Star.
London, England, 1820-07-13 00:00:00

AUDIT OTTIOL

Mr. H. G. BENNETT rose, in pursuance of notice,
Ito move for printing such parts of the evidence as
Irr as contained in the Minutes of the late Finance
!Committee concerning the Audit Office, but which
used not yet been submitted to the House. The
Hon. Member stated, that in consequence of a Bill
now before the House for abolishing, certain fees in
the Audit Office, he felt it necessary to look into the
evidence appended to the Report of the late Finance
Committee, which related to the Audit Office, and'
he found these only the evidence of Mr. Harmon
rnd Mr. Lushington ; and, upon further inquiry, he
learned that a great mass of evidence taken upon
this subject, and still preserved. in the Minutes of
the Committee, was altogether omitted in the printeJ
Repo' t. The evidence so omitted bad reference, he
tlnderstooti, to certain disagreements which had
'Alien place between the Chairman of the Audit

. . . .
turd Serjeatti -Pratt!) Assistant 'Com-
litiiSlOneris •IlidoCd he. had Teamed, *no Verbs
well atquainted with .the whole of the,depfuttnent,
4 that the suppressed evidence would open such a
scene between the bead Coinnaissioner and the, other
members of the Board—it would shew such a per-
petual system of squabbling, that it would be neces-
sary to taker measures for guarding against their re-
newal, and against the consequence of such scenes,
which were highly detrimental to the public service
—(Hear).—He could imagine that the reason of not
printing the evidence, arose from this squabbling and
discontent, but he would produce such a statement as
would render the production of the evidence necessary:
The Honourable Member proceeded to contend that
it was the duty of the Finance Committee to have
inquired into the fees in the Audit Office. But until
he saw the evidence he could not kpow whether they
had performed that duty or not. In 1810 a Bill was
brought in by which two fees in that department
were abolished ; but the fees which were paid to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer were still retained. He
wished to know, therefore, if the Committee had in-
quired into this subject, and had ascertained this in-
consistency ? In order to know this, he wished to have
the whole of the Report before him. ' He also wished
to know whether the Committee had extended its in-
quiries to the expenses of the Audit Board? for he
was prepared to shew that the business of that de-
partment might be performed by fewer hands than
were at present employed. Another subject on which
he wished to be inrormed, was that great job the
Lisbon Commission? It seemed to be the intention
of the Right Hon. Gentleman to re-establish that job
in London, for he had lately set up a new establish-
ment in Great George-street. The Commission to
which he alluded cost the country £11,600 a year.—
It had already cost, on the whole, £70,000, and yet
with this &tiara-horse power the Commission had
audited no more than four or five accounts.—The
Honourable Member referred to a Minute of the
Treasury regarding Sir Robert Kennedy, which ob-
served upon the harsh and undeserved manner in
which that meritorious Officer was treated by tbe
Audit Board ; and at the same time, though he
agreed in the propriety of the remarbs of the Trea-
sury on this subject, yet he had reason to believe
that that Board interfered too frequenAy with the
Audit Board. The Committee of 1810 had called
the attention of the House to this interference on the
part of the Treasury in making allowances and
making charges, and in protecting Public Accoent-
ants who had met with the displeasure of the Board
of Audit. In the year 1795,, the Marquis of Hast-
ings, then Lord Moira, had a military command,
and on that occasion, that Noble Lord was entrusted
with a sum of £20,000, which he had no doubt was
applied to the purpose for which it was intended,
but of this no account appeared anywhere; the
Treasury ordered Lord Moira to repay the sum, and
it was repaid, but the interest was not demanded,
and thus 1.7000 was given up, to which the country
had just as much right as to the £20,000. After
some other observations iu support of his motion, the
Honourable Gentleman concluded with repeating it
in the terms above-mentioned.

Mr. DAVIES GILBERT said, that as he was
Chairman of the Committee alluded to, he confessed
that a considerable mass of evidence was not printed
in the Report; for the Committee were of opinion
that the publication of it would do no good to the
public service, while it would injure the feetings of
individuals. The Report. remained in its original
state, in the Office where it was thought that all the
useful purposes to which it could be applied might
be answered. In the.present case, however, he had
no desire of withholding it from the House. The
Honourable Member had said, that only four or five
accounts were yet audited ; but though that might be
true, still a great mass of accounts was in progress,
and they would be brought forward in the course of
next year. He had to observe, that the house in
-Great George-street was taken for the purpose of re-
ceiving the documents connected with the public ac-
counts, which were extremely numerous. As to the
number of persons employed in auditing those ac-
counts, he thought that, far from being diminished,
if that number were still larger, it would benefit the
public service.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER de-,
fended the conduct of the Board of Treasury in the
appointment of persons to the Audit Board. In that
respect they had exercised the best discretion; and
one Gentleman in particular, whom they appointed,
had been recommended to them for his integrity and
diligence, and he was in all respects worthy of the
office he filled.

Mr. BENNETT said, he hoped the Right Hon.
Gentleman would have no objection to give the papers.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER re-'
plied, that he had none.—The Motion was agreed to.

.