§ SIR CHARLES DOUGLASsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it be the system 628 throughout the Civil Service that two persons are selected by the Treasury, in each office, to make out the List of Payments to be made, which Lists are sent to the Paymaster General, who pays them without question if signed by the officers duly appointed to sign, and the Audit Office passes the accounts (of some offices) in the accounts of the Paymaster General? Whether those officers in the several Departments do not substantially draw cheques on the Paymaster General, as the Treasury banker, which are honoured by him, and passed by the Audit Office as a matter of course? Who audits the accounts of the drawers of cheques? What securities are there against the drawing of cheques contrary to Treasury authority, and possibly not for the Public Service, or against fraud, except the integrity of the drawers of cheques? And is there any, and what, security for the discovery of fraud by an audit of the accounts in the account of the Paymaster General?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that the Question of his hon. Friend did not permit of being answered in that House. It could only be answered by explanations in detail of all the arrangements connected with the drawing of money and the audit of accounts in all the Departments of the public service; and such an explanation, if given by word of mouth only, would not be intelligible to the House. He would, however, give his hon. Friend a partial answer. He should be happy to give him an opportunity of considering the subject more at large, leaving it to him to determine how fur he would prosecute his investigations; for he could not imagine a more legitimate subject of inquiry than that with which his hon. Friend proposed to charge himself. He believed he should be right in saying that it was not the fact that any one system prevailed throughout the whole of the Civil Service. The payments, the accounts, the audits, of the different Departments, were differently regulated; in some cases by precise and stringent provisions of Acts of Parliament, and in others by the authority of the Department itself. In the case of the Navy, an Act of William IV. provided that an account should be made out, signed by the Accountant General of the Navy, and countersigned in the manner the Lords of the Admiralty should from time to time direct. In this instance, therefore, no question of selection by the Treasury could 629 arise at all. In the same manner orders for the payment of money issued by the War Office were signed and countersigned; but in that case there must be the approval of the Treasury. Then the regulations of the Civil Departments varied from those of the Admiralty and the War Office, and the names of the officers who were charged with the responsibility of signing and countersigning were submitted for approval to the Treasury. Whether in all cases there were two, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not know, but he thought it very possible that this might be the general rule, and he saw nothing unreasonable in the plan so devised. Undoubtedly these officers would draw upon the Paymaster General, and their drafts would have the effect of cheques upon the Paymaster General. Then, his hon. Friend asked who audited the accounts, and also asked what security there was against fraud, except the integrity of the drawers? Well, the Departments had their regulations upon this subject, and the principal security against fraud or negligence was the use of a counter signature. That might be described to be the system in which all our payments were regulated; and he believed that in the main it was a good system. It was obvious that in any system of checks there must be an end to it somewhere, and somebody there must be from whose default of duty the public, must suffer. There must be a limit to the multiplication of checks; and it should be borne in mind that increased security was by no means in proportion to the number of persons discharging their duty, or seeing that it was discharged by others.