THE BURDEN OF LOCAL EXPENDITURE.
(To THE EDITOR Or THE "SPECTATOR.") SIR,—In your article on " The Burden of Local Expenditure" (Spectator, February 18th) you draw attention to the real reason why economy in local expenditure has become a nullity. The compound householder, the man who never sees the rate- collector, as Mr. Walter Long pointed out in the debate on Imperial and local taxation, is largely responsible for the neglect into which this question has fallen. The system of compounding has been denounced by statesmen representative of diverse politics, among whom I may mention the late Earl Spencer, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and Lord St. Aldwyn. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation, in their Report issued in 1901, said that it was most desirable that all classes of the community should, as far as possible, be made liable to personal payment of rates, in order that they may appreciate directly the effect of economical or extravagant adminis- tration. The Majority Report of the Poor Law Commissioners made a similar recommendation, and they added that the community would benefit by a direct collection of rates from a more active and intelligent interest in local self-government on the part of the electorate. In spite of these weighty opinions as to the evils of compounding, nothing has been done to alter the system. In fact the Government, in their House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill, proposed to levy the assessments on the owners of dwelling-houses in place of the occupiers. Fortunately the House of Lords disagreed with the proposals in regard to compounding, and the Government withdrew the Bill. The magnitude of the question is shown by the fact that in London out of 700,000 assessments nearly half are in respect of houses where the tenants do not pay rates directly. In West Ham only 14,000 out of 48,000, and in Battersea only 13,000 out of 31,000 assessments are directly rated, while in Poplar, which has recently elected Mr. George
Lansbury, the Socialist 80 per cent. of the electors are compound householders. At Leicester, which is repre- sented by Mr. J. Ramsay Macdonald, M.P., the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour-Socialist Party, the poor rate is not paid directly by two-thirds of the occupiers. There are admitted difficulties in the complete abolition of compounding, though those local authorities who have abandoned the system have materially increased their income. But the difficulty would to a great extent be overcome by the procedure resorted to by some of the borough councils and artisans' dwellings companies of inserting in their rent-books the amount of the rates represented in the rent, so that their tenants can see what any increase in the rent is due to. This plan was the object of a Bill introduced into the House of Commons in 1909 by Mr. J. F. Mason, M.P. At present, owing to the exercise of the franchise being largely divorced from the direct payment of rates, voters give their sanction to extravagant schemes without realising the expense they may entail. They believe, in fact, that the cost is paid by people other than themselves. By bringing home to them their responsibility, greater interest would be infused into the Local Government affairs of their district, and probably more economical administration would result.—I am, Sir, &c., P. S. BRIDGEFORD, -- Literary Secretary.
The Anti-Socialist Union, 58 and 60 Victoria Street S.W.
Previous page
