The Press.
London, England, 1856-12-06 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

ter from applying 5,000,0001. of this 20,000,0001.
to the navy. That the Paymaster should have
the power of applying to the navy a sum
directed to be issued for the army, either
under tbo authority of the Treasury, or any
other Government authority, may or may not
be necessary or expedient; but it is manifest
from the evidence that there is nothing in the
functions of the Exchequer to control or pre-
vent it, and therefore the control of the Ex-
chequer, as to actual appropriation, is in this
respect defective. We shall conclude our
remarks upon this subject by giving three in-
stances of recent occurrence which will bear
out the assertions we have made.
In the year 1855 no less a sum than 213,000/.
was paid out of the gross revenue of the country
for the purchase of the Duke of GRAFTON'S pen-
sion, without any authority either from Parlia-
ment or the Comptroller of the Exchequer.
Lord NIONTEAGLE states he had no knowledge
or cognisance of such a payment, and that if he
had been required to make that payment out
of the Exchequer, he would have refused to
sanction it. We do not mean to insinuate that
there was anything wrong in the redemption
of this pension, or that the terms were unfa-
vorable for the country. This may, or may
not, have been the case ; but we beg leave to
ask our readers whether it can be said that an
adequate or proper control exists with regard
to public monies, when only a year ago,
at a period of an extraordinary drain upon the
resources of the country, a sum of 213,0001.
could be applied to redeem a pension without
any vote of the House of Commons—without
any ways and means—and without any
approval by the Exchequer?
The next case we shall quote will be to estab-
lish what we cannot avoid describing as a mis•
appropriation of public money. In the short
session of 1852 a sum of 80,0001. was voted for
the Duke of WELLINGTON'S funeral ; the whole of
this sum was drawn from the Exchequer on
the 4th of April, 1853, when, according to the
admission of Mr. ANDERSON, not more than
15,0001. was due in respect of the funeral.
The 80,0001. was placed immediately by
the Paymaster to his drawing account, to be
used, without reference to the proper appro-
priation, for the public service generally ; and
at the period of the inquiry about 25,0001. re-
mained unapplied to its proper object. Here
we have a sum of 25,0001. in the Paymaster's
hands for more than three years, applicable
by him, under Treasury orders, without any
control on the part of the Exchequer, or any
other public functionary, to any purpose what-
ever. Our readers, by referring to questions
744 and 1580, may learn the particulars of
this transaction.

The last illustration we shall give will be
found by reference to 1541, 1710, 1988. It
appears that the Turkish Government ad- I
vP.nced a sum of 150,0001. for certain stores
which they bought from our Government.
Instead of being paid into the Exchequer, and
being thus brought into regular account, it
was paid, at the request of the Secretary of
of State for Foreign Affairs, with the know-
ledge and consent of the Treasury, into the
drawing account of the Paymaster-General,
where it became available without control or
question for any purpose which might suit the
convenience or interest of the Government.
Mr. ANDERSON admits (1710.11) that this sum
of money would never come before Parlia-
ment, might remain in the hands of the Pay-
master without Parliament knowing anything
of it (1712), that the House of Commons
woull notwithstanding be answerable for it
(1713, 1990), and, in reply to the following
significant question, put to him by Sir JAMES
GRAHAM—

Supposing a dissolution of Parliament takes place, and—
not the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, but the other
Secretary—for parliamentary purposes during the dissolu-
tion, wants 40,0001., what is there to prevent 40,0001. out
of that Turkish advance of 150,0001. being employed for
forty days ?

in reply to this searching and significant
question Mr. ANDERSON gives the following
evasive answer :

There is always a danger that the Turkish Government
might call for it for its own purposes !
Now, we aver that in the face of such evidence
and such illustrations, it is impossible to
maintain that there exists at the present time

1155

an adequate and proper check upon the ap-
propriation of public monies—such a control
and check as was recommended and intended
by the Commissioners of 1831; and we say
with Mr. ANDERSON, that the control of the
Exchequer, HS at present constituted, is a
delusion to the public.

THE SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION.
WE look forward to the result of this contest
with considerable interest as a kind of test
whereby to gauge the yet remaining influence
of the Liberal imposture. That the electors
of Southampton may defeat Sir EDWARD
BUTLER and return Mr. ANDREWS or Mr.
WEGUELIN is of course very possible ; but
what we want to know is, in the words of Sir
JAMES GRAHAM, the reason why. We shall
watch with great curiosity the hustings
speeches of the candidates and their sup-
porters, being anxious to learn by what pro-
cess of logic a Liberal constituency will deter-
mine to elect a Radical burgess to support a.
retrogressive Government.
Of the two Liberal candidates, neither is
free from this species of objection. Mr.
WEGUELIN is, for all we know, a respectable
man, and would probably support Lord
PALMERSTON'S Government on principles
wholly adverse to those on which the voters of
Southampton support himself; Mr. ANDREWS,
on the other hand, is an ultra-Radical, who, if
he did not oppose Lord PALMERSTON, would be
denying his own principles, and, if he did,
would be deceiving his own party. Such
is the dilemma to which the dexterously
dishonest monopoly of the term Liberal
by a party which has long ceased
to sympathise with Liberalism has brought,
and will bring, a numerous class of our consti-
tuencies. They cannot give effect to their
principles whatever they do. For if they elect
a conscientious Liberal, he cannot support
Lord PALMERSTON ; and if they elect a con-
scientious supporter of Lord PALMERSTON,
supposing such a rara avis to exist, he cannot
be a Liberal. On the other hand, if the pre-
sent Government is not supported, a Tory Go-
vernment will come in ; so that, between the
two fires, we may well imagine the dismay of
all those who have the misfortune to entertain.
sincere Radical opinions. The Premier is
master of the situation. The rage and disap-
pointment of his supporters are perfectly im-
potent. He points significantly to the opposi-
tion benches, and the tumult is stilled. One
by one do the unhappy Liberals behold their
favorite convictions thrown overboard, and.
their long-cherished dogmas stultified before
their very eyes in mute and helpless indigna-
tion. At the least sign of insubordii:ation a
cry that " The Tories are coming " at once
excites terror and restores obedience. At that
bugbear the friends of oppressed nationalities,
the denouncers of aristocratic patronage, the
advocates of the ballot and of universal
suffrage, put their principles in their pockets,
and hurry to the rescue of a Minister who be-
trayed the first, supports the second, and in-
variably sneers at the third.
We are bound, however, to believe that the
Liberal party will not endure for ever this
anomalous and degrading servitude ; that
they will at length muster courage to look a
little more steadfastly at that horrible image
which the Premier and his organs conjure up
whenever a doubt of his stability is suggested ;
that they will not permit themselves for ever
to be frightened like little children by a mere
name ; that they will sooner or later begin
to ask themselves what would actually happen
were a Conservative Government in office, or
what real good they can expect to themselves
from the continuance of a Liberal one ? Sooner
or later these questions will be asked, and we
sincerely hope the electors of Southampton
may take the lead in doing so.
The character and position of Sir EDWARD
BUTLER, the Conservative candidate, is happily
such as to afford the electors an excellent
opportunity of adopting such a course. A
long resident among them, heir to considerable
property in the immediate neigbourhood, and
a man of high character and amiable disp-1"

1155

tion, Sir EDWARD SECIII4 to unite in his own
person most of the qualties which are de-
manded in a Parliamentary representative
If the inhabitants of Southampton would
emancipate themselves from a thraldom which
has most of the evils, without any of the
benefits, of despotism, theylmay now do so
under good auspices. Whatever be the result
of the contest, it cannot but be gratifying to
the Conservative party to observe the contrast
between their own position and that of their
opponents. They, at least, are not voting in
the dark. They know perfectly well what kind
of policy they are pledging themselves to by
the support of Sir EDWARD BUTLER. Their con-
duct is, at all events, intelligible and con-
sistent. Their antagonists, on the other hand,
support their candidates simply because they
are ticketed Liberal. But what these
will do when they get into Parliament,
it is impossible for any one to foresee. A
zealous democrat may be giving his vote to
a man who will support the friend of abso-
lutism—a zealous lover of peace, to one who
will aid by his vote in embroiling us with half
the States of Europe. In fine, in voting for
Liberalism, no one can know what he is voting
for,—whether for peace or for war—for pro-
gress or stagnation—for democracy or
monarchy—for church or for chapel—for
Papist or Protestant. It is all one to the
chiefs of the party. Each comes round in
turn, and consequently nothing advances.
Conservatism in any sense is something at
least more,practical than this.