On this page

• Text (4)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    _ THE LEADER. [No. 417, March 20, 1858. ...

  • 

    long to the Koman Catholic iaitn; ana ij...

  • 

    THE PUBLIC MONEY. A curious and suggesti...

  • 

    ^ LIBERAL INS AND OUTS. Mr. Bernal Osbor...

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Confidence And Confidence. An Obscure An...

    that the tranquillity which he tried to persuade himself was acquiescence , and which his enemies feared was a sign of utter and hopeless demoralization , was nothing , in fact , but discouragement . In language more than usually unguarded , his organs have of late over and over again admitted that throughout France there exists a party , the strength of which they try in vain to misrepresent , which continues enthusiastically opposed to the Empire , which is constantly intriguing and conspiring , and which is only waiting for a fair chance of success to break out into revolution . The report of a rising in Paris would lead to a rising in almost every town

    in France . Vainly it is pretended that the members of secret societies , the insurgents of Chalons , the individuals who are every day condemned for seditious language , are known to the police , are registered by them , are the remainder ot the ' army of disorder' which fought in 1848 . Ten years have now passed since that eventful period , and most of the prisoners made are quite young men . Then it is granted that ' les konnetes gem , ' or , as we should say , respectable people , are not all united in favour of the Empire ; and M . de Morny beseeches that this division may cease . A few years ago we were

    told that all respectable people applauded the Coup d'Etat , and that only the canaille objected . If we took this statement literally , we should be obliged to infer that adversaries of the Empire are now for the first time to be found in the upper classes . But it is well known that formerly as now it was impossible to go into what is called society and find a single Bonapartist who was not an official . If any of our countrymen go to Paris this year , let them make the experiment . When a manj ^ peaks in favour of the Empire , let them ask if in' some way or other he does not receive public money . We pledge ourselves that the answer will be uniform . But not

    all officials are content . Many , it is certain , are expectant . That Bonapartists exist somewhere , in Paris even , seems indubitable . All the votes thrown into the urns at elections cannot be forgeries , . though many are . The truth probably is , that the partisans of the Empire and the partisans of revolution are about equally divided ; but between these two extremes there is a vast mass of indifferentism , which is sure in the end to become hostile to any regime which puts society in peril by needless violence and exasperating espionage .

    _ The Leader. [No. 417, March 20, 1858. ...

    _ THE LEADER . [ No . 417 , March 20 , 1858 . ^ I ^ m \ J ¦ . ' ¦ - i ¦ - - - ¦ - — i . i . - - ¦ . -

    Long To The Koman Catholic Iaitn; Ana Ij...

    long to the Koman Catholic iaitn ; ana ijora proposes a slight alteration to do away with that objection . The effort to go direct to the purpose of the bill , without raising issues that do not belong to it , has exposed Lord J ohn to sneors for vacillation ' and compromise . It appears to xlb , however , that the bill is calculated to effect the one object , and at the same time to obtain the suffrage « m the great majority in tho House of Commons . Mr . 1 ) uncojuje assumed au almost hostile tone while asking Lord John whether he expected a

    majority in the House of Lords . Of course Lord Jomi ' expected' no such thing ; for nobody can calculate what the Lords may do . They have rejected the measure through several successive years ; they may now see the policy of getting out of their odious and unpopular position . Several reasons would justify their doing so . The bill will present itself to them in its most inoffensive form . Various political changes in the country would render it easy for the Lords to accommodate themselves to a more liberal spirit . If they do not accept the oath in its amended form , they may have to put up with the Jew Bill or its equivalent - I r r 5 I . I -, i ;

    in a worse shape . It is not desirable to go before the House of Lords with a threat that if they reject the bill the Commons will go on without them . But however that may be , the question of proceeding with the bill , it appears to us , -was settled last session , when it was determined not to adopt Mr . Diliavyn ' s proposition of proceeding b y resolution alone , but to give the Lords another chance , and to leave the conduct of the measure for that purpose in the hands of Lord John Russell . He has thus far contrived at once to repel the obstructions of the Tory oppot > ; i , i . : . ;

    nents , while debarring them from any right o say that he has taken an advantage through the forms of the House . On the contrary , he has the acknowledgments of Mr . Newdegate , and the ' cordial thanks' of Mr . Walpole , for the fairness with which , while pressing the measure forward , he has given its opponents warning , and has enabled them to put in their resistance . Never , therefore , did a bill go up to the Lords with a stronger case , or fairer reasons for using this opportunity to close a vexatious question , which must remain open , and must continue to irritate the public , until it is closed in the one way . ' [ . . . ,

    THE JEW BILL DIFFICULTY . The Oaths Bill stands for the decision of the Commons on Monday next . In the previous debating , it has had to run the gauntlet between opponents representing two extremes—those -who are for retaining the present oaths and excluding Jews , and those who are for a more summary course . Mr . Newdegate and gentlemen of that stamp continue their obstruction ; Mr . Thomas Duncombe calls Lord John TItjssem , to account for not proceeding by resolution ; and Mr . Roebuck has taken exception to particular passages in the bill . The principles upon which Lord John

    Russell has proceeded have been , to effect the main object—the admission of the Jews ; in doing so , to make an improvement of the oath—upon which the great majority of the House of Commons is agreed ; but at the same time to avoid raising any complicated questions , or creating objections that would not otherwise be advanced . Thus Lord John simplifies the oatli ; but he retains the general form of words , * ' And I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian , " a great majority of members desiring to keep that form of

    j oiin attestation . A . separate clause exempts the Jew from the necessity of using the expression . Mr . Roebuck ' s objection is , that tho passage declaring ' * that no foreign prince , person , prelate , state , or potentate hath , or ought to have , any jurisdiction , superiority , pre-eminence , or authority , ecolesiastical or spiritual , directly or indirectly , within this realm , " might bo construed to mean a declaration that no such foreign dignitary has influence or authority over the mtnds of persons in this country who be-II mill ¦ I ¦¦— ¦ b ¦¦ M . ll" ¦ ¦! Jl ¦ IM ' - ' ¦ ** ¦¦ " ' - - ¦!¦¦!¦ f ¦¦¦¦¦¦•¦ * ' ^ ^™ - " - - <¦ ¦ » fc ¦ _„__ - _ .

    The Public Money. A Curious And Suggesti...

    THE PUBLIC MONEY . A curious and suggestive discussion occurred in the House of Commons on Tuesday . Sir Cornewau , Lewis objected to the vote of 500 , 000 / . for the militia until he had obtained explanation as to the surplus arising out of last year ' s vote for the army . As our readers are doubtless aware , the support of soldiers in India is no expense to the home Government . The maintenance in India , in 1857 , of some forty or fifty thousand additional English soldiers , completely relieves us of the expense of supporting iifty thousand men . Out of this transfer of expense arises , of course , an

    important saving . The late Chancellor of the Exchequer asked why the money thus saved could not be transferred from the support of the army to the support of the militia . Mr . Disraeli promptly replied , and took a fair advantage of his opponent . He considered it more constitutional , when money was wanted for the militia , to ask Parliament for a grant than to apply to one department money accidentally saved in another . That course , he said , might not be radically objectionable in the case of small savings , but half a million was too large a sum to transfer without the authority of' Parliament . This appearance of Mr . Disraeli as the ' very good

    boy' of national finance elicited loud praise from Sir Henry Willougiiby , Sir Francis Barry , and Mr . Cardwell , and the maladroit Whig essayist who so promptly thrust himself forward as an advocate for misapplication of money was silenced , while Mr . Disraeli sat down with all the complacent feeling of ' little Jack Horncr , ' enhanced by the self-denying recollcotion that he had not even put his thumb into the Exchequer pie . If in addition to the little ' green ledger' of the Royal British Bank there had been found a private journal recording a debate in the bank parlour , in which Mr . STAPLETON , tho all-but-acquittcd director , advised Cameron to transfer a sum of money in their hands as security to tho account of deposits , and thus give a fictitious increase to their cash in hand ,

    or to apply to tho payment of bills money voted by tho direotors for building , wo should consider Mr . Stapleton ' s complicity rather clearly established . Sir Cobnewall Lewis oponly advises a transfer of p ^ biiinfaTB & y ' ei ^ uliSll ^ nuuth'orizod : —— Tho scene suggests more than tho curious assumption of characters for one night only . It stimulates inquiry as to the system of national accounts whioh would permit tho misapplication advised by Sir Cornkwamj Lewis , Parliament made a . grant of money to support the army , and tho Treasury has power to divert this money from tho support of tho army to tho pay of tho militia , and this without the authority or oven the knowlodgo of Parliament . Or , the process may be reversed j monoy granted by

    1 Parliament to the militia may be transferred to the account of the army . There have been times in English history when the Commons would readily grant money for the militia , but , jealous of the Crown , would have refused , it for the support of an increased or increasing army , and , though there is no present probability , such times may occur again . let the control and audit of our national accounts is so imperfect that the servants of the Crown mi ght transfer to the support of an augmented standing army the moneys voted without stint for the const ? tutional militia . This will seem almost incredible to readers unversed in the mysteries of circumloeution , but the authorities on the subject arc indisputable . There are two offices of the State especially charged with looking after the expend ! ture of k the public money ; the Comptroller of the Exehequer presides over the issue of money to the Crown , and the Audit Office checks the expenditure in detail . But the Comptroller , after seeing that a certain sum is given to the Crown ' on account of a special branch , and that that sum does not exceed the amount granted by Parliament for that branch , has no further knowledge of the way the money foes . Lord Monteagle is the Comptroller of the Ixchequer , and for aught he knows Sir Ciiaeles Trevelyan and the clerks of the Treasury may spend the money intended for the militia in whitebait dinners at Blackwall . This will seem a comic exaggeration , but it is simply the fact . Before the Commons' Committee on Public Moneys , Lord Monteagle , this Comptroller wlio docs not control , said : — " The Treasury in many instances pays money without any legal authority to pay it , and applies it to purposes foreign to that for which it is appropriated . " ( Question 2787 . ) Again he says : — "if you ask me whether the Paymaster applies money for purposes unauthorized by law , diverting that money from the legal purpose lor which it \ vas issued , and to which he was bound by the Exchequer and the Appropriation Act to limit the expenditure—that , I say , takes place every day ; and such is the statement of Sir Charles Trevelyan and the admission of Mr . Anderson . " ( Question 2789 . ) These are strange statements , coming from the officer appointed at a high salary to control the management of our public moneys . Let no impetuous reader run away with the idea that there is any actual embezzlement . Lord Monteagle is a member of Parliament and a reader of the newspapers , and he mixes in good society ; by these means he knows quite well that there is no embezzlement for private purposes of any portion of these public moneys , but as Comptroller of Hie Exchequer he knows nothing about it . The security of John Bull ' s money depends on the personal honour of our officials , and on the inquisitive spirit of our ' rising ' senators and newspaper correspondents . There is no system of accounts constructed to ascertain the legal appropriation of the public money . Surely in a nation of shopkeepers this is a grievous fault . The Audit Office is the other office charged with the supervision of the national accounts . J 3 ut tho Audit Office has not sufficient power . It is subordinate to the Treasury , and its inspection is governed by frequent communications from the superior office . Thus the Crown , represented by the Treasury , directs the auditors appointed to examine into the expenditure of the public money . The Audit Office does its work correctly and conscientiously , but the Treasury has acquired by prescription tho power to direct tho Audit Oflice to * pass' account objcctionablo according to law . This blunder ot subordinating to the expending agent the oflicer appointed to inspect him , is most astounding ; , aucl could only have grown up in a' constitutional country . The fir 3 t man iu this country who established an organized audit of public money was our greatest sovereign—his Highness tho Lord lrotcctor —but his ' auditors wore independent of tuo Treasury , and reported directly to Parliament—a reform now urged by tho Commons' Coinnuttco on the Government , Thus , tho suggested reforms ot to-day were living faots in Crom . wjbli / s time . ..- ¦ . i I , ir-J . i . .,. 1 in * hi ¦¦!>! . j 1 ... 1 i . j _ l j , ¦ i 7 . i . in I . *•! ,,. ¦• ,, , 1 - ¦ i i i- , 1 ,. | i .. i . i * .-- ™ " " ¦ " " ' "I IT'l" —" " ¦• n | ¦ ' ¦ ii

    ^ Liberal Ins And Outs. Mr. Bernal Osbor...

    ^ LIBERAL INS AND OUTS . Mr . Bernal Osbornk is a typo of those Liberals whoso independence is from time to timo cohpseu by official responsibility . Ho has a louder and more floxiblo tongue than most of tho gontlcincn wiw agree with him on tho Ballot and similar questions ; but his tonguo scorns not tho only floxiblo part oi his nature . An Admiralty Secretaryship silonoo a the member for Middlesex , who was then aslianicu

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), March 20, 1858, page 16, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_20031858/page/16/