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

S U N,

~~_
~, p' ,

oil

obtain money for them. Thus in sending a messenger with a
box of these bills, and every imaginable precaution having
bt en taken to secure its safe arrival and deliverYOhere was
one objection it was liable to, and that was, that ttnabort on its
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 Height rkititrio in
the City 80,0004 or 100,0094 or what not. He might do thi.,
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 the 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
to those Bills, which he had compared. He (Lord BO had
now to give a contradiction of the charge made against Sir. J.
Newport. There was not a shadow of a ground for it; yet his
Noble Friend in stating what he had done to protect the pub-
' lic from fraud, did impute indirectly, and unintentionally that
Sir J. Newport had neglected his duty, in not
A
t initialling
sifa
do-
cuments compared, as he (Lord M.) hadman
i
could get money twice upon the same order; done.
as
if a
bane
banker
would pay a cheque without crossing it . He (Lord B.),and
others who had been concerned in the Act under which Sir J.
Newport acted and was appointed, had felt great anxiety on
this point. He was bound to show that this could not prevent
the fraudulent clerk front 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 wan 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 raid by the Comptroller as a cheque would be paid.
But his Noble Friend knew that such was not the case; in-
deed, he cc .0 d not but know it, for it came under his know-
ledge every ,'ay. The process was this: when public money was
wanted fur rny department, for the Paymaster of the civil ser-
vice, Paympste.--General of the Forces, a Royal order with the
sign manual and a warrant from the Lords of the Treasury,
were sent to the Comptroller of the Exchequer, ordering him
to pay so much—say 5,0001.—t0 the paymaster of such a ser-
vice; but this order and the warrant were accompanied by a
letter of directions from the Treasury, instructing the Comp-
troller how much of that suns was to be paid out at that time.
But even that was not paid by the Comptroller. All be did
was to give his warrant to the Bank of England, to transfer from
the Exchequer account to the account of the Paymaster
so much as the Lords of the Treasury directed.
The Paymaster then obtained that money from the Bank by
operating on that credit. At the time that a letter went to
the Treasury a duplicate went to the Paymaster, warning him
of what had been done at the Comptroller-General's office,
and that was his (the Paymaster's) authority for operating on
that credit. He then drew his cheque, and every cheque
that he drew was first signed by, himself and then counter-
signed by his accountant and cashier, and unless all these sig.
tat urea were to the cheque not one penny could he obtained
on it. See, then, how many men must be concerned, how
many forgeries and felonies must be committed, to defraud
the public to the amount of or.e farthing? First, there
must bo the chief clerk at the Exchequer; he commits
fraud and a forgery ; but that would not do, that would not
obtain anything from the Bank of England. Not only, then,
the chief clerk must concur, but the Paymaster of the Civil
Service must commit a fraud too, and some one must
have sent a forged letter from the Treasury to
the -Paymaster, and then the Paymaster mu.t have his
assistants, the accountant and cashier. concerned; so that there
must be four felonies and two forgeries committed, before any-
thing could be done to injure thepublic. Yet this was what his
Noble Friend called a case somewhat analogous to that com-
mitted by Smith, where the whole was entrusted to the care of
one individual, and who could damnify the public without the
assistance of any a •coruplice whatsoever. If Smith could not
have committed the fraud he did without the concurrence of
three or four other official persons, no public offi,:er could be
b'amed. But the case of Smith was diametrically opposite to
this, he committed the fraud himself. But the act of
his Noble Friend putting his initials upon the Royal
Orders and Treasury Warrants, could not have the
effect of preventing those documents from being again
used to get money ; but those Orders and Warrants were

issued again and a4ain, as the money on them was paid by
instalments. But his Noble Friend did not put his initials on
the Treasury letter, which, however, was of no consequence,
as it was quite impossible to commit a fraud requiring the
junction of si many persons. But the %yew: point of the Ex •
chequer-office was often and often brought before Parliament.
The last notification was by Sir John Newport himself. The
Treasury knew formerly, as well as now, that the custody of
the paper, stamped, sealed, and signed, was in the•custody of
the Chief Clerk ; but, certainly, as this practice hll gone on
wi•hout mischief fur 140 years, they were not to blame for
thinking that no risk was sun. He (Lord Brougham) well
knew what a scrupulous, car,:ful man Sir John Newport was ;
knowing that Lord Granville, who succeeded, was punctitiously
accurate, it was the greatest injustice to charge his Noble Friend
with not being more scrupulously accurate than those pre-
decessors. He concluded by apologising for having so long
detained their Lord,hips upon a subject, which, however
important to the service of the State, was exceeding dry and
tedious in its details.
Lord MONTE A GLE disclaimed any idea of casting any
imputation upon Sir J. Newport, to whom, from his childhood,
he had been bound by the deepest personal and political ob.i-
gations.—( Hear, he .r. ) lie might have overrated the impor.
tance of his new guards against fraud, but at all events, he had

introduced them f r the hood of the pubic service. He was
satisfied th t Sir J. Newport could never be induced to sup-
pose that it ever entered into his (Lord Monteagle's) brain.
to say one word. in the most remote degree reflecting upon him.
Lord BROUGHAM expla ned.
The Duke of WELLINGTON was understood to say that
the Commissioners, he was sure, intended to make no charge
against any individual. The Noble Lord bad brought forward
tlii. motion for hi, own justifio tion, that the matter might
be sifted to the bottom, and that it might be setn whether
any blame attached to the head of the office. He (the Duke
of Wellington) did not know that any blame ever had been
attached to hi, Noble Friend.—( Hear, hear.) He thought it
would be better to postpmie this motion for inquiry till some
step should be taken in the other House of Parliament, and
some steps should be taken by the Government on the subject.
The Noble Lora approved of the measures adopted by the Go-
vernment. on the subject.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
wished for an inquiry into the manner in which matters
ha•t been conducted in his (the Noble Lord's office).
He, (the Duke of Wellington) (lid not know whether
it were possible to make any amendment in this House. But
if the Noble Lord had put upon paper what he wished to have
done, he (the Duke of Wellington) would speak to others, and
would, by Mon 'ay, obtain a distinct answer to the \oble
Lord's idea.—( Hear, bear.) It appeared that this transaction
had been carried on since the month of April, 1836, and that
some persons were supposed to have a guilty knowledge of it.
and though there were no doubt some innocent sufferers, yet
there, no doubt, were many who took these bills well aware
that they were not legal documents. It was, therefore. abso-
lutely necessary that a rigid investigation on the subject should
take place, to protect the fair holders and uphold the character
of these papers in future. Under these circumstances, he
trusted their Lordships would approve of the measure
when it should come before them.—(Hear, hear.)
In the mean time the llous., should take no steps, and pledge
themselves to nothing. He had read the Report of the Com-
missioners, and he would say that it made no charge against
the Noble Lord, or against the office ; though he would say
that he thought some of the machinery of the office had not
been wisely made. Bat he would reserve his opinion until
the case of the holders was decided, then he would assist in
having those points remedied, and preventing similar evils front
happening in future. At present he hoped the Noble Lord
would withdraw h►s motion, and if he would mention his wish to-
morrow, he the Noble Duke would see what was to be done.
He thought that as doubts had existed they ought to be re-
moved by a judicial inquiry. With these observations he
begged him to withdraw the motion.
The motion was then withdrawn.

The House then Adjourned at ten minutes past Eight
o'Clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 4.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'Clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

On the motion of Mr. W. MILES, the Weston-super-
Mare Improvement Bill was read a second time, and or-
dered to be committed, after a few words from Mr. H.
Berkeley.

Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY presented a petition
against the Severn Navigation Bill.
The Boston 11:1rbour Bill was read a second time and
ordered to be committed.

On the motion of Mr. DENNISTOUN the Edinburgh
and Glasgow Railway Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed.

Mr. PHILPOT presented a petition from a parish in
Gloucester against the Severn Navigation Bill.
The Cheltenham and Great Western Railway Com-
panies' Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.

On the motion of Sir B. HALL, the St. Pancras Im-
' provement Bill was read a second time, and ordered to
be committed. On the motion of the same Hon. Member,
the Duke of Bedford's Estate Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed. The Hon. Member
also presented a petition against the Stanhope and Tyne
Railway Bill.

Mr. "PATTON E3-ERTON presented a petition from
certain individuals, eoinplaining that the promoters of
the Bolton Railway Bill had not complied mith the stand-
ing orders. The petition was ordered to be referred to the
select committee. The lion. Member also presented a
petition against the Staleybridge Gas Bill.

\

imm4*B'

4!.

E.tit