The Press.
London, England, 1856-11-08 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

these are no doubt familiar words; we meet
with them very frequently in the financial dis-
cussions of the House of Commons ; Chancel-
lors of the Exchequer and ex-Chancellors of
the Exchequer, and Secretaries of the Trea-
sury, deal with them freely ; but we are
alined to believe that the ideas attached to
them, even in the House, and still more so
by the public at large, are vague and unde-
fined.
Moreover, we should like to ask our
readers whether they understand, with any
precision, the machinery through which the
important functions of our Finance aro con-
ducted? the arrangements, for instance, under
which provision is made for the payment of
the Dividends—the principle or the regula-
tions for maintaining the balance in the Ex-
chequer, or for securing the proper appropria-
tion of the sums voted by Parliament—the
duties and functions of the Treasury—the
duties and functions of the Exchequer? It is
perhaps to be expected that the machinery
for collecting and disbursing our public
monies may be complicated and intricate in
its details. We do not purpose entering into
details ; but we live in an inquisitive and in-
telligent age, and we see no reason why the
administration of our Finances should not be,
at least in its general form, within the easy
comprehension of any intelligent person con-
versant with the keeping of accounts on sound
principles.
We shall begin with the Exchequer; for its
history and a statement of its functions will
elucidate the whole system of administering
our Finances. The term " Exchequer "is
stated by Dr. JOHNSON to be derived from a
German word signifying " treasure," and he
defines it, in its general sense, as being the
Court to which are brought all the revenues be-
longing to the Crown It is a curious fact that so
recently as the year 1831 a portion of the pub-
lic revenue was actually kept in a great chest
at the Exchequer, and the whole process was
so primitive, and indicates so strongly how
much we have been behindhand iu our system
of managing the public monies, that it is
worth describing it as it existed up to 1834.
. _

On the Bth October, 1831, the Commissioners
of Public Accounts, amongst whom will be
found the names of Sir HENRY PARNELL,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, and
Sir FRANCIS BARING, published their first
report. It is given at length in the appendix
to the Blue-book on public monies of the last
session They state, as regards the Ex-
chequer,—" We have ob3erved that nearly all
the forms and practices now in force may be
traced to very remote periods, and that, not-
withstanding the extensive changes and im-
provements which experience and civilisation
have so generally introduced into pecuniary
transactions, the forms of the Exchequer
have undergone little or no amendment or
alteration." They then state, under the
head of " Present Regulations as to Exchequer
Receipts," that the Receiver-General, or
person authorised to receive any portion of
the public revenue, deposits, by direction of
the teller, his notes and cash with one of the
clerks of the Bank of England, from whom he
receives a ticket addressed to the deputy-
teller, expressing the amount so received on
behalf of the teller. Having delivered the
ticket in the Teller's-office, he then enters, in a
book kept for the purpose, the amount paid
in, the date of payment, heads of revenue, and
name of party paying it. This entry is then
transcribed in Latin on a piece of parchment
called a bill. This bill is signed by the
deputy-teller, and is transmitted through " the
pipe " into the Tally Court. Such in the year
1531 were the forms and mode of receiving the
public money. And under the head of " Daily
S..ttlement withithe Bank," the Committee pro-
ceed to state,—" At the close of each day's
business the payments made by the Bank on
the teller's account are balanced against the
receipts, and the difference, if in favour of the
teller, is received by him from the Bank
clerks This balance is by them made up in
separate parcels of bank-notes. Each parcel
is ticketed with its amount-, and the date of
its deposit. It is then examined by the
teller's clerk, by au officer from the auditor,
and by an officer from the Pells-office, and the
whole sum, with the exception of the frac-
tional parts under 1001., is deposited in an

SATURDAY,

iron chest (with three locks) in the cash-room
of the teller."

We cannot go into further details. It is but
justice to the surviving members of that Com-
mission—namely, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Sir
JAMES GRAHAM, Sir FRANCIS BARING, and Mr.
ELLICE—to state the antiquated absurdi•
ties referred to in the foregoing extracts were,
in conformity with their recommendation,
abolished in 1834, by the Act 4 Win. IV., o. 1:).
This net, which is the foundation of the
present Exchequer system, after annulling all
patents, &c., for offices connected with the
Exchequer, constituted the office of Comp-
troller of the Exchequer, enacted " that the
Treasury shall make regulations and direct
that books and forms shall be used, and that
all monies heretofore payable into the Ex-
chequer shall be paid into the Bank of Eng-
land to the credit of the Exchequer, such
monies to form one general fund in the books
of the Bank, out of which all warrants or
orders by the Comptroller of the Exchequer
fur the public service shall be satisfied." It
then enacts, as the mode of making the fund
available, that " whenever any sum shall have
been granted to the Crown by any ant of Par-
liament or vote of the House of Commons for
any specified branch of the public service, and
ways and means shall likewise have been
granted for making good the same, it shall bo
lawful for his Majesty by royal order, counter-
signed by the Treasury, to authorise and require
the Comptroller of the Exchequer to place at
the Bank of England, to the credit of the
public accountant to the Crown in the respec-
tive branch of service, the amount of the sum
so granted or voted ; and that in cases of
grants by Parliament charged on the Consoli-
dated Fund, it shall be lawful for the Treasury,
by warrant, without any royal order, to autho-
rise and require the Comptroller to accredit
the several persons whose duty it may be to
pay such charges with the sums requisite for
that purpose." The act contains many other
useful provisions, and was the first step taken
by Parliament for improving the system of
administering public monies.

It was followed by an elaborate Treasury
Minute, dated 26th September, 1834, by wnich
the Exchequer-office, as constituted by the
act, was regulated, and the several 4epart-
meats connected with the receipt of the
revenue instructed to make their payments
into the Bank of England to the account of the
Exchequer.
The proper functions of the Exchequer at
the present time under the Act of 1834 is
described iu the examination of Mr. ANDEh-
SON, p. 135, question 1,007, as being, first, to
see that no issues are made upon the supplies
of the year after they are voted beyond the
amount of Ways and Means Bills, or until
they are passed in that session to cover them ;
secondly, to see that no Treasury Warrant is
issued for charges upon the Consolidated
Fund that are not authorised by Act of Par-
liament; and, thirdly, to see that no issue is
made in the course of the year that exceeds
the votes of Parliament as contained in the
Appropriation Act.
Lord MONTEAGLE, the Comptroller, takes a
larger view of the responsibilities and objects
of his office. He states, at the commence-
ment of his examination in reply to ques-
tion 0

The main object of the bill (the Act of 1834) seems t 3
me to be the control over the issues and expenditure—
above all, over the latter—with a view to the enforcement
of the responsibility of the Executive Government to rar-
liament in adhering strictly to the appropriation of public
money, voted for the purpose of which grants were made
by Parliament. In answering the question put to me, I
may state that the functions prescribed by the Act seem to
me correctly set forth ►n the Report of the Commission on
the Exchequer—the Exchequer is the great conservator of
the revenues of the nation. It does not exercise any
authority over the administrative departments of receipt,
nor over the department of payment, any further than to
guard against the illegal application of any p►rtion of the
public income ; 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. For this purpose it is charged with the receipt of
the revenues, which are vested in its name, and deposited
in its care, unt►l issued under the authority of Parliament
for the see ice of the State ; and it is armed with a power
of denying its sanction to any demands upon it, from what-
ever Minister or department they may be made, unless
those demands are found in accordance with the determi-
nation of the Legislature.

NOVEMBER 8, 1856.

We can proceed no further at present. We
shall next show the collisions which have
taken place in consequence of the different
view of the functions of the Exchequer en-
tertained by the Comptroller and the Treasury,
and of the manner in which they have operated
upon the public service.

ROMANISM IN THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY.

Ir the world is governed politically by a very
- little wisdom, its moral government is con-
ducted by an equally small share of reason.
Men do not change their opinions because
they are false, but either because they are
intolerably inconvenient, or because they like
something else better. Paganism might have
endured to the present day had its extinction
depended upon the writings of the philoso-
phers. To the wise men among the Greeks
the truth was foolishness. The example of
one good Christian life did more than all the
treatises of CICERO, and one martyr than a
million syllogisms.
By those who forget the very limited sway
which intellectual enlightenment exercises
over human actions, the recent Inquisitorial
edict of the Boman Church will seem an un-
intelligible phenomenon. That in an age of
railways, newspapers, and telegraphs, men
should write gravely of necromancy and a com-
pact with the devil, and claim unlimited
authority over the consciences of others, must
appear to such persons inexplicable. We do
not ourselves experience the same difficulty in
the matter. Moral and material progress are
two totally different things ; and if the latter
has any effect upon religious belief, it is rather
to render men indifferent to the existence of
error, than to sharpen their sense of its enor-
mity. A prejudice is involved in the contrary
supposition which we should do well to dis-
card at once. We might then approach the
consideration of the religious questions of the
day with a fairer chance of their solution. But
to the man who believes that a right under-
standing of earth must inevitably lead to a
right understanding of heaven, the present
aspect of the Roman Catholic Church will
present for ever an insuperable stumbling-
block.
The pretensions and the conduct of the
Papacy, is no subject for jesting. We are
bound to consider not to how many of man-
kind such an edict as the late one does seem
ridiculous, but to how many it does not. The
active work of the world is not done by the
deep thinkers. ARCHIMEDES could not save
Syracuse any more than LOT could save Sodom.
A certain rude, unreasoning fanaticism, brutal
and degraded, if you will, has always ridden
rough-shod in times of commotion, over the
men of mere intellect. In the days of the
Commop wealth the sceptics were beaten out
of sight by the fanatics. Yet the creed of a
man like HARRISON was not one whit less
irrational than that of TOMMASO VINCENZIO
AIRALDI. If the Roman churchmen, proverbial
as they are for sagacity and worldly wisdom,
believe that such a document will answer any
useful purpose, we Englishmen may sit in our
chairs and laugh at it if we like, but their
only feeling on the subject will be, " let those
laugh who win !"
Are they winning? Whether Popery has
increased in this country during the last few
years in point of numbers, we are unable to
determine. But if it has not become more
powerful, it has undoubtedly become more
notorious. The assumption of titles and the
deliberate division of the country into so
many Roman Catholic sees, though not
proving, in our opinion, that Romanism has
advanced, are unquestionable proofs that
Rome is making vigorous and widespread
efforts. As Englishmen, we may be proud of
those national traits which enable us to defy
all that the subtlest intellects in Europe can
devise against us, without forgetting that
where the same barriers do not exist, the same
efforts may be successful. It would, in our
opinion, be the height of madness to ignore
the progress which Romanism is making in
various parts of the Continent, and especially

THE PRESS.

in the Austrian dominions. The new Austrian
marriage law, which hands over to the Church
the entire control over all matrimonial engage-
ments, is only one fresh instance of the rapid
strides by which Rome is regaining her ascend-
ancy. For let Liberal propagandists say what
they will, Austria is not that enfeebled and
declining power which they love to paint her.
Granted that she exists by the support of an
enormous standing army; by whose suppot
does that enormous standing army exist? A
military force of this character is as much the
master as the servant of the Government
which employs it. And were not that Govern•
merit suited to the requirements of the
country, and therefore in one sense of the
word popular, such an army could never hold
together. A weak, despotic, and unpopular
Government can only be maintained by mer-
cenaries.

Austria then is not compelled to cling to the
Pope's gown for protection. Our opinion is
that she is by no means thrusting his edicts
down the throats of an unwilling people. In
his present success we see only the natural
result of that over-confidence among Protest-
ants which believed that Popery was killed
instead of being only scotched. And again
and again we would have them remember that
documents such as have recently been ex-
citing the merriment of the British press, de-
serve to be considered with more seriousness.
Such is the constitution of the human mind
that passion is more able to promote error
than ridicule is to destroy it. We have often
regretted the prevalence of the Horatian
maxim, that jokes are more efficient than
argument ; they may sting, but they do not
persuade. To our opponents they bring irri-
tation without conviction ; to.ourselves triumph
without victory.