War-Time Financial Problems Part 10

[Footnote 1: Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 105, No. 33, p. 698.]

If so, we get the following results for the cost of the fighting period:--

Total Government expenditure, August 1, 1914, to November 9, 1918 8612 millions.

Less estimate of normal peace expenditure 860 "

----- 7752 "

Less Loans to Dominions 220 millions.

Less Loans to Allies (half face value) 740 "

Realisable a.s.sets 1300 "

---- 2260 "

---- Net cost of period 5492 "

If war cost would be good enough to cease with the fighting we should thus now be able to see, more or less, how we stand. During the fighting period the Government raised by taxation the sum of 2120 millions,[1] from which we have again to deduct 860 millions as an estimate for normal peace taxation, if the war had not happened, leaving 1350 millions as the net war taxation, and 4142 millions as the net addition to debt from the war.

[Footnote 1: _Economist_, Nov. 16, 1918.]

But, of course, there are still some large and uncertain sums to come in to both sides of the account. There is the cost of maintaining our Army and Navy during the armistice period, the cost of demobilisation, and the cost of putting an end to war munitions contracts running for many months ahead, holders of which will have to be compensated. Who has enough a.s.surance to venture on an estimate of the cost of these items? Shall we guess them at something between 1000 and 1500 millions? And when we have made this guess are we at the end of the war's cost? Ought we not to include pensions to be paid, and if so, at what figure? Fifty millions a year for thirty years? If so, there is another 1500 millions. And interest on war debt, and for how long?

On the other side of the balance-sheet, the only a.s.set that has not yet been included in the calculation is the sum that we are going to receive from Germany, Some cheery optimists think that it is possible for us and for the Allies to make Germany pay the whole of our war cost. If so, we have halcyon days ahead, for not only shall we be able to repay the whole war debt but also to pay back to the taxpayer all the 1350 millions that he produced during the war, unless, as seems more likely, the Government finds other uses, or abuses, for the money, and sets its motley horde of wasters to work again. But this problem, of course, is not going to arise. It would not be physically possible for Germany to pay the whole of the Allies' war cost, except in the course of many generations, and, moreover, the Allies have bound themselves not to make any such demand by the rider that they added to President Wilson's peace terms, in giving their a.s.sent to them as the basis on which they were prepared to make peace. Early in November they stated that President Wilson's reference to "restoration" of invaded countries should, in their view, be expanded into a claim for compensation "for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allies and to their property by the aggression of Germany by land, by sea, and from the air."[1] This is letting Germany off lightly; but, after stating their readiness to make peace on the basis of the fourteen points, if amended as above (and also with regard to the Freedom of the Seas question) it is not possible for the European Allies, as the Prime Minister's late manifesto says they propose to do[2] to expand this claim for civilian damage into a demand for the whole of their war cost up to the limit of the capacity of the Central Powers to pay, without a serious breach of faith. So that the question of how much we can get out of Germany is complicated by the further uncertainty of the size of the bill for damages that we can present. It will be big enough. We know that the Germans have sunk 8-1/2 million tons of British s.h.i.+ps during the war. As to the price at which, for "restoration" purposes, we shall value those s.h.i.+ps and their cargoes, and all the civilian property damaged by aircraft and bombardment, this is a matter which it would be obviously improper to discuss; but we may be sure that the bill will mount up to many hundreds of millions, and it remains to be seen whether, after Belgium and France have presented their account, it will be possible for us to secure payment even for all the civilian damage that we have suffered.

[Footnote 1: _Times_, November 7, 1918.]

[Footnote 2: _Times_, December 6, 1918.]

It thus appears that the net cost of the fighting period has been somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5500 millions, taking our loans to Allies at half their face value; and that the armistice and demobilisation period is likely to cost another 1000 to 1500 millions more, to say nothing of pensions and debt charge that will go on for years (unless the supporters of Levy on Capital have their way and wipe the debt out), and that against this further expenditure we can set whatever sum is recovered from Germany.

Seeing that our total pre-war debt was 710-1/2 millions, or, omitting what the Government returns call the Other Capital Liabilities, 653-1/2 millions, these figures of war debt and war cost are at first sight somewhat appalling. But there is no reason why they should terrify us, and there are several reasons why they are, when looked at with a discriminating eye, much less frightening than when we first set them out.

In the first place, we have always to remember that these figures are in after-war pounds, and that the after-war pound is, thanks to the profligate use by our war Governments of the printing-press and the banking machine, just about half the size, when measured in actual buying power, of the pre-war pound. Any one who pays 100 in taxes to-day thereby surrenders claims to about the same amount of goods and service as he did if he paid 50 in taxes before the war. So that in making any comparison between the position now and the position then we have to divide the figures of to-day by two.

In the second, we need not be misled by the Jeremiahs who tell us that now that we have won the war we have before us the task of paying for it. This is not true, or true only to a small extent--to the extent, that is to say, to which we shall, when all these a.s.sets and liabilities have been settled up and balanced, be afflicted with a foreign debt. Let us leave this question on one side for the time being, and consider what the position really is with regard to that part of the war's cost that has been raised at home. In so far as that has been done, the war cost has been raised by us while the war went on. In fact, all the war cost has to be raised by somebody while the war goes on, because the war is fought with stuff and services produced at the time and paid for at the time. But when Americans lend us money to pay for some of the stuff that they send us, they pay at the time and we, or our posterity, have to pay them back later on; this is the only way in which we can make posterity pay for the war, and then it only means that our posterity pays America's. It is not possible to carry on war with wealth that is going to be produced some day. The effort of self-sacrifice that war demands has to be made by somebody during its progress--otherwise the war could not be fought.

That effort of self-sacrifice we have already made in so far as we have paid for our war cost out of money raised at home. That money has been raised in three ways--by taxation, by borrowing saved money, and by inflation. When it is raised by taxation the sacrifice is obvious, and, in nearly all cases, inevitable: we pay our larger war taxes and so we have less to spend on ourselves, and so we go without things. A few people raise money to pay taxes during war by borrowing or drafts on capital, but they are probably so exceptional that their case need not be considered. We transfer our buying power to the Government to be used for the fighters, and so we set free the labour and material that used to go in providing us with comforts and pleasures; our compet.i.tion for goods is reduced, and so the Government is able to get what it needs out of the nation's production, which is _pro tanto_ relieved of our demand. The same thing happens when the Government gets money for the war by borrowing money that we save. We reduce expenditure, and transfer buying power to the State and diminish our demand on the nation's production, or that of its foreign supplies. If the whole war cost had been met by these two methods there need have been little or no increase in prices here, and the cost of the war would have been about half what it has been. Of the two methods, taxation is obviously the cleaner, simpler and more honest. By borrowing, the State hires those who have a margin to put part of it at the disposal of the State at a time of national crisis, instead of taking it from them outright. As most of the taxation involved by the subsequent debt charge falls on those who have a margin (as it obviously should) the result is that the people who subscribed to the loans are afterwards taxed to pay themselves interest and to repay themselves their debt.

This subsequent taxation falls on them all alike in proportion to their ability to pay, or would if the income tax was more equitably imposed; those who have subscribed their fair share to the loans have an offset, in the interest that they receive, against the taxation; those who subscribed less are properly penalised, those who subscribed more are properly benefited. If only the income tax did not make the position of fathers of families so unjust, the whole arrangement would look, at first sight, quite fair, though rather absurd and clumsy, involving all this subscribing and taxing and paying back instead of an outright tax and having done with it. But in fact a very grave inequity is involved by this business of borrowing for war, and laid upon just the people whom we ought, above all, to treat most fairly, namely, those who fight for us. The soldiers and sailors risk their lives for a pittance during the war, while their brothers and sisters and cousins and uncles and aunts, left at home in security and comfort, earn bloated profits and wages, and put them, or part of them, into War Loans; then when the fighters come back, very likely with their business and connection ruined or lost, they are expected to contribute to the taxation that goes into the pockets of debt-holders.

Inflation, the third method of paying for war, again produces the same effect of a reduction of consumption by the civilian population, but in a roundabout manner, which works at first without being noticed, and so is particularly dear to the adroit politician. By it n.o.body transfers buying power to the Government, but the Government and the bankers, who are generally most reluctant accessories to the transaction, between them create new buying power, which, coming into a restricted market for goods in addition to all the existing buying power, simply forces everybody to consume less because the money in their pockets fetches less goods owing to the rise in prices.

The evil attached to this system is obvious enough. It amounts to a tax on the general consumer in proportion to his consumption, and so it lays the sacrifice on the shoulders of those least able to bear it.

No Government would have the courage to impose such a tax openly and frankly. All the warring Governments in varying degrees have used this roundabout device of imposing it, very likely being quite unaware of the fraud on the consumer that they were perpetrating. Our own Government, in fact, having first added by this process to a rise in the price of bread, then reduced it by a special subsidy--a pleasant touch of Alice in Wonderland finance. This mode of taxing by raising prices. .h.i.ts, of course, all those who live on fixed incomes and salaries and wages. Those who can strike, or take more out of the consumer, can evade it, and so it falls on the weakest shoulders and incidentally produces friction, discontent and dangerous suspicion.

But even it works at the time when it happens. Each creation of new buying power gives the Government, for the moment, control of so much in goods and services at the expense of the consumer; but when once the new buying power has been distributed by the State's payments it is in the hands of the nation as a whole. If the process ceased, the nation would still have control of the whole of its output, which is its income, though the injustice involved, to those who are not strong enough to resist the effects of higher prices, would continue.

Thus, whatever means--straightforward or devious--are used for financing war, it is paid for while it goes on by the warring country if the financing is done at home, or by its foreign creditors if the financing is done abroad. And it is, necessarily, almost entirely paid for out of income, that is, out of current production. It is curious to find that many people still seem to think that the whole cost of the war has come out of capital. Luckily for us it could not be done, or only to a very small extent. Our capital mostly consisted of railways, factories, s.h.i.+ps, roads, agricultural land, machinery, houses and other things that could not be taken and shot out of a gun.

These things we have still got, and though many of them are not in such good shape as they were, some of them are much better equipped and organised. We have drawn on our stocks of materials and goods--how far it is impossible to say; we have lost 8-1/2 million tons of s.h.i.+pping by war losses; in the meantime we have built, bought and captured 5-1/2 millions of new tonnage, and we have a claim against the Germans for such tonnage. On capital account we have suffered by wear and tear in so far as our upkeep has been neglected owing to lack of labour during the war, and by depletion of materials and stocks, and also, of course, by the fact that if the war had not happened, we should, if pre-war calculations were correct, have put some 1700 millions into new investments at home and abroad during the 4-1/4 years of fighting and some more hundreds of millions during the after-war period of Government borrowing and restriction on private investment. But a very large part of the money that went into victory would otherwise have gone not to capital account but into the pleasant frivolities, embellishments and vulgarities that made life an amusing absurdity in days before the war.

If, then, the war sacrifice was made during the war, in so far as its cost was raised at home, how far is it true that we are now faced with the business of paying for it? If taxation were equitable it would only be to the extent that those who ought to have made the sacrifice and did not, will in future have to pay interest to those who did, or their representatives. So that the first thing we have to do is to make taxation equitable, that is, lay it on the taxpayer in proportion to his ability to pay. There will still remain the injustice to those who have fought for us, which might be cured, or amended, by special exemptions. With taxation on a really sound basis no further sacrifice would be involved by the debt charge, and no diminution of the nation's wealth or consuming power, which will depend, as always, on its output of goods and services; but only a transfer of consuming power from taxpayers to debt-holders in accordance with the sacrifice made by the latter during the war. What we produce as a nation we shall consume as a nation, subject to the extent that we financed the war during its course by operations abroad.

These operations were twofold. We sold to foreigners part of our holdings of foreign securities, thereby and to this extent paying for war cost out of capital--out of the investments made by ourselves and our forbears in America and elsewhere. Mr Bonar Law, in a recent interview in the _Observer_, stated that we had sent back to the United States practically the whole of our holdings of American securities to be sold or pledged as collateral for loans, and that the value of them was three billion dollars--600 millions sterling. Any of them that have only been pledged can presumably be used to meet the loans raised as they fall due, and so will lighten our burden in the matter of repayment. These loans raised abroad are the second mode of foreign financing. By it we had raised up to November 9th nearly 1300 millions, as shown by the _Economist's_ table, and to that extent we have pledged our future production and that of our posterity, to meet the annual service for interest and repayment. On the other hand, all this sum and more we have (as shown above) lent to our Allies and Dominions, so that the ex-Chancellor was well justified in his boast that we had only borrowed to finance our Allies, and that we had been self-sufficient for our own war cost.[1]

[Footnote 1: Budget Speech, Parliamentary Debates, vol. 105, No. 33.]

In other words, all that we needed for the war we were able to produce ourselves, or to obtain in exchange for our produce and a.s.sets. On paper, therefore, our position as a creditor country is only impaired by our sales of securities. But that is only so on paper. In fact, the loans that we have raised abroad are good debts that have to be met to the last penny, and are a first charge on our future output, but the advances that we have made to our Allies, much harder hit than we are by the war, are a.s.sets on which we cannot depend. They were taken in our balance-sheet above at half their face value, but there is much to be said for writing them off altogether and tearing up the I.O.U.'s of our foreign brothers-in-arms. Their need is greater than ours, it would be little satisfaction to receive interest and repayment from them, and the payment due from them, involving difficult problems of taxation for them, would not help the good relations with them which, we hope, may be a lasting effect of the war. And such an act of renunciation on our part would do something towards a restoration of the spirit with which we entered on war, a spirit which has been seriously demoralised during its course, largely owing to the results of our faulty finance, which encouraged profiteering in all cla.s.ses.

In any case, there is our position. We have a big debt to meet at home and abroad, and we are weakened on capital account by foreign indebtedness, wear and tear of plant and dimunition of stocks and materials. Wear and tear and depletion we can soon make good if we set to work and work hard, if our bureaucracy takes away the fetters of its restrictions and controls (instead of making further additions to the "Black List" even after the armistice!), and if our ruling wiseacres will refrain from trying to stimulate industry by taxing raw and half-raw materials. For the debt charge many pleasant and simple fancy strokes are suggested. The Levy on Capital is popular, especially with those who do not own any, but its advocacy is by no means confined to them. Mr Pethick Lawrence has published a persuasive little book about it, but I cannot see that he meets the objections to it. These are, the difficulty of valuation, the fact that in many cases it would have to be paid by instalments, and so would be merely another form of income tax, its sparing of the waster and penalising of the saver, and, consequently, the grave danger that it would check acc.u.mulation and so dry up the springs of capital. Mr Stilwell has produced a "Great Plan to Pay for the War," by which all the belligerents and neutrals who have been involved in expense by the war would receive World Bonds from an International Congress for what they have spent owing to the war, and would then pay one another any international debts by exchanging these World Bonds, and deal with the home debt by paying it off in new currency raised on the World Bonds.

But, surely, to pay off war debt with a huge addition to currency, making war's inflation many times worse, would be a disastrous beginning to that new era which is alleged to be dawning.

By hard work, sparing consumption of luxuries, and a big industrial output, we can soon make the debt charge look smaller and smaller as compared with our aggregate income. Our foreign debt we can only meet by s.h.i.+pping goods and rendering services. But since it was all raised to be lent to our Allies and our lending of it was essential to a victory which has rid mankind of a terrible menace, it is surely reasonable that our creditors should not press for repayment in the first few difficult years, but should fund our short-dated debts into loans with twenty-five or thirty years to run. As to the home debt, we can only lighten its burden on the taxpayer by making taxation equitable. To this end reform of the income tax is an urgent need. We have to lighten its pressure much more effectively on those who are bringing up families, and by collecting it through employers make it an effective and just tax on those of the working cla.s.s whose earnings and family liabilities make them fairly subject to it.

XVIII

THE REGULATION OF THE CURRENCY

_February_, 1919

Macaulay on Depreciated Currency--Its Evils To-day--The Plight of the Rentier--Mr Goodenough's Suggestion--Sir Edward Holden's Criticisms of the Currency Committee--His Scheme of Reform--Two Departments or One in the Bank of England?--Not a Vital Question--The Ratio of Notes to Gold--Objections to a Hard-and-fast Ratio--The Limit on Note Issues--The Federal Reserve Act and American Optimism--Currency and Commercial Paper--A Central Gold Reserve with Central Control.

Everyone has read, and most of us have forgotten, the great pa.s.sage in Macaulay's history which describes the evils of a disordered currency.

"It may well be doubted," he says, "whether all the misery which had been inflicted on the English nation in a quarter of a century by bad Kings, bad Ministers, bad Parliaments and bad judges was equal to the misery caused in a single year by bad crowns and bad s.h.i.+llings....

While the honour and independence of the State were sold to a foreign Power, while chartered rights were invaded, while fundamental laws were violated, hundreds of thousands of quiet, honest and industrious families laboured and traded, ate their meals and lay down to rest in comfort and security. Whether Whigs or Tories, Protestants or Jesuits were uppermost, the grazier drove his beasts to market, the grocer weighed out his currants, the draper measured out his broadcloth, the hum of buyers and sellers was as loud as ever in the towns, the harvest-time was celebrated as joyously as ever in the hamlets, the cream overflowed the pails of Ches.h.i.+re, the apple juice foamed in the presses of Herefords.h.i.+re, the piles of crockery glowed in the furnaces of the Trent, and the barrows of coal rolled fast along the timber railways of the Tyne. But when the great instrument of exchange became thoroughly deranged, all trade, all industry, were smitten as with a palsy.... Nothing could be purchased without a dispute. Over every counter there was wrangling from morning to night. The workman and his employer had a quarrel as regularly as the Sat.u.r.day came round. On a fair-day or a market-day the clamours, the reproaches, the taunts, the curses, were incessant; and it was well if no booth was overturned, and no head broken.... The price of the necessaries of life, of shoes, of ale, of oatmeal, rose fast. The labourer found that the bit of metal which, when he received it was called a s.h.i.+lling, would hardly, when he wanted to purchase a pot of beer or a loaf of rye bread, go as far as sixpence."

From some of the evils thus dazzlingly described we are happily free in these times. We are not cursed with a currency composed of coins which are good, bad and indifferent, with the result that the public gets the bad and indifferent while the nimble bullion dealers absorb and export the good. There is nothing to choose between one piece of paper and another, and all that is wrong with them is that there are too many of them. But the general result as it affects the labourer who wants to purchase a pot of beer or anyone else who wants to buy anything is very much the same. A bit of metal that is called a s.h.i.+lling has about the value of a pre-war sixpence and a bit of paper that is called a Bradbury fetches half as much as the pound of five years ago. Compared with what other peoples are suffering from the same disease arising from the same surfeit of money in one form or another, this nuisance that we are enduring is not too terribly severe. It has entailed great hards.h.i.+p on a cla.s.s that is small in number, namely, those who have to live on fixed incomes. The salary-earner and the rentier have borne the brunt, while the wage-earner and the profit-maker have been able to expand their earnings, in paper, at least to a point at which the depreciation of currency have left them no worse off. Seeing that the wage-earners are those who do the dreariest and dirtiest jobs, and that the profit-makers are those who take the risks of industry and the enormous responsibility of organising enterprise, they are the cla.s.ses whom it is clearly most desirable to encourage. The rentier in these days gets less than no sympathy, but we make a great mistake if we think that we can with impunity crush him between the upper and nether millstone of fixed income and rising prices. With his help we have equipped industry at home and abroad. We can, if we choose, by depreciating the currency still further, lessen still more the reward that we pay him for that benefit. He may kick, but he cannot abolish the equipment with which he has already provided industry. But if we make his life too hard he can strike like the rest of us, and by refusing to provide for any further expansion in industrial equipment, he can hold up production until we have devised some new method of laying up capital. Currency depreciation is good for the debtor and bad for the creditor; if it goes too far it kills the creditor and reduces business to chaos.

We are a very long way from the chaos to which many of our Continental neighbours have already reduced their monetary systems; but there is fortunately a very general feeling that we are a country with a reputation and a prestige on this point; and the business world is growing restive concerning the delay on the part of those responsible in putting an end to a state of things which may have been justified by the war's exigencies (though there is much to be said for the view that in fact it only added to the war's difficulties) but is now clearly as out of date as the censors.h.i.+p, which, like it, nevertheless, continues to flourish. This state of things arises from the arrangement tinder which an unlimited supply of legal tender currency can be manufactured by the Government, which encouraged to continue the system by the fact that each note issued is in effect a loan to itself without interest. At the meeting of Barclays Bank on January 27th, Mr. Goodenough demanded that the issue of currency notes by the Government should be stopped forthwith, and that if it were necessary to provide more currency it would be better for the banks to be allowed to issue notes themselves. This suggestion involves, of course, a complete reversal of the principles on which our monetary system has grown up, since it has long been based on a note-issuing monopoly in the hands of the Bank of England. But these are topsy-turvy days, in which greyheaded precedent is very justly at a heavy discount; and Mr Goodenough's suggestion very practically gets over a big difficulty that stands in the way of stopping the stream of Bradburys. This difficulty lies in the fact that if the banks were pulled at by their customers for currency and could not supply them with Bradbury notes, they would be forced to take notes from the Bank of England, with a bad effect on the appearance of its reserve. If the business of issuing notes were put into the hands of the clearing banks, their power to do so would be limited by the extent of their a.s.sets, or of such of their a.s.sets as were thought fit to rank as backing for their notes. In other words, the note-issuing business would once more have to be regulated on banking principles and controlled by the price asked, for advances, instead of expressing the helplessness and improvidence of an impecunious and invertebrate Government. In this manner the new departure might be a convenient halfway-house on the way from chaos back to sanity. But probably it is too revolutionary and goes too straight in the teeth of the Bank of England's privilege to receive much practical consideration; and there is the question whether the public would take the new paper readily and whether it could be made legal tender.

Sir Edward Holden, in one of those masterly surveys of world finance with which he now instructs the shareholders of the London Joint City and Midland Bank, a.s.sembled at their annual meeting, gave much of his attention to an attack on the report of Lord Cunliffe's Committee on Currency. This was only to be expected, since the Committee had made recommendations on lines which were largely conservative and did not embody any of the reforms or changes which had been previously advocated by Sir Edward. Being on this occasion chiefly critical, he did not make very clear in his latest speech the precise proposals that he favours. For them we have to go back to his speech of a year ago, as reported in the _Economist_ of February 2, 1918, p. 171, where he stated that "if the Bank (of England) had been working on the same principles as other national banks of issue, there would have been little ground for anxiety," and that these principles are:--

1. One bank of issue and not divided into departments.

2. Notes are created and issued on the security of bills of exchange and on the cash balance, so that a relation is established between the notes issued and the discounts.

3. The notes issued are controlled by a fixed ratio of gold to notes or of the cash balance to notes.

4. This fixed ratio may be lowered by the payment of a tax.

5. The notes should not exceed three times the gold or the cash balance.

As will be remembered, the Cunliffe Committee recommended that the division of the Bank of England into an Issue Department and a Banking Department, should be retained; that the old principle by which above a certain fixed limit all notes should be backed by gold, should also be retained, but that if at any time a breach of this rule should be found necessary it should be possible, with the consent of the Treasury, and that Bank rate "should be raised to a rate sufficiently high to secure the earliest possible retirement of the excess issue."

Since it was formerly only possible to exceed the limit on the fiduciary issue by a breach of the law, under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's promise to get an indemnity for it from Parliament, and since Treasury tradition insisted on a 10 per cent. Bank rate whenever such a breach was permitted or contemplated, it will be seen that the Cunliffe Committee proposed some considerable modifications in our system and hardly justified Sir Edward's a.s.sertion that it "proposed that the Bank should continue to work under the Act of 1844 as heretofore."

At first sight there seems to be a good deal of difference between Sir Edward's ideal and Lord Cunliffe's, but is not the difference to a great extent superficial? Whether the Bank be divided into two departments, each presenting a separate account, or its whole business be regarded as one and stated in one account, seems to be rather a trifling question. And the arguments put forward for their several views by the two champions are not strikingly convincing. Sir Edward wants only one account, because he thinks the consequence would be a stronger reserve and fewer changes in bank rate. But a mere change of bookkeeping such as the amalgamation of the two accounts would not make a half-pennyworth of difference to the extent of the Bank's responsibilities and its ability to meet them, and it is on variations in these factors that movements in bank rate are in most cases decided. On the other hand, Lord Cunliffe and his colleagues argue that the main effect of putting the two departments into one would be to place deposits with the Bank of England in the same position as regards convertibility into gold as is now held by the note. On this point Sir Edward's answer is telling: "In reply to this statement, I say that the depositors at the present time can always get gold by drawing out notes from the reserve and taking gold from the Issue Department. There seems to be little difference between the depositors attacking gold direct and attacking the gold through the notes in the reserve. If the Bank cannot pay the notes when demanded the whole machinery stops." Quite so. The notion that the holder of a Bank of England note has now a stronger hold over the Bank's gold than the depositor seems to be baseless. He can exercise his hold more quickly perhaps, though even this is doubtful. Since banknotes are not legal tender at the Bank of England, it is not quite clear that the depositor would even have to take the trouble to go first to the Banking Department for notes and then to the Issue Department for gold. He might be able to insist on gold in immediate payment of his deposit. Still less convincing is the Committee's argument that "the amalgamation of the two departments would inevitably lead in the end to State control of the creation of banking credit generally." Their report might have explained why this should be so, for to the ordinary mind the chain of consequence is not apparent. On the whole it is hard to see much good or harm to be achieved by changing the form of the Bank return. It might make the Bank's position look stronger, but it could not make it really stronger. Nor would it really impair the strength of the note-holder's position as against the depositor, because even now there is no essential difference. It would subst.i.tute a more businesslike and simple statement for a form of accounts which is c.u.mbrous and stupid and Early Victorian--a relic of an age which produced the crinoline, the Crystal Palace and the Albert Memorial. On the other hand, to alter a statistical record merely for the sake of simplicity and symmetry is questionable. Unless we are getting more and truer information, it is a pity to make comparisons between one year and another difficult by changing the form in which figures are given.

A more essential difference between the two policies lies in Sir Edward's advocacy of a ratio--three to one--between notes and gold, and the Committee's support of the old fixed line system. By the latter, if gold comes in, notes to the same extent can be created, and if gold goes out notes to the amount of the export have to be cancelled. Under Sir Edward's policy the influx and efflux of gold would have an effect on the note issue which would be three times the amount of the gold that came in or went out. This at least is the logical effect of his statement that "the notes should not exceed three times the gold or the cash balance." This law does not seem to be quite consistent with his view that the fixed ratio of gold to notes may be lowered by the payment of a tax; but presumably the tax would come into operation before the three to one part was reached, and at three to one there would be a firm line drawn. On this a.s.sumption the Committee's argument is a very strong one. "If,"

says its report (Cd. 9182, p. 8), "the actual note issue is really controlled by the proportion, the arrangement is liable to bring about very violent disturbances. Suppose, for example, that the proportion of gold to notes is actually fixed at one-third and is operative.

Then, if the withdrawal of gold for export reduces the proportion below the prescribed limit, it is necessary to withdraw notes in the ratio of three to one. Any approach to the conditions under which the restriction would become actually operative would then be likely to cause even greater apprehension than the limitation of the Act of 1844." Certainly if, during a foreign drain, for every million of gold that went out, another two millions of credit, over and above, had to be cancelled, it is easy to imagine a very jumpy state of mind in Lombard Street and on the Stock Exchange. Sir Edward and the Committee seem to be agreed as to a limit on the note issue, but of the two limiting systems the old one advocated by the Committee, though apparently more severe, would seem to have much less alarming possibilities behind it.