The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-22 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER OF RECEIPT BILL,

The house then resolved itself into conatoistee on the.
Exch, quer of Receipt Bill.
On tiie second clause being proposed,
Mr. HERRIES rose to make a few remarks upon some
of the general tea'ures of the bill. The first particular
in the new Exchequer arrangements to which he would
adv,rt was that by which two officers were appointed to
the head of the departments, either of whom had full
authority to act in the absence of the other. It was
entirely a matter of discretion with those officers to ab-
sent themselves, leaving a subordinate officer as their
deputy, eothed with all the authority and responsibility
of the office. Now he (Mr. Herries) thought it was very
expedient to the public service that the public business
should be directed by the principals, and not by deputies.
As the bill stood there was only au efficient and constitu-
tional control over one officer ; and in that department,
which was one of so much public responsibility, there
should he the most efficient control, whereas before there
was a double chance of efficiency and integrity, as there
was a control over two. In all issues of orders of money
such a security was desirable. The office of the teller
and that of the auditor were heretofore placed under
rperno
ee r c
of htewcko.
not
greater diedrseenc r i ttyh at
th
a tnh eocnoen. cur.
an efficient control over the principal officer ; but he
officers It
couldgave
w -s alleged that the entries of the assistant would be
(Mr. Herries) did not consider that it was a fair or
safe mode of managing so important a public department
to have only one chief officer and another to check him.
That was a b xl remedy against fraud or negligence. The
system of double entry was no safeguard against frauds.
It was undoubtedly a good mode of keeping one's own
accounts, but if one allowed another to adopt that system
in keeping his accounts it would be opening to the agent a
door for fraud. Under the French government, and in the
management of the weighty concerns of the Eist India.
Company, there were no large sums that were not checked
by another. He (Mr. H.) hoped that if the government
would not allow two officers in opposition to each other.
they would not appoint two officers to the same office.
The office of the assistant should not be designated
in the same way as that of the principal; there should be a
distinction drawn, so that one should not be a mere agent
Of the other. If the Coition oller.General, in case of illness,
or from any other cause, were not able to dis-
liarge the duties of his office, and it appeared there was
:lathing laid :loran in the bill by which to ascertain what
would coustitu:e cause of absence; there could be wham

that his functions should be executed by a deputy ; but
there was every danger in having only one office, and two
persons appointed to that office. In the present state or
the Exchequer there was enough to occupy one person in
each department, but not two in the same department. He
thought it his duty to offer those general remarks ; the de-
tails he would reserve for the several clauses of the bill.

Sir J. GRAHAM said he would not repeat his former
observations in support of the bill. He had already ex-
plained its provisions. The object was to have as efficient
a control as possible. It was a matter of dispute whe-
ther double check, as before, was more effectual than
single. He (Sir James Graham) thought, and it was the
opinion of government, that the proposed mode of single
check was better. The assistant should act only in the
occasional absence of the principa►, from illness or some
other unavoidable cause, and the comptroller-general would
be bound to exercise his office personally and diligently.
The fact of his being removable by parliament would of
itself be a sufficient check. If he neglected his duty or
filled any other situation that diverted his attention, then
an address to the Crown would procure his removal. The
plan of the right hon. gentleman opposite would cause
greater evil than the present; because, if double checks
were introduced, then there would he assistants to each
chief officer, to provide substi,utes in cases of absence ;
and in place of two officers, as was proposed by the bill,
many would be required. In the higher offices of the
navy arid the army there was n,,t found that necessity of
double check insisted on by the right hon. gentleman ;
and, he would ask, was there one instance in the Ex-
chequer where a control was exercised by the clerk of
the pelts when the account passed the auditors? It was
the unanimous feeling of his colleagues, and all the reasoning
he heard convinced him, that the proposed plan was the best.
The other clauses were agreed to. Report brought up,
and ordered to be taken into further consideration on
Monday next.