Taking this view I think that if the Constitution categorically assigns this power to the Executive, the Constitution would be doing injustice, not only to the Legislature, but also to the interests of, as I said before, generations to come. And for this reason. Parliament should not only regulate the borrowing by the Executive in the sense of fixing limits up to which borrowing can take place or lay down conditions for offering securities or guarantee, but Parliament should in my opinion say every year, in what may be called the Ways and Means Act, or the Finance Act, how much, shall be borrowed, so that from time to time-from year to year-the Parliament is aware of the state of the national credit and husbands it accordingly. The question is still more fearful as I conceive it, because it is very likely that borrowing within the home market may not suffice and that you may have to resort to borrowing outside the limits of the country. At that point, the danger would be much more acute than perhaps we are inclined to envisage it today. It has been the unfortunate experience of many countries which have been chronically indebted that the lender has time and again exercised influence, demanded security or guarantee, which is beyond the capacity of the country to afford. I will not quote, any remote examples, but even that country which was once regarded as the banker of the world–I mean Britain-whose credit is now being questioned is in a similar position, and the principal lender today is suggesting or inclined to interfere even in its domestic affairs. It is being alleged that the course which the present Government in England is following of all-round nationalisation bit by bit, makes the lender very nervous about the stability or security of that country. Suggestions, therefore, are not wanting that the accord between England and America may suffer.
