The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-04 00:00:00

had had a narrow escape, and he had also authorised
him to state the circumstances, but requested that his
name might not be mentioned. As that Gentleman was
a Member of that House, he could contradict him
(Mr. Leader)
-if he stated anything incorrectly.—(Great
laughter.) That Gentleman had stated to him (Mr Leader)
that shortly before the discovery that the Exchequer
bill fraud had taken place, a person had come to him and
said that he wanted a loan of 66,000/., or any part of
60,0001. on a deposit of Exchequer bills. Exchequer
bills were, at that time, at a premium of
from 12s. to 15s. The person wanting that loan
offered six per cent. interest for the money—money
at the time being easily procured on good security,
such as Exchequer Bills for four per cent. The
banker having considered that subject, thought there
was something about the transaction that he did not like,
and told the person on making the application that if he
was in want of money he had better sell the bills
than borrow money on them at such a rate of interest.
The same person, on the reference of the banker, after-
wards went to one of the greatest capitalists in London,
and made the same proposal ; the answer of the capi-
talist was the same as that of the banker had been :
" You cannot afford to give such an . amount of
interest; if you want money so very badly as you repre-
sent yourself to do, you had much better sell the bills."
Now, he (Mr. Leader thought, that when persons hold-
ing forged Exchequer bills could be proved to
have received them under such circumstances,
they could have no claim whatever for compensation—
(Hear, hear, hear)—for whatever might have been
the amount of carelessness of parties connected
with the Exchequer Bill-office, they could not excuse the
gross carelessness of parties receiving Exchequer bills
under such circumstances. And while the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had been properly severe on those who had
taken Exchequer bills under suspicious circumstances,
the Right Hon. Gentleman had not been sufficiently se-
vere on the carelessness exhibited at the Exchequer Bill-
office. He (Mr. Leader) thought tkat from the docu-
ments - before the House, from the letter of the Comp-
troller-General, and likewise from the Report of
the Commissioners, it appeared that the country
had a very fair subject of complaint against the
Exchequer Bill-office.-- (Hear, hear, • hear.) He
wished to ask. the Chancellor of the Exchequer
if the statement which he (Mr. Leader) was
about to make, was correct or not.—(Hear.) He (Mr.
Leader) had. been informed that at the time when
the Exchequer Bill-office was remodelled, a
person acquainted with that department
had called the attention of the persons in
authority to the fact that Mr. Beaumont Smith
was possessed of great power, and that there was no
check whatever upon him, his being the only depart-
ment in the office on which there was no check. That
representation had been made to the persons in authority!
He believed that the present Comptroller-General was at;
the time Chancellor of the Exchequer.—(No, no.)
At any rate, the representation had been
made at the time the Comptroller-General was
connected with the Treasury, and it was certain that
that recommendation had not been attended to, because
they knew that Mr. Beaumont Smith had retained
that power, which he had so monstrously abused.
It 'was not necessary for him to allude to other
marks of carelessness in that office, for these
would no doubt come under the attention of
the Commission, But he had only wished to call the
attention of the Chancellor of the _ Exchequer
to the circumstance which he had mentioned ; because
a feeling had gone abroad that there was
so much carelessness in the Exchequer, that
those persons who had advanced money on fair interest
upon those bills were entitled to compensation. He un-
derstood that the stamped paper was under the unchecked
control of the same person (B. Smith), whereas in
the Bank of England, the paper which was
to be used for notes, was guarded as care-
fully, as it was after it had received the signatures.
Mr. BLEWITT was understood to say, that as the
House seemed to acquiesce in the course proposed by the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, he would not oppose it: But on looking
over . the Report which he held in his hand, he
was not sure that it was quite clear that any forgery had
been committed. For it appeared to him that Mr.
Beaumont Smith had every opportunity of getting_ the
signatures, without having recourse to forgery.—(Hear,
hear.) With that exception, he concurred in the motion.
Sir R. INGLIS concurred with the Hon. Gentleman
who had just addressed the House, that the
motion before the House begged the question,
which ought principally to be the object of inquiry—
that was whether the bills were or were not forged.
He should not have troubled the House, but that
his Right Honourable Friend in some way
prejudiced, the case of those who were
bona fide holders.—(Hear, hear.) He came into the
House without having made up his mind, and deter-
mined to reserve his judgment until he should have learnt
what course the Government meant to take. But his
Right Hon. Friend had drawn an analogy, which he (Sir
R. Inglis) could not agree to, although it had received
the sanction of a high legal authority. It was that the
holders of these bills had no more right to compensation
than the holders of forged bank notes. The Right Hon.
Gentleman would not deny that the bills which formed
the subject of his motion issued from a Government de-
partment. Whether they issued from the left hand door
or from the right hand door did not matter much, but
that they issued ftom a Government department was un-
questionable, and the distinction in the point of analogy
between a note of the Bank of England and one of those
bills was, that in the latter case the unfunded bill had
been previously issued from'a Government departmcnt.—
(Cries of "No.") He understood these bills were perfected
by the Government in every respect, except in the sig-
nature of the Comptroller-General ; that the paper was
Government paper ; that the seal was the Government
seal ; and that the officer who issued it was a Go-
vernment officer.—(Cries of " No, no.") But that would
be a matter of inquiry.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
His argument proceeded on the assumption that with
the single exception of the' signature the -bills in every
other respect belonged to the Government, and that
whether they issued from the office of the Exchequer or
the Exchequer Bill-office, in either case the bills, the
subject of this motion, were bona fide issued from a
Government department, and that being the case he
thought his Right Hon. Friend prejudiced the case by
drawing an analogy between the holder of a note and
the holder of one of these bills. He thought, until he
was contradicted, that the Exchequer bills, whether
issued fraudulently and by night, or honestly and in the
open face of day, had issued from a Government depart-
ment, and that being so that they were still beau fide.
With that observation he would not interpose any other
delay.
Mr. F. T. BARING said he would trouble the House
with a few words, and he could not but express his con-
currence with what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman opposite as to the propriety of instituting an in-
quiry, and sifting the subject by a free and complete in-
vestigation. —(Hear, hear.) He fully concurred with
him as to the necessity of a Commission of Inquiry.—.
(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated
that it was impossible for a Government not to be sub-
ject to suspicion, but whether they were or not, it would
be impossible to disabuse the minds of the public upon
the subject, who believed that certain parties would be
screened if an inquiry were not instituted by Mtmbers of
that House. He need not add a single word more, ex-
cept as to an observation made by the Hon. Member for
Westminster. He had stated that a communication was
made to the Treasury at the time the arrangement of the
Exchequer was made, with respect to Mr. Beaumont
Smith, and the power he possessed. He (Mr. Baring)
was one of the Commission f conducti ig that business ;
but after the Bill passed, most, he might say the whole,
of the carrying the Bill into effect devolved upon him,
he being then Secretary of the Treasury, and this was
the first the had had the slightest intimation of the
kind. Height add, that it was not till he saw in the
newspapers the intelligence ,that the Government was
taking proper measures for pursuing the inquiry, that a
hint of the kind had reached him as to the fraud that
had been carrying on. With regard to Mr. Beaumont
Smith, and the arrangement made for the selection of the
officer 3, it should be stated that no recommendation for
any officer, from the Chief Clerk of the Exchequer down
to the lowest in the office, zas ever attended to, unless it
came from the heads oftfit department, and every en-
deavour was made by inquiries into their character,
to select the best officers. No application or recommend-
ation was ever attended to except those from the proper
department and the, heads of the office. Unfortunately
this was an instance proving .that the greatest care
did not always secure a good public servant, for if there
was any testimony of character in favour of one
person more strong than another, it was in favour of Mr.
Beaumont Smith. He believed he should do better in
following the course of the Right Hon. Gentleman and
not go into any discussion as to whether, as had been re-
marked by the Hon. Member tor the University of Ox-
ford, the Exchequer bills came out of one door or an-
other. They would see the expediency of waiting till
they were in possession of the whole facts of the case.
He entirely concurred in the course taken by the Right
Hon. Gentleman.

Mr. LEADER, in explanation, said that with respect
to the necessity of additional checks in Mr. Beaumont
Smith's department, the evidence given before the COm-
missioners proved that there was no check over him, and
that the Government might have had additional checks
if they liked.
Colonel SIBTHORP approved of the motion of the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
which he hoped would elicit the truth upon the impor-
tant question under the consideration of the House. As
the Right Hon. Gentleman had made such a motion he
(Colonel Sibthorp) could not support the proposal of the
Hon: Member for London as he should otherwise have
done. (The Hon. and Gallant Member then proceeded
to read several documents, for the purpose of shoWing
that Lord Monteagle had discharged his duties as
Comptroller of the Exchequer with great carelessness.)
He trusted that, in the investigation which was to take
place, there would be the strictest impartiality, that,
when the result was made known, the public might see—
he would not say who was the greater rogue—but who
was behind the curtain.—(Hear, hear.) Me would, when
the result of that investigation was submitted to the
House, closely and minutely weight every circumstance,
and express his opinion on the subject.
Mr. RICARDO expressed a hope that there would be
no unnecessary delay in bringing in the Bill. . •
Mr. WAKLEY said as he had not been in the HOuse
when the Right-Hon. Gentleman introduced the discus-
sion, he would be glad to know whether the Commission
was to extend its inquiry into all the circumstances:un-
der which the bills were issued, or whether it w 4 to
extend it merely to the manner in which the holders be-
came possessed of them. If the inquiry was to be re-
stricted to the last point, he did not believe that the ' üb-
f
lic would be satisfied.—(Hear, hear.) His own op ion
was that the people of this country were quite wii ling
that Parliament should vote remuneration to the (bona
fide holders of those bills. He thought the people of
this country felt that the character of the Legislature
would suffer, if it allowed any party to be at a loss in con-