Star. — London, England, 1822-03-15 00:00:00

7 774714 Vt 4 "1 s • ,o*,q _ ~' . "f }. '~~ 4 4 f~ ~.. ~i~ ~~' ~. ~~ ~I / fi i F , Thus, then, the secret out, that an officer, witty a night ago was declared to be an efficient public of ficer, was, In point of fact, put of the country for the better Ran of two years, and that without any in jury it; the public service: so that, when this question came to be debated again, the House would remem ber, that for two years an efficient Joint Postmaster- General was absent. He should be sorry to be con sidered as casting the least improper reflection on Lord Clancarty. He had the honour of knowing his Lordship, and was ready to afford him the praise of being a most diligent and useful public servant; and the hest eulogy he could bestow on the Noble Lord was this, that he was confident that if that no ble person considered his presence necessary at the Post Office, he would not have retained the office an hour after be had been called out of the country. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he had already declared that it was ROC by any means a proof that when an individual was abroad he ceased to discharge the duties of an office which he held at home, and the nature of which permitted that they might be discharged at a distance. Mr. CALCRAFT said he was aware that the No ble Lord had been absent upon the duties of the Se cretary of State, and not the Postmaster-General's. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he could not be supposed to carry the business of his office with him. Mr. CALCRAFT observed, that if the business at home preponderated, he should stay at home. Lord NORMANBY said, that if the Noble Mar quis was of opinion that the duties of the office of Joint Postmaster-General might be performed at' a distance, he abstained from giving the House the be nefit of so important an explanation list night.— Whilst on his legs, he could not forbear to add, that looking to the division of last night, and considering the nujority, either as to quantity or quality, he thought the decision not a defeat, but a protracted trial ; and it enabled him to look with confidence to the ultimate result of any future motion which might be made on the same subject. The motion was negatived without a division. STATE OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. Mr. MABERLY said, that in bringing forward the motion with which he should conclude his state ment that evening, he felt it necessary to say, that on a former occasion he had been induced to withdraw a motion for Accounts, in consequence of a promise given by the other side tkat the Accounts would be printed. He gave in a list of the Accounts he wished to have returned, and he had now to complain that the papers were not returned, and further, that the Hon. Gentlemen on the other side had the advantage of the list. He was, therefore, in a situation very dif ferent from that in which he should be placed, had he in his hands the Accounts which were promised to be furnished ; so that if he erred in the course of his statement, the House would not impute it to a wish to misrepresent or falsify the Pubic Accounts. The House was aware that there was an Act in force which required that the Public Accounts for each y:ar should be laid on the table of the House before Vie 25th of Minch in each year. But there was in Cis Act no provision compelling the production of a balance sheet, in which the actual state of the in come and expenditure would appear. But there was a clause in the Audit Act which required that such a sheet should b 2 printed with the Accounts for this year. But as the Public Accounts for this year were not on the table, he should advert to another pai.er laid on the table by the Noble Marquis, purporting to be a Statement of the net Public Income and Ex penditure for the year ended January 5, 1821. It wAild be his object, then, to slim that the balance sheet of that year, as compared with the Public Ac couilts, was in error. The first part of the Account was an Account of the net Public Income from or dinary and extraordinary sources for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the year ended sth January, 1821 ; and then he would com pare it with an Account, purporting to be an Ac count of the net Income of the country fair the same period. He would take the first head of Customs. The amount of net income from Customs appeared by the Public Accounts to be X 9,882,462 In the Account of the Noble Marquis 9,837,279 Being a difference of £25,183 But not only did these two accounts differ horn them selves under this head, but each differed from a third, called the abstract account, and all three varied from a fourth, which was laid on the table by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There then were four accounts, purporting to be statements of Public Accounts, and each varying from the other. In the article of Excise, the Public Accounts and the ac count of the Noble Marquis were the same, but they differed in some respects from the abstract account. There was the same agreement under the head of Stamps, and both differing from the abstract account. In the Post Office there was a variation between the Noble Marquis's account and the pubic one, of 7,000!. and those again differed from the abstract and the account of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under the head of Taxes, there appeared a difference between the Noble Marquis and the Public Account to the amount of 24,0001. In the article of Hackney Coaches a difference of 1,1671. in that of Hawkers 8,000/. He would not say that all these differences might not be reconciled upon examination, but the Public Accounts should be of that simple, intelli gible nature, as not to require any explanation.— There was an item of seizures and fines amounting to 6,52b1. in the account of the Noble Marquis, which did not appear at al, in the Public Accounts. There were several other items of difference, such as that of the arrears of the Property Tax to the amount of 24,0001. that of the Impress repaid 14,7061. a small difference on contracts for the redemption of Land' Tax ; a difference of 36,0001. as money repaid in Ireland on account of advances from the Consolidated Fund ; and, lastly, there was an item of 260,0001. the proceeds of old stores, which did not appear in the Public Accounts. Now he was aware that the of this item in the Public Accounts could by the statement that the Public had -ge of it in the Navy Estimates. But be absurdity of taking the proceeds of old stores in the Ways and Means, he objected to account of its obscurity—(Hear, hear). unclaimed dividends which appeared in ,ccounts, was not included in the account Marquis. The total amount of the net --7 'slliur r w'v - • Twr • imatome, .as state‘i the 11101& , t of do Noble Mar. Saes. was 84,542,9101. differing (tom the total of the Public Account by 50,6081. and from the, total of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's account by 54,9551. There was another variation in the item of Excess of Income over Expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's account stated the surplus to bel ,831,0001. The account of the Noble Margate stated the item to be 1,447,5801. He would next shew the variation in the accounts in the items of Public Expenditure. The first item under the head of E x pe n di t ure was the interest of the National Debt. He would take this and the ether items respectively, and spew their variance from each other: Public Account - • ' - £29,403.391 Account of the Marquis of Londonderry - Y 9,438,380 SINKING FUND. Public Account - Account of the Martinis of Londonderry - E 17,510,668 - 17,499,773 Difference 10,895 INTEREST ON =CHEQUER BILLS AND IRISH TREA- sURT SILLS. Public Account - - - Account of the Marquis of Londonderry CIVIL LIST. Public Account - - - Account of the Marquis of Londonderry £1,849,210 51,015,617 ,053,000 1,071,753 Difference - - - - 19,758 ALLOWANCES TO THE ROYAL FAMILY, AND OTHER ALLOWANCES CHARGED UPON THE CONSOLIDATED FUND. Public Accounts - - - Account of the Marquis of Londonderry anuercucc - , SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES. Public Account Account of the Marquis of Londonderry Difference OFFICERS OF COURTS OF JUSTICE. Public Accounts Account of the Marquis of Londonderry - - - . EXPENSES OF THE MINT. Public Account - - - Account of the Marquis of Londonderry it5‘27,06$ 359,600 ,£1 5,720 14,760 BOUNTIES. Public Account - - - Account of the Marquis of Londonderry aC2,249 2,956 Difference - - - - - 107 In the miscellaneous articles there was a difference of 69,6881. The next charge was for the Army.— This the House would see was a cash account ; the money was contemplated as paid in both Accounts, yet they exhibited an unaccountable disciepancy. ARMY. Public Account - - - Account of the Marquis of Londonderry £8,927,404 8,941,354 Difference NAVY. Public Account Account of the Marquis of Londonderry £6,387,796 6,647,799 • Difference 260.000 The variance in this item was satisfactorily explained by carrying the amount of the produce of old stores (260,0001.) to the account of the Public in the Navy Estimates for the following year. ORDNANCF. Public Account Account of the Marquis of Londonderry D2erence MISCELLANEOUS. Public Account Account of the slarqui, of Londonderry X 1,401,538 1,092,291! :309,2911 £2,616,736 2,492,241 Difference 1E4,495 Besides all these variations, the House would see the very great obscurity in the succeeding items—the payment to the Bank of England to make their balance, on account of unclaimed dividends, and the articles of discount upon prompt payment and for their allowance for receiving the loan. He witted that the Honourable Member would be able to clear up the confusion which prevailed in this part of the statement. He begged to call the attention of the House next to the variation in the item of the balance in the Exchequer for the year ending January, 1821 Public Account - X 13,423,938 Account of the Marquis of Londonderry 7,489,70 Difference 5,04,193 Here was a difference of an extraordinary nature. He should be told, of course, that he was a very ig norant person not to be able to account for the varia tion ; but these accounts were unexplained: There were other items in the Public Account, such as the charge of the Civil Government in Scotland, the Pensions in Scotland, and the Militia items, none of those appeared in the Account of the Noble Lord.— However, notwithstanding all the variations which the two Accounts presented, yet it was wonderful how, in the sum total, they approximated to each usher. The total sums in each Account stood thus Public Account £53,340,111 Account of the Marquis of Londonderry 53,093,377 Difference - - - - 244,734 To those who did not usually apply themselves to the examination of these details, it might appear that balances in the Exchequer meant sums of money un appropriated. But the case was otherwise—the ba lance, in fact, was already appropriated. With re spect to the Sinking Fund, he should at present abstain from entering into any details. Unless the Hon. Gentleman explained to the House satisfacto rily the cause of these variances, he should undoubt edly feel it his duty to press the motion to a division. He was persuaded that a very considerable saving might be made to the country annually by a more intelligible statement of the public accounts. He did not mean to charge those who prepared the accounts with any intention to deceive, but there was a want of perspicuity in the accounts which called for a tho rough reformation. He concluded by moving, 4, That a Select Committee be appointed to simplify, and for the better arrangement of-the Public Accounts." Mr. LUSHINGTON said, that with regard to the delay which occurred in the production oldie Public Accounts, that was attributable to the busy state of the offices at this particular season, when the clerks were employed in making up the accounts of the year. Upon the other head (namely, the difference in the accounts presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Noble Friend near him), he hoped to be able to give a satisfactory answer. The mode 0;11 absence of th be explained the atiorantag4 ! 1, sides the absu II as an item it the course on The item of 3 11 the Public Ac 14,' . 5 of the Noble :+ham .;"^e°twyq - . - ps..a-,s~{!11 , which he would reconcile the 4!trie of angel No accounts was this: that class the Finance Accounts, bit wire more ptOperly Exchequer Ac soosts, and which was that presented by his Right, Had'. Friend, contained payments into the Exchequer only; whereas the Accounts presented by the Noble Marquis, on the 15th of February, related to the net income of the country applicable to the public ser vice for the year. Now, it should be remarked, that the whole of the Revenue of the year was not paid into the Exchequer ; and, on the other hand, there were monies paid into the Exchequer which never went to the public service of the year—(Hear).—Hence arose the diffetence in the accounts. Having thus ac counted for the differences generally, he ihotlld pro ceed to the items. The first item was the Customs, the amount of which was stated, In the Finance Accounts, at - - £9,882,482 In the Accounts of the Noble Marquis, at 9,837,279 Difference - 25,183 This arose from certain monies arising from the 41 per cent. duties being paid into the Exchequer, which did not go to the service of the year, and were not, therefore, put in the Noble Lord's account.— The South Sea Duties, to the amount of 8401. were also payable into the Exchequer by the Receiver-Ge neral, and this made up the whole difference. The Excise was the next item ; which, in both accounts, was stated at 27,929.853/. and as there was no dif ference, the same observation applied to the Stamps. In the Post Office there was a difference of 70001. He would reconcile this by stating that the list pay ment, which was exactly 70001. was not paid in by the Receiver-General until after the 10th of January; and, as the accounts had been made up to the sth of January, this item of course did not enter into them. He admitted, however, that, for the sake of regula rity, this item should be placed to the account of the year. The next difference in the accounts was in the taxes, which was stated at 24.0001. This was ac counted for by the transfer from one head of tax to another. The differences in the Hackney Coaches and Chairs of 11621. and of Hawked and Pedlars of 30001. were to be accounted for upon the same principle as the Post Office, namely—that sums to this amount had been paid in subsequently to the sth of January, and were not, therefore, in the accounts before the House. In the item of One shilling and sixpence Duty, and Duty on Pensions,"there was no difference. The duty of 4s. on Pensions, amounting to 15,4931. certainly was not in the Finance Accounts at all: and this he considered an omission. The difference in the accounts with regard to unclaimed dividends was accounted for as being repaid to the Bank. The difference of 260,0001. in the account of the pro ceeds of old stores, had been transferred to the Navy Estimates, which were so much less. There were other smaller items, which he would not notice. He admitted that the difference of 4171. in the Fines-and Forfeitures, was not in the Finance Account—(Hear) The differences, therefore, between the two accounts were easily reconcileable, by the circumstance of one account containing returns of monies paid into the Exchequer; and the other, of the net income of the year. He would reconcile the differences in the ex penditure in the same way. One account contained a return of the sums issued from the Exchequer to the Army, Navy, and Ordnance—the other, the ab solute charge of these establishments. But 'he did not mean to say that this mode of keeping the ac counts was the best—(Hear).—lf he had said so, he should be inconsistent, as it was the intention of his Right Hon. Friend to move for a Committee to exa mine into these accounts. But he contended that tliere was no blame attributable to the Treasury upon this score. The accounts were kept now as they had been since 1802 ; and, indeed, there was an Act passed in that year for regulating them. He concur red with Gentlemen on the other side, however, that some new arrangement should be introduced into these accounts. But he (Mr. Lusliington) hoped he had shewn that in the accounts, so far as they went, referred to by the Hon. Member, there was no mate rial incorrectness. Under these circumstances he saw no necessity for the Committee moved for by the Hon. Member. He was more induced to think so, as his Right Hon. Friend intended so soon to move for his Committee for the arrangement of the Public Accounts. As, however, these differences appeared in the Public Accounts, he had no objection to the appointment of a Committee to reconcile these differ ences; but lie should decidedly oppose their going further, as they would but forestall the duties of his Right Hon. Friend's Committee. It may be recol lected too, that his Right Hon. Friend intended giving to his Committee larger powers than the Hon. Mem ber would give to the Committee for which he was , now moving. The Committee for general revision would be more properly called to the consideration of the Public Accounts after the 25th March,when all the accounts of the year would be before the House. He should therefore propose, as an Amendment— " That a Select Committee be appointed to consider from what causes the accounts of payments into the Exchequer up to the sth of January, appeared not to agree with the Finance Ac counts of the net income of the year presented to this House upon the 15th of February, 1822. " Sir JOHN NEWPORT opposed the Amendment. The accounts, he thought, should be kept in a way which would render explanation unnecessary, and so that any person of common intelligence might un derstand them. A mercantile establishment would consider itself disgraced by the keeping of its ac counts in such a manner that a clerk should be re quired to explain apparent errors. The Hon. Member had admitted that there were errors. The present artificial mode of keeping the accounts rendered them very complicated. He thought public accounts should be kept so clearly as to leave no room even for sus picion. It appeared from the explanation of the Hon. Member, that in one instance a sum of money had riot been paid into the Exchequer as it ought to have been by law. He (Sir J. Newport) would - wish to be ' informed who it was that had dared to violate the law ? It was well known that the Act ordering the payments into the Exchequer had been passed to guard against the misapplication of public money in its passage to the Exchequer. He thought the object of the Committee should be general, and would therefore vote for the original motion. Mr. MABERLY, jun. spoke a few words against the amendment, which he considered as purposing merely a retrospective operation. Mr. RICARI)O supported the original motion. The object of the Committee, in his opinion, was to ob tain proper accounts rather than reconcile differences. 'rlt` 32,532 £56,948 68,618 11,670 Z 6,1,137 61,979 5,1 Se 13,950 1 ~ • ' -.. TM; Mr. HUME said, that as it must be the wish of I m prevent mistakes in future, he trusted both the motions would be withdrawn, in order to the forma. tiou of a general and ettended Committee. the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that as it had been conceded that the differences in the accounts were reconciled, he bad no objection to the whole question being postponed , to afford an op . portunitT for the suggestion of a better plan. He meal/ himself name a day for bringing the subject before the House. Mr. CALCRAFT considered that his Honourable I rriend bad clearly established the case upon whi c h he set out. It was scarcely worth while to p into a Committee for the purpose of elucidating mistakes. Mr. MABERLY said, that as his object was sold, to produce a remedy for the inconvenience, he should feel pleasure in withdrawing his motion. Both the Petitions were then withdrawn, and The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ins mediately gave notice that he would bring the suba ject before the House on the 18th of April. RUSSIAN TARIFF. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY, alluding to the frequent inquiries which had been made respect ing a Tariff reported to have been imposed by Russia upon British goods, he begged to inform the House that he had received a dispatch from our Minister at the Court of St. Petersburgh, dated so lately as tl e 18th of February, in which no mention whatever was made of the subject. He, therefore, concluded that there was no foundation for the report in question. BOARD OF CONTROUL Mr. CREEVEY began by observing, with re ference to die motion of which he had givelhotice relative to the Board of Controul, that he had fre quently made observations in that House as to the propriety of making some alterations in th fo r m a . don of that Board. He had done this witt - out suc cess, notwithstanding that some late changes had offered a favourable opportunity for putting his plan into execution. The Hon. Gentleman then ~-oceeded to detail the different changes that had taken place in the Board since its origin. They all knew the dif ference of opinion, relative to the formation of the Board, between Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt. It wa- in the year 1784, in consequence of an agreement bet,veen the East India Company and Government, that Mr. Pitt formed the plan of the Board of Controftl. introducing the measure for its establish me:a to t:-at House, he declared that it was to be accompanied with no salaries, no offices, and no patronage, a: the same time that he himself volunteered to become the President of it, without salary. He kept his worJ, and for nine years he continued to hold the situation without salary. But in 1793 the Bill fell into the hands of Lord Melville, and then was effected tl:4 change which had ever since existed from this ro mantic, gratuitous management of the affairs of Ir.d;:r. By the Act which he then obtained to be passed, sa laries were appended to the situations of three Com missioners one of whom (Lord Melville), as President, took 2,0001. a year to himself, and gave 1.5001. to each of the other two. Another change was shortly after made, by which that Noble Lord's family re ceived pensions to the amount of 8001. a year fr.-rn the same source. In 1811, however, the present Lord Melville became President of this Board, and it was his opinion that his father had been too mo derate in fixing the amount of salaries, and he added 6,0001. to the sum for the support of the Board, making 5,000/. the salary for the President. Before he left the Board he received 20,000/. inhard money from the present Company, and this, he thought, was a pretty tolerable specimen of an establishment which was to be without salaries, without offices, and with out patronage! (Hear, hear).—ln 1813, a new agree. ment was entered into with the East India Company, only two years after the preceding one, by which tl:e total sum for the support of the Board of Controul was raised to 26,000/. In this new arrangement, it was true, no further allowance was made to the Com missioners; but a scale of superannuation was intro duced, in favour of the Secretary, and some others attached to the Board. Thus, then, he had shewn how this Board had come, step by step, till it de scended into the situation of a regular purchase of a family interest in that House—(Hear, hear!)—He knew it would be said that the Board consisted of ten persons, and that was true; but then seven of that Board were outside passengers, the three inside places being reserved for the family!—(A It was a real domestic Board ; and what, he asked, was to entitle the managers of India affairs to have a Board to themselves ? No interlopers, no intruders, a complete family party, with nobody but themselves, to do as they pleased—(Laughter).—The question was, was it a Board or not ? Supposing any one were to wish to see this domestic Board at work— settling the question of a Mahratta war, or discussing some point of Indian policy for instance, could it be seen ? And what could be more instructive than to have an opportunity of observing the way in which they settled the knotty point of giving the casting vote!—(A laugh).—lt was rumoured that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Canning) was to be sent to India. Now what would any one give to see the instructions of this Board to this individual ? (Laughter).—He would not venture to express an opinion as to what the Booksellers would give for such a thing—for such a rich article as these Com missioners telling the Right Hon. Gentleman how he was to conduct himself in his situation—what to say to such a Prince and such another—(Laughter).—He knew the answer to all this would be, that there was no Board ; and he should be much inclined to coin. cide in the opinion of those who should so say. He would tell the House why he felt so disposed.-- It happened that he had himself been Secretary, once upon a time, to this Board—(Cheers from the Minis- terial Benches).—He did not know what to make of that shout of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite; but be must state, that during the thirteen months he was there, there was no Board at all that he ever saw.— And as he was,Secretary to it, the House might be disposed to concur with him in opinion, that it was more than probable he would have kndwn of it, if such a thing had existed—(t/ear, and laughter).-- His Right lion. Friend (Mr. Tierney) sat in one room, himself in another, and the Gentlemen Com missioners in a third — (Hear hear).—He was not con. tent, however, with his own means of observation over a period of thirteen months on this important point, so he asked a person in the office, whether in the memory of man such a thing as a Board had '~•'' - vs