Sir William Harcourt's reply, addressed to " My dear Fuller,"
published in yesterday's Times, is a very uncandid affair. While carefully disclaiming (though without men- tioning) Mr. Fuller's direct imputations of Mr. Goschen's intention to mislead the public, he does all in his power to cover with his shield the man who made them, and to make it appear that Mr. Goschen throws as much financial dust in the eyes of the public as he can manage to collect. His letter suggests to his readers, though it does not and could not assert, that Mr. Goschen has introduced the system of ex- cluding expenditure provided for under Acts empowering him to borrow for certain purposes of Imperial defence, from the ordinary accounts of the year, whereas he must know per- fectly well that Mr. Gladstone has repeatedly done the same,. in relation, for instance, to the expenditure on fortifications, and the expenditure on the repair and rebuilding of barracks. The Acts authorising such loans generally contain provisions for liquidating them within a given term of years ; and Sir William Harcourt might almost as well reckon the sums advanced for local improvements to local bodies as a burden on the ordinary revenue of the year, as the sums spent under Imperial or Naval Defence Acts. Mr. Goschen will not find it difficult to reply to Sir W. Harcourt's defence of Mr. Fuller, though it is no defence of him except in seeming.
Previous page
