[107] Exchequer-bill purchases, as we gather from the evidence taken before the Committee of Inquiry, are made in two modes. If the purchases are to be made in the market, the Cashier of the bank is directed in the same manner as when he is told to purchase Stock; pays for the bills out of the Savings Bank fund, and carries them to the credit of the Commissioners. The other mode is, by the issue of temporary Exchequer bills, such as Deficiency bills, or Ways and Means bills. Deficiency bills are bills issued under the authority of 57 George III., to enable the Government to provide for a temporary deficiency of money in the Exchequer. Deficiency bills are issued either to the Bank of England, or held temporarily by the National Debt Commissioners through the bank, the bank paying the money to the Exchequer, and paying itself the next day out of the Savings Bank fund. Ways and Means bills are of a pretty similar character, but chargeable to the revenue of the next succeeding quarter, and not, as in the former case, of the current one. Supply bills are of a still more permanent character, and are often held on from year to year, and are exchanged from year to year.
[108] Mr. Boodle was for allowing part of the money to be otherwise invested than with Government. He suggested land drainage. Mr. Sturrock and Mr. Sikes were for keeping one-third of the money in the hands of trustees, to be invested “in freehold securities of unquestionable character,” or in railway debentures. Mr. Deaker, Mr. Jameson, and Mr. Finney agreed. Lord Monteagle was “driven to the conclusion” of saying that in investing Savings Bank deposits, “you ought to deal in State securities and nothing else.” The opinion of the Committee on the subject may of course be gathered from the digest of their report already given.
[109] The indefatigable bank managers of London again sent round petitions against the proposals, and when they were presented to the House, one member, Mr. Hubbard, remarked they “were all apparently from one mint:” and indeed no secret was made of its being so.
[110] So convinced was one individual organ—accustomed to treat largely of such subjects—that the bill now proposed would fail to accomplish any good, that it insisted upon its being called a “Bill to provide for the speedy extinction of all old Savings Banks, and to give a heavy blow and great discouragement to the trustees and managers thereof.”
[111] Hansard, vol. clxvi. p. 1394.
[112] Hansard, vol. clxvi. p. 1974. It is not often that Mr. Griffith speaks the sentiments of the generality of English people, but he almost did so in this instance. No amount of tinkering could now make the old banks as simple, secure, and efficacious as those on the new plan. Mr. Griffith not having gone the length of mentioning any time, his prophecy was eminently a safe one. No one is more to blame, if indeed any one is to blame at all for such a state of things, than the authorities of Savings Banks themselves. Whilst they were systematically opposing with suicidal obstructiveness every measure of amendment, the whole ground was suddenly cut from under them by the institution of Postal Banks.
[113] Appendix B.
CHAPTER VI.
A CHAPTER ON SAVINGS BANK FRAUDS.