HC Deb 24 February 1842 vol 60 cc1011-8
Colonel Sibthorp

rose to move for the following returns: — A return of the number of days on which Lord Monteagle, as Comptroller of the Exchequer, attended at the office of the Receipt of Exchequer, from the date of his appointment, the 9th of September, 1839, to the 5th day of January, 1842; also for a return of the number and the amount of the several Exchequer-bills signed and issued by Lord Monteagle himself, and the periods and places at which such bills have been severally signed and issued by him during the above period. The hon. Member said, that when these returns were referred to in the earlier part of the evening, he certainly heard, with some surprise, the proposal made to him by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had felt it due to that right hon. Gentleman to sub- mit this motion to him before bringing it before the House, and it was only yesterday morning that he laid it under his consideration. He then heard no expression of dissent, indeed he had received a suggestion on the subject of it from a Member of the Government—not from the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly, but from the hon. Baronet, one of the Secretaries of the Treasury. Now, he must say, that he considered this question was one which ought not to be trifled with. He was partial to the present Government. He placed implicit confidence in the integrity, the manliness, and the talents of the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury; but still, partial as he was to this Government, he begged to say, that he was bound to no Government. He was an independent Member of that House. He had entered it—pledged to the constituents, who returned him, to preserve his independence inviolate, and independent he would remain whilst they continued to return him, whosoever might occupy the Ministerial benches. In the course he was now taking, he considered he was only doing his duty to the country. He felt, that the public ought to be satisfied on this matter. It was due to Lord Monteagle that they should be satisfied—it was due to the country—to the House—and he would add, to himself. To show that he was not trifling with the House, by making a frivolous motion, he would refer to the act which regulated the issue of Exchequer-bills. That act, among other provisions, laid it down that no bill should be signed. out of the Exchequer-office. Now, he wanted to know how far that and other regulations had been complied with. If it were asked, what grounds he had for supposing they had been violated, he would refer to the source from which most information was gleaned—namely, the public papers. He would read to the House a passage in a paper of high repute, in which he had no interest either directly or indirectly, but which he looked to with great respect as an organ of public opinion, anti a vehicle of correct information. He had heard of the Morning Chronicle, he had heard of the Morning Post, but the paper he looked to for correct reports of public proceedings was The Times—a paper of which he would say, that it gave more copious, elaborate, and correct details of the events of the day than any print that came under his notice. He would read to them an extract from the report in that paper, of the trial before Lord Abinger, in the Court of Exchequer, on the 18th of February, in the case of "the Bank of England v. Tomkins." Coming from such authority, the accuracy of the report was unquestionable, and the part of the report he should read would be an extract from Lord Monteagle's evidence in the course of his cross-examination by Mr. Erle. The report in The Times was as follows:— Formerly, the seal and the screw-press used to be kept together, but they are separated now. The senior clerk numbers the blank bills, and the junior the counterfoil, unless one be absent, when both are numbered by one only. They ought certainly to be numbered by two separate clerks, and if not, it is a violation of the rules of the office. The junior clerk generally cuts the hills off but it is immaterial, I should say, who did it. The bills are almost. uniformly signed at the office in my room, but there are exceptions. It is not essential that they should be signed there. According to antecedent usage, the bills were sometimes signed in the country, often in various parts of London. He believed that to be a violation of the act of Parliament. He hoped, that no objection would be made to let the public know how the affairs of the office were managed, what documents were signed, by whom they were signed, and in what place. Far be it from him to draw any unpleasant inference from the account he had read, or to surmise that they were signed in any improper place. Upon these grounds, he trusted that the House would not refuse the return. He thought, that his right hon. Friend, if it was not too much to expect from one so high in office towards an humble individual like himself, might have shown him the return for which he intended to move. If his right hon. Friend had done that, and if it had been possible for him in the discharge of his duty to give way, he was one of the last men in the House to have put the Government to any trouble, and he would willingly have yielded. He should bow to the opinion of the House, and had no wish whatever to put them to the trouble of a division. What he had done, arose solely from an anxious wish to discharge his duty to the public and his constituents. He begged, in conclusion, to submit to the House the motion he announced at the outset.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

cheerfully admitted, that his hon. Friend always acted in the House with a desire to do his duty, and if he had the misfortune to dif- fer from those with whom he usually acted in public life, lie did it from an honourable and upright motive. He was sure, his hon. Friend would feel, that if he had not agreed with him in any part of the course he had pursued, he was only acting in the same manner for which his hon. Friend claimed credit, in taking an independent part, and pursuing his own course, without any reflection on his hon. Friend, for the course he thought proper to follow. When he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) presented a return on the subject a short time since, he had suggested to his hon. Friend, that it might be better first to see the return laid on the Table, and then consider whether a motion of this kind was necessary. His hon. Friend had not thought fit to acquiesce in that recómmendation. He had formerly stated to the House that objections might fairly be raised to the production of the accounts, and subsequently, he 'had thought it his duty to consult the Comptroller-general of the Exchequer on the power he had of giving the return, and the view he took of the propriety of giving it. The noble Lord who filled that office, distinctly stated to him, that as far as he was concerned, he was most anxious to give the return, and was desirous, that no impediment should be thrown in the way of granting any information which the hon. Gentleman wished to obtain. Balancing, then, these considerations, his own doubts whether the return could answer any useful purpose, and the desire of the noble Lord, that it should be presented to the House, he had come to the conclusion, that, on the whole, it would be better to give way to the wishes of the noble Lord. If he were to pursue a different course, it would lead to the impression, that there was something to be concealed, and under those circumstances, he should waive his intention to oppose the motion. He could never admit, however, that mere attendance at an office, was any test of the manner in which its duties were discharged, or that the number of hours during which a person sat in a particular room was a proof of zeal. On that ground, he should have been desirous of refusing the return, had it not been for the wishes of the noble Lord; but, under these circumstances, he should offer no opposition to the return moved for by his hon. Friend. It might be a matter of some difficulty to state the particular days on which the bills had been signed, but the noble Lord said, he was wilting to take that trouble also, rather than afford any ground for the imputation of attempt at concealment. He wished his hon. Friend had merely moved for the return without offering any observations. The House was well aware, that the whole of the subject must come fully before it, when it would be discussed, and the case would be made perfectly known, but till that period arrived, whether Gentlemen took one view of the transaction or another, he thought it but fair, that those who by any means might be implicated in anything that had taken place, should be exempted from attacks, which might be made in ignorance of the real circumstances of the case. He, therefore, wished his hon. Friend had not accompanied his motion with the observations by which he had prefaced it, and he begged it to be believed, if he did not enter into details on the topic suggested by his hon. Friend, it was not from any desire of shrinking, on his own part, or on that of the noble Lord concerned, but from a wish not to take up the time of the House by entering prematurely on a subject which must soon come before it. With these observations he would express his assent to the motion.

Mr. F. T. Baring

could not allow the motion to pass without expressing his sincere satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman had felt it to be consistent with his public duty to agree to the motion. He felt this on general grounds, for he thought that in all these cases the more frank the communications made the more satisfactory was it to all parties. He felt it the more because there had been with reference to this matter a degree of mystery observed which appeared to him to be most unfortunate, both for the public and for individuals. He felt it still more from the sincere attachment and respect he had long cherished on both political and personal grounds to the noble Lord who was at the head of the office, and who he was sine would be glad to lay before the House any information that was required. He should endeavour to follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman in refraining from making any observations on this subject. He perfectly concurred with the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member would have clone better not on this occasion to allude to any point of law to which he might think it necessary to call the attention of the House, and which could be discussed when the whole subject was considered. At the same time he was but doing justice to his noble Friend when he mentioned a fact of which the hon. Member who had read an extract from the report of the trial must be perfectly well aware—that his noble Friend, so far from having attempted to conceal anything relating to the transaction, had stated in his evidence that he never signed those bills at any other place than the Comptroller's office. Whatever opinions the hon. Gentleman might have as to the legality of the practice of signing bills at some the place, it was one which had before pre vailed in the Exchequer, and under Lord Grenville and Mr. Bedford it was the constant habit to sign at other places than the office. He spoke only as to the legality of the practice; he went no further. He would conclude with saying, that he thought it but fair that his noble Friend, as well as all others concerned, should be clear from any imputation or suspicion that there had been an attempt on his part to conceal anything, or to withhold any evidence that could throw light on the affair.

Colonel Sibthorp

thought he had a right to state that he had made no charge whatever, direct or indirect, against Lord Monteagle. No one word had fallen from him which could possibly be considered as casting the slightest imputation on that Nobleman. With respect to the opinion expressed by his right hon. Friend, that he should have moved for the return without making any comments, if he had known that his right hon. Friend entertained that desire he would have been happy to consult his wishes.

Motion agreed to.