The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-07 00:00:00

rendered another bill necessary, in order that the stockholders
might be enabled to receive their money. That was no such
thing. ' The amended -bill to which 'the right honourable
-gentleman refers, was ,a bill for an entirely different purpose.
It was introduced to meet the case of a particular set of per-
sons, who were holders of portions of 'South Sea Stock, with
regard to whom it was found that their peculiar case did not.
• conie within the provisions of the former act so as to give
thent "an optiihx. (Hear.) - The right honourable gentleman
here 'seems 'under some hallucination. He passes off a series
of facts which have no relation to• each, other. Either he or.
I must be 'dreaming to admit: them. I have yet one more,
point to deal with. I have dealt with the question, of the
rate-of interest 'upon Exchequer-bills—l have dealt with the
largerthat
hwas n
schemeewant .tha
et fk
Iproposedfianueee in
last
whaty I said of it.
ear—andlhope
there I
recollect saying that it might in its main objects be abor
tire. But the right hbnourable gentleman says, I will not
make Confession. Why, I have made confession. I told the
house so at the close of the last session. My conscience there-
fore 'IS clear as to this charge of the right hon. gentleman.
But, on the other hand," tell the house that so far from there
tthhoeugthranitseis-
tbeieineng
aarelowsseuunpdonupotthbeerrepawrtius
beof thaepprleafint,; wbhuetn
aimunesseeibulepteousttbe state
twraiutheaeptrieecuiese andbarivgeitdbae means
ecy telifeetpatu-oufigt
that profit will be about 13 I
2,000/. a year.. No doubt that,
is a very contemptible' sum in the estimation of the right hon.
gentleman, who thinks 600,0001. upon 500,000,000/. of debt
not a sufficient saving to induce the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer to give a guarantee of 42 years. I do not pretend to
put myself upon a par with the right hon. gentleman, but I
do humbly venture to think that it is better. to have a profit
of 132,000/. a-year than nothing. Thee we come to the state
of the public balances. Here so many fancies spring up in the _
mind and brain of the right hon. gentleman, that it must be .
perfectly extraordinary to see one so possessed with bugbears
and delusions. He has got it into • his head that the public
credit is in an unsound state; he is not satisfied with the price
of the Three per Cents. being at 91 in a time of war—a state
of public credit unexampled and unparalleled in history. But
he gives a hold upon the public creditor; and how ? By re-
commending that you should borrow 8,000,0001. It was
a marvel to me and to some gentlemen near me what the right.
hon. gentleman would do. He was to vindicate the liberty of,
debate, and he left out of consideration the reason which had.
operated upon me in the production, of my plans; and by and
by he recommends to me a loan of 8,000,0.00/. of money.. I
admit that if I had accepted the proposal of the right hon.
gentleman I should have had a loss upon my transactions.
But, let me ask, for what purpose is it necessary to have this
loan - We do not want it. Nobody wants it. The Bank do.
not want it, and there is no pressure on the money Market.
At the same time, lam bound to-add, that Ido not . under--
stand the•arithmetic upon which the right hon. gentleman'
recommends us to take this loan of 8,000,000/. lle estimates
the anticipated balances on the sth 'of ,April at 3,000,0001.
have the misfortune to differ from him here; for I estimate
them at 4,000,0001.. He estimates the demand upon. the
Bank at 10,000,0001, Here again it is my misfortune to
differ from the right' honourable gentleman, for I esti-
mate it at less. And he is still more wrong in another
point either in his addition or substraction, whichever it may
be. I should have said that, taking;• the advance from the
Bank at 10,000,0001., and •the balances at 3,000,000/. or
4,000,000/., the. difference would not be 8,000,0001. But let
that pass. The real question is this Are the public balances
in such a state as to be in the slightest degree injurious to the
credit of the country? I say they are not. The right hon.
gentleman asks what will be the amount of the deficiency
bills for which we shall have to draw upon • the Bank in the
course of the month of Aprilt? Only to-day I made a memo-
randum upon this subjeet ; but through my own carelessness,
anticipating that the question would turn upon the finan-.
cial measures of the year rather than have assumed a retro-
spective character, I left it behind. But lam very near the
mark when I say that the demand for deficiency bills upon
the Bank during the next quarter, to be chargeable to the
public revenue, will be-from 4,000,0001. to' 4,500,0001.; and I
have not the slightest reason to suppose that the accommoda-,
tion will be anything but convenient at the Bank. If, how-
ever it should, not be convenient to the Bank, the power
which I shall ask from- the House of Commons to issue a cer-
tain amount of Exchequer-bills, keeping within the margin
of the unfunded debt as it stood last year, will enable me to
reduce the amount of the demand. This is the simple state
of things. If you ask me whether 4,500,0001. of deficiency
bills is an amount which the Government ought to be taking
from the Bank quarter after quarter, I say " No." I think
it is too much. But if, on the other had, you ask me whe-
ther it is an amount which, if taken only at a particular
period, will give the slightest shake to public credit,, I an-
swer, unhesitatingly, " No," When I listened to the wind-
ing-up of the right hon. 'gentleman's outpouring, to the close
of all this " sound and fury," I found there was nothing left,
because he stated the question to be- really this-whether it
is safe and right, in circumstances of emergency, or in
any circumstances whatever, for a Government to be
under the necessity of making permanently a really
large -demand for advances upon the Bank. 1
understand him to say that by these large ad..
vanees he means 6,000,000/. • There is no such demand
going to be made. -There is no such demand about to be made. .
The demand that is to be made is a demand that can be re--
duced according to the convenience of the bank ; and the
right hon. gentleman ought to know that leaving the defici-
ency bills within a limit is no' operation disadvantageous or
disagreeable to the Bank. It is au operation which the Bank,
as a banking corporation, considers to fall within its banking
business. The right' hon. gentleman, however, seems to have
another confusion in his head, for he says,' " You go on ask-
ing for deficiency bills at a rate that-must raise the rate of
interest ow money." ,He seeing to think we are about to ask
for less than is worth while—
,Mr.. DISRAELI-Less profitable.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The 'Bank do
notthink it a- bad transaction ; and I hope there is no Go-
vernment which would go to the Bank and ask for bills at less
than theii market value, The right hon. gentleman will re-
collect,that these bills are the subject of-loans, at .rates that
are alike on no two, days.' They run out gradually day by day,
and run in again day by day ; and the transaction suits the..
convenience of the Bank. Bill-brokers will be found to lend'
money, for short periods, at lor 14. per, cent. 'Why? Be-
cause the securities are left one or two days, and there is a
convenieme to all
'parties. These loan re the brokers' de- ,
ficiency bills; and this is preciselY the basis ,e transaction
-between the Government and the Bank. I hop , Sr, that I .
have shown that the transactions upon Exchequer bills will
not prove to be the bad transactions which the right hon.
gentleman has described. I have also demonstrated that the
rate of discount ought to have been considered by the right
hon. gentleman. • I have also shown that he was, in error as
to his statement respecting the object of the bill which was
introduced to amend the act which he said, had been hastily
passed. Then as"to the loan proposed by the right hon. gen-
tleman, I ask the house whether they are prepared to
saddle the country with debt to the " crack of doom ?"
Itht hbfo
ea
debatenmut. hg.
to eey
;nAb.
gentleman
nlaaevvim a w
very
r y,
wt
the
ee
wbc
burden
edneeokut s
ew
will
o nitlbe
see
hi vopewr
proposed
ohs
ome
diosr
ber
ag
uhe f ft
placede t
Tu
ha le r
iuppgl ahe nut
enillevhaervhee aanooetsh, ehre
wiopportunityll findmeof
perfectlyreviving ready
to meet bim. (Cheers.)
yTheaettgfaehttehiyon;te a
itn statesu hae e
et heyr
b- a
aMur. .e
eDs laSr
eR Ap
eEr
fLe
gentlerh e efo mr
for us to talk upon that subject. But I entirely differ from
him, being quite sure that the state of the balances will
create a very uneasy state of mind. I say the present is net
a proper state for the balances in the Exchequer to be in
when we are embarking in war, and when the 'Chancellor of
the Exchequer, according to his own statement, requires
4,5 0,000?, of deficiency bills. The real point is this—do the
committee of ways, and means think, in the preseut state of
the country, embarked as we are in what may be a protracted
and expensive war, that the balances in the. •Exchequer ought
to be in such -a state that habitually the Chancellor of the
Exchequer is obliged 'to have recourse to, deficiency bills to_
the extent of 4,500,000/. for the quarter? This is the real
point. The right hon. gentleman says I had not taken into
consideration the circumstances which led to the failure of his
plan.: I did take them into consideration ; but' the right
hon. gentleman entirely misapprehended what I said. I said
I objected to his pursuing his plan at a time when stock was
falling and the' Bank was raising its rate ofinterest. I com-
plained that he was- lowering the rate of interest upon the
public securities when the B ulk was raising its rate of .into-
rest.' find from the returns which I hold in my hand; that
the 'gain from the reduction of the interest on Exchequer-
bills has been 45,5811., while the loss has been 82,480/., lead-
ing a • balance loss of 35,899/. (Elear, hoar.) The right •
honourable -'gentleman may 'divert for a• moment the atten-
tion of the committee from the important point of the ba- ,
lances in the Exchequer' by light criticisms upon 'isolated
topics, which are soon forgotten, but the state of the ba-
lances is a subject which must occur and recur to the house •
again and again during the session, and I repeat it is not a
proper state for the Exchequer to be in, especially in a, '
time of war, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should,
be carrying on the public business habitually by deficiency
bills, according to his own statement, to the amount of four
and a half millions. • (Hear, hear.) What is the real point
before the house I The right hon. gentleman misunderstood:
me when he said I proposed a loan of eight millions. What I
said was that the right hon. gentleman, appeared to have paid
eight millions out of the Exchequer, and certainly I did think
the house:would be. perfectly willing to give him every as-
sistance they possibly could in order to enable him to carry
on the business of the country upon real balances in the Ex-
chequer, and not by habitually borrowing' money from the
Bank of England. The right hon. gentleman says he has no
difficulty in borrowing money from the. Bank. If that be so,
I can only say that the Bank of England is a very good
banker, and if it will carry us through the war, as the right
hon: gentleman seems to anticipate, the expenses of the con-
test will be much less than what we have been led to expect.
But, in my opinion, the right hon. gentleman will find, as af-
fairs proceed, that it will be impossible for the Bank of
England to sustain our finances by a system of continual
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The right hon.-
gentleman says I wag wrong in stating that there was a saving
of 20,000/. upon the reduction of the interest on Exchequer-
' bills, for on the contrary
that there he proved from my own returns
was a loss of upwards of 36,0001. lam sorry to
the
say there certainly was an error in the statement I made to
committee when I said there was a gainof 20 0001
the error I committed •
was in underrating the gain. (Hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI-=Give us an explanation.
The CHANCELLOR, of the E
XCHEQUER—My statement
is proved by the returns before us. The
of cost is 82,480/. ; tbe column column of increase
Mr. DISRAELI—What - of reduction is 120,000/.
your first item in the islatter
column?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER:-35,0001.
Mr. DISRAELI-That is a reduction that I -made. You
are not entitled to it.

7u:on-
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—It is a dc
tiomnin..pnoniBtßhAe
Eilteiresyteosf;Eaxreehdeliqcuteiro-n fibillsoin
to 1141
each bill which I effected In 1852. •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I do not know
what the right hon. gentleman means. What I state is slm pIY
this : that the right hon. gentleman is mistaken in saying
that there was a loss of 36,0001. upon the Exchequer-bill
transaction in 1853. And the plain statement I make is, that
the whole charge which will have to be paid by the country
during 1854; in respect to Exchequer-bills, is less either by
20,0001., or by a larger amount, than ,the whole charge that
was paid by the country in 1853. (Hear.) I hope that is
intelligible.
Mr. DISRAELI—I must say a few words in justice to my-
self. According to the right hon. gentleman, I have stated
that his financial arrangements of last year with respect to
Exchequer-bills have occasioned a loss to the country of about
36,0001. He challenges the accuracy of my computation ; but
in order to make out' his ease he is obliged to take into
account a sum of 35,0001., being the gain upon a reduction
effected in June, 1852. hat reduction was effected under
my advice, when I had the honour of holding the office of
thaneellor of the Exchequer, and I certainly do not think the
right hon. gentleman is entitled to take credit for it, and to
set it off against the loss which has resulted from his own
operations.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I can assure
the right hon. gentleman that the case shall bo treated simply
upon the merits of• the alterations proposed under my sanc-
tion, and that no attempt shall bo made to deprive him of the
credit which is justly his due.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said. the statement made by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect 'that his second bill
of last session was not rendered necessary by reason of any
omission in 'the f1iit,,,)4.3 inoorroot; ' The-right hen.ibntlemau
would Clad, on referring to the Bth and Bth clawieti (Mlle