The Press. THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1915. Finance in War Time.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 15218, 4 March 1915, Page 6

The Press. THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1915. Finance in War Time.

Tho Hon. Mr Allen'.-, statement upon the outlook for the public iinances has

been taken by our Opposition friends

as an opportunity to warn the Government that the Opnositiou intend' to convert to their party advantage every

difficulty which the war may plnqo in

■ the Government's wiiy. "It will be • '*>difficult.* , Mr Alien said, ''to-wind "up the year with a credit 'balance. **lt simply meant, the impo-rilioit of fur- * ther taxation —in short, a wnr tax — '"to meet "the increased expenditure " and the loss of revenue- Veople know "it must come, and that the. country "panuot get* along without it." This 'statement has. led the local Opposition newspaper into" a vigorous attack upon tho Government, of which the principal purpose is to hwl tho public to believe , that no allowance whatever' must be made for the war. The war. mi it is implied, must not. bo held to impede tho Opposition \s right to attack the Government. ' In fact, ihe war must l>o held as .m accidental windfall for the Opposition critics,, who are not going to make. any allowance for anything, and who consider themselves entitled to make whatever political capital they can out of the situation. Thi-. we think, is very nnwNe of our Opposition friends,- for the public will not easily enter into the spirit of the Opposition game. AH rational people will .regard the war a* imposing some limits to criticism of the financial position, and all decent people.will think unpleasant the eagerness oC "*iim Opposition to make capita! out of the effects of tho war. Tiw Opposition critic ought to have been content with his claim that tho ■war should be counted as a windfall for the Opposition, and that tho Government should be attacked a* if the war had made no difference to tin; finances. But this claim i» reinforced by home - plain raisstatenient* of fact, and some serious, misrepresentations of the position in recent years. Ti-e Government, it is argued, inherited "a >ur- " plus os £720,0 CX)." and this has been gradually turned into a deficit. A . table is then quoted to show that the jfvenuc for 1'.'13-ll was £1,163.000 greater than in JOll-]'_\ and that the expenditure iras £1,180,49i>. '"'The " drift," it is added, "began «*» i«oon •"« Ihe Liberals left office. ,, Thu. is

untrue, for if there has been any drift itbegan in Sir J. G. Ward's time, checked for a moment, mid then resumed as his career swept to its end.. The following figures "ill make this point clear: — lUnc !*••<• "VritV in in Ex- in Revenue. jK-niiiturc. 2 years. I , ' .': £ l!)0Sto!!m .. 174.926 TTC.DS7 002,029 In 1010-11 matters greatly improved, hut in his la.<-t :<-ur Sir Jo-onli Ward drifted again : — Ucvcimc. Plxpcnditure. i" £ 1910-11 .. . 10.i197.27: , . n.:M3.106 1011-1-J .- , ■■ Il.OCl.ltil 10.3W.3GS Wr<M.*s ' .. 7C3.SSS 997.2C2 And then -Sir Joseph Ward, with the drift to the bad sotting in again, left office. Since the present Government took ufljw. two financial years in succession have been affected by events such as never troubled the 'Liberals" — tin , strike and the war. Wo may add a word upon the consciously misleading reference of tho Opi»<»i tioii paper to the surplus. In 190t; Sir .Joseph. Ward inherited a surplus of £~?27.7~)&. In three years this had diminished to I*2l (5.473, and the very newspaper which we are dealing with praised this as sound financial progress Creatly alarmed, Sir J. G. Ward took next year tho entirely unprecedented com*? of transferring nothing to the Public Works Fund. As we have shown in previous articles,.had he made a normal transfer he would have shown a thumping deficit, and this deficit would have been repeated in the following year. In the year after that there would have been <n very tiny credit balance. Xow the Reform Government transferred £750,000 in 1913.. and £67.11,000 in 1014: Had it adopted Sir 'Joseph's trick for just ono year, and omitted tho transfer, it would have shown a surplus of £1.4o!),»08 in its first year, and a surplus of £1,17(5,OOo in Tho surplus this year would also be a large one if that little- trick had been played in 1912-13 which was resorted to in 1009-10 to conceal the drift of Wardist finance. We may conclude by reprinting the table which the Opposition rely upon to show that 'the drift began as soon as the Liberals loft office." Here it w: — Year ended Revenue. Expenditure. March £ £ JOH .. .. 12,2-29.661 11,825.864 1012 .. .. 11,061,161 10,340,368 Increased .. 1,168,500 1.485,496 Now let us sot alongside this the figures of the last four years of Wardism : — . Year ended Revenue. Expenditure. March . £ £ IM2 .. .. 11,061,161 10,340,308 1908 .. .. 0,063,983 8,213,963 Increases .. 1,907,172 2,126,403 If there has been a drift, it had well begun before Mr Masscy took office. Wo must leave for another article some other' aspects of the new Opposition criticism.