pro THE EDITOR 01 TER "SPEOTATORP]
Sru,—In your article, "The Parochial Elections," in the 'Spectator of December 8th, you say, "The principle which underlies the Local Government Act, is that the inhabitants of a parish may, and ought to, provide for common needs by
a common outlay provided that the majority are willing
to bear their share of it, the minority can only eubmit." Should you not have made it clear that, whatever may be the principle, the result of the Act will be the very reverse of this P Whatever may be the " willingness " of the .
maprity of the Parochial electors to bear their share, I doubt whether you can give your readers the name of a single rural parish where they can be called upon to do so. It seems pretty certain that some 10 or 20 per cent. only of the 'parochial electors will be saddled not merely with the chief part, but with the whole of the expense. You say, too, that the owner of cottage property pays the rates, and "makes in u rough sort of way a proportionate addition to the rents he charges." I cannot refrain from asking whether any of your readers are acquainted with a single instance of cottage rents rising or falling according to the rise or fall of the rates. I know many parishes in the West of E ngland, but none where such a practice prevails, or indeed where—for well-known reasons—such a practice would be practicable. The pity of it is that this Government should have found it impossible (for reasons which have no concern with this letter) to round off their predecessors' scheme of local government without entrusting enormous powers (by no means confined to " sixpence " in the pound) of raising and spending money to vast majorities of so-called ratepayers who will not themselves contribute a farthing; and I hope
you will allow a constant reader of the Spectator to say so in
Previous page
