1173. Is not that equivalent to a re-discount of bills?--No; the discount of a bill and the lending money on bills are very different things. When we discount a bill, that bill becomes our property; it is in our control, and we keep it and lock it up until it falls due; but when brokers come to us and want to borrow, say 50,000 L. on a deposit of bills, and we let them have the money and afterwards return those bills to them and we get back our money, surely that is not a re-discount. 1174. When you want to employ your money for a short period, do you not frequently take bills of long date, and advance upon them?--But that is not a re-discount on our part. Very often brokers in borrowing money send in bills of long date, and afterwards we call in that loan; but that is no more a re-discount than lending money upon consols and calling in that money again. It is not an advance of ours; we do not seek it; they come to us and borrow our money, and give us a security; when we want our money we call for that money, and return their security. Surely that is not a re-discount. 1175. [Mr. Hankey.] Is there not this clear distinction between returning a bill on which you have made an advance and discounting a bill, that if you have discounted a bill your liability continues upon the bill until that bill has come to maturity?--Yes. 1176. In the other case you have no further liability whatever?--Certainly. 1177. Should you not consider that a very important distinction?--I think it is an important distinction. Take this case: suppose a party comes to us and borrows 50,000 L., and we lend it him, and when the loan becomes due we take our money back again. Surely that is not a discount on our part. 1178. Is there not this distinction, that if you re-discount you may go on pledging the liability of your bank to an almost unlimited amount, whereas in the other case you only get back that money which you have lent?--Undoubtedly.