WAYS AND MEANS—ISSUE OF EXCHE- QUER BILLS. (Hansard, 8 March 1854)

§ MR. BOUVERIE
reported the Resolution agreed to in Committee of Ways and Means— That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury shall be authorised to raise any sum of money, not exceeding 1,750,000l. sterling, by the issue of Exchequer Bills.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he were correct in understanding him to have said in his speech on Monday last, that, in case this amount of Exchequer bills were issued, the unfunded debt chargeable on the aids for next year would be 17,740,000l., or thereabouts? Also, whether 480,000l. in Exchequer bills had not been converted into Exchequer bonds, 1,300,000l. in Exchequer Bills cancelled, and 1,200,000l. converted into 3 per cent Stock?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
As far as I understand the questions of the hon. Baronet, they are best answered by reference to the returns which have been presented to the House. The hon. Baronet is, however, substantially right in the statement he has made. By the addition of the 1,750,000l. Exchequer bills, and in consequence of the conversion of a certain portion of Exchequer bills into Exchequer bonds, and purchases made by the National Debt Commissioners, partially from the sinking fund, but chiefly from the monies received by them on account of the savings banks, the total amount of the unfunded debt would be 17,740,000l., sum which, as I stated the other night, is within a few thousand pounds of the amount at which it stood twelve months ago. I am anxious on this occasion to refer to a matter of fact, on which there was some difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) and myself on a former evening. The right hon. Gentleman was understood by me to say, that there had been a loss to the extent, I think, of 39,000l. or 36,000l., upon the interest payable on Exchequer bills this year as compared with last year. The right hon. Gentleman founded his statement upon a return for which he himself had moved, and which I do not think bore out that statement. I made a statement of a different kind founding myself on information which I had ac- 514 quired in a different form, and which led me to a different conclusion. But, as far as the return of the right hon. Gentleman goes, I am at a loss to know how he has extracted from it that result. The right hon. Gentleman was right in saying—though I had not examined the return minutely at the time—that that return included a reduction in the rate of interest which took place on the 10th of June, 1852. But that was a separate transaction from the reduction which was effected last year. That ought, therefore, to be struck out of the return altogether, for the purpose of comparing the profit and loss; and after he has struck that out of the return, I am not quite aware how he can substantiate the assertion he has made. That, however, is no concern of mine. What I am concerned to do is to support the assertion I myself made. That statement was not made with the view of taking credit for a saving to the country, for that depends upon matters of account which were not then in question. What I stated was this—that, notwithstanding the great increase in the rate of interest on Exchequer bills, which took place in the autumn of last year in consequence of the state of the money market, the total payments on Exchequer bills during the year 1854, in respect of bills issued in 1853, would be less by 20,000l. than they were in 1853 in respect of Exchequer bills issued in 1852. I afterwards said that I had committed an error in placing it at 20,000l., because I ought to have made an allowance of 12,000l. or 14,000l. on account of bills reissued in that year, and that statement is correct in every particular. The amount of interest paid on Exchequer bills, in 1853, in respect of bills issued in 1852, was 367,000l.; and the interest on Exchequer bills in 1854, in respect of bills issued in 1853, will be 347,000l., making a difference of 20,000l. less payable on Exchequer bills for the present year. Besides that, there is the sum of 11,000l. or 15,000l. which has been credited by the Bank to the country on account of Exchequer bills, forming part of the reissue which took place in the autumn of last year, and on the 1st day of January in the present year; that 14,000l. or 15,000l. being made up chiefly of interest on Exchequer bills, and partly of the premiums on bills which were disposed of either in the open market, or to the South Sea Company. Putting these sums together there is a difference, in respect of the actual pay- 515 ment on Exchequer bills, of 35,000l. or 36,000l. in favour of the present as compared with the last year. That difference of payment would not have existed if it had not been for the reduction in the quantity of bills stated, and correctly stated, by the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby).

§ MR. DISRAELI
, from a regard to the public service, and the convenience of the Government, would not then detain the House further than to observe that he did not wish it to be understood that he acceded to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. There were several points connected with it, however, upon which it was due to himself that he should take another opportunity of troubling the House.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
expressed himself as much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the postponement of his observations.