in any part of the United Kingdom, from the income or sale of Crown property under the ad ministration of the Woods and Forests, from the sale of old naval, military, ordnance, or other stores, from un claimed dividends, unredeemed prize money, deductions from pensions, loans in Exctequer Bills, or from any other sources—should be placed, without deduction, in the custody of the Exchequer, and be accounted for to Parlia ment, whose authority should be necessary to the appro priation of the whole. And in their very next paragraph they add : We feel this principle to be of paramount importance for the security of the public money in the two great branches of receipt and expenditure. We think that no portion of the public treasure should be arrested, on any plea or pretence whatever, on its way to the Exchequer; and that no nortion of it should be issued frcm the Exche quer without previous Parliamentary sanction. It is to be remembered that this Report bears the signatures of Sir HENRY PARNELL, Lord JouN RUSSELL, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. POULETT THOMPSON, Sir FRANCIS BARING, and Mr. SATURDAY, ELLICE ; and we have quoted it because we consider that it contains the strongest opinion that can be given, and on the highest authority, in support of that view of the subject. On the other hand, Mr. ANDERSON and Mr. MOFFAY—both, we must say, high practical authorities, and men of great intelligence, experience, and judgment, deny that the Exchequer can exercise any effectual control. In answer to a question put by Mr. HENLEY, Mr. ANDERSON says:— The public monies must be issued on trust. The great departments receive it on trust, and they distribute it on trust to the various unpaid accounts, and it is not until it is finally paid away upon vouchers that yuu can really come to the true and final appropriation of the public money. his duty better that Secretary of the . - In his next answer Mr. ANDERSON says : think the Treasury should be the department of check, and its control is far more efficient than any which the Exchequer can exercise. It has the control of the expending department. And in a subsequent answer he adds : I see no way in which the Exchequer control can be made efficient. We must not he tempted to exceed the limits of a newspaper article. Various sub ordinate improvements are suggested by different witnesses—such as the introduction, in reference to all departments, of what is termed an appropriation audit, simiblr to that established as regards the naval and military departments, the repaying into tho Exchequer of all balances of unexpended votes at the end of the financial year, &c. But it is needless to discuss them at present. If the manage ment and control of the public monies are to be improved, Government or Parliament must first determine whether the movement is to he progressive or retrogressive. Is the work of the Commissioners of 1831 to be completed, or is it to be undone ? Is the Exchequer to be strengthened, or is it to be abolished? We admit that in the management of a vast and complicated financial system like that of Great Britain it may be difficult—perhaps it is impossible—to provide a perfect check; and that, if it be possrole, the evils may more than counterbalance the advantages. We therefore feel that there is much force in the remark of Mr. ANDERSON, that our issues must be on trust. It will be curious to observe the course taken in the approaching session on this subject. The clouds of War have happily pissed away. It is not unlikely that finance may now become a fashionable Parliamentary topic. It has its clouds as well as War. They are the more enduring of the two; and pro bably in the session of 1857 we shall have misty discussions on the conduct and manage ment of our Public Monies. THE FALKLAND ISLANDS. THE question of transportation is gradually reducing itself to a very narrow issue. At first it was argued that imprisonment at home pos sessed greater terrors for the criminal than expatriation. Then it was said that it was no use to argue the point, for that we could never find a place to send him to. Now it is urged simply that his employment at home would be more profitable than his employ ment in a colony ; and that, therefore, we need not look abroad till the waste lands of this country have been exhausted. The difficulty of finding a suitable locality for fresh penal settlements was long main tained to be insuperable. THE PRESS has never taken that view of the case from the beginning ; and, as we observed last week, we are glad to notice that persons whose opinions are entitled to the highest respect are coining forward to take part in the dis cussion, and that the preponderance of argu ment is so greatly in favour of our own view Letter after letter has appeared in the lead ing journal in corroboration of Mr. EDDY'S original state - nent. That gentleman has him self replied to Gov ernor RENNIE in a forcible and conclusive style ; and, unless some unex pected disclosures are in reserve for us, we may assume that the difficulty of finding a country for the reception of convicts has been practically solved.