22 FEBRUARY 1913, Page 14

[To no EDITOR OD TRH "Eirscr.cros.1 SIR,—Will you allow me

a brief space in which to correct what I take to be a misapprehension of the position taken up by Municipal Reformers in one important particular by the writer of the article in your issue of last Saturday ? As Chair- man of the Parliamentary and ex-Chairman of the Local Government Committee of the London County Council during a large part of the Municipal Reform regime, I may perhaps have some justification for doing so. The writer of the article thinks, in founding its claim to support upon the statement that the municipal tramway system which it found in existence when it became possessed of a majority in the County Council has been worked with advantage to the public, and that the provisions of the Act requiring it to feed necessitous children have been complied with, as well as upon its having kept the General Rate stationary for six years, it lays itself open to the charge of attempting to ride two horses at once. The Muni- cipal Reformers, whatever their views as to municipal trading, have been bound to do their best for the tramway system in which twelve millions of the ratepayers' money have been invested, and to administer the Feeding of Necessitous Children Act, the work of the Legislature, which they did for some years out of voluntarily raised funds before cir- cumstances compelled the cost to be placed upon the rates. That they have been able to do this and at the same time to work the great municipal services, such as the fire brigade, parks, health department, and main drainage, efficiently without raising the general rate at all or the education rate more than is accounted for by the additional duties placed upon its shoulders by Parliament and left behind by the acts of its predecessors, constitutes the claim of the Municipal Reform Party upon London's gratitude. It is an astounding performance, considering the fact that for the previous six years of Progressive rule all rates con- trolled by the London County Council were going up by leaps and bounds.

And as to the centralization of London government, the proposal made in the Spectator's article bears no resem; blance to what is desired by the Progressives, who would concentrate all administration for more than six millions of people in one body, to the destruction of all the local patriotism in the twenty-eight districts of the gigantic London area, which has developed considerably in the fifteen years since the setting up of the Borough Councils. To concentrate all municipal work at one centre would destroy at a blow the regime of joint government by elected repre- sentatives and officials, and, owing to the enormous extent and detailed character of the work involved, would throw everything, uncontrolled, into the hands of the latter. That is the danger attending all centralization schemes.=I am, Sir,