The Express.
London, England, 1849-02-28 00:00:00

the various systems tried in succession have afforded
an adequate cheek upon inacenracies, wilful
Or accidental, and Mr. SANDERS affirms that many
thousands have in ence been lost to the public
revenue. There was no ger kept, it is averred, to
prove the separate amount of transactions with each
deputy, and hence large sums have been left standing
agamst the names of several deputies foe seven or
eight years. It is further stated that, owing to the
confused and complicated state of the accounts, it is
impossible to ascertain with accuracy the amount of
assets and liabilities. These allegations can be proved
or disproved by an inspection of the books ; and see-
ing that they have been deliberately and publicly
made, we cannot see how the House of Commons can
refuse, consistently with the duty it owes the public,
to cause these books to be inspected and re-
ported upon by competent parties unconnected
with the office. It is clear that, if Mr. SANDERS
tell the truth, the returns which have been made to
parliament from time to time by the department are
entirely worthless • and it is equally clear that, until
the charges now Lade ate refuted, or the abuses
reformed, the public can have no confidence in this
important branch of the public service.
In another part of his petition Mr. SANDERS states
that, during the time he held his appointment in the
money-order office, the number of clerks amounted to
240 (besides messengers), and the number of expen-
sive books to about 200. He undertakes to prove that
the adoption of the double-entry system of book-keep
log would, in addition to its preventing the recurrence
of many discreditable blunders which have been com-
mitted, enable the business of the office to be trans-
acted by t eenty-two clerks, and about the same num-
ber of messengers now employed, and would render
a diminution of 20,0001. in the annual expenses of the
department easily pi actioable. I =
The petition contains also some minor charges
against the department, such as oppression of info-
tiers by those placed over them, suspiciously large
consumption of stationery, and other irregularities.
The suspicion which most continue to bang over
the money-office department while charges like these
continue unrelated can only be dispelled by a full,
impartial, and public investigation. It was previously
well knorn that the expenses of the department
were great, and something more than suspi-
cion prevails respecting the antagonism to
Mr. ROWLAND HILL which exists among the heads
of the Poet-office department, and the cm-equent dif-
ficulty he has experienced in realising his plans for
adding to the utility and efficiency of that establish-
meat. In these circumstances, inquiry is impera-
tively called for. On Wednesday last returns were
ordered, on the motion of Lord SEYMOUR, of the
number and amount of money orders issued and paid
daring the year ending January, 1840 ; and of the
expense of the Money Order-of oe and the amount
received for commission during duet year. What
faith can be reposed in these returns ? what useful
action can be based upon them, while the charges we
have enumerated remain uncontradicted by trust-
worthy evidsnoe ?