HC Deb 11 February 1808 vol 10 cc461-3
Mr. Huskisson

moved the third reading of the bill for regulating the issuing and payment of Exchequer Bills. The bill was read a third time, after which,

Mr. Horner,

adverting to the circumstance of the creation of a new place, that of paymaster of exchequer bills by this bill, and the establishment of new modes of contracting for the circulation of exchequer bills, said, he did not mean to object to either in that stage of the bill, but felt it his duty to call the attention of the house to one clause in the bill, which appeared to him of much more serious consequence. The clause he alluded to was that which exempted persons who might contract under the bill, for the circulation of exchequer bills, from the operation of the 22d of the king, which disqualified all contractors from seats in that house. He therefore should move to have that clause left out of the bill.

Mr. Huskisson shewed

that the clause alluded to, had been copied verbatim from the annual bill, authorising the issue of exchequer bills upon the land and malt taxes. The clause extended only to protect the directors of the bank, with which corporation alone it was proposed to make arrangements for the circulation of exchequer bills. No new office was created by the bill, that of paymaster of exchequer bills having been in existence under the former bills. The object of the bill was to make permanent regulations for the issue and payment of exchequer bills, and to correct the inconsistencies, which in, many instances existed between the provisions of the old bills and the modern practice respecting exchequer bills Besides, the 22d of the king could not be construed to extend to persons who were not contractors for procuring something for the public service, but merely agents for circulating exchequer bills; otherwise every holder of an exchequer bill would be disqualified for a seat in that house.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, the clause objected to was a verbatim copy a the clause inserted in every bill, since the first adoption of exchequer bills; and that it merely meant to protect the bank, as agents for the lending of money upon exchequer bills. No objection to this clause had ever been made before; no actual abuse of it had ever yet been imputed, during 60 years; and therefore he saw no ground for the present apprehensions. Ministers would not probably bring into that house the brokers employed to circulate exchequer bills.

Mr. Sheridan

said, the enormous extent to which those bills were issued of late years, was a ground of apprehension, from the increased power this would give to ministers. He stated that, to many of the public offices, viz. to the Treasurer of the Navy, instead of cash, the sums to be disbursed for the payment of seamens wages, naval expenditures, &c. were sent down in exchequer bills, with directions that they should be converted into money by the regular treasury broker, Mr. Goldsmid. Mr. Goldsmid's profits, by this species of brokerage, were enormous in the course of the year; and though he might have no objection to see a man of his respectable character a member of that house, yet he did not wish to have the field opened for others. He considered the clause as a virtual violation of the letter and spirit of the 22d of the King, which excluded from the house all public contractors. Ministers avowed, that this clause was merely to protect the Bank from the operation of that statute. They were already protected by another law; it was, therefore, superfluous.

Mr. Rose

defended the clause as being precisely the same as had been always adopted in bills of this nature. The idea of influence such as rendered men incapable of sitting in the house of commons on account of contracts, could not apply to the purchasers of exchequer bills, unless they were what might be called brokers of them.

Lord H. Petty

opposed the clause, and said that the house should be jealous of all possible encroachments upon its purity and constitutional independence; and in compliance with the spirit of that act which excluded from parliament all public contractors, ministers were called on in proof of their sincerity, not to insist on retaining a nugatory clause for a purpose already provided for by another law.

Mr. Adam

was of the same opinion. He gave a history of the act of 1782 by which contractors were disabled from sitting in parliament. The part of the bill which made exceptions in favour of the directors of the bank and other public bodies, Was adopted on his suggestion. He thought the clause in question an unnecessary act of power, which would create jealousy in the public, and produce no good whatever, for the bill would be complete wihout it; and therefore he recommended it to be left out.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

admitted, that he saw at present no strong reason for retaining the clause, nor was he aware, until this night, that it was liable to any, strong objections. However, he was willing to adjourn the further proceedings until to-morrow. He should, in the mean time, re-consider the subject, and if he saw no sufficient reason for retaining the clause, he should not then oppose its expunction.—The third reading was accordingly postponed.