"A regulation upon this principle was introduced in France by an ordinance of the 14th of September, 1822, and appears to have been eminently beneficial in its operation. It provides, that under no circumstances can any branch of administration receive or dispose of any other funds than those which have been voted for its service by legislative authority; that, in case of any sale of public property, the proceeds of such sale shall be paid into the Treasury, and shall not be at the disposal of the department to which the property belonged."

Now, what was the first signature which he found attached to that document? It was that of a noble Lord no longer amongst them, but whom they all well remembered -he alluded to the late Lord Congleton; his authority, in all matters of accountancy and finance, they would not be very ready to dispute. The next name that he found attached to the report, was that of the noble Lord now at the head of the Treasury; he called upon that noble person now to carry out his own principles. The power was vested in him; let it be exercised in the way which he had declared to be "obviously necessary for the security of the public.' The third signature was that of Sir James Graham, who thereby avowed, that unless the principle recognised in that report were acted upon, the public revenue would be perilled. The fourth signature was that of a gentleman of very large experience-Sir James Kemp. The fifth was Charles Poulett Thompson, afterwards Lord Sydenham. The sixth was Francis Thornhill Baring, late Chancellor of the Exchequer; and the seventh was Edward Ellice, now Member for Coventry. Seven names of higher authority in matters of finance could hardly be introduced to the notice of the House. He had on those several occasions moved

It would be seen how little practical difficulty there would be in obtaining Parliamentary sanction for the whole amount expended thus irregularly, inasmuch as the amount did not vary greatly from year to year; so that the objection that it would be impossible to predict by anticipation the amounts required had no ground whatever; nor was it found to be an objection in those countries which had adopted a sound system of national book-keeping. But he would, with the permission of the House, read from the last return the items of which those amounts were composed.

1,461 9 8

63 16 4

2,377 17 5

269 16 6 7 13 6

277 10 0

340 11 8

48 6 3

20,247 19 3

7,546 13 11 39,151 9 9

ex-} £909,610 12 2

6,152,394 14 93 909,610 12 2

On these accounts he begged to remark, ❘ that since 1843 the amount stopped by the different departments of taxes had increased to the extent of nearly 650,000.; that, since 1836, the amount stopped in the Stamp department had increased from 283,000l. to 391,000l.; that in the department of Taxes the sums detained had mounted from less than 230,000l. to nearly half a million; that in the Post Office, the amount detained was 400,000l. more than in 1836; it having been 1,127,6277. in the last year and 722,0257. ten years ago, so that the evil was one of growing magnitude. Now he doubted much, whether there was any legal authority for these detentions-whether any Acts of Parliament could be found to sanction the deductions of these enormous amounts. Sir Henry Parnell always asserted, that the power was not conferred, at all events, for the retention of a very large portion of them. And he contended, that under no circumstances ought Parliament to divest itself of the right and duty to control the expenditure of every farthing levied in the shape

of taxes from the Queen's subjects. They were not called upon to authorize the disposal of the balances merely which were paid into the Exchequer, but the gross amounts received from the people. They were in duty bound, first, to take care that all was paid into the Queen's Exchequer, to require its being so paid as the preliminary step; and to see that as the whole was properly received, and placed in safe custody, so that the whole was properly disbursed under Parliamentary sanction. And with special reference to one great source of expenditure, the salaries of public functionaries, he wanted to know why the salaries and pay of the Army, the Navy, the Ordnance, the Foreign and Home Office, the Board of Trade and Control, and other departments, should be annually voted by Parliament; while the salaries of the officers of the Customs, of the Excise, the Stamps and Taxes, the Post Office, never were submitted to Parliament at all, until the expenditure had taken place, and Parliamentary inquiry came too late to correct an abuse, or to check an extravagance?

"The appropriations credited on the estimates in aid of the votes, are to be the sums actually realized and brought to account during the year preceding the estimate, instead of the prospective receipts expected to be realized in the year for which the estimate is voted. The credits in aid' have already been put on this footing in the Navy, Ordnance, and Commissariat Estimates; and when a similar change shall have been made in the War Office Estimates, there will be nothing left to be desired on this point."

But this reform must go much farther. There should be no appropriations in aid whatever. In 1843, the appropriations in aid in the Ordnance Department alone amounted to 535,9251. When the gallant Officer the Member for South Staffordshire had moved the Ordnance Estimates for the present year, he had acknowledged that it was desirable to get rid of the system, and had expressed a hope that no future estimates would exhibit that now-recognised defect; and he congratulated the House upon the avowal. Now, in order to introduce a satisfactory system, proper forms of estimates were most important, and uniform modes of proceeding were likewise of the highest value. From the reports on the French accounts laid before the House of Commons in 1831 and 1832, they learned -"that the whole of the public accounts of France, whether relating to income or expenditure, are kept on one uniform plan; that the processes of preferring, examining, admitting, and paying publie claims, is the same in all departments; that their forms are framed on one model; that the

principle on which the returns of all the departments are compiled being uniform, they are blended without difficulty in the general balance-sheet of the Finance Department; that the final account of every department requires the public ratification of the Court of Accounts as to its correct ness; that the superintendence of that court reaches not only the cash agents who receive and pay away the public money, but those also who authorize the public disbursements; and that all the executive departments being required to lay before the Chambers accounts, showing how they have applied the credits granted to them, the control of the Legislature extends over every branch of the public finances."

As to the abuses growing out of the present system, only imperfectly reformed, he need but read extracts from the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester, to whose services in the field of financial reform he must pay a grateful and cordial, however humble, tribute. On moving the estimates of the Navy for 1831,

partment of the Naval service had been begun, completed, and paid for, without the knowledge or sanction of Parliament, or without the subject having been once brought under the notice of the House of Commons; that those works were paid for out of the surplus of other votes which were greater than was needed for the purposes to which it was intended they should be applied." The following works were then cited, as instances in which the votes of Parliament had been exceeded, or in which no vote had been obtained :-Weevil, expended without a vote, 155,5341.; Cremill, expended beyond the vote, 225,4417.; Ascension, expended without a vote, 10,000Z.; Woolwich, expended beyond the votes, 141,4437.; Leith, expended without a vote, 7,9081. It was further shown, that since 1820, the sum of 1,243,100l. had been expended for "sea wages," beyond the sums voted by Parliament, and that this excess was caused by employing year after year a larger force than Parliament had sanctioned. To meet these excesses, it was explained that larger sums than were needed had been voted for naval stores and for army provisions; the excess of grants beyond the expenditure for those services having amounted in four years to 1,835,000l. His proposition was, "That the Admiralty should, on the 30th November, transmit to the Board of Audit the accounts of the Treasurer of the Navy closed up to the 31st of March; and that the accounts, together with all vouchers, should undergo an effectual audit; and that it should be tho duty of the auditors, on the 31st January of each year, to lay on the Table of the House of Commons a report. That the report would embrace a balance-sheet, comparing the expenditure with the estimates; that it would show what surplus remained unexpended, and what had been expended beyond the estimates under each head. That the auditors should also state any discovery of improprieties they might have made, and submit any interrogatories which they might think ought to be put. That, within the period between the 30th November and 31st January, it would not be possible to make a full and effectual audit; but that it would be sufficient to enable Parliament, first, to convert what was now a nominal responsibility in the officer who brought forward the estimates into a real responsibility; that the interrogatories, secondly, would enable Members