THE LARD QUESTION AND THE RATING PROBLEM.
[TO THZ EDITOR OF TER "SPECTATOR.")
SIR,—Your article of July 6th, able as it is, does not fully expose the injustice or the stupidity of the present system of rating the land. Suppose, for instance, your typical yeoman, farming his own land, has fifty acres too poor to repay the cost of cultivation. It might be to his advantage, it certainly would be to that of his labourers, if he afforested that at the rate of ten acres a year; but he thinks twice before spending his capital on labour in that way, simply because the moment he does so he is at once charged, not half rates as be is on his agricultural land, but full rates, exactly as he is on his house and buildings, and this notwithstanding the fact that he cannot possibly derive a penny of income from his outlay in less than twenty years! Afforestation would undoubtedly tend to keep the people on the land by giving them employment in the winter months; but men-of moderate means can hardly be expected to plant land to timber unless some encouragement is given to them, as is, I believe, the case in France, by easing the load of burthens such land now has to bear. Coppice wood has depreciated in value during the last ten or fifteen years more than any other class of land.— R. J. SNKEY.
Hastingleigh, Ashford, Kent.
Previous page
