POINT OF CRITICISM.
Recognition of that fact has caused the City to be a little less critical of some of the Budget proposals than would otherwise have been the case. Nevertheless, there are misgivings with regard to certain aspects of the Budget which I do not think should be allowed to go unnoticed, even at these times when party feeling runs high as the time of the election approaches. The most glaring defect in the Budget is the scant attention paid to the sanctity of the Sinking Fund, and the offence is emphasized by the fact that the Sinking Fund has been invaded at many points.
The curtailment of the Fund by £14,000,000 is, of course, merely carrying out the programme announced last year, but in view of the fact that out of the extra £14,000,000 set aside a year ago only about £8,000,000 became available owing to the heavy interest charge on the Debt, the City had hoped that the Sinking Fund would have been further fortified for the current year. Not only, however, is the nominal total available £14,000,000 less than last year, but from the estimates made by Mr. Churchill of the interest charge on the Debt for the year, it looks as though even the amount of £50,400,000 might be further encroached upon. This blemish on the Budget beconies the more serious by reason of the fact that the Chancellor has practically abolished the time-honoured practice of earmarking realized surpluses for debt redemption. For two succes- sive years we have now had these surpluses used for a Suspensory Fund—which is only a name for other forms of expenditure—and we are told that any realized surphis for the current year is to be allotted in a similar fashion.
Previous page
