Untitled

Press, Volume L, Issue 15135, 26 November 1914, Page 6

Most of the Opposition writers and speakers have refrained for some time from repeating their story that tho present Government has caused a rise in tho prico of money. They found that the argument could bo turned against them. At Ashburton on Tuesday last, however, Sir Joseph "Ward quoted a table relating to mortgages "as showing how, tinder the present Government, the rates of interest had advanced." His table showed a decrease in the number of mortgages at from 4 to 5 per cent., and increases in the money Tent at higner rates. His table showed only, of courso, that the worldwide financial stringency from 1910 to 1913 had its natural result here. Ho did not mention this, however. He did not mention that in his own term of office a similar thing happened. Hero is a table which he might explain. It shows tho total of the mortgages registered at tho various rates of interest :— 1907-8. 1006-9. £ £ ■ 4 per cent. ~. 133,500 51,09_ 4_ per cent. ... 2,5-5,525 1,.92,136 5 per cent. .. 6,923,027. 5,307.438 5J per cent. ~ 1,586,335 2,812,729 6 per cent. .. -.067,555 3,12_,8-'6 7 per cent. ~ 532,236 667,160 8 per cent. ~ 229,803 510,648 9 per cent. ~. 24.208 35,4-« 40 per cent. ... 147,528 149,325 This return shows that the money advanced at 4_ per cent, fell by over a million sterling, and tho mouey advanced at 5 per cent, by over a million and a half. Tho amount lent at 5_ and G per cent, correspondingly increased, and also tho amounts lent at tho higher, rates. This table, shows, of courso, that tho rate of interest had advanced. Tho Reformers never dreamed then of suggesting that tho then Government was rcsponsiblo for this fact; tho "Liberals" would havo been indignant, and rightly so. had the llbfonner. made any such suggestion. But tho "Liberals" to-day have not hesitated to make that suggestion now that the Reformers are in office. That Sir J. G. Ward should stoop to such petty sophistry is a fact eloquent of his case. 3>oo_. it never occur to him that in thus striving to mislead the public in a matter relating to finance, he is.furnishing ail the electors who think at all with a very strong reason for keeping him in that place in politics in which his talent.cannot do very much harm? The local newspaper organ of. tho Opposition presented to its readers on Monday a column of mingled anger and statistics in reply to our brief noto upon tho course of the Post Office Savings Bank returns since 1910. Its object appears to bo to persuade the public that the excess of deposits over withdrawals increased steadily and continuously under tho "Liberals," and declined' steadily and continuously under Reform. Tho actual figures are, in round numbers i— , E-.0e.80_ deposits. \ Ycnr. £ 1910 ... .. 1,013,000 1311 .. .. 065.000 { 1912 .. .. _75,ri00 ! l-)l. r . .. '"'is 000 1914 (10 months) ." 1,02*>!_63 Tho withdrawals began io exceed tho : deposits beforo the ''Liberals" left office, and tho drift had set in so j strongly that it was not until tho effect of Reform administration had | become strong enough to counteract ihe \ drift, that the position righted itself. The last lino in tho table given above is answer enough, however, to our j "Liberal" friends. Tho fact of the matter is, that tho "Liberals"' were ejected just in timo to prevent tho drift of tho national economy from ending in disaster. Tho fact that the Savings Bank returns reached their worst soon after the Government took office is a fact similar in significance to the fact that the German ad- j vancc on Paris was most successful and alarming: soon after tho British forces i arrived. To blame the Government is exactly like blaming the English troops. Of course, the British held on manfully until they rolled hack the advancing menace; and the Govern- ; ment held on manfully until they rollod back the effects cf Wardism. Tho |

parallel is, indeed, an exact one. and onr Opposition friends had better'accept it with as much grace and as little "language" as possible.

Beforo we leave the subject, wo may say a word upon a point of honesty and accuracy in quotation. Every statement wo made on-Saturday was correcr, and our figures wero tho official figures laid before Parliament: yet our contemporary asserts that they were ono and all "wholly incorrect! It is really very absurd of the Opposition critics to attempt that kind of thing, and especially a critic, whom the people of Canterbury know to have printed on several occasions, as official figures, false figures "faked" for the purpose of the moment. Wo may note, however, that ' in attempting to discount our suggestion that the excess of deposits—already ■H ,020.502 for ten months—will I*o £1,224,674 for the full year, our contemporary commits itself to tho statement that tho last quarter of each year "is always a withdrawing period." This is a pure fiction. In the last quarter of 1005 the deposits exceeded withdrawals by over £115,000. The excess in the corresponding quarter of 1906 was just under £3C0.000, £235,000 in thc 1907 quarter, £30,000 in the 15709 quarter, £251.000 in the 1910 quarter. £1.11.000 in the 1911 quarter, and £73,000 in tho 1913 quarter. On only two occasions since 190.3 was the last quarter "'a withdrawing quarter." Rut the "Liberals" have got so deeply into the habit of saying the first thing that comes into their head, without troubling themselves about its truth, that its newest fiction will surprise hardly anyone.