The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-05 00:00:00

not bee n, in any 'one instance, the slightest degree of deviation
from i he established, rulesand usages of the office. There had
been it io carelessness, no relaxation. Much had been said of
the cat elessness .eofleaving printed forms, and stamped papers in
the introl the chief clerk. Certainly, it yr.x easy
to psi: it out s_ remedy for a particular fraud after it had been
disoev ered and although the Commissioners had found that
the piartie• ular fraud in question had been facilitated in that
way, yet for 140 years the same • had been the usage of the
office, it nd down to_the_ time of Mr. B. Smith, not one fraud
had bee committed. He would beg to call their Lordships'
attest ion to the fact, that this carelessness, as it was called,
• Wa' Is not the result of a new system. There was not one of
th arse inadvertencies which had not been made the subject of Par-
) ramentary inquiry, which had existed not only anterior to 'the
last century, but which had been frequently brought under the
notice of Parliament. He might say that the very question of
tke amount of confidence placed in the senior officer of the
Exchequer had been brought before the Treasury from the
year 1696 till the Administration of Lord Grey, at various
times, and was uncorrected. Upon the extinction of the office
of the Comptroller-General, the Legislature had all these facts
before them, and they made no alteration whatever in the
system practised in the Exchequer Bill Office. Orders were
received to carry on the department as had been hitherto the
custom. The Treasury acquiesced in the practice, and he
(Lord Monteagle) must say that he did not blame the Treasury
for their acquiescence, for they had the example of 140 years
before them ; during which time there had been no one
instance of anything unpleasant having occurred. In
reality, the the Government selected every clerk in
the office of the Comptroller-General, and they were se-
ected solely in consequence of their fitness for the office.
Mr. Arthur Eden, a gentleman who had been 30 years in the
Exchequer, and had been long accustomed to offices of trust
'and integrity, was appointed to the office of Assistant-Comp-
troller, and he• (Lord Menteagle) would say, that a more cau-
tious and attentive man—a man better qualified for the office,
could not have been appointed. They were selected on ac-
count. of age and service, except one junior, selected at the re-
commendation of Lord Camden; than whom no man ever
tirade greater sacrifices to his country.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. B.
smith had been entrusted by Lord Grenville and Sir J. New-
port with the same functions he held under him (Lord Mont-
eagle). He was nephew to the late Sir Sidney Smith and of
Lady Grenville. Thus he had been for a long series
of years in his office, and he had the highest
testimonials: A great saving had been effected in the
Exchequer bills of late, especially since the Noble Duke
came into power.—(Hear.) A great change was also made.
Au establishment, costing B,OOOL, was made to do the duty of
one costing 48,0001. a year, and it worked well, with the ex-
ception of the late fraud. He (Lord Monteagle) had no
knowledge of any suspicion of Mr. Smith till Monday, the 25th
of October. He had been at the office that day. He (Lord
Monteagle) received a communication from the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, and found to his dismay that the issuing clerk
was in custody on a charge of forgery. He (Lord Monteagle)
gave the Government all the assistance he could. He had
seen it publicly stated, nevertheless, that the Ministers who had
asked his advice had severely, treated him. He (Lord Mont-
eagle) got all the keys of Mr. Smith, and nothing gave him
more pain than when, on opening his desk, the first object met
was the sword of the late Sir S. Smith—given to the man now
under sentence of transportation as a mark of regard. The
Government could hardly be blamed for trusting such a man.
Next came an examination of the bills, of the clerks,
and a sum of 18,900,0001. went through their hands
without any mistake. This was greatly to their credit.
Of the responsibility which might fall upon any party for detain-
ing these bills, he took his full share. It was the duty of the
Government to withhold them from those who might turn
them to a bad account. But at the same time it was under-
taken that the bills should be at any time produced for the
purpose of enabling the innocent parties to recover against
those from whom they had received them. Mr. Smith plertied
guilty, his accomplice having been admitted as a witness.
Now of neither of these facts had he any knowledge until the
morning of the trial ; though an absurd report had gone abroad
that Smith was induced to plead guilty in consequence of
what transpired in repeated interviews • between him ( Lord
Monteagle) and Sir Thomas Wilde, his (Smith's) legal
adviser. Nothing could be more absurd than such a rumour,
but it had made some impression on the public mind. On
this account he had thought it necessary to declare that
he never had any communication with Sir Thomas
Wilde on the subject of the trial ; nor did he
know anything of the course to be taken by Smith in the Crown
prosecution until the morning of the trial.—( Hear, hear.) As
to the Commission appointed by the Government, he did not
think a wiser course could have been taken, or a bettereelection
made of Commissioners ; nor would it be necessary for him to ask
ther Lordships to institute any further inquiry, but for two or
three statements in their reports, which were made in ignorance,
or through that carelessness and infirmity to which all men
were liable. He begged at the same time to declare that he
had the highest opinion of their talents and honour, and meant
to cast no imputation upon them personally in the remarks
he had to make. They stated, after having gone through the
whole of the evidenee, that they had been unable to trace, during
the whole of the last fifty years, a departure from any useful
practice or any relaxation in duty, except in five cases. If he
(Lord Monteagle) disposed of these five cases, he trusted he
should bring their Lordships to acknowledge that there had
been no relaxation whatever in the execution of duty in
the Exchequer-office. The Commissioners further stated that
the internal errors in the officfe had escaped notice during a
period of 100 years. The first of these cases was the abandon-
ment of the second counterfoils ; that took place upwards of
forty years ago, and was under the order of the Treaenry of
the day.—( Hear, hear.) The second case was the neglecting
to compare the counterfoils with the bills. This duty had, in-
deed, been neglected in the Paymaster's-effice, but that was
not his ( Lord Monteagle's) office, and did not come under his
cognizance. He should now proceed to the sth case, the des-
truction of the counterfoils without the authority of the Trea-
sury ; that, no doubt, was in his ( Lord Monteagle's) office ;
but it had been done since the year 1828, and could be of no
real, practical convenience to the public. The others were
more material points. The third was the signing of the bills
by more than one person. Lord Grenville signed about 5,000
bills out of 240,000, leaving Mr. Eden to sign 235,000; and
if any error had been committed by him (Lord Monteagle)
it had resulted solely from his (Lord Monteagle's) undertaking
a larger portion of his duty than his predecessors had done.
Re had actually signed more bills than Messrs. Eden and Per-
eeval. The next thing (as we understood the Noble Lord to
say) was an omission of the notification of his attorney. Lord
tivanville had certainly notified who his attorney was,
but Mr. Eden was not his (Lord Monteagle's) attor-
ney, and was not to be notified as such. He might be'
censured for signing bills without signing a book, or in the
presence
of a clerk. Here he might be censured for
disrespect to their Lordships' Judicial Tribunal, for thinking
that his presence on appeals was merely formal, he did sign
Exchequer bills on their Lordships' table. Those bills came
and went in a despatch-box, and never were out of the custody
of a responsible person. Also, he had signed on Committees
and in Privy, Council. But he was never absent from the office
when he ought to be there. But, if every official paper must
be signed within the four walls of the office, the business of the
Treasury or of the Secretary to the Home Department, could
never be gone through. An impression had, however, gone
abroad that the business of his office had been carelessly con-
ducted. On this ground, he asked for inquiry. He knew of
the Commission of Inquiry proposed by the other House • but
what he wanted was an inquiry whether or not he had relaxed
in the duties of his office. In the Report, page 74, some mis-
take occurred. It would appear that Mr. Eden and Sir J. New-
port were examined. The fact was, both those gentlemen did as
he did ; but when he approved of a document, he put his
initials to it, that it should not come before him again.
He hoped the Committee he proposed would not be objected
to ; or, at least, unless their Lordships thought that there was
nothing to be inquired into, he asked them to propose some
ether inquiry. But he could not do his duty consistently
without asking for, and inquiring after, the imputations that
had gone forth. Of course, he would not have the audacity to
be a member of the Committee he asked for ; and in asking
for this inquiry, he redeemed the pledge he gave the Go-
vernment to bring this matter before the attention of the
Parliament early in the Session.
A message from the Commons brought up the Mixed
Marriages Act (Ireland), which was read a first time.
' Lord-BROUGHAM said that no parts of his Noble Friend's
candid, clear, and satisfactory speech were in the slightest de-
gree objectionable, except those in which he went into vindiee.
Lions of his whole conduct,which were objectionable only leenuse
they were unnecessary, unless they might be considered neces-
sary to answer the insinuations which had been made against
bins, which were as absurd as malignant. The course which
the Noble Lord proposed to their Lordships was one which it
,was competent to them to take. The inquiry could not, he was
sure, affect any one in the office of which his Noble Friend was
at the head, although it might affect other persons in this
great metropolis. and give rise to prosecutions. That might
be a consideration which might cause their Lordships to hesitwAss
I,•fore they acceded to the motion. His Noble Frienci had
stated that the only occasion on which Exchequer bills were
signed out of the office, were, twice by himself, once at the
Privy Council and once in that House; but that they were
sometimes signed by Sir John Newport, at his own house,
' when he was unable to attend the office through Meese,
He would beg to remind their Lordships that there was a
great difference between signing those bills away from the
office, which Sir John Newport signed, and the signing of
those bills away from the office, which the Commissioners
said his Noble I'riend had signed. The bills which Sir J.
Newport signed were " deficiency bills," and no others. The
bills which the Commissioners imputed to his Noble Friend
were " supply bills." Deficiency bills were those which were
issued payable upon the growing surplus of the consolidated
fund. Supply bills were issued payable to " bearer." The
deficiency bills were made payable to the " Governer and
Company of the Bank of England, or order." If a tteficiency
bill miscarried in its way back from the place bf signature
to the Exchequer, it 'would be useless to the person into
whose hands it might fall, because being only payable to the
Governor and Company of the Bank of England, it would be
be useless to any one who could not undertake to forge the
signatures of the Bank of England ; and, again, the defi-
ciency bills were for sums of enormous amount (from
20,0001. to- 100,00010, which would make it impossible for
those, who fraudulently got hold of them, to use them for their
own !account. But it was not so with respect to the supply
bills; for in the first place they were payable to the bearer, and in
the second place, there were none of them to a mater
amount than 1,0004, so:that whoever got possession or them
(but for one circumstance) might use them, and instantly
obtain money for them. Thus in sending a messenger with a
box of these bills, and every imaginable precaution having
been taken to secure its safe arrival and delivery, there was
one objection it was liable to, and that was, that the box ott it*
way, instead of arriving at the Exchequer, might be broken
open by the messenger, and the million of money taken out;
for which, being payable to " bearer," he might receive in
the City 80,0001. or 100,0001, or what not. He might do this,
but for the check that not one of them could be presented for
payment before the date of the issue. The only danger was,
that a person might cash a bill without looking at ithe date,
which might sometimes :happen ; therefore he ,disapproved of
the practice. A mistake in the printing of tke Report made
his Noble Friend say that Sir John Newport did not com-
pare the Treasury warrant with the statutory regulations ;
whereas Sir John Newport never omitted this necessary duty.
The only difference was that his Noble Friend signed his initials
nowN tpom give
Ta
hceornet rwaadsi ci iootnaosfhtande. charge to those Bills, which he had compared. He (Lord B.) had
gmr oa tdi ne dagfoarinistt; Syiert his
Noble Friend in stating what he h
lic from fraud, slid impute a. done to. protect the pub-
Sir J. Newport hadindirectly and unintentionally that
neglected his duty, in not initialling do-
cuments
compared, as he (Lord M.) had done. A
could get money twice upon the same order;.
as sif
if a a man
banker
would pay a cheque without crossing it ! H(l.ord B.
others who had been concerned in the Act under which )girand
Newport acted and was appointed, had felt great anxiety
could on
not
this point. He was bound to show that this
prevent
the fraudulent clerk from re•issuing the Bills; for the initials
were placed on the wrong paper. When he heard of the
statement, he made every inquiry, for he was alarmed at the
responsibility of himself, and those who appointed Sir John
Newport having passed the Act and created the office,
and he was in a condition to prove that what
he stated was the fact. Any one would suppose
from the evidence of his Noble Friend that when the order
with the sign manual was presented at the Exchequer-office
it was Paid by the Comptroller as a cheque would be paid.
But Ills Noble Friend knee/ that such. was not the ease ;- in-
deed, he could not but know it, for it. came under his know-
ledge every day. The process was this: when public money was
wanted for any department, for the Paymaster of the civil ser-
vice, Paymaster-General of the Forces, a BoYal order with that