THE NEW EXCHEQUER.

"The great error which is commonly committed, is taking the utility of an expendi- ture as a sufficient justification of it; whereas, however useful it may be, if it cannot be shown to be absolutely necessary, it is superfluous,"—Sir H. Part- NELL. Financial Reform, 3rd Edition, pp. 106, 107.

WE resume, from last week, our observations on the Exchequer Report. In framing the plan which they propose should supersede the old one, the Commissioners have skilfully and judiciously availed themselves of the various hints and suggestions contained in the labours of their predecessors. The functions of the New Exche- quer would be simple, intelligible, and effective. The following is the estimated expense.

One Comptroller-General of the Exchequer £2000 One Deputy-Comptroller-General £1000 One Chief Clerk £800 Two Sub-Clerks, at 2001. 400 Two Auxiliary Clerks, at 120/. 240 Two Sub-Auxiliary Clerks, at 80/. ..., 160 1600 — 2600 £4600

Moderate as this appears on the total expenditure (for a glance shows the inequality of the scale), it may be questioned whether it is absolutely necessary, when we consider the very slight duties of the proposed office. Its sole business would be to guard against any department exceeding its estimates by preventing the Treasury from issuing'inoney—to the Army, for instance—beyond the sum voted by Parliament. To effect this, all monies received for the public service, from taxes or any other sources, would be paid into the Bank of England to the account of the Exchequer ; whence they could not be drawn out, but only transferred to the credit of another department by a Treasury requisition and an Exchequer order ; so that in fact the Exchequer itself would be unable to touch the money. This order would only be granted on an, application from the Lords of the Treasury, stating the servicefor which the sum was demanded. If allwas found correct on examina- tion, the order would be issued ; if no such service was provided for, if the amount voted had been paid already, or the sum demanded exceeded the balance remaining, it would be refused. To enable the .iYetv Exchequer to acquire the requisite knowledge, copies of all pecuniary grants would be furnished by the proper officers. The duties of the office would consist in classifying these, record- ing the Treasury monthly requisitions, and filling up the (printed) orders, comparing twice in the week the Bank accounts with the returns from the five or six departments paying in money, and filling up a (printed) return for the Treasury. To this may be added the preparation of a quarterly return for the Audit- office, and checking the Pension List with the certificates of each person's life previous to quarter-day. A mode of account more admirably simple, or a routine of business more easy of execution or less liable to mistake, it is difficult to conceive. The items of the votes are few in number, though the amounts are very.large. The same observation applies to the Treasury monthly requisitions, and to the weekly payments from the Customs, the Excise, the Stamps, the Taxes, and the Post-office ; whilst for checking the Pension Lists and preparing the Audit-office return a day or two would certainly suffice. No correspondence would be carried on by the office ; the employees need not in their official business hold verbal communication with a living soul. The only circumstance that could divert them from the "even tenor of their way," would be an improper demand on the part of the Treasury ; to which an endorsement on the back of the requisition, stating why it was refused, would be sufficient. The mere clerkly labour would be trifling, for the orders and returns would be printed to their hands. Many a law stationer's clerk copies as much in a month as the archives of the office would swell to in a year. In the New Exchequer, we should deem that two or three persons, working during even Government office hours, would suffice ; for many an individual taxgatherer, many a fore- man and clerk in manufactories, &c. have both to manage more numerous items of business, and to arrange and record them after- wards—though the items themselves are much smaller in point of amount. There exists, however, in the present Exchequer, a much better criterion than opinion or reasoning. The business of the Pells Office is much more extensive (saying nothing of complexity) than that of the proposed Exchequer. It is—Exchequer holydays included—performed by eight persons (for five are engaged in the Tally Court or annuity department): the Commissioners recom- mend nine to perform about one-third of the duty. The Clerk of the Pells is the highest acting officer of the present Exchequer. He receives 1,400/. per annum ; the Comptroller-General of the New is to be paid 2,000/. The income of the former is about one- fifth of the total expenditure for salaries ; two-fifths is the pro- portion of the latter. The proportional amount of the two heads of the Pelts (and the first clerk receives nearly as much as his prin- cipal) is about half the clerkly expense of the office ; the three heads of the New Exchequer would receive nearly five-sixths. The Clerk of the Pells, with twelve persons under his control, is only assisted by a first clerk. The Comptroller-General of the New Exchequer, with seven, is to have a Deputy-Comptroller and a chief clerk to boot. It is stated by Sir HENRY PARNELL, in his admirable work on Financial Reform, that " High salaries are not only a great burden on the public, but that they actually contribute to make the clerks less e.flieient. Those persons who are willing to work for a small remuneration have always the greatest relish for work ; and, therefore, the giving of low salaries will secure the filling of offices with the most efficient clerks. On the other hand, when a clerk has a high salary, the less is his activity, and he is wholly averse to any. thing like the drudgery of office," &c. P. 208.

The fact is probably true. The theory, to be useful, should be equally applied. It should extend to Comptrollers- General and Deputy Comptrollers-General, as well as to Subs and Sub-auxi- liaries. The following scheme for the New Exchequer would, perhaps, be better, whether we consider the above remarks, or the nature of the official duties. It might, however, be objected to as not absolutely necessary; or a difference might be advantageous in the gradations.

One Comptroller One Chief Clerk, on a salary rising from 400/. to

£ 800

600/. per Annum—average 500

One Second Clerk, on a salary rising from 2001. to 400/.

per Annum—average 300

One Third Clerk, on a salary rising from 100/. to 200/.

per Annum—average 150

One Messenger 50

1000

Total cost of the new establishment

1800

The question of expense, however, is trifling, compared with the following most unnecessary and most uncalled-for recommen- dation.

"But," say the Commissioners, "in proposing these changes in the establishment of the Exchequer, we trust it will not be supposed we mean to recommend that so many officers should be reduced, without due consideration of their past services and present claims. We hope that none will suffer in their pecuniary circumstances ; for we believe that the most certain as well as the most satisfactory means of introducing great changes in the public establishments with a view to economy, will be found to consist in as little interference as possible with the just claims of individuals."

To the report containing this opinion, the name of Sir HENRY PARNELL—the Secretary at War, the King's Commissioner, the influential member of his Majesty's Government—is affixed. But there is an appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober. The fol- lowing was the idea of Sir HENRY the individual, at the time a Whig Oppositionist, and simple member for Queen's County. The style is less official than the above quotation, but much more pithy and to llie purpose. "Nothing can be more extravagant, and inconsistent with the proper guardianship of the public money, than the system of salaries and super - annualion.s now in operation. The salaries are so much higher than they ought to be, that every officer and clerk has sufficient means of making a pro- vision .for infirmity and old age. It is quite impossible to explain why we are to hare a privileged elms, who, because they have once touched the paha money, are to be supported ever after at the public expense."—Financial Re- form, 3rd ed. P. 210. The official experience of Sir HENRY, brief as it is, has doubtless enabled him to explain the seeming impossibility ; but as he has kept back the reasons for his conclusion, we remain in our former darkness. If, however, the question of remuneration he an open one, as the Commissioners imply, and not, as we suspected, de- pendent upon the construction of patents, the following tables will give an idea of the "putt services and present claims of many officers." The first table shows the sinecures ; the second, the "heads of offices ;" the third, the system 0/salaries—to the latter no sums can be affixed, as the persons probably entered at lower salaries. When such enormous sums (leaving interest out of the question) have been taken from the nation, without any service whatever being rendered in return, the just claimant appears to us to be the public, and the equity of the case would require the sine- mists to refund.

TABLE I.

Time Received in Received Employed. One Year. altogether.

/37 yrs.... £20,000*... .£740,000

115 .... 2,700 .... 40,500 Earl Bathurst 42 .... 2,700 .... 113,400 Right Hon. C. Yorke 22 .... 2,700 .... 59,400 Spencer Perceval, Esq 19 .... 2,700 .... 51,300

Auditor,

Lord Grenville 38 4,000 .... 152,000

The whole of the above are sinecures. The Marquis CA3IDEN and Lords BATHURST and GRENVILLE have also tilled some of the highest and most lucrative offices of state. —Vide ANATOMY.

TABLE II.

Deputy Tellers, Francis Gore 14 Hon. W. L. Bathurst 16 C. W. Manningham 22

E. J. Gambier 4 Clerk of the Polls,

Henry Ellis 7

£1,222,400

The above are "heads of offices." We presume the duties are not very onerous, for Mr. W. L. BATHURST has found time to fill the situations of

Clerk of the Privy Council £1,200

Commissioner of Victualling 400

So much for" present claims" grounded on "past services."

TABLE 111.

Time Present

Persons. Employed. salaries.

4 above 25 years £500 or upwards. 2 — 30 — 500 1 — 30 750 3 — 40 — 600 800 1,200

1 — 42 — 1,350

1 — 45 — 700

2 — 50 — 800

When we remember the usual scale of salaries in legal or mer- cantile houses, with hours of business from nine o'clock till six or eiE011, or even later, and bear in mind that the average Exchequer hours are from ten o'clock till two or three, with every sixth day a holyday, we cannot but agree with Sir H. PARNELL, "that the salaries are much higher than they ought to be," and "that every officer and clerk has sufficient means of making a provision for infirmity and old age." Several of the individuals in this table hold two offices, and one has a compensation allowance besides. We may seem to dwell upon this point, but it is of the utmost importance on account of the principle which it involves. If an individual who" has once touched the public money is to be sup- ported ever after at the public expense," of what utility is reform ? There is little doubt but that, by a searching economy and a judi- cious ,revision of our taxation, a saving of nearly a million per annum in the mere collection of the revenue might be effected,— as we shall endeavour to show in due season. -Savings propor- tionally great may doubtless be effected elsewhere ; for much more extravagant expenditure in point of total amount, though not of so gross a description as in the Exchequer, will be found to exist in almost every department. But the most useless, the most wanton profusion, must not be stopped—the most ridiculous offices must still remain—the most complicated business must not be simpli- fied—on account of "past services and present claims ;" or if it be accomplished, it can only be accomplished by adding a new ex- pense to the old. A very " satisfactory means [to the tax-payer?] of introducing great changes in the public establishments with a view to economy !" We have more especially alluded to the higher class of em- ployees. A leaning, and perhaps not an improper leaning exists in 6 the minds of many towards the working clerks. Much of this probably arises from the official mode " of introducing economy," which spares the overgrown sinecurist at the expense of the infe- rior clerk—much from looking at one single salary, instead of at the aggregate amounts—much from not reflecting that there are tax-payers as well as tax-receivers in the world. A midnight con- flict, terminating in murder, and followed by an execution, through exorbitant duties—a ruinous prosecution in the Exchequer, for an offence committed through the same cause—or a bankruptcy, with its innumerable train of private miseries—and a general pressure upon industry—consequent, in part, upon an unnecessary high rate of taxation—are matters, of course, which escape a tender- hearted Tory and a "discerning public." Something should perhaps -always be done to alleviate cases of real hardship : had the Commissioners properly fulfilled their volunteer office, they would have found that, in the present in- stance, something might be done without any charge upon the public. The management of tontines and of Exchequer Bills, and the pay- * This is taken on such an average as we can procure. We have no returns to show the exact amosaL Since 1817, the Marquis has placed his office on the foot- ing of the other Tellers.

Tellers, Marquis Camden 1,000 .. 14,000 1,000 .... 16,000 1,000 .... 22,000 1,000 .... 4,000 1,400 .... 9,800 1,156,600 65,800

ment of many salaries and pensions, are,to be transferred to the Treasury, and will find employment for some of the present clerks, Others, who are competent, may be placed in the New Exchequer. Mr. Emas—in whose evidence and returns the germ of the present plan may be found—would be well fitted for its head; and as his present salary is only 1,4001. there could exist no pretence for rais- ing it to 2,000/., even if it were not lowered to our scale. Were any other situations vacant, the remaining clerks might be appointed to fill them. We would, however, "in cases" of what Sir HENRY was wont to call "hardship and real suffering," rather give a re- tiring allowance than create a place. At the same time, if any dis- missed clerk—unless perhaps in very special cases—received one year's salary, it appears to us an ample provision. He would be much better treated than any private cleric who has worked harder for less pay. In an office which is to control the Executive, and sometimes to refuse improper demands, the Commissioners wisely propose to • make the head immoveable. We should recommend—subject to the abolition or alteration of the office by the Legislature. We may otherwise, in case of future improvements, have other just claims to provide for.