to ask questions; and the person who moved | ed and vain attempts to accommodate, by other the estimates would have to give answers to those questions, and explain the interrogatories of the auditors." The second principle is laid down in page 19 of the Report-a principle the non-recognition or abandonment of which had led to various and grave abuses : means, the dissimilar usages of their various public offices to one general system; and there is no instance of a Government having abandoned the mercantile practice after having once employed it. On the contrary, every Government that has introduced it, has borne testimony to its adaptation to national concerns, and its complete efficiency for all fiscal and financial operations and records. It is the system adopted by the East India Com "No executive department is authorized to ex-pany, both at home and in the dependencies ceed the sum appropriated by Parliament under each general head or vote in their respective estimates, or to apply any surplus which may exist under one vote to supply the deficiency on others, without the express previous sanction of the Treasury to be given on a written representation of the circumstances which render the adoption of such a course indispensable for the public service." There was one other subject connected with the reform of public accounts to which he must refer at some length, namely, the general introduction of the system of double entry. He deemed it so important that he must quote from the Report of the Commissioners of Public Accounts their emphatic recommendation :— abroad; and we need only refer to Mr. Bowring's report on the public accounts of France for irresistible proofs of its value, practicability, comprehensiveness, clearness, and efficiency. Indeed, it appears from his statement that a succession of Ministers of Finance have borne unanimous and cordial testimony to the excellent workings of the commercial system of accounts in all the departments of Government; that the objections originally suggested against it by persons who have not of its not being adapted to public official accounts attentively considered its bearings, on the ground have all given way before the evidence of its sufficiency and superiority, in the words of Count Chabrol (the late Minister of Finance): Simplicity and rapidity in the progress of the public accounts have been accompanied with clearness and regularity of result. Incompleteness and delay have been succeeded by publicity and promptitude."" And again : "As we have not the slightest hesitation in advising the employment of the commercial system of book-keeping in its purest and most simple form "We have said thus much in recommendation in all the public departments, and as we consider of this system, from the strong conviction we enits application as forming the necessary ground-tertain, that its general adoption in the public dework of any really important improvement, we shall refer somewhat in detail to the reasons which have induced us to recommend it so decidedly and urgently to the approbation of your Lordships. The peculiar excellency of what is denominated the mercantile system of book-keeping by double entry consists in the facility with which it embraces accounts, however complex, various, and extensive, giving to all their differences of detail a unity of result, and cencentrating them at last in the most condensed shape, while it enables the examiner to trace them without difficulty to their remotest ramifications. In the initiatory or auxiliary books of account, a correct system will admit of all the modifications suited to the particular service; but as soon as the principal or double-entry books take possession of the facts of an account, however intricate and varied, they be come subjected to its general and harmonious law. Its machinery is employed to obtain an ultimate balance-sheet which will present in a concise, correct, and intelligible form all the centralized facts of receipt on the one side, and of expenditure on the other, under their special heads. Of the efficiency of this system, the trading world in its infinite variety of commerce and concerns gives unanimous evidence. Into every well-regulated manufactory, into every extensive mercantile establishment in every part of the civilized world, it has gradually, but peremptorily, forced its way: The revenues of no Government have been safely administered, the accounts of no Government have been intelligibly kept, the business of no Govern ment has been promptly and satisfactorily despatched until the commercial system has been in troduced with its order and uniformity into the different departments. Several of the Governments of Europe have adopted this method, after repeat partments is the great, prominent, all-important, in a satisfactory manner at the Treasury, unless the subsidiary accounts of all the departments were kept in one uniform double-entry system. He had to apologize for the length of a speech on so unattractive a subject; but its importance must be his excuse, and he submitted his resolutions to the approval of the House. Treasury orders to the effect to the recom- | the system of keeping the accounts of their mendations of the Commissioners. He was department since 1832." It was impossible glad to see in that return new evidence of there should be any central accounts kept the value and desirableness of the improved system. He found in the Treasury Minute of 27th of November, 1840, the following words. Sir H. Parnell observes"I am somewhat surprised that the Committee should have entertained the notion that the establishing the double-entry system in the War Office would be attended with an increased expense. appearance, the introducing of new duties, and the keeping of new books, naturally may lead to MR. WILLIAMS conceived, that after the conclusion that new expenses must be incur- the case which had been made out by his red; but experience has fully proved that, in all hon. Friend, it would be impossible for the instances where the double-entry system has been Government to resist the resolution. The substituted for any other system of accounts, it has always been attended with a large reduction principle on which it was founded had in the expense of account keeping. This has been been approved, among others, by the right the case in my office; the quantity of clerks' hon. Gentlemen the Members for Dorcheswork has been very much diminished, and the ter and Portsmouth, and by Sir H. Parestablishment considerably reduced. The atten-nell. Few questions were of more impor In tion I have bestowed on the difference of expense tance; and the wonder was, that the improvement now suggested, had not long ago been adopted. Millions were annually interrupted in their course to the Treasury, of which no account was rendered to the House; and even if it were said, that the Treasury exercised some sort of control over these vast amounts, it "There is a strong opinion in many quarters, was clear that no proper or efficient control that the chief obstacle to the introduction of the could be secured until the change now redouble-entry system lies in the want of proper persons in each department for keeping the books; commended took place. During the last and that the clerks on the several establishments three or four years, upwards of forty new do not possess sufficient practical knowledge of places had been created in the Office of the system to give a hope of their carrying it out with success: an equally strong opinion prevails, Stamps and Taxes alone, at an annual exthat there is a disposition to offer unfair opposi-pense of 30,000l.; nearly 100 in the Custion to its introduction; and these opinions appear to derive confirmation from the fact, that among the attempts made to establish the system, some have proved unsuccessful, and the failure has been supposed to have arisen from these causes. I am quite prepared to admit that strong prejudices against the system do exist; but I should attach by far too much importance to them were I to apprehend that they could oppose any formidable obstacle to the introduction of the double-entry system in any department, if the Treasury were to make a serious attempt to establish it, and adopt the proper measures for that purpose." Is it not surprising that the Home Department, the Colonial Office, the Board of Control, the Customs, the Stamps and Taxes, the Post Office, and the National Debt Office, should hitherto have turned a deaf ear to the communications from the Treasury? In the case of the Stamps and Taxes, they give the copy of a Treasury Minute, dated in 1840, requiring that "all clerks shall possess a competent knowledge of the mercantile system of book-keeping by double entry;" and yet themselves report that "no changes have been made in toms, at an annual expense of 60,000l.; while in the Post Office the increase had been actually astounding, for upwards of 4,000 new places had been created. In 1790, the present Lord Lansdowne (then Lord H. Petty) had stated that each department had absolute power over the national funds; and really this appeared to be the case at present. He thought that it would be advisable that all the different departments should form a joint board, assisting each other by their united advice in the management of the respective offices. He pressed the subject most earnestly upon the attention of the Government. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, the hon. Member for Bolton had brought forward the same Motion in former years, and had brought it forward with his usual ability. the report alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, he was disposed to pay great attention to the recommendations of the Gentlemen whose names were appended to that With regard to there were an increase in the expenditure report; therefore he was not disposed to quarrel with the principles on which it was founded. But it had been referred to the late Lord Congleton-a man well versed in the details of accounts - and it was found impracticable to carry out, in a practical manner, the whole of the recommendations of that Committee. Although those recommendations had not been fully carried out, still from time to time the Treasury, whenever an opportunity offered, had made great advances in the right direction towards improvement in the mode of keeping the accounts of the country. It was only last year that a great improvement had been introduced, a Bill having been passed providing for correctly auditing the accounts of the Army, the Ordnance, and the Commissariat, on the same plan as the accounts of the Navy. He could assure his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, that he and his Colleagues had not the slightest desire to impede the progress of such improvements; but the heavy duties which had of late devolved on them, and the extent to which they were occupied last autumn, had prevented them from carrying out many improvements which they had in view. He was far from wishing to object to the general principles of the hon. Member for Bolton with respect to this subject; but he thought that it would be more expedient if the public departments were allowed to carry out the improvements as they found them practicable. Having said that much, he could not agree in the calculations of the hon. Member for Bolton. There were many sums alluded to by him as if expended needlessly in costs of collection, but which really went to the public service. With regard to the present mode of paying drawbacks, he did not see that an alteration of the existing mode would afford any greater conveni-be introduced by the Government in the ence. The hon. Gentleman complained that the House of Commons had not a previous knowledge of the items of expenditure in the departments of Stamps and Customs; but, for his part, he could not believe that it would facilitate the transac-provements before their introduction was tion of public business if the House of Commons were to examine in detail the salaries of all the surveyors, comptrollers, and similar officers. There were, indeed, very detailed explanations of the items of expenditure published in the annual accounts. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Bolton in thinking the expenses of collecting the revenue were so great as the hon. Member stated. If different departments, as the Government found them to be practicable. That was infinitely the best mode of proceeding, and would necessarily be a more advantageous course than pressing on those im found to be practical by the departments, consistently with their other duties. MR. HUME said, that he had not heard one good reason from the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the wishes of his hon. Friend should not be complied with. The recommendations of the Commissioners of Public Accounts were either right or wrong; and if they were right, they ought to be carried out. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham) had introduced | except under strict rules and regulations, the system contended for by his hon. which were perfectly well known, and most Friend into the Navy with great success; of which were adopted under the direct and he saw no reason why all other depart- authority of Acts of Parliament. The hon. ments should not follow the example then Member for Bolton had expressed his surset them; but the truth was, that the prise that there was no general balanceheads of departments found it gave them sheet of the receipts and expenditures of too much trouble. Did the Chancellor of the year. He could only recommend the the Exchequer know any merchant in the hon. Gentleman to follow the advice which city of London who did not put on the had been given him by the Chancellor of credit side of his ledger all the money the Exchequer, and to take a cursory which he received? Why, then, should not glance at the financial accounts which were the same course be pursued with respect periodically laid before Parliament and the to the public? The mischief arose from country. It was true, that at a period the complicated state in which the public not very remote, there was no balance-sheet accounts were kept; and if a simple debtor showing the gross revenue and expenditure and creditor account were kept, it would of the country; but in 1822, a Committee immediately disappear. The Chancellor of of that House was appointed, including Mr. the Exchequer said that it would not do Tierney, Mr. Huskisson, Sir H. Parnell, to enter into details respecting the pay of the noble Member for Tiverton (Lord Palclerks in the public departments; but did merston), Mr. Vansittart, and other Gennot the House enter into details respecting tlemen conversant with accounts, who prethe pay of officers and sergeants? He pared the form upon which the public acthought that his hon. Friend was perfectly counts were now made up. That form right in the views which he took; and he presented as clear a balance-sheet as could hoped that the Government would not be be made out by any mercantile house; it influenced to resist the Motion by the showed the total amount really taken out flimsy pretences put forward by the Chan- of the pockets of the people, the expense cellor of the Exchequer. of collecting the revenue, the payments made by the authority of Parliament, and the sum actually remitted to the Exchequer. According to the theory of the hon. Member, it would give a more distinct notion of what the publie receipts and expenditure were, if the whole money collected were remitted to London, and if whatever money was paid away were paid by orders from the Treasury, even to the smallest sums. He asked, whether that would be the system followed by any house of trade, or any Gentleman in that House who had property in a distant part of the country? Would he require his agents to remit to him in town the whole of the rents in the first instance, and then send down to his agent in the country the money for the necessary charges and outgoings of the estate? The gross amount of the whole sum collected was laid before Parliament; and they knew exactly what was the money taken out of the pockets of the people, and what were the payments made by authority of Parliament, and then they had an item of the amount paid into the Exchequer, which was applicable to the ordinary current service of the year. Any other system would lead to inextricable confusion. What, he would ask, was the system pursued at the clearing-house? According to the hon. Member for Bolton, a banker ought to re SIR G. CLERK thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a perfectly satisfactory answer to the statements of the hon. Member for Bolton. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had shown that there had been a very considerable reduction in the per centage for the collection of every branch of the public revenue, with the exception of the Post Office, the cost of that department having increased in consequence of the great additional accommodation afforded to the public. The hon. Member for Bolton contended, that no department of the revenue ought to be allowed to expend any money whatever, but that the whole of the gross receipts of every department should be transmitted to the Exchequer, and that whatever payments were made should be afterwards re-issued from the Exchequer. To that proposition he (Sir G. Clerk) could not give his assent. If he could believe, as the hon. Member for Bolton seemed to think, that sums were intercepted by the public departments without the sanction and knowledge of Parliament, he would agree to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman, however, was altogether mistaken in his supposition; for no payment could be made by any public department agreeing to the proposition of the hon. Member. quire that a draft paid to him, and drawn MR. F. T. BARING concurred in opinion with the hon. Member for Bolton, that the adoption of a system of book-keeping by double entry would be a great improveWith regard to the other points he wished to say a few words, because he had been one of the Commissioners referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and he wished to explain the grounds why those recommendations had not been carried out. The first of these recommendations was, that all the gross payments of revenue should be paid into the Exchequer, and that from the Exchequer all payments should be made. This recommendation was fully considered by the late Lord Spencer and others; and in the conversation which took place he must say that the general opinions of the Commissioners were materially modified; for while there could be no question that upon paper such a system was the best that could be devised, yet in practice it was felt it would have no such advantages as would counterbalance the disadvantages and the expense attending it. The next proposition was, that the whole expenses of all the departments should be voted by Parliament. Now that in principle was a perfectly right proposition. He quite agreed with the old constitutional maxim, that no money should be spent without the authority of Parliament; but then the House must remember that this money was not spent at least without the knowledge of Parliament. It was perfectly clear that if they voted the expenses of these establishments at all, they must vote them in a very loose manner-they could not vote, for instance, that a certain number of officers should be sent to a particular post-they must vote them in the mass, and in such a manner as would hardly give Parliament any control over them. But he must further confess that his young notions as to the control of Parliament over the public money had changed somewhat since his experience of office. This question was argued as if, where there was no Parliamentary control, there must be a profligate waste of money. But what were the facts? In 1822 the expenses of those establishments which were not under Parliamentary control amounted to 5,688,000l., while in 1846 those charges had decreased by something more than a million, being only 4,639,000l. But when he looked at those establishments over which Parliament had control, he |