■1. 
 
 
 0 - 
 
 
 
 % 
 
o 0 ,0 O O O O O O O O O O O v«^ 
 
 6 ~ ^ 
 ^ j^ocar (taxation. 
 
 6 ^ 
 
 I SPECIAL REPORT 
 
 '<? LOCAL TAXATION COMMITTEE 
 
 0 
 
 4 
 
 The Right Hon, H, H, Fowler’s 
 
 REPORT ON LOCAL TAXATION 
 
 JUWTE, 1893. 
 
 PRICE TWOPENCE. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE LOCAL TAXATION COMAIITTEE 
 Norfoi.k Hox;se, Norfolk S-rnEKT, T,okdon, W.C. 
 
 «COTO$OTOSO:vO • O O O ■ O vOtOCO 
 
LOCAL TAXATION COMMITTEE. 
 
 Chairman; Sir RICHARD PAGET, Bart., M.P. 
 
 Executive 
 
 Sir Richard Paget, Bart., M.P. 
 
 The Earl of Winchilsea. 
 
 Baron Dimsdale. 
 
 Sir E. Birkbeck, Bart. 
 
 R. Jasper More, Esq., M.P. 
 
 General 
 
 The Marqness of Exeter. 
 
 Tbo Marqness of Head fort. 
 
 The Earl of h^gmont. 
 
 The Earl of Jersey. 
 
 The Earl Manvers. 
 
 The Earl of Mount Edgcambs. 
 
 The Earl of Pembroke. 
 
 The Earl Percy. 
 
 The Earl of Radnor. 
 
 The Earl Sondes. 
 
 The Earl Stanhope. 
 
 The Earl of Wharncliffe. 
 
 The Earl of Winchilsea. 
 
 The Earl of Yarborough. 
 
 The Viscount Holmesdale. 
 
 The Lord Addington. 
 
 The Lord Cottesloe. 
 
 The Lord Do Ramsey. 
 
 The Lord Harri®. 
 
 The Lord Henniker. 
 
 The Lord Hillingdon. 
 
 The Lord Llangattock. 
 
 The Ijord Rendlesham. 
 
 The Lord Walsingham. 
 
 The Lord Harry Thynno. 
 
 The Lord Francis Hervey, M.P. 
 
 The Rt. Hn. Sir M. Bi ach, Bt , M. P. 
 The Rt. Hon. H. Chaplin, M.P. 
 
 The Rt. Hon. Sir M. Lope«. Birt. 
 The Hon. W. Lowther, M.P. 
 
 Sir J. E. Dorington, Bart., M.P. 
 
 Sir E. Lechmere, Bart., M.P. 
 
 Sir J. D. Astley, Bart. 
 
 Sir E. Birkbeck, Bart. 
 
 Sir Lydston Newman, Bart. 
 
 Sir Richard Paget, Bart., M.P. 
 
 Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Bart. 
 
 Sir Mark J. Stewart, Bart., M.P. 
 Sir T. Thornhill, Bart. 
 
 Col. Sir H. Wilmot, Bart. 
 
 Col. E. T. D. Cotton-Jodrell, M.P. 
 Baron Dimsdale. 
 
 A. Akers-Douglas, Esq., M.P. 
 
 G. H. Finch, E«q., M.P. 
 
 T. F. Halsey, Esq., M.P. 
 
 Committee. 
 
 Albert Pell, Esq. 
 
 James Rankin, Esq., M.P. 
 Clare Sewell Read, Esq. 
 James Round, Esq., M.P. 
 
 Committee, 
 
 W. H. Long, Esq., M.P. 
 
 R. Jasper More, Esq., M.P. 
 James Rankin, Esq., M.P. 
 James Ronnd, Esq., M.P. 
 
 B. St. John Ackers, Esq. 
 
 A. P. Arkwright, Esq. 
 Edmund Backhouse, Esq. 
 
 C. Bramley, Esq. 
 
 W. H. H. Broadley, Esq. 
 
 J. R. Bulwer, Esq., Q.C. 
 
 W. H. Pole Carew, Esq. 
 Robert Chichester, Esq. 
 
 J. Corbett, Esq. 
 
 Colonel Coryton. 
 
 Major P. G. Craigie. 
 
 W. E. Dowdeswell, Esq. 
 
 C. I. Elton, Esq. 
 
 J. S. Gardiner, Esq. 
 
 C. F. Gardner, Em. 
 
 Jas. H. Hodsoli, Esq. 
 
 F. Dixon Johnson, Esq. 
 
 F. Monckton, Esq. 
 
 Colonel W. T. Monks. 
 Thomas Neville, Esq. 
 
 R Norton, Esq. 
 
 Albert Pell, Esq. 
 
 E. Leigh Pemberton, Esq. 
 W. Priday, Esq. 
 
 H. P. Powell, hlsq. 
 
 Clare Sewell Read, Esq 
 J. Russon, Esq. 
 
 J. E. Severne, Esq. 
 
 F. C. Smith, Esq. 
 
 W. Spencer Stanhope, Esq. 
 C. Starkie, Esq. 
 
 J. C. Moore-Stevens, Esq. 
 
 H. M. Stockdale, Esq. 
 
 W. Stratton, Esq. 
 Christopher Sykes, Esq. 
 Jabez Turner, Esq. 
 
 Thos. Eades Walker, Esq. 
 
 J. H. B. Warner, I^q. 
 Robert Woodward, Esq. 
 
 The Rev. F. Wyndham. 
 
 Secretary. Bankers. 
 
 R. HENRY REW. Messrs. GLYN, MILLS, CURRIE and CO 
 
 OfRces. 
 
 NORFOLK HOUSE, NORFOLK STREET. STRAND W.C. 
 
jlocar ^g.^ation. 
 
 SPECIAL REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 LOCAL TAXATION COMMITTEE 
 
 ■ The Right Hon, H, H, Fowler’s 
 
 REPORT ON LOCAL TAXATION. 
 
 JXJNTES, 1893. 
 
 PRICE TWOPENCE. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE LOCAL TAXATION COMMITTEE, 
 
 NoRFor.K House, Norfoi-k Street, London, W.C. 
 

 LOCAL TAXATION COMMITTEE. 
 
 -- 
 
 SPECIAL REPORT. 
 
 THE RIGHT HON. H. H. FOWLER S REPORT ON 
 LOCAL TAXATION. 
 
 1. Tiik one niain object of the Local Taxation Connnittee 
 has alway.s been tlui HcTonn of Local Taxation, with a vi( w to 
 n'lieve owners and occupiers of houses and land from wl.al aie 
 in very many cases excessive and unfair contributions to the 
 Local Rates. 
 
 2. Tt has been constantly contended by the Committee that 
 many objects paid for out of Local Ibites are essentially national 
 in their ch.aracter, and that such expenditure should be borne by 
 the gem;ral taxpayer. 
 
 .'b They have furtlu'r contended that the vast and rapidly 
 increasing volume of personal wealth should no longer enjoy 
 immunity from contribution to Local Rate.s, a contention 
 which is now much strengthened by the fact that a very large 
 portion of j'ateable 2 )roperty, viz., Agricultural Land, has 
 filh'n heavily in value, and is consequently le.ss capable than 
 hitherto of bearing burdens of taxation, whether Local or 
 1 mperial. 
 
 L TJie Committee have always realised that if there are large 
 adjustmiMits of taxation requisite as between Real and Per.sonal 
 Rroiierty, there may l;e minor adjustnu nts required as between 
 diberent clas.ses of Real Property; for example, as between 
 Houses and Land ; and they .accordingly regaided with ec nsider- 
 abh' inteie.st the ,aj)pearance of an (dbeiid Report on T.ccal 
 
Taxation which purported to have “especial reference to the 
 Proportion of Local Burdens borne by Urban and Bural Rate¬ 
 payers, and dilFerent Classes of Real Property in England and 
 Wales.” 
 
 5. Mr. Fowler’s Report, which was presented on April 10th, 
 1893, consists of 50 pp. folio, is compiled with great skill, and 
 pre.sents, in the opinion of the Committee, features of such 
 special importance, as to make it necessary that its contents 
 should be thoroughly examined amd considered in detail, so 
 far as is possible within the limits of a Report of nioderate 
 length. 
 
 6. The Report is largely founded on !Mr. Coschen’s well- 
 known and much-criticised Report of 1871 ; though a glance 
 at their respective titles will show that Mr. Fowler’s aims are 
 not only different in character, but far more limited in scope, 
 and cover only a small portion of the ground included by 
 Mr. Goschen. 
 
 7. It is certainly remarkable that Mr. Fowler’s Report, 
 which closely follows Mr. Go.schen’s, and freely quotes facts, 
 figures, and arguments therefrom, should make no allusion to 
 the important circumstance that it is twenty-two years since 
 that Report was written, and that Mi-. Goschen has recently and 
 repeatedly given the best possible evidence of his present views, by 
 handing over to Local Authorities—in lieu of Government SuVjven- 
 tions—Local Licences, a shareof Probate Duty, and a partof the pro¬ 
 ceeds of Excise, producing together a far larger amount than the 
 Subventions, on the ground that justice demanded that additional 
 relief should be given to overburdened ratepayers. 
 
 8. Another remarkable feature in this Report is the constant 
 repetition of the phrase Hereditary Burdens” subject to which, 
 Mr. Fowler says, “ land has been bought, sold, and inherited 
 during a long series of years.” It is difficult to see why this 
 doctrine applies to land only, and why it should not equally 
 apply to houses, or, indeed, any other kind of property. 
 
 9. What constitutes hereditary burdens according to this Re¬ 
 port ? They would seem to be— 
 
 Firstly .—“ Old Rates” which, by an arbitrary cla.ssification, 
 are held to include Rates which have been levied for seventy 
 
years and upwards—such as Poor, County, Cliurcli, and Highway 
 Kates. These, it seems, are “Plereditary KunJens.” 
 
 Secondly.—Rates of very long standing’' sucli as Lighting, 
 Watching, Sewers, and Rates under Local Acts. These appear 
 liable to be included as Hereditary Burdens. 
 
 But it is somewhat startling to find that^— 
 
 Thirdly .—Rates which are formally set out in this Report 
 as “ Modern, Rates," or “ New Rates," are also liable to figure, 
 at pleasure, as Old Rates; for ]\lr. Fowler .says at page xvii., 
 “ So many years have elapsed since the County Police Rate 
 was first levied, that it has practically, for many years past, 
 cea.sed to be a New Rate in the ordinary acceptation of the 
 term.” 
 
 10. According to this contention, “many years” have made 
 the County Police Rate an “ Hereditazy Buz’den.” 
 
 How many yeai'S, it nzay be asked, are i-ecjuired to make a 
 School Boai-d Rate or Sanitary Rate, or any other Modern Rate, 
 an Hereditazy Burdezi? 
 
 If length of time azid annual payment of Local Rates—if 
 buying, sellizig, azzd izihez’itizig, subject to such payment—con¬ 
 stitute such a perznanezicy of chaz’ge, as to set up an Hez’editary 
 Burden, why does not a siznilar doetz'ine apply to Consols, 
 Mortgages, Secuz-ities, all of which have been dealt with “for 
 many years” subject to Pz’obate Duty, Legacy Duty, and Income 
 Tax 1 
 
 11. The extraordinary tlieoiy that if rates or taxes are only 
 levied long enough they cease to be taxes, was thoroughly refuted 
 by the late Mr. Dudley Baxtez-, who says :— 
 
 “ Taxes are izi their zzature distizict azid different from pro 
 perty. The State says to the taxpayer, ‘ So lozzg as the Legis 
 latuz-e coiztiziues the obligation, you shiill pay towards the public 
 service a cez’taizi portiozi of your pz-operty and izicome.’ The 
 State reserves the power to grant, and the taxpayer the right 
 to a.sk, relief frozn the tax whenever it can be proved that the 
 public service or justice to the Taxpayez’ no loziger requiz-e it. 
 A tax is essezitially revocable and z-elievable.” 
 
 12. The Committee have thought it z’ight to deal at some length 
 with this mattez’, as it is evident that this constant haz-pizig on 
 the one strizig—Hereditazy Buz-dens—exhibits a bitis, and znust 
 
have an ()l)ject. Tf it means anytliing, it would seem to mean 
 that Hereditary Burdens are no burdens at all, and are 
 not to be considered as in the natui-e of taxes, and thus a 
 foundation is laid, or attempted to be laid, so that in any 
 future work of readjustment of Taxation—or equalisation of 
 Death Duties—the builder of the new scheme may quote the 
 authority of this official document, and may refuse to owners of 
 Real Property any right of claim to set off their grievous burdens 
 of Rates against the fact, that in the matter of Death Duties 
 they escape somewhat lightly in comparison with Personal 
 Property. 
 
 13. The general impre.ssion conveyed by Mr. Fowler’s Report is, 
 that it is not a mere record of facts and statistics, but is rather in 
 the nature of a laboured argument, .set foi’th with much ability 
 for the purpose of establishing a foregone conclusion. From 
 beginning to end the Report is marked by a tenderness 
 towards the urban ratepayer. Every point which can be made 
 to tell against the rural ratepayer is brought out into the highest 
 light and repeated again and again, while the urban ratepayer 
 is held up to pity as the victim—not of his own volun¬ 
 tary .expenditure on ambitious street improvements, costly town 
 halls, parks and pleasure grounds, museums, librarie.s, and insti¬ 
 tutes—but of circumstances over which he has little or no 
 control. 
 
 14. In many re.spects the method of the Report will be found 
 to be misleading. Comparisons are instituted between things 
 not in themselves comparable. Omissions occur of matters of 
 importance which certainly de.served to be recorded, whilst from 
 time to time ai'guments and phrases ai-e used betraying an animus 
 which, however unintentional, detracts materially from the value 
 of the Repoi-t as a sober record of fact. 
 
 15. The Report professes to deal specially with the “ proportion 
 of Local Burdens borne by Urban and Rural Ratepayers,” and 
 contains many comparisons of their varying amounts. Not one 
 word, however, is said of the fundamental difference in the pro¬ 
 portional incidence of Rates on a Farm, and Rates on a Shop or 
 Factory. Casual observers may consider that a Rate is a Rate, and 
 that, being levied on carefully ascertained Rateiible Value, it 
 
must, in the nature of things, ])e equal and fair to all property 
 anrl persons assessed. 
 
 A typical ciise will I’oadily dispose of this fallacy :— 
 
 A. : a Yeoman Farmer owns and occupies Land, FFouscs, 
 and Premises, llateable value £300 per annum, paying 
 
 tlie average Ilural Rate of 2s. 3d., Iiis Itates amount to £33 15 0 
 
 B. : a Tr.vdesman, liaving a capital equal to tlut 
 possessed by A., owns and occupies Shop-House and 
 Premises, Rateable value £30 per annum, paying the 
 
 average Urban Rate of 4s., his Rates amount to ... £6 0 0 
 
 So, notwithstanding that A.’s rate is only 2s. 3d. in the pound as 
 against B.’s 4s., A. pays more than five times as much as B. 
 
 No just comparison is pos.sibl 0 in such a case. A. is rated 
 on the whole of his income. B. only on the Annual Value of the 
 building in which he carries on his trade. 
 
 16. Mr. Fowler sets out (p. x.) the following respective Rateable 
 Values and Debts of Urban, Partly Urban, and Rural Authorities, 
 and states, “ these figures indicate the extent to which local debt 
 presses on Urban as compared with Rural Districts.” (The 
 amount of Rates has been added to the Table.) 
 
 Districts. 
 
 Rateable liates 
 
 Value. (1891). 
 
 £ £ 
 
 Debt. 
 
 £ 
 
 Purely Urban ... 98,837,721 ... 17,513,630 ... 152,956,943 
 
 Partly Urban and 
 
 partly Rural ... 120,519,112 ... 8,196,339 ... 13,393,410 
 Purely Rural ... 53,278,287 ... 2,108,673 ... 3,906,859 
 
 £27,818,642 £170,257,212 
 
 But here, again, no fair comparison is possible. Rural 
 Rateable Value is made up mainly of agricultural land, in 
 respect of which little local debt exists, except comparatively 
 small sums, either compulsorily incurred for School Boards, &c., 
 or resulting from necessary outlay on Sewers and Water Supply. 
 
 17. But how stands the case in Urban Districts ? The Urban 
 Authority may have some small debt, .similar to the Rural 
 Authority, compulsorily incurred ; but in addition to the neces¬ 
 sary expenditure on Sewers and Water, they have bori'owed 
 freely for Street Improvements, for Electric Lighting, for Gas 
 laid on to every house. They have also in many cases con¬ 
 structed with borrowed money magnificent Public Buildings, fine 
 
Town Halls and Offices, Public Libraries, Museums, Institutes, 
 Schools of Art; they have Parks and Pleasure Grounds, Fire 
 Brigades and Cemeteries, Baths and Wash-houses, splendid 
 Markets, convenient Tramways and Ferries, handsome Bridges, 
 Streets with the best of Woofl Pavement; Houses waited upon 
 weekly by well-appointed dust carts, and from the very door¬ 
 steps of which snow is now removed at the expense of the rates. 
 Not to mention fine Board Schools, well furnished with pianos 
 and other necessaries. 
 
 18. Is it to be wondered at that the debt grows apace, and that 
 —as these luxuries must be paid for somehow—the Hates exhibit 
 a constant tendency to rise ? And would it not have been more 
 fair that in an Official Report, purporting to deal specially with 
 the “proportion of Local Burdens in Town and Country,” 
 attention should have been directly, specifically, and pointedly 
 called to the great differences which exist between Urban and 
 Rural Local Expenditure ? Ought it not to have been stated 
 that in towns provision is made, at the cost of the rates, for a 
 host of domestic services, all of which are performed in country 
 districts at the individual expense of occupiers ? 
 
 19. Mr. Fowler’s treatment of the Finance of Elementary 
 Schools i.s, to say the least, somewhat peculiar. 
 
 The expenditure on the building of Board Schools and the 
 rates for their maintenance naturally figure in urban accounts; 
 but the Report is silent as to the fact that in the vast majority 
 of rural parishes the schools have been built and are maintained 
 by voluntary subscription, and that if the £700,000 or so of 
 annual voluntai'y subscriptions were to cease for a single year, a 
 School Board Rate would at once be enforced, and up would go the 
 Rural Rates with a bound, to say nothing of the debt which 
 would in many cases have to be incurred for building. In the 
 concluding portions of the Report dealing with Parliamentary 
 Subventions, the recent Fee Grant for Free Education, stated for 
 the year 1892-3 to be £1,940,000, is actually treated as an aid to 
 Local Taxation apparently with the object of swelling the total 
 Subventions, which to judge by the manner of their mention, are 
 not regarded with favour by the writer of the Report. 
 
 20. The question of Church Rate is here dealt with in a some- 
 
wliat similar fashion. True, its abolition is mciitionod as one 
 of the causes of reduced jates ; hut it would have boon more fair 
 to have added that the nece.ssary funds for maintenance of fabric 
 and other outgoings previously paid by means of a Church Rate 
 have now to be provided by voluntary local effort. The burden 
 still remains, and is fre(iuently met by means of a voluntary rate, 
 of which, however, no account is officially taken. 
 
 21. With reference to the abolition of Tui-npikes, no allusion is 
 made to the fact that the direct result has been largely to relieve 
 certain classes of the community who make the greatest use of the 
 roads, such as brewers, hauliers, timbei- merchants, and others ; 
 while instead of compelling tho.se who ufe the roads to pay for 
 them, an {idditional burden is laid on the ratepayer 
 
 22. Turning to the historical portion of the Report, much 
 will be found to invite critici.sm. 
 
 The table of Rural Rates at different periods shows the 
 average amount to have been as follows :— 
 
 1803 . 
 
 1813-15. 
 
 1826-27. 
 
 1868 
 
 1890-91.. 
 
 Fall in 90-91 coinpareil to 1868 
 
 Fall in 90-91 compared to 1803 
 And comparison is made accordingly, irrespective of 
 three important points which combine to make any comparison 
 wholly illusory, but none of which are mentioned in the Report. 
 These points are ;— 
 
 (a) From 1803 to 1834 the Old Poor Law, with all its 
 wastefulness and abuses, so graphically described in the cele¬ 
 brated Report of the Poor Law Commission recently reprinted, 
 was in full force. Some measure of the extravagance of that 
 
 period is found in the following figures ;— 
 
 Total amount of Poor Rate levied in England and 
 
 \Vale.s was in 1833 . £8,606,000 
 
 In 1838 it had fallen to . 5,186,000 
 
 Average Rate in the £ of the Poor Rates in 1827 stood at 2s. 5gd. 
 Reduced in 1841 to . Is. 6;ld. 
 
 (6) From the beginning of the century to 1836 the general 
 practice was to place Assessed Value at not more than half the 
 
real value, .'iiul even after tlie passing of the Parochial Asseswroetj 
 Act 1836, it was some years before the Assessmenta generalij 
 were brought up to the real ^•alue. 
 
 It is e\-ident that the operation of thus raising the Aseeat- 
 ment would naturally diminish the amount in the pound of the 
 Rate to be levied, without in any way altering the actual 
 contribution or relieving the burdens of the ratepayers. 
 
 (c) It must, also, never be forgotten, in comparing 
 present burdens on Agricultural Land with those in the earij 
 part of the century, that, up to 1846, Protective duties were in 
 full force. The value of agricultural produce was thus naturaLr 
 enhanced, and taxation which might have been fair under such 
 circumstances would now be quite unjust and indefensible. 
 
 23. The Committee contend that these three points, when falij 
 and fairly considered, entirely destroy the value of any argnmaki 
 which may be based on the figures quoted, to the effect that the 
 burden of Rural Rates has been materially reduced. 
 
 24. Too much reliance must not be placed on Mr. Fowler's 
 figures, brought up as they are to the year 1890-91, as it b highly 
 probable that the figures for 1892-3 would show very different 
 results, for the following reasons ;— 
 
 {a) The receipts from share of Probate Duty accruing u> 
 Local Authorities were stated by the Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer in his Budget speech to show a 
 falling off of no less than £426,000 for the year 
 1892-93. 
 
 (6) There is every reason to believe that the expenditure 
 on Main Roads will be found in many cases to show 
 very considerable increase, and will thus affect the 
 County Rate. 
 
 (c) It will frequently be found that existing Assessments 
 on Agricultural Land are too high, being based on 
 Paper Rents, which are considerably in excess of 
 Rents actually received. 
 
 Temporary abatements are of frequent occurrence, and in 
 many instances, if land were assessed on the basis of profits 
 derived from its cultivation, the Cross Rateable Value would be 
 materially reduced, and in many cases entirely disappear. 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 It is even possible that these Paper Rents and Values may 
 remain for some time unchanged. Many farmers and landowners 
 hesitate to go before an Assessment Committee and proclaim the 
 absence of profit or fall in the value of their land. 
 
 The occupier has his credit to maintain, whilst a landowner, 
 possibly subject to mortgages, might consider it undesirable to 
 exhibit the mi.sfortune of a falling rent. 
 
 25. Considerable stress is laid in the Report on the fall in the 
 £ of the poor rate, within the period 1868 to 1890-91. According 
 to a table on p. xxx„ this fall ranges in amount from Is. 2-Gd. in 
 Sussex, to 1 'Td. in Staffordshire. It is, as a matter of fact, difficult 
 to draw any sweeping conclusion from this table, though Mr. Fowler 
 hastens to state that “it discloses that the greatest falls have 
 taken place, speaking generally, in the purely agricultural 
 counties.” On the following page of the Report a table is given 
 showing the increase per cent, of the Poor Rate Valuations of 
 1890-91, as compared with those of 1867-8, and it is remarked 
 that “ the extent to which the rateable values of some of the 
 Agricultural Counties has been increased is noteworthy.” It is 
 obvious that the one fact explains the other—the rise in rateable 
 value would naturally tend to reduce pro tanto the rate in the £. 
 But the singular comment is made that these figures indicate “an 
 increase in the rateable value of houses and other properties 
 contributing to the local rates in aid of the lands;" a statement 
 which seems to involve the curious assumption that it is land— 
 and land only—which ought to be i-ated, and that it is an act 
 of special grace when houses and other properties bear any share 
 of Local Rates! 
 
 26. Referring, however, to the table last mentioned, it does 
 not seem to have occurred to the writer of the Report that 
 the poor rate is levied not by Counties but by Unions, and 
 that the extension of a large town may greatly increase the 
 rateable value of a particular Union without affecting in any 
 way the other Unions in a County, or reducing their rates in the 
 £ one fraction. 
 
 27. Take the case of Sussex, which heads the list as the county 
 showing the greatest fall in the poor rate, viz.. Is. 2'6d. in the £ 
 during the periotl of 1868—1890-1. But this is at once accountexl 
 
(11 ) 
 
 for by the incrpasc of G1 -o por cent, in tlic rateable value. On turn 
 iiig to App('n(lix A, TabloVI!., it will be .seen how misleading the.se 
 figures are when u.sed in comparison between rural and urban 
 rates. Tlu^ Keturn by Unions for the County of Sus.sex .shows 
 that in the Union of Jlrighton the decrea.se of rates was :2s. ^-bd. 
 in the c£, while in the Union of West Hampnett in the .same 
 county, then; was not oidy no decreivse, but an actual incrciuse. 
 The mi.sa 2 )plication of figures can surely no further go when the 
 decrease of rates paid by the lodging-house keepers and wealthy 
 residents of Brighton is claimed as relief given to agriculture. 
 
 28. Under the heading “Proportions of Local Taxation borne 
 in 1891 by Land, Houscjs, and other Property,” the Report gives 
 the totsil amount of Rates falling on Land, I louses, and other Pro¬ 
 perty respectively, and concludes a comj^arison by stating at p. xl. 
 with regard to Land that the sum (£1,259,47.3) “is e<|uivalent to 
 a rate of 2s. 0-2d. in the £ on the gross annual value of ‘ Lands ’ 
 according to the Income Tax Valuation for the year.” 
 
 I'Ur some rea.son or another the figures are not worked out 
 in the Report for “ Houses ” and other Propertie.s, but completing 
 the calculations and rectifying this omission, the following results 
 appear:— 
 
 Total Income Tax Kate in 
 
 Hate.s. Valuation. the £. 
 
 £ £ 8 . cl. 
 
 Lands. 4,2G0,000 ... 42,234,000 = 2 0-2 
 
 Houses .17,.500,000 ... 12.3,721,000 = 2 9 
 
 Hallways and other Proiierties 3,998,000 ... 43,598,000 = 1 10 
 
 29. It will be seen, therefore, that on this biisis—an arbitrary 
 one, no doubt, but one which Mr. Fowler himself .selects— 
 Incomes from Houses pay a rate in the pound of only about 
 27 per cent, more than Land, while Incomes from Railways and 
 other properties pay about 10 per cent. less. When it is 
 remembered that the Rateable Value per head of population, 
 as stated in this Report, is £6 lOs. in Rural Bistricts, as com¬ 
 pared with only £4 5s. in the Urban Districts, it will be .seen 
 that these figures are very far indeed from supporting Mr. 
 Fowler’s favourite contention that land is liohtly rated in com¬ 
 parison with other classes of property. This is quite apart from 
 the fact previously alluded to, that in Urban Districts a ver^ 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 large proportion of the expenditure out of the rates is devoted 
 to objects from which the ratepayer obtains direct gain or 
 benefit, while in the rural districts, speaking generally, the 
 ratepayer obtains little personal advantage from the rates. 
 
 30. In dealing with an official document of such length and 
 importance—replete with figures, statistics, and calculations—the 
 Committee are well aware that there are many other points which 
 might have been touched upon, and that their work of cri¬ 
 ticism mu.st not be considered as complete. Admitting the 
 useful information contained in the Report, they have thought 
 it their duty to lose no time in drawing attention to its more 
 prominent features, emphasising the several arguments and serious 
 omissions which make what might otherwise have been a valu¬ 
 able Report very misleading. 
 
 R. II. PAGE1', 
 
 Chairman. 
 
 June Sth, 1893. 
 
 rUlNTEl) BY GEO. REVEIRS, GRAYSTOKE PLACE, FEITER LANE, E.C.