anxious to keep a sufficient reserve, because its own life and
credit depended on it, the risk of the Government in keeping a
banker would be reduced to a minimum. It would have the choice of
many bankers, and would not be restricted to any one.

Its course would be very simple, and be analogous to that of other
public bodies in the country. The Metropolitan Board of Works, which
collects a great revenue in London, has an account at the London and
Westminster Bank, for which that bank makes a deposit of Consols as
a security. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have no difficulty
in getting such security either. If, as is likely, his account would
be thought to be larger than any single bank ought to be entrusted
with, the public deposits might be divided between several. Each
would give security, and the whole public money would be safe. If at
any time the floating money in the hands of Government were
exceptionally large, he might require augmented security to be
lodged, and he might obtain an interest. He would be a lender of
such magnitude and so much influence, that he might command his own
terms. He might get his account kept safe if anyone could.

If, on the other hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer were a
borrower, as at times he is, he would have every facility in
obtaining what he wanted. The credit of the English Government is so
good that he could borrow better than anyone else in the world. He
would have greater facility, indeed, than now, for, except with the
leave of Parliament, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot borrow
by our present laws in the open market. He can only borrow from the
Bank of England on what are called 'deficiency bills.' In a natural
system, he would borrow of any one out of many competing banks,
selecting the one that would lend cheapest; but under our present