Star.
London, England, 1822-03-15 00:00:00

:+ham .;"^e°twyq-.- ps..a-,s~{!11

, which he would reconcile the 4!trie of angel
No accounts was this: that class the Finance
Accounts, bit wire more ptOperly Exchequer Ac-
soosts, and which was that presented by his Right,
Had'. Friend, contained payments into the Exchequer
only; whereas the Accounts presented by the Noble
Marquis, on the 15th of February, related to the net
income of the country applicable to the public ser-
vice for the year. Now, it should be remarked, that
the whole of the Revenue of the year was not paid into
the Exchequer ; and, on the other hand, there were
monies paid into the Exchequer which never went to
the public service of the year—(Hear).—Hence arose
the diffetence in the accounts. Having thus ac-
counted for the differences generally, he ihotlld pro-
ceed to the items. The first item was the Customs,
the amount of which was stated,

In the Finance Accounts, at - - £9,882,482
In the Accounts of the Noble Marquis, at 9,837,279

Difference - 25,183
This arose from certain monies arising from the 41
per cent. duties being paid into the Exchequer,
which did not go to the service of the year, and were
not, therefore, put in the Noble Lord's account.—
The South Sea Duties, to the amount of 8401. were
also payable into the Exchequer by the Receiver-Ge-
neral, and this made up the whole difference. The
Excise was the next item ; which, in both accounts,
was stated at 27,929.853/. and as there was no dif-
ference, the same observation applied to the Stamps.
In the Post Office there was a difference of 70001.
He would reconcile this by stating that the list pay-
ment, which was exactly 70001. was not paid in by
the Receiver-General until after the 10th of January;
and, as the accounts had been made up to the sth of
January, this item of course did not enter into them.
He admitted, however, that, for the sake of regula-
rity, this item should be placed to the account of the
year. The next difference in the accounts was in
the taxes, which was stated at 24.0001. This was ac-
counted for by the transfer from one head of tax to
another. The differences in the Hackney Coaches and
Chairs of 11621. and of Hawked and Pedlars of 30001.
were to be accounted for upon the same principle as
the Post Office, namely—that sums to this amount
had been paid in subsequently to the sth of January,
and were not, therefore, in the accounts before the
House. In the item of One shilling and sixpence
Duty, and Duty on Pensions,"there was no difference.
The duty of 4s. on Pensions, amounting to 15,4931.
certainly was not in the Finance Accounts at all:
and this he considered an omission. The difference in
the accounts with regard to unclaimed dividends
was accounted for as being repaid to the Bank. The
difference of 260,0001. in the account of the pro-
ceeds of old stores, had been transferred to the Navy
Estimates, which were so much less. There were
other smaller items, which he would not notice. He
admitted that the difference of 4171. in the Fines-and
Forfeitures, was not in the Finance Account—(Hear)
The differences, therefore, between the two accounts
were easily reconcileable, by the circumstance of one
account containing returns of monies paid into the
Exchequer; and the other, of the net income of the
year. He would reconcile the differences in the ex-
penditure in the same way. One account contained
a return of the sums issued from the Exchequer to
the Army, Navy, and Ordnance—the other, the ab-
solute charge of these establishments. But 'he did
not mean to say that this mode of keeping the ac-
counts was the best—(Hear).—lf he had said so, he
should be inconsistent, as it was the intention of his
Right Hon. Friend to move for a Committee to exa-
mine into these accounts. But he contended that
tliere was no blame attributable to the Treasury upon
this score. The accounts were kept now as they
had been since 1802 ; and, indeed, there was an Act
passed in that year for regulating them. He concur-
red with Gentlemen on the other side, however, that
some new arrangement should be introduced into
these accounts. But he (Mr. Lusliington) hoped he
had shewn that in the accounts, so far as they went,
referred to by the Hon. Member, there was no mate-
rial incorrectness. Under these circumstances he saw
no necessity for the Committee moved for by the
Hon. Member. He was more induced to think so,
as his Right Hon. Friend intended so soon to move
for his Committee for the arrangement of the Public
Accounts. As, however, these differences appeared
in the Public Accounts, he had no objection to the
appointment of a Committee to reconcile these differ-
ences; but lie should decidedly oppose their going
further, as they would but forestall the duties of his
Right Hon. Friend's Committee. It may be recol-
lected too, that his Right Hon. Friend intended giving
to his Committee larger powers than the Hon. Mem-
ber would give to the Committee for which he was
, now moving. The Committee for general revision
would be more properly called to the consideration
of the Public Accounts after the 25th March,when all
the accounts of the year would be before the House.
He should therefore propose, as an Amendment—

" That a Select Committee be appointed to consider from
what causes the accounts of payments into the Exchequer up to
the sth of January, appeared not to agree with the Finance Ac-
counts of the net income of the year presented to this House
upon the 15th of February, 1822."

Sir JOHN NEWPORT opposed the Amendment.
The accounts, he thought, should be kept in a way
which would render explanation unnecessary, and so
that any person of common intelligence might un-
derstand them. A mercantile establishment would
consider itself disgraced by the keeping of its ac-
counts in such a manner that a clerk should be re-
quired to explain apparent errors. The Hon. Member
had admitted that there were errors. The present
artificial mode of keeping the accounts rendered them
very complicated. He thought public accounts should
be kept so clearly as to leave no room even for sus-
picion. It appeared from the explanation of the Hon.
Member, that in one instance a sum of money had
riot been paid into the Exchequer as it ought to have
been by law. He (Sir J. Newport) would-wish to be
' informed who it was that had dared to violate the
law ? It was well known that the Act ordering the
payments into the Exchequer had been passed to
guard against the misapplication of public money in
its passage to the Exchequer. He thought the object
of the Committee should be general, and would
therefore vote for the original motion.
Mr. MABERLY, jun. spoke a few words against
the amendment, which he considered as purposing
merely a retrospective operation.
Mr. RICARI)O supported the original motion.
The object of the Committee, in his opinion, was to ob-
tain proper accounts rather than reconcile differences.

'rlt`