Chapter XII: Part II: is divided into two Branches, viz (2)

The profit arising from the transaction we have sketched is realized by the separate parties in this way. The New York banker lends money for three months, say, at 5% per annum, he pays a commission of 1/32% to the trust company which has custody of the security, a charge equivalent to 1/8% interest per annum. He draws on London at 90 days' sight and sells the bill at 4.83-5/8, the cable rate being 4.87-3/4, the buyer of a three months' bill making the allowance for the English bill stamp of 1/2 per mille and the London discount rate of 3%. The drawer of the bill must also pay a commission of 3/16% to the London banker who accepts the draft; this is equivalent to another 3/4% per annum in the rate of discount, so that money raised in this way costs 1/8% for the trust company, 3% the London discount rate, about 1/4% for bill stamps, and 3/4% for London commission--altogether, 4-1/8%; and, as the money is loaned at 5%, there appears to be 7/8% profit to the drawer of the bill. This, however, is on the assumption that the cable rate is still 4.87-3/4 when the bill falls due for payment and that the drawer would have to pay that price to telegraph the money to meet the draft. But exchange on London can go up or down between 4.84 and 4.89-1/2, and if at the end of the three months the cable rate is 4.84 the New York banker will be able to cover his bill at almost the same rate at which he sold it and will only be out of pocket to the extent of the commissions and stamps, so that the accommodation will only cost him 1-1/2% and his profit will be 3-1/2%. If he has to pay more than 4.87-3/4 for his cable at the maturity of the bill his profit will be less than 7/8%, and he may even be a loser on the transaction.

It is obvious, then, that a high rate of interest in New York, with a high rate of exchange on London and a low rate of discount in England, would induce the creation of these finance bills. The supply of these bills would prevent New York exchange reaching the limit point at which gold leaves the United States, and the maturity of these bills in the autumn would ensure a demand for the produce bills and possibly prevent exchange from falling to the other limit point at which London has to send gold to New York.

We have pointed out the essential difference between these finance bills and what we have called produce bills, but there is another very striking difference, that of the question of supply. These finance bills are obviously very difficult to limit in their amounts; produce bills are, of course, limited by the extent of the surplus crops of the United States and by the demand for the produce in Europe, but so long as it is mutually satisfactory to the big finance houses in both countries to draw on credit granted in London, so long may these accommodation bills be created, and the pressure of the bills in New York may depress exchange so much that gold leaves London at a time when it is required in other directions. In such a case the embarrassment caused by this artificial drain of the gold reserve would much more than offset the amount of the commission earned by the accepting houses. The Bank of England may have to raise its rate of discount at the expense of the entire home trade; probably, also, with the rise in the value of money, consequent on the diminished resources, all investment securities fall in value and more onerous terms must be submitted to by the government, corporations and colonies, in the issue of any loans they may require. It will, therefore, be appreciated that, although these finance bills may be perfectly safe, their excessive creation is viewed with great disfavour, and considerable apprehension is felt when the adventures of speculators in New York make great demands for loans against stocks and shares, and, through the instrumentality of these finance bills, shift the burden on to the shoulders of the London discount market. The effect of this is to level money rates as between New York and London, and in the process the pressure falls on London and the relief goes to America. Eventually, of course, the bills must be met and funds sent for that purpose from across the Atlantic, but in the meanwhile the disturbance of the gold supply is an inconvenience.

We have explained the process of employing credits granted in London to finance Wall Street; there are, also, many other types of bill to which the acceptor lends his name on the assurance that he will in due course be supplied with the funds required to meet the acceptance. In the case of the produce bills, a London banker will accept the bills in order that they may be more easily marketable than if they were drawn direct on the actual consignee of the cotton, tobacco or wheat. The consignees in Liverpool, &c., pay a commission for this assistance and reimburse the London bank as the produce is gradually disposed of. The transaction appears slightly more complicated when English bankers accept bills for produce shipped from the United States to merchants living in Hamburg, Genoa, Singapore and all other great ports, but the principle is the same, and the influence of such business on the exchange affects, in the first instance, the quotation between America and London, but afterwards, when money must be sent to London with which to honour the bills, the exchanges with Germany, Italy or the Straits Settlements bear their share in the eventual adjustment, the spinners, tobacco manufacturers and corn factors requiring drafts on London where so much of the trade of the world is financed.

We shall have to consider later the reasons which ensure to London this peculiar and predominant position. We have so far used the American exchange as an example to explain causes which produce fluctuations in all the principal exchanges on London and to show the points between which fluctuations are limited. The fact that America is still developing at a much greater rate than the Old World makes an important distinction between the financial position in New York and the financial position of the big capitals in Europe. There is not in America the huge accumulation of savings and investment money which the Old World has collected, so that whereas Europe helps to finance the United States, the latter country has so many home enterprises that she can spare none of her funds to assist Europe. It would not be possible for London to draw on New York such bills as we have described as finance bills, for they could never be discounted there except on the most onerous terms, and there is nothing in America which corresponds to the London money market.

We have to deal with dollars and cents in America, with francs in France, with marks in Germany, and different money units in nearly every country; but, given the mint regulations, the theoretical par of exchange and the theoretical limit points are arrived at by simple arithmetic. An exhaustive statement with reference to every country would involve an amount of tedious repetition, so that for the purposes of this article it is more instructive to consider the essential differences between the important exchanges than to go into the details of coinage, which would appeal rather to the numismatist than to the exchange expert.

The United States, offering as it does a vast field for profitable investment, must annually remit huge amounts for interest on bonds and shares held by Europeans; coupons and dividend warrants payable in America are offered for sale daily in London, and at the end of the quarters the amount of these claims, coupons and drawn bonds is very large, and a considerable set off to the indebtedness of Europe for American produce. It is often asserted that the United States is rapidly getting sufficiently wealthy to repurchase all these bonds and shares; but whenever trade conditions are exceptionally good in the States, fresh evidence is forthcoming that assistance from London and Europe is essential to finance the commercial development of the United States. This illustrates a feature common to all new countries, and the effect is that they make annual payments to the older countries and especially to England.

A government loan or other large borrowing arranged abroad will immediately move the exchange in favour of the borrowing country. A tendency adverse to the United States results from the drafts and letters of credit of the large number of holiday makers who cross the Atlantic and spend so much money in Europe. When remittance is made of the incomes of Americans who have taken up their residence in the Old World the exchange is affected in a similar manner.

In one respect the United States stands far superior to most of the older countries. There are no restrictions on the free export of gold when exchange reaches the limit point showing that the demand for bills on London exceeds the supply. New York (with London and India) is a free gold market, and this is undoubtedly one of the reasons why money is so readily advanced to the United States, and the finance bills, to which we referred above, would not be allowed to the same extent were it not for the fact that New York will remit gold when other forms of remittance are insufficient to satisfy foreign creditors. When exchange between Paris and London reaches the theoretical limit point of 25.32 (25 francs 32 centimes for the L1 sterling), gold does not leave Paris for London unless the Bank of France is willing to allow it. By law, silver is also legal tender in France, and if the State Bank is pressed for gold a premium will be charged for it if it is supplied. Gold may be collected on cheaper terms in small amounts from the great trading corporations or from the offices of the railways, but a large shipment can only be made by special arrangement with the Bank of France. Similarly, in Germany, where a gold standard is supposed to obtain, if a banker requires a large amount of gold from the Reichsbank he is warned that he had better not take it, and if he persists he incurs the displeasure of the government institution to the prejudice of his business, so that the theoretical limit point of 20 marks 52 pf. to the pound sterling has no practical significance, and gold cannot be secured from Berlin when exchange is against that city, and Germany has, when put to the test, an inconvertible and sometimes a debased currency. There is no state bank in the United States, and no government interference with the natural course of paying debts. On the other hand, when monetary conditions in New York indicate a great shortage of funds, and rates of interest are uncomfortably high, the United States treasury has sometimes parted with some of its revenue accumulations to the principal New York bankers on condition that they at once engage a similar amount of gold for import from abroad, which shall be turned over to the treasury on arrival. As these advances are made free of interest the effect is to adjust the limit point of 484 to about 485, and the United States treasury seems to have taken a leaf out of the book of the German Reichsbank, which frequently offers similar facilities to gold importers and creates an artificial limit point in the Berlin Exchange. The Reichsbank gives credit in Berlin for gold that has only got as far as Hamburg, and sometimes gives so many days' credit that the agent in London of German banking houses can afford an extravagant price for bar gold and even risk the loss in weight on a withdrawal of sovereigns, although the exchange may not have fallen to the other limit point of 20.32. In England the only effort that is made to attract gold is some action by the Bank of England in the direction of raising discount rates; occasionally, also, the bank outbids other purchasers for the arrivals of raw gold from South Africa, Australia and other mining countries. Quite exceptionally, for instance during the Boer War, the Bank of England allowed advances free of interest against gold shipped to London.

Many of the principal banking houses in all the important capitals receive continually throughout the day telegraphic information of the tendency and movement of all the exchanges, and on the smallest margin of profit a large business is done in what is called arbitrage (q.v.). For instance, cheques or bills on London will be bought by X in Paris and remitted to Y in London. X will recoup himself by selling a cable payment on Z in New York. Z will put himself in funds to meet the cable payment by selling 60 days' sight drafts on Y, who pays the 60 days' drafts at maturity out of the proceeds of the cheques or bills received from Paris, and this complicated transaction, involving no outlay of capital, must show some minute profit after all expense of bill stamps, discount, cables and commissions has been allowed for. Such business is very difficult and very technical. The arbitrageur must be in first-class credit, must make the most exact calculation, and be prompt to take advantage of the small differences in exchange, differences which can be only temporary, as these operations soon bring about an adjustment.

The European exchanges with which London is chiefly concerned are Paris and Berlin, through which centres most of the financial business of the rest of Europe is conducted; for example, Scandinavia, Russia and Austria bank more largely with Berlin than elsewhere. Italy, Switzerland, Belgium and Spain bank chiefly in Paris. European claims on London or debts to London are settled mostly through Germany or France, and consequently the German and French rates of exchange are affected by the relation of England with the rest of the Continent. The exchanges on Paris and Berlin are therefore most carefully watched by all those big interests which are concerned with the rate of discount and the value of money in London.

If the Paris cheque falls to 25.12, gold arrivals in the London bullion market will be taken by French bankers unless the profit shown by the exchange on some other country enables other buyers to pay more for the gold than Paris can afford. If the Paris cheque falls still further, it would pay to take sovereigns from the Bank of England for export, and so much would be taken as would satisfy the demand to send money to France, or until the consequent scarcity of money in London made rates of interest so high in England that French bankers would prefer to leave money and perhaps increase their balances. As between London and Paris and Berlin the greatest factor operating the exchanges is the relative value of money in the three centres. There is no great excess of trade balance at any season in favour of Germany or France and against England. On the other hand the banking relations between those countries are very intimate, and if funds can be very profitably employed in one of these places, there will be a good demand for remittance, and exchange will move in favour of that place, that is to say, exchange will go towards that limit point at which gold will be sent. The great pastoral and agricultural countries like South America, Egypt and India are in a position to draw very largely on London when their crops or other products are ready for shipment. In the early months of the year gold goes freely to South America to pay for the cereals, hides and meat, and in the autumn Egypt and India send such quantities of cotton and wheat that exchange moves heavily in favour of those countries, and gold must go to adjust the trade balance. During the rest of the year the gold tends to return as these countries always require bills on London or some form of payment to meet interest and dividends on European money invested in their government debts, railways and trading enterprises, and to pay for the European manufactures which they import. Exchange then moves in favour of England, and the Bank of England can replenish its reserve. Over the greater part of the world the rate of exchange on London is an indication simply of the trade balance. The greater part of the world receives payment for food stuffs, and has to pay for European manufactures, shipping freights, banking services and professional commissions.

The greatest complication in exchange questions arises when we have to deal with a country employing a silver standard, and, fortunately for the development of trade, this problem has disappeared of late years in the case of India, Ceylon, Japan, Mexico and the Straits Settlements, and now the only important country using silver as a standard is China. When the monetary standard in one country is only a commodity in another country we are as far removed from the ideal of an international currency as can be imagined. We can fix no limit points to the exchange and we cannot settle any theoretical par of exchange. The price of silver in the gold-using country may vary as much as the price of copper or tin, and in the silver-using country gold is dealt in just as any other metal. In both cases the only metal of constant price is the metal which is used as the money standard. The easiest method of explaining the position is to consider that any one in a gold-using country having a claim in currency on a silver-using country has to offer for sale so many ounces of silver, and vice versa the exporter in a silver-using country sending produce to London has to offer a draft representing so many ounces of gold. This introduces a very unsatisfactory element. To take a practical example:--a tea-grower in China has raised his crop in spite of the usual experience of weather and labour difficulties and the endless risks that a planter must face; the tea is then sent to London to take its chance of good or bad prices, and at the same time the planter has a draft to sell representing locally a certain weight of gold; now, in addition to all the risks of weather and trading conditions, and the chances of the fluctuations in the tea market, he is compelled to gamble in the metal market on the price of gold. Some years ago when a large number of important countries employed a silver standard it was seriously suggested that a fixed ratio should be agreed internationally at which gold and silver should be exchanged. This advocacy of bimetallism (q.v.) was especially persistent at a time when silver had suffered a very great fall in price and the prominent exponents could generally be identified either as extremely practical men who were interested in the price of silver, or as very inexperienced theorists. The difficulty of the two standards was successfully solved by discarding the use of silver, and the chief silver-using countries adopted a gold standard which has given greater security for the investment of foreign capital, has simplified business and brought about a large increase of trade.

In the case of a country of which the government has been subject to great financial difficulties, gold has been shipped to satisfy foreign creditors so long as the supply held out, and the exchange with such a country will continue to move adversely with every fresh political embarrassment and any other economic cause reflecting on the national credit. With the collapse of the monarchy in Brazil the value of the milreis fell from 27d. to 5d., and all the Spanish-American countries have from time to time afforded most distressing examples of the demoralizing effects on the currency of unstable and reckless administration. In Europe similar results have been shown by the mistrust inspired by the governments of Spain, Greece, Italy and some other states. The raising of revenue by the use of the printing press creates an inconvertible and depreciating paper currency which frightens foreign capital and severely taxes the unfortunate country which must make payment abroad for the service of debt and other obligations. With the tardy appreciation of the old proverb that "honesty is the best policy" nearly every country of importance has made strenuous efforts to improve the integrity of its money.

Exchange quotations are not published from many of the British colonies, as their financial business is in the hands of a comparatively few excellently managed banks, which establish, by agreement, conventional exchanges fixed for a considerable period, notably in the case of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The Scottish and Irish banks supply similar examples of a monopoly in exchange.

The following table taken from the money article of a London daily paper indicates the exchanges which are of most interest to England:--

_Foreign Exchanges._

+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
| | June 14. | June 15. | June 16. |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Paris, cheques | 25 f. 18 c. | 25 f. 18 c. | 25 f. 18 c. |
| " Mkt. discount | 2-1/2-5/8 p.c. | 2-1/2-5/8 p.c. | 2-1/2-5/8 p.c. |
| Brussels, cheques | 25 f. 23 c. | 25 f. 23-1/2 c.| .. |
| Berlin, sight | 20 m. 48-3/4 pf.|20 m. 48-3/4 pf.| 20 m. 48 pf. |
| " 8 days | 20 m. 46-1/2 pf.|20 m. 46-1/4 pf.|20 m. 45-1/2 pf.|
| " Mkt. discount | 3-7/8 p.c. | 3-7/8 p.c. | 3-7/8 p.c. |
| Vienna, sight | Holiday |24 kr. 02-1/4 h.|24 kr. 02-3/4 h.|
| Amsterdam, sight | 12 fl. 13-1/8 c.|12 fl. 13-1/4 c.| .. |
| Italy, sight | Holiday | 25 lire 15 c. | .. |
| Madrid, sight | " | 27 ps. 68 | .. |
| Lisbon, sight | " | .. | .. |
| St Petersburg, 3 ms. | 94 r. 10 | 94 r. 10 | .. |
| Bombay, T.T. | 1s. 4d. | 1s. 4d. | 1s. 4d. |
| Calcutta, T.T. | 1s. 4d. | 1s. 4d. | 1s. 4d. |
| Hong-Kong, T.T. | 2s. 1-1/16d. | 2s. 1-1/16d. | 2s. 1-1/16d. |
| Shanghai, T.T. | 2s. 10-3/4d. | 2s. 10-5/8d. | 2s. 10-5/8d. |
| Singapore, T.T. | 2s. 4-1/16d. | 2s. 4-1/16d. | 2s. 4-1/16d. |
| Yokohama, T.T. | 2s. 0-3/8d. | 2s. 0-3/8d. | 2s. 0-3/8d. |
|*Rio de Jan'ro, 90 days| 16-9/16d. | 16-9/16d. | 16-17/32d. |
|*Valparaiso, 90 days | | | |
| Coml. | 14-3/8d. | 14-3/8d. | 14-1/4d. |
|*B. Ayres, 90 days | 48-1/8d. | 48d. | 48d. |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
* These rates are telegraphed on the day preceding their receipt.

In the case of Paris and Berlin it will be noticed that the local rate of discount is also given, as the value of money in these centres, in relation to the value of money in London, is the most important factor in a movement of the exchange. Vienna has become important owing to the improvement in the financial position of Austria, and still greater improvement is shown in the case of Italy, whose currency stands in the above list better even than that of France. Spain, which should stand at about the same rate, still has a depreciated paper currency. Lisbon stands also at a discount, as the milreis should be worth 53-1/4 pence.

In Russia the exchange showing 94.10 roubles to L10 is carefully and cleverly controlled in spite of the bad internal position. The India exchanges move slightly, as the currency is firmly established at the rate of 15 rupees to the L1. Hong-Kong quotes for the old Mexican dollar and a British trade dollar; Shanghai for the tael containing on an average 517-1/2 grains of fine silver. The Straits Settlements have fixed their money on a gold basis at 2s. 4d. per dollar, on the lines of the arrangement made in India. In Japan there is a gold standard, and par of exchange is 2s. 0-1/2d. for the yen. Brazil, Chile and Argentina have a depreciated paper currency, and the last quotation of 48d. is for the gold dollar equal to five francs, but there is a premium on gold in the River Plate of 127.27-1/2% and for the present a gold standard is re-established on this basis. The letters T.T. with the eastern exchanges signify telegraphic transfer or the rate for payments made by cable. The very important New York rates are always given in another part of the daily paper with other details of American commercial interest.

These rates are all quotations for payments in England, and all over the world the exchange on London is the exchange of the greatest importance. This unique position was gained originally, probably, through the geographical position of the United Kingdom, and has been maintained owing to several reasons which secure to London a peculiar position by comparison with any other capital. Britain's colossal trade ensures a supply of and a demand for English remittances. Even when goods or produce are dealt in between foreign countries a credit is opened in London, so that the shipper of the produce can offer in the local market a bill of exchange which is readily saleable. With the highly developed banking system a large amount of deposits is collected in London, and the result is that bills of any usance up to six months can be immediately discounted, and the proceeds, if required, can be handed over in gold. There are in London a great number of wealthy banks and banking houses whose reputation and solidity allow any one of them to accept bills for amounts varying from one to ten millions sterling, whereby large commissions are earned.

These four advantages, namely, a free gold market, a huge trade, an enormous accumulation of wealth, and a discount market such as exists nowhere else, have made London an unrivalled financial centre, and consequently bills on London are an international money and the best medium of exchange.

AUTHORITIES.--_A B C of the Foreign Exchanges_, by George Clare;
_Foreign Exchanges_, by Goschen; _Arbitrage_, by Deutsch; _Arbitrages
et Parites_, by Ottomar Haupt; Swoboda, _Arbitrage_ (12th edition), by
Max Fuerst. (E. M. Ha.)

EXCHEQUER. The word "exchequer" is the English form of the Fr. _echiquier_, low Lat. _scaccarium_, and its primary meaning is a chess-board (see CHESS). As the name of a government department dealing with accounts it is derived from the exchequer or the "abacus" by means of which such accounts were kept, such a contrivance being almost universally in use before the introduction of the Arabic notation. In England the department or court of accounts was named originally "the tallies" from the notched sticks or tallies which constituted the primitive means of account-keeping (which were only abolished in 1826), and was only subsequently, probably in the reign of Henry I., named the exchequer from the use of the abacus. Both the name and the general features of the institution may reasonably be attributed to Norman influence, since we find both in Normandy and in the Norman kingdom of Sicily, as well as in Scotland and Ireland; the two latter cases being directly due to English example. As a court of law the exchequer owed its existence in England, as elsewhere, to the necessity of deciding legal questions arising from matters of account, and its secondary activities soon overshadowed its original functions.

We cannot say whether the exchequer, as known in England, is older than the beginning of the 12th century. The treasury, which may be regarded as one of its constituents, dates from before the conquest, and the officers of the exchequer who were drawn from the treasury staff can be traced back to Domesday. But our earliest information about the exchequer itself, apart from that afforded by the pipe rolls (see RECORD), rests on a treatise (_Dialogus de Scaccario_) written about A.D. 1179 by Richard, bishop of London and treasurer of England. His father, Nigel, bishop of Ely, had been treasurer of Henry I., and nephew to that king's great financial minister Roger, bishop of Salisbury. Nigel is said to have reconstituted the exchequer after the troubles of Stephen's reign upon the model which he inherited from his uncle. The Angevin, or rather the Norman, exchequer cannot be regarded in strictness as a permanent department. It consisted of two parts: the lower exchequer, which was closely connected with the permanent treasury and was an office for the receipt and payment of money; and the upper exchequer, which was a court sitting twice a year to settle accounts and thus nearly related to the Curia Regis (q.v.). We dare hardly say that either exchequer existed in vacation; indeed the word (like the word "diet") seems to have been limited at first to the actual sitting of the king's court for financial purposes. The Michaelmas and Easter exchequers were the sessions of this court "at the exchequer" or chess-board as it had previously sat "at the tallies." The constitution of the court was that of the normal Frankish curia. The king was the nominal president, and the court consisted of his great officers of state and his barons, or tenants-in-chief, and it is doubtless due to the fact that the exchequer was originally the curia itself sitting for a special purpose that its unofficial judges retained the name of "barons" until recent times. Of the great officers we may probably find the steward in the person of the justiciar, the normal president of the court. He sat at the head of the exchequer table. The butler was not represented. The chancellor sat on the justiciar's left; he was custodian _ex officio_ of the seal of the court, and thus responsible for the issue of all writs and summonses, and moreover for the keeping of a duplicate roll of accounts embodying the judgments of the court. On the left of the chancellor, and thus clear of the table, since their services might be required elsewhere at any moment, sat the constable, the two chamberlains and the marshal. The constable was the chief of the outdoor service of the court, and was responsible for everything connected with the army, or with hunting and hawking. The two chamberlains were the lay colleagues of the treasurer, and shared with him the duty of receiving and paying money, and keeping safe the seal of the court, and all the records and other contents of the treasury. The marshal, who was subordinate to the constable, shared his duties, and was specially responsible for the custody of prisoners and of the vouchers produced by accountants. At the head of the table on the justiciar's right sat, in Henry II.'s time, an extraordinary member of the court, the bishop of Winchester. The treasurer, like the chancellor a clerk, sat at the head of the right-hand side of the table. He charged the accountants with their fixed debts, and dictated the contents of the great roll of accounts (or pipe roll) which embodied the decisions of the court as to the indebtedness of the sheriffs and other accountants. These persons with certain subordinates constituted the court of accounts, or upper exchequer, whereas the lower exchequer, or exchequer of receipt, consisted almost exclusively of the subordinates of the treasurer and chamberlains. In the upper exchequer the justiciar appointed the calculator, who exhibited the state of each account by means of counters on the exchequer table, so that the proceedings of the court might be clear to the presumably illiterate sheriff. The calculator sat in the centre of the side of the table on the president's left. The chancellor's staff consisted of the _Magister Scriptorii_ (probably the ancestor of the modern master of the rolls), whose duties are not stated; a clerk (the modern chancellor of the exchequer) who settled the form of all writs and summonses, charged the sheriff with all fines and amercements, and acted as a check on the treasurer in the composition of the great roll; and a scribe (afterwards the comptroller of the pipe), who wrote out the writs and summonses and kept a duplicate of the great roll, known as the chancellor's roll. The constable's subordinates were the marshal and a clerk, who, besides the duty of paying outdoor servants of the crown, had the special task of producing duplicates of all writs issued by the Curia Regis. The treasurer and chamberlains, being colleagues, had a joint staff, the clerical or literate members of which were servants of the treasurer, while the lay or illiterate members depended on the chamberlains. Hence while the treasurer and his clerks kept their accounts by means of rolls, the chamberlains and their serjeants duplicated them so far as possible by means of tallies. Thus the great roll was written by the treasurer's scribe (the engrosser, afterwards the clerk of the pipe), while the payments on account and other allowances to be credited to the sheriff were registered by the tally cutter of the chamberlains.

In the exchequer of receipt the staff was similarly divided between the treasurer and chamberlains; the treasurer having a clerk who kept the issue and receipt rolls (the later clerk of the pells) and four tellers, while each of the chamberlains was represented by a knight (afterwards the deputy chamberlains), who controlled the clerk's account by means of tallies, and held their lands by this serjeanty; these three had joint control of the treasury, and could not act independently. The other serjeants were the knight or "pesour" who weighed the money, the melter who assayed it, and the ushers of the two exchequers. It should be noted that all the lay offices of the treasury in both exchequers were hereditary. Henry II. had also a personal clerk who supervised the proceedings personally in the upper, and by deputy in the lower, exchequer.

The business of the ancient exchequer was primarily financial, although we know that some judicial business was done there and that the court of common pleas was derived from it rather than from the curia proper. The principal accountants were the sheriffs, who were bound, as the king's principal financial agents in each county, to give an account of their stewardship twice a year, at the exchequers of Easter and Michaelmas. Half the annual revenue was payable at Easter, and at Michaelmas the balance was exacted, and the accounts made up for the year, and formally enrolled on the pipe roll. The fixed revenue consisted of the farms of the king's demesne lands within the counties, of the county mints, and of certain boroughs (see BOROUGH) which paid annual sums as the price of their liberties. Danegeld was also regarded as fixed revenue, though after the accession of Henry II. it was not frequently levied. There were also rents of assarts and purprestures and mining and other royalties. The casual revenue consisted of the profits of the feudal incidents (escheat, wardship and marriage), of the profits of justice (amercements, and goods of felons and outlaws), and of fines, or payments made by the king's subjects to secure grants of land, wardships or marriages, and of immunities, as well as for the hastening and sometimes the delaying of justice. Besides this, there were the revenues arising from aids and scutages of the king's military tenants, tallages of the crown lands, customs of ports, and special "gifts," or general assessments made on particular occasions. For the collection of all these the sheriff was primarily responsible, though in some cases the accountants dealt directly with the exchequer, and were bound to make their appearance in person on the day when the sheriff accounted.

We gather both from tradition and from the example of the Scottish exchequer that the farms of demesne lands were originally paid in kind, by way of purveyance for the royal household, and although such farms are expressed even in Domesday Book in terms of money, the tradition that there was a system of customary valuation is a sufficient explanation, and not of itself incredible. At some date, possibly under the administration of Roger of Salisbury, the inconvenience of this arrangement led to the substitution of money payments at the exchequer. The rapid deterioration of a small silver coinage led to successive efforts to maintain the value of these payments, first by a "scale" deduction of 6d. in the L for wear, then by the substitution of payment by weight for payment by tale, and finally by the reduction of most of such payments to their pure silver value by means of an assay, a process originally confined to payments from particular manors. Only the farms of counties, however, were so treated, and not all of those. The amount to be deducted in these cases was settled by the weighing and assaying of a specimen pound of silver in the presence of the sheriff by the pesour and the melter in the lower exchequer. The casual revenue was paid by tale, and for the determination of its amount it was necessary to have copies of all grants made in the chancery on which rents were reserved, or fines payable. These were known first as _contrabrevia_ and later as _originalia_; the profits of justice were settled by the delivery of "estreats" from the justices, while for certain minor casualties the oath of the sheriff was at first the only security. At a later date many of them were determined by copies of inquisitions sent in from the chancery. All this business might be transacted anywhere in England, and though convenience placed the exchequer first at Winchester (where the treasury was), and afterwards usually at Westminster, it held occasional sessions at other towns even in the 14th century.

The Angevin exchequer, described by Richard the Treasurer, remained the ideal of the institution throughout its history, and the lineaments of the original exemplar were never completely effaced; but the rapid increase both of financial and judicial business led to a multiplication of machinery and a growing complexity of constitution. Even in the time of Henry II. we gather that the great officers of state, except the treasurer and chancellor, commonly attended by deputy. In the reign of Henry III. the chancellor had also ceased to attend, and his clerk acquired the title of chancellor of the exchequer. To the same period belongs the institution of the king's and lord treasurer's remembrancers. These at first had common duties and kept duplicate rolls, but by the ordinance of 1323 their functions were differentiated. Henceforward the king's remembrancer was more particularly concerned with the casual, and the lord treasurer's remembrancer with the fixed revenue. The former put all debts in charge, while the latter saw to their recovery when they had found their way on to the great roll. Hence the preliminary stages of each account, the receiving and registering of the king's writs to the treasurer and barons, and the drawing up of all particulars of account, lay with the king's remembrancer, and he retained the corresponding vouchers. The lord treasurer's remembrancer exacted the "remanets" of such accounts as had been enrolled, as well as reserved rents and fixed revenue, and so became closely connected with the clerk of the pipe. Before the end of the 14th century these three offices had already crystallized into separate departments.

In the meantime the increasing length and variety of accounts, as well as the growth of judicial business, had led to various efforts at reform. As early as 22 Henry II. it became necessary to remove from the great roll the debts which it seemed hopeless to levy, and further ordinances to the same end were made by statute in 54 Henry III. and in 12 Edward I. By this last a special "exannual roll" was established in which the "desperate debts" were recorded, in order that the sheriff might be reminded of them yearly without their overloading the great roll. But the largest accession of financial business arose from the "foreign accounts," that is to say, the accounts of national services, which did not naturally form part of the account of any county. These did not in the reign of Henry II. form a part of the exchequer business. Such expenses as appear on the pipe roll were paid by the sheriffs, or by the bailiffs of "honours"; payments out of the treasury itself would only appear on the receipt and issue rolls, and the "spending departments" probably drew their supplies from the camera curie, and not directly from the exchequer. In the course of the 13th century the exchequer gradually acquired partial control of these national accounts. Even in 18 Henry II. there is an account for the forests of England, and soon the mint, the wardrobe and the escheators followed. The undated statute of the exchequer (probably about 1276) provides for escheators, the earldom of Chester, the Channel Islands, the customs and the wardrobe. During the reign of Edward I., the wardrobe account became unmanageable, since it not only financed the household, army, navy and diplomatic service, but raised money on the customs independently of the exchequer. The reform of 1323-1326, due to Walter de Stapledon, in remedying this state of things, greatly increased the number of "foreign accounts" by making the great wardrobe (the storekeeping department), the butler, purveyors, keepers of horses or of the stud, the clerk of the "hamper" of the chancery (who took the fees for the great seal), and the various ambassadors, directly accountable to the exchequer. At the same time the sheriffs' accounts were expedited by the further simplification of the great roll, and by appointing a special officer, the "foreign apposer," to take the account of the "green wax," or estreats, so that two accounts could go on at once. Another baron (the 5th or cursitor baron) was appointed, and the whole business of foreign accounts was transferred to a separate building where one baron and certain auditors spent their whole time in settling the balances due on the accounts already mentioned, as well as those of castles, &c., not let to farm, Wales, Gascony, Ireland, aids (clerical and lay), temporalities of vacant bishoprics, abbeys, priories and dignities, mines of silver and tin, ulnage and so forth. These balances were accounted for in the exchequer itself, and entered on the pipe roll, but the preliminary accounts were filed by the king's remembrancer, and enrolled separately by the treasurer's remembrancer as a supplement to the pipe roll.

The next important change, about the end of the 15th century, was the gradual substitution of special auditors appointed by the crown, known as the auditors of the prests (the predecessors of the commissioners for auditing public accounts), for the auditors of the exchequer. Accounts when passed by them were presented in duplicate and "declared" before the treasurer, under-treasurer and chancellor. Of the two copies, one, on paper, was retained by the auditors, the other, on parchment, was successively enrolled by the king's and lord treasurer's remembrancers, and finally by the clerk of the pipe, to secure the levying of any "remanets" or "supers" by process of the exchequer.

Besides the two great difficulties of the postponement of financial to legal business, and of preventing the sheriffs from exacting the same debt twice, the exchequer was, as has been seen, hampered in its functions by the interference of other departments in financial matters. Its own branches even acquired a certain independence. The exchequer of the Jews, which came to an end in 18 Edward I., was such a branch. In 27 Henry VIII. the court of augmentations was established to deal with forfeited lands of monasteries. This was followed in 32 & 33 Henry VIII. by the courts of first-fruits and tenths and of general surveyors. These were reabsorbed by the exchequer in 1 Mary, but remained as separate departments within it. But the development of the treasury, which succeeded to the functions of the camera curie or the king's chamber, ultimately reduced the administrative functions of the exchequer to unimportance, and the audit office took over its duties with regard to public accounts. So that when the statute of 3 & 4 William IV. cap. 99, removed the sheriff's accounts also from its competence, and brought to an end the series of pipe rolls which begins in 1130, the ancient exchequer may be said to have come to an end. (C. J.)

In 1834 an act was passed abolishing the old offices of the exchequer, and creating a new exchequer under a comptroller-general, the detailed business of payments formerly made at the exchequer being transferred to the paymaster-general, whose office was further enlarged in 1836 and 1848. And in 1866, as the result of a select committee reporting unfavourably on the system of exchequer control as established in 1834, the exchequer was abolished altogether as a distinct department of state, and a new exchequer and audit department established.

The ancient term exchequer now survives mainly as the official title of the national banking account of the United Kingdom. This central account is commonly called the exchequer, and its statutory title is "His Majesty's Exchequer." It may also be described with statutory authority as "The Account of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland." This account is, in fact, divided between the Banks of England and Ireland. At the head office of each of these institutions receipts are accepted and payments made on account of the exchequer; but in published documents the two accounts are consolidated into one, the balances only at the two banks being shown separately.

Operations affecting the exchequer are regulated by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866. Section 10 prescribes that the gross revenue of the United Kingdom (less drawbacks and repayments, which are not really revenue) is payable, and must sooner or later be paid into the exchequer. Section 11 directs that payments should be made from the fund so formed to meet the current requirements of spending departments. Sections 13, 14, 15 lay down the conditions under which money can be drawn from the exchequer. Drafts on the exchequer require the approval of an officer independent of the executive government, the comptroller and auditor-general. But the description of the formal procedure required by statute cannot adequately express the actual working of the system, or the part it plays in the national finance. The simplicity of the system laid down by the act of 1866 has been disturbed by the diversion of certain branches or portions of revenue from the exchequer to "Local Taxation Accounts," under a system initiated by the Local Government Act 1888, and much extended since.

While the exchequer is, as already stated, the central account, it is not directly in contact with the details of either revenue or expenditure. As regards revenue, the produce of taxes and other sources of income passes, in the first instance, into the separate accounts of the respective receiving departments--mainly, of course, those of the customs, inland revenue and post office. A not inconsiderable portion is received in the provinces, and remitted to London or Dublin by bills or otherwise, and the ultimate transfers to the exchequer are made (in round sums) from the accounts of the receiving departments in London or in Dublin. Thus, there are always considerable sums due to the exchequer by the revenue departments; on the other hand, as floating balances are (for the sake of economy) used temporarily for current expenses, there are generally amounts due by the exchequer to the receiving departments; such cross claims are adjusted periodically, generally once a month. The finance accounts of the United Kingdom show the gross amounts due to the exchequer from the departments, and likewise the amounts payable out of the gross revenue in priority to the claim of the exchequer. On the expenditure side a similar system prevails. No detailed payments are made direct from the exchequer, but round sums are issued from it to subsidiary accounts, from which the actual drafts for the public services are met. For instance, the interest on the national debt is paid by the Bank of England from a separate account fed by transfers of round sums from the exchequer as required. Similarly, payments for army, navy and most civil services are met by the paymaster-general out of an account of his own, fed by daily transfers from the exchequer.

This system has two noticeable effects. Firstly, it secures the simplicity and finality of the exchequer accounts, and therefore of all ordinary statements of national finance. Every evening the chancellor of the exchequer can tell his position so far as the exchequer is concerned; on the first day of every quarter the press is able to comment on the national income and expenditure up to the evening before. The annual account is closed on the evening of the 31st of March, and there can be no reopening of the budget of a past year such as may occur under other financial systems. The second effect of the system is to introduce a certain artificiality into the financial statements. Actual facts cannot be reduced to the simplicity of exchequer figures; there is always (as already explained) revenue received by government which has not yet reached the exchequer; and there must always be a considerable outstanding liability in the form of cheques issued but not yet cashed. The suggested criticism is, however, met if it can be shown that, on the whole, the differences between the true revenue and the exchequer receipts, or between the true (or audited) expenditure and the exchequer issues, are not, taking one year with another, relatively considerable. The following figures (000's omitted) illustrate this point:--

_Expenditure._

+-----------+----------+--------------+------------
| Year. |Exchequer | Audited | Difference.|
| | Issues. | Expenditure. | |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
| 1888-1889 | L85,674 | L86,070 | L+396 |
| 1889-1890 | 86,083 | 86,033 | - 50 |
| 1890-1891 | 87,732 | 87,638 | - 94 |
| 1891-1892 | 89,928 | 90,125 | +197 |
| 1892-1893 | 90,375 | 90,164 | -211 |
| 1893-1894 | 91,303 | 91,530 | +227 |
| 1894-1895 | 93,919 | 93,818 | -101 |
| 1895-1896 | 97,764 | 97,667 | - 97 |
| 1896-1897 | 101,477 | 101,543 | + 66 |
| 1897-1898 | 102,936 | 103,010 | + 74 |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
| Total for |L927,191 | L927,598 | L+407 |
| 10 years | | | |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+

_Revenue._

+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
| Year. |Exchequer | Actual | Difference.|
| |Receipts. | Revenue. | |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
| 1888-1889 | L88,473 | L88,038 | L-435 |
| 1889-1890 | 89,304 | 89,416 | +112 |
| 1890-1891 | 89,489 | 89,282 | -207 |
| 1891-1892 | 90,995 | 91,428 | +433 |
| 1892-1893 | 90,395 | 90,181 | -214 |
| 1893-1894 | 91,133 | 91,265 | +132 |
| 1894-1895 | 94,684 | 94,873 | +189 |
| 1895-1896 | 101,974 | 102,031 | + 57 |
| 1896-1897 | 103,960 | 104,089 | +129 |
| 1897-1898 | 106,614 | 106,691 | + 77 |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
| Total for | L947,011 | L947,294 | L+273 |
| 10 years | | | |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+

_Surplus._

+-----------+----------=--------------+------------+
| |Exchequer |Diff. between | |
| Year. | Accounts.| Actual Rev. | Difference.|
| | | and Aud. Exp.| |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
| 1888-1889 | L2,799 | L1,968 | L-831 |
| 1889-1890 | 3,221 | 3,383 | +162 |
| 1890-1891 | 1,757 | 1,644 | -113 |
| 1891-1892 | 1,067 | 1,303 | +236 |
| 1892-1893 | 20 | 17 | - 3 |
| 1893-1894 | -_170_ | -_265_ | - 95 |
| 1894-1895 | 765 | 1,055 | +290 |
| 1895-1896 | 4,210 | 4,364 | +154 |
| 1896-1897 | 2,473 | 2,546 | + 73 |
| 1897-1898 | 3,678 | 3,681 | + 3 |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
| Total for | L19,820 | L19,696 | L-124 |
| 10 years | | | |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+

The third column in the above shows the price which has to be paid (in the form of discrepancies between facts and figures) for the simplicity secured to statements and records of the national finance by the present system embodied in the term exchequer. Probably few will think the price too high in consideration of the advantages secured.