Sir John Lubbock, who is one of the best financiers
in Par- liament, explained very clearly yesterday week to the Lewisham and Lee Liberal Club how mistaken the Conservatives are in • attributing to the present Government a great increase on the
• expenditure of the Tories. This was his lucid analysis of the .financial position :—" The nominal expenditure for the year .ending March 31st, 1882, was £85,400,000, while that of 1880 was £84,100,000. This, therefore, showed an apparent in- crease of £1,300,000. But how was this made up 1) Both amounts included many large sums which were not really expenditure, and which must be deducted. To the Debt, for instance, £28,960,000 was devoted in 1882, as against £28,000,000 in 1880. The reduction of Debt in 1882 was, indeed, between two and three millions more than in 1880. He might probably place all this to the credit of the Liberal Government, hat, for the present purpose, he would only claim the 2960,000, which clearly was not expenditure in the ordinary sense. Then,
again, the whole expenditure for the Post Office and Telegraphs was included. That, again, was not truly expenditure ; it was the turnover of a great profitable business, which brought us in a profit of some £3,000,000 a year. But the turnover, which in 1880 was £4,400,000, last year was £5,000,000. Deducting these two increases alone, the expenditure of 1882 was brought below that of 1880. There were, however, other large allow- ances which would have to be made in comparing the two years. For instance, the grant by the Imperial Exchequer in aid of local rates was much larger. Passing to the character of the expenditure, that for military purposes in 1882 was £1,200,000 less than in 1880. On the other haud, the Civil Service Estimates were larger. Elementary education cost 2400,000 more, and Ireland, £400,000. In fact, the broad facts were that we had spent £1,200,000 less on military and naval services, 42,000,000 more in reducing Debt, 2400,000 more in Ireland, and £400,000 more in elementary education. Moreover, it must be remembered that for much of last year's expenditure the Conservatives, and not Mr. Gladstone, were responsible. They spent the money, left him to pay the bill, and then attacked him for extrava- gance. For instance, last year we paid £1,300,000 towards the 26,000,000 spent by Lord Beaconsfield in 1878, and £500,000 for the Afghan war." Nothing can be more clear than this analysis, but it will hardly convince a single Conservative. It is very hard to keep the intellect free from party bias, even so far as to admit the cogency of plain figures.
Previous page
