§ MR. HAYTERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has decided upon taking any legislative steps to alter the Statute 32 and 33 Vic. c. 102, under which the assent of the Treasury was given to the deposit of the moneys constituting the cash balance of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and amounting on the 31st December 1876 to £586,640, in the London and Westminster Joint Stock Bank, a "position" stated by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 14th August 1876 "to be not altogether convenient, as giving an apparent sanction from the Treasury to the Metropolitan Board for so doing?"
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI should wish to explain with 467 regard to the quotation from what I said on the 14th of August, it is not to be inferred that I intended to cast any reflection on the Board of Works for placing their cash balance with the London and Westminster Bank. What I meant was, that I thought there was some inconvenience in the legal position of the Treasury under the Act referred to. The Act prescribed that the Treasury should give its assent to the Metropolitan Board of Works in selecting its Bankers. Accordingly they did give their assent to the selection of the London and Westminster Bank. That being given, the Treasury had no more to do with the matter; but I did say, and still think, that there should not appear to be any privity between the Treasury and the Metropolitan Board of Works as regards the selection of their bankers. With regard to the balance, I understand it is secured by a large amount of Consols and other securities, placed in the joint names of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works and some of the Trustees of the London and Westminster Bank. It is not an unsecured balance, and the arrangement is not disadvantageous to the ratepayers of the Metropolis.