Mr. Maberlyrose, to make his promised motion for the simplifying and better arrangement of the Public Accounts. He began by observing, with reference to the public accounts on the table, that they were when compared one with the other, full of errors; and he had to claim the indulgence of the House, while he pointed out the dissimilar nature of returns, which, strictly speaking, ought to have been the same, as they related to the same heads of account. One set of accounts, had been laid on the table by the noble marquis opposite. There was, the House would recollect, and account ordered to be annually laid on the table, on or before the 25th of March, but it was not, by the act which rendered that account necessary, ordered that a summary of balance-sheet of the income and expenditure should accompany it. There was, however, in the last year's act, a clause which required such a balance-sheet with the January accounts, and an abstract of it was delivered in up to the 5th Jan. 1822. There was also an abstract of the nett receipt and expenditure of the country up to the 5th of Jan. 1821. He should prove that these accounts were not correct, as compared with each other; for instance the balance-sheet account of the noble marquis, presented on the 15th of Feb. last, differed from the regular annual finance accounts of the year 1821, and the chancellor of the exchequer's account differed from both, in many essential particulars. In the finance accounts of the United Kingdom for the years ending the 5th of Jan. 1821, the first page purported to be an account of the ordinary revenues and extraordinary resources constituting the public income of the United Kingdom of 1115 Great Britain and Ireland, for the year ended the 5th of January, 1821. In the account of the customs, the amount was stated to be 9,862,462l. The same item for customs during the same period in the noble marquis's account was 9,837,275l., making a difference between the accounts of 25,187l. These returns differed also from the chancellor of the exchequer's abstract of the same period of accounts which he had laid on the table of that House. The next head was the excise. The public, accounts and the noble marquis's agreed in the nett amount of that branch, but in the abstract account for 1821, the nett income was set down at 27,929,832l., while in the others it was 27,929,353l. The next head was stamps; there again the public accounts and the noble marquis's agreed; but in the abstract account there was a difference: one stated the amount at 6,562,258l., the other at 6,154,447l. Under the head of post-office, there was a difference of 7,000l. between the noble marquis's and the public account. The next item was "taxes." In the public accounts the land and assessed taxes were, in the gross receipt, set down at 8,182,819l.; in the abstract they were 7,503,603l., the former, he knew, included Ireland. Then followed (after some unimportant items) hackney-coaches, which, in the public accounts, were 26,374l. and in the account of the 15th of February 22,097l. Then hawkers and pedlars, in the public account, 29,360l., in the other 28,930l. In the noble marquis's account, there was an item—seizures, proffers, fines, and forfeitures, 6,528l. 6s., but in the public accounts there was no such item. In the 15th Feb. return, there would be found a sum of 30,728l. set down for arrears of property-tax, while in the other, it was 30,906l. In the imprest and other monies repaid, in the noble marquis's account, the sum was 181,022l., and in the public accounts it was 159,053l. The surplus receipts on lottery, after the payment of prizes, was, in one account, set down at 175,154l.; while in the public accounts the sum was 156,154l. In the sums repaid in Ireland on account of advances from the consolidated fund under various acts for public improvements, the item in the account presented in February was 97,149l.; in the public accounts it was 61,598l. For old stores, in the noble marquis's account, credit was taken for 260,000l.; but he saw no coinciding 1116 amount of credit taken for them in the public accounts. The net income set down in the account presented on the 15th of February was 54,542,948l.; while in the public accounts it was 54,534,360l. The surplus of income over expenditure in the account of the 15th of February was 1,447,580l.; and in the chancellor of the exchequer's account it was 1,831,348l. These differences ought not to occur in accounts which were intended to record and elucidate the public expenditure of the country. Having got through one side of the mass of accounts before him, he should turn to a comparison of the items of the nett expenditure. On the noble marquis's account, the dividends, interest, and management of the public funded debt, exclusive of 17,058,773l. issued to the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, were set down at 29,438,380l.; in the public accounts 29,403,391l. The sinking fund in the public accounts was 17,667,535l. 16s. 9¾d.: in the noble marquis's, 17,499,733l. 0s. 3d. The next head was one which he meant hereafter to submit to the attention of the House; namely, the interest upon exchequer bills; which ought, in his opinion, to be set forth in a different manner from the present. Parliament ought each year to know the real standing arrears. The interest on exchequer bills and Irish treasury bills, exclusive of 441,000l. for sinking fund, was set down in the noble marquis's account at 2,015,617l.; in the public accounts at 1,849,219l.; making a difference of about 166,397l.—This led him to the civil list, which in the public accounts was set down at 1,062,000l., and in the noble marquis's at 1,071,758l. In the public accounts, the allowances for the support of the royal family, and for pensions upon the consolidated fund, amounted to 857,780l., including 63,824l. for the support of his majesty's household. The noble lord, for pensions upon the consolidated fund, had only set down 359,600l. and 68,618l. for salaries and allowances, which showed, in comparing this part of the two accounts, a variance of not less than 325,000l. and upwards. There was also a difference of 11,000l. in the salaries accounts alone. The hon. gentleman then enumerated the following items from the accounts laid on the table by the noble marquis:—officers of courts of justice 61,979l., differing above 3,000l. from the same item in the public accounts; expenses of the mint, 14,760l.; 1117 bounties, 2,956l.; miscellaneous, 155,207l., also showed a difference of not less than 69,618l. The whole charges on the consolidated fund, beginning with the item "courts of justice," and going down to "miscellaneous," was 690,698l. in the public accounts; and then followed permanent charges for Ireland, 381,503l., no notice of which was taken in the noble marquis's accounts.—The next head to which he should refer was, the army, ordinary and extraordinary services. In the public accounts, the amount was 8,926,423l.; in the noble marquis's accounts the same head was 8,941,354l. Then followed the navy, which in the public accounts was set down at 6,387,799l., and in the noble marquis's at 6,647,799l.; showing a variance of 260,060l., which, being exactly the amount of the old stores, led him to the conclusion that the credit for that branch was taken there. In the ordnance public accounts the amount was 1,401,585l.; in the noble marquis's 1,092,299l. The miscellaneous services (at home and abroad) in the public accounts were 2,616,700l.; in the noble marquis's, 2,492,241l., showing a difference of nearly 124,500l. In the noble marquis's account it was set forth, that there was a balance in the exchequer on the 5th Jan. 1820, of 7,489,745l. Now, in the public accounts the same item was stated at 13,423,938l., making a difference of 5,934,192l. This variance required some explanation. Under the head of "Civil Government in Scotland," there was also a variance; some of the items which were noticed in one account were omitted in the other. It struck him as being remarkable, that, notwithstanding the important variances between so many of the items in these accounts, they should be made to agree in their main amounts; for the expenditure in one of the returns would be found to make a total of 53,340,000l., while in the noble marquis's it was 53,095,377l., showing a difference of about 244,700l. Large as these variances were, they looked trifling compared with those respecting the exchequer balances, appropriated and unappropriated. The appropriated balance in the exchequer on the 5th January, 1821, was set down at 7,347,952l. 2s. 5¾d. Why make out the account in such a form? Would it not be more candid to explain, that this was not a balance available for the service of the country. He begged to guard himself against any 1118 charge of throwing out imputations against the gentlemen opposite. He did not mean to charge a wilful mystification or obscuring of the public accounts; on the contrary, he was of opinion, that the error arose principally from a want of that clearness, simplicity, and perspicuity, which it was the object of his motion to recommend. He would now move, "That a select committee be appointed for the simplifying, and the better arrangement of the Public Accounts."
Mr. Lushingtonsaid, that the comparison on which the hon. gentleman had proceeded was entirely founded on a mistake. The account presented by the noble marquis on the 15th Feb., was not the same as the other account; and ought not to have been compared with it. The annual finance account purported to be the payments into the exchequer, while the other was the account of the nett income available for the public service. The hon. gentleman then went through the different items of the two accounts, in order to show, that they did not, and never were intended, to represent the same results. He did not mean to contend, that a committee might not be most usefully employed in looking into the manner of rendering the public accounts, and, indeed the chancellor of the exchequer had already given notice of his intention to move for such a committee. Perhaps a better plan might be devised; but the balance-sheet form was adopted at the suggestion of an hon. member (Mr. Ricardo), and was deemed to be the most compendious way of stating the accounts. He was anxious that a committee should be appointed to consider in what respects the items of the public expenditure or charge, as exhibited in the annual accounts for the year 1821, differed from the financial statement which had been made to the House on the 15th of February by his noble friend. He felt great satisfaction in saying, that that statement had been ascertained to be most correct in all its important bearings. He should propose, therefore, as an amendment to the motion of the hon. gentleman, "That a select committee be appointed to consider from what causes the payments into the exchequer, as exhibited in the accounts of the public income, ending 5th January, 1821, appears not to agree with the account of the nett public income of the United Kingdom, in the year ending 5th January, 1821, as 1119 presented to this House on the 15th February, 1822."
§ Sir J. Newportthought it very absurd that the public accounts could not be made out in some more satisfactory way than they were at present, so as to show at once how the accounts stood, without needing the speech of a secretary for a whole hour, to explain how these differences were to be accounted for. He should vote for the committee of general inquiry, rather than that proposed by the amendment.
Captain Moberlysaid, that the motion of his hon. relative was for a committee, for the purpose of simplifying and better arranging the public accounts; while the amendment only went to the investigation of past errors.
§ Mr. Ricardosaid, that the public accounts ought to be so stated, that every member, upon referring to them, might be able to make a balance-sheet from them, and see at once what was the actual revenue, and what the expenditure of the Country.
§ Mr. Humehoped his hon. friend would withdraw his motion, and that the chancellor of the exchequer would move for the appointment of his committee. That committee was of a much more general description than the one proposed by his hon. friend; and he thought it would be a pity to appoint another committee with a view to matters of comparatively little consequence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that as it had been conceded, that the differences in the accounts were reconcilable, he had no objection to the whole question being postponed, to afford an opportunity for the suggestion of a better plan. He would himself name the 18th of April for bringing the subject before the House.
Mr. Calcraftconsidered that his hon. friend had clearly established the case upon which he set out. He, therefore, thought it scarcely worth while to go into a committee for the mere purpose of elucidating mistakes.
Mr. Maberlysaid, that his object in bringing forward the motion was solely to devise a plan by which the public accounts might be rendered more simple, intelligent, and satisfactory. He would, however, after what had fallen, withdraw his motion.
§ The motion and also the amendment were then withdrawn.