A TWO-HUNDRED-MILLION BUDGET.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—In your article entitled "A Two-Hundred-Million Budget" in last week's issue I notice the following statement: "In spite of the virtual abolition of the authority of the House of Lords the cost of its offices has risen from just under £12,000 a year to just over £28,000." This statement is wholly erroneous., The writer has based his figures on wrong hypotheses. In the first place, he has apparently, in his figures for 1904-5, taken the net result of the year 1903-4, whereas in those quoted in comparison he has given the gross estimated figures for the current year, which fact of itself would account for a varia- tion of nearly £4,000. In the next place, he has omitted to notice the great decrease that has taken place in the volume of Private Bill business during the period under review, and the consequent fall in the amount of fees taken (from £26,000 to £16,000), which are treated as appropriations in aid of the vote. If to these figures you add two items of 21,050 for Parliamentary reporting and £900 for increased pay of police, you will arrive at the difference of £16,000 to which the writer calls attention.—I am, Sir, &c., [The figures quoted in our article last week were taken from House of Commons Paper No. 2 of 1913, "Estimates for Civil Services," p. xxx. ; "House of Lords Offices, 1904-5, £11,910; 1913-14, £28,037." We, of course, fully accept Sir Henry Graham's elucidation of these official figures as accurate, and express our regret at having been led into an error. May we add that we are grateful to' him for giving this fresh illustration of the extraordinarily foolish manner in which official figures are published.—.ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
