The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1893.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 10106, 3 August 1893, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1893.

It is not at all surprising that our Conservative friends feel very angry with the correspondent of this journal who directed attention the other day to the ridiculous blunder made by Sir John Hall in his speech on the Financial Statement. The member for Ellesmere is their guide and authority on all matters appertaining to the Treasury, and they naturally resent any criticism that is likely to weaken his influence with the public. But there is really no reason to make a fuss about the exposure. A little matter of sixty or eighty thousand pounds is neither here nor there in Conservative finance, and there ia no need to offer any excuse for a mistake that is insignificant compared with the deliberate and repeated misrepresentations of the party. Besides, it is not difficult to understand how even an experienced and a careful politician could suppose that the sum of £38,465 the difference between £143,817 paid last year and £182,282 to be paid this year—was merely a transfer from one year to another. The Financial Statement itself did not very fully explain that it was a clear saving effected by paying off bonds in January and not renewing them until April. But it ia difficult to understand how Sir John managed, to magnify the £38,465 into £BO,OOO in his speech, and to actually leave it at £60,000 in his Hansard report.

But what is still more difficult to comprehend ia the action of Sir John and his followers in treating a difference between last year’s interest and. this year’s interest as proof positive that we are increasing our public debt at a ruinous rate. A very little examination would have enabled them to discover that the difference between the two charges was duo more to the abnormal decrease of last year than to the increase of this year. Notwithstanding the large sum that has to be provided this year for seven years’ accumulated sinking fund under the Loans to Local Bodies Act —which was entirely neglected by Sir John’s own friends—and the interest payable on the purchase money of the Cheviot estate, the average payment for this year and last, is no less than .£31,516 below the amount paid for interest and sinking fund in 1891*92. In estimating the importanca of this difference, we must be particular to remember that in 189192 the sinking fund on the loans to local bodies was not paid. These are the undisputed figures to be found in the departmental tables for each year, and yet Sir John Hall attempts to convey an altogether different idea of the position and is blindly followed by the rank and file of the Opposition and wildly applauded by the Conservative press. “In regard to the ordinary expenditure of the year” Sir John declared “ the Treasurer said fairly that the expenditure for interest has increased by about £60,000 in spite of the reduction of £53,000 by the process of conversion.” This was obviously intended to convey to the public and to our creditors the idea that our liability for interest had increased in one yoar by £113,000, which would represent an increase of debt amounting to about £2,750,000. The fact is, that during Mr Ballance’s troasurership our liability for interest and sinking fund foil from £1,868,252 in 1890-91, to £1,821,128 in 1891-92. And after providing £69,100 to meet claims for which neither tho Baliance nor the present G-overamenb is responsible the payment this year, it ia estimated, will be only £43,446 greater than the payment for interest and sinking fund during the last year of the Atkinson -.Government. To put the matter more.

simply we will take the totals for the last three unbroken years of the Atkinson Government and compare them with the totals of the first three years of the Liberal Government. We find- that under the Conservative Government the payment for interest and sinking fund increased by £254,721 in three years. Under the Liberal Government the payment will, at the end of a similar period, have increased by £43,446. In the one case the increase was at the rate of £84,907 a year, and in the other it will be at the rate of £14,482 a year. We admit that each party inherited liabilities from the other, but if these were precisely ascertained, it would probably bo found that they had no practical bearing on the question at issue.