A lodger franchise of course surrenders the no-rate no-vote "principle,"
which according to Tories is so vital in the case of the poor, so meaningless in the case of the rich. Accordingly a correspondent of the Times writes to suggest that the lodger should be considered a compounder, and be made to pay his share of the rate. That is very ingenious, and perhaps the writer will explain what each lodger's share is. Is he to pay his proportion according to the cubic feet of air in his rooms, or superficial area, or rental, or what ? If the latter, should not a deduction be made for use of furniture and attendance, and how much ?—otherwise he will be overrated. Or suppose five lodgers live in a house, and pay more than its whole rate, is the landlord to be rated at —x, and have a vote for that ? And finally, supposing the lodger not to pay, is the overseer to distrain on the landlord's chairs ?
Previous page
