Having thus determined the amount of local taxation now existing,
Mr. Stansfeld went on to propose his first Bill, which is to do away with a great number of exemptions from rateability, and so extend the area of rateable property. All mines (as well as coal mines, which are already rateable,) are to be rated in future, without, however, determining, but leaving it to the local courts to determine, the plan on which they are to be rated. Again, all woods (as well as saleable underwood, which is already rateable.) are to be rated. The exemptions of ragged schools, literary institutions, and other such buildings from rateability, excepting only churches and chapels, are to be done away with, but a number of institutions, not exactly exempted, but of which the rates are minimised under certain public, private, local, and personal Acts, are to be left in possession of their present privileges. Then, as a rule, Government property is to be rated, but the exemptions of certain kinds of Government property which really add to the rateable value of other neighbouring property (like the Lmdon Parks), and which do not add in any way to the local expenditure on poor rates or otherwise (like fortifica- tions, for instance,) are to be retained. On the other hand, dockyards and other such Government manufactories which, by employing a large number of the poor, do impose the necessity for poor rater§ on the neighbourhood, are not to be exempted any longer. As to the Government property that is now to be subject to rates, it is not to be rated by the ordinary local tribunals, but by a special scheme, which Mr. Stansfeld promised to bring forward at the opening of the next Session. Such was the substance of the proposals of the first Bill. Our readers will perceive that it leaves a good deal still unsettled, but we heartily- approve of the rejection of the absurd proposal to rate the Parks and the Fortifications. These are not causes of local burdens, but of an increased value to local property, and why should the nation pay the neighbourhood something additional for the acci- dent of their site ? We confess that the proposals Mr. Stansfeld has wisely rejected seem to us to savour of doctrinaire, that is, irrationally systematic economy.
Previous page
