r SMALL INVESTORS XIST “GROUND RENTS. The persons most injured by the proposal to tax existing ground rents would not be the great ground landlords, but the vast class of small investors in ground rents, generally a most deserving class. The aggregate property of these persons probably far exceeds the aggregate property of the great owners. Mr. George Beken, a surveyor and land agent who has had a very large experience in selling ground rents, when giving evidence before the House of Commons Committee on Town Holdings in April, 1891, stated that there are hundreds of thousands of the indus- trial and middle classes who have small savings invested in ground rents through the instrumentality of benefit and insurance societies, besides innumerable private investors and trustees who purchase ground rents as a safe investment and can ill afford to be victimised by extra taxation. Mr. Beken quoted the following cases taken from the business transactions of his firm: — u A messenger for many years to a firm in the city. “ Has purchased £16 per annum for £360, and £29 u per annum for £650. He referred to these two “ investments as his * little all.’ ” “ A photographer invested about £500 in ground “ rents, part freehold and part leasehold. Has been “ several years in business. Has three or four children, “ and has saved a few hundreds more, but does not want “ to put these into ground rents, as he is wanting to “ purchase a new house and shop when opportunity offers.” “ A barmaid recently invested £368 in buying “ £15 15^. per annum. Mr. Beken was informed that “ this was all she possessed except £50 or £60.” “ A spinster recently invested a small legacy of £300 u in the purchase of ground rents, amounting to £lo “ per annum.” “ A small grocer. Been about 15 years in business “ in the city. Made four investments in ground rents. u The first was for £244, the others about £500 each, ct giving a total income of about £80 per annum. “ Speaking to Mr. Beken on the question he ended by 11 saying that he had ‘ worked for all he had got. Mr. Beken also quoted . the cases of two Benefit Societies, and of one Insurance Company : The “ Hearts of Oak ” Benefit Society consists of working* men, and has over 120,000 members, with assets over £1,000,000. Of this £200,000 is in- vested in ground rents. Another society, a small temperance body, had, in 1889, 4,700 members, with assets £33,000.. Of this £19,800, or more than half their capital, was invested in ground rents. The “ Prudential ” Insurance Company, according to their balance sheet of 31st December, 1890, have 220(000 policies in force in the ordinary branch, with a capital liability of £4,400,000 also 9,0.00,000 policies in force in the industrial branch, with a capital liability of £i ,900,000. They have assets of £12,500,000, with <£2,040,100 in freehold ground rents and Scotch feu duties, or nearly 16 per cent, of their capital. A large proportion of the policy holders in this society are working men. Such investors are surely entitled to the favourable consideration of Parliament. As a body they are from one cause or other unable or unwilling to speculate m the hope of making high interest, and have taken a low rate of interest on the faith of getting absolute security and a fixed income. Why should they be damaged in order to relieve lessees who make large profits, and have agreed to bear all taxes ? Wished by The Property Protection Society, 45, Parliament Street, S.W. Printed bv Metchim & Son. 20, Parliament Street, S.W., and 32, Clement s Lane, E.C.