Page:Land Values, Vol. 09 - 1904.pdf/8



Tenth Year—No. 116.

Lord Rosebery, as Treasurer of the Royal Scottish Corporation, London, has issued an appeal to the Governors and their friends (16/11/03) for an additional £1000 per annum to meet the existing claims of the charity as well as the needs of new applicants. In an explanatory note it is stated that: "the war in South Africa and the growing cost of humble lodging accommodation in London (italics ours) has rendered necessary during the past four years a revision of the pensions and allowances granted to the more aged and infirm among the recipients, at an additional cost of £1000 per annum."

The growing cost of humble lodging accommodation in London and elsewhere justifies us in putting in a small appeal to the "' Governors and friends" of our movement for extra funds to endeavour to convert the people of Britain to the wisdom of a small tax on land values (to quote the words of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, 1885) '"'as a means of compelling the owners to part with these sites at their market value to those desirous of building, and as a new source of taxation that would lighten the rates on the present occupiers."

What a world of trouble and anxiety on behalf of the poor a small instalment of bare justice would save some people.

"A question that rather had him." Mr. Parker Smith, M.P. for Partick (Lanarkshire) at an address to his constituents 30/11/03.

Question.—Mr. Smith had said that the question of royalties was a matter of triviality, amounting only to 5 per cent. The order for steel rails at Barrow, to which Mr. Smith had referred, only went to Belgium because they were 5 per cent. cheaper than in this country. Where did the triviality come in? (Cheers.)

Answer.—That question rather has me. (Laughter.) The real danger was that if the steel-workers were to be put in competition with foreign 'steel without assistance, the item of cost of which the greatest saving could be made was wages.

Why not the Mining Royalties?

"The question of taxing land values (reports the Daily News, 24/11/03) is coming before all the Borough Councils again within the next few weeks. All the old Progressive Boroughs have already registered their opinion on the matter, some of them more than once. On the new Progressive Councils this promises to be one of the first big questions to be discussed. It is down for discussion at Lewisham to-morrow, the motion demanding that Parliament be petitioned to bring in a bill for the rating of ground values. Where the question is not to be brought forward by special resolution it will come before the Borough Councils by means of a letter which is being sent out by Hackney, urging all the Councils to join in an appeal to Parliament to rate ground rents and ground values."

An English correspondent writes: "It is a real pleasure to have J. H. Whitley, M.P. (Halifax), state the alternative policy boldly and clearly in a manner which leaves nothing to be desired. I wish all other radical members were doing the same thing."

Mr. Whitley is certainly doing thorough good work at this time. He understands what the taxation of land values means, and believes in its claims as-the radical cure for our inherently vicious systems of land tenure and _ taxation. There are many other M.P.'s and candidates who publicly declare the same faith, but who do nothing at this time to urge the question to the electors as the alternative to protection. Many of these M.P.'s and candidates cannot do so, we frankly admit, because they do not see or understand the question as Mr. Whitley does. But there are others, quite a large group, who do understand the question sufficiently well to advocate it with acceptance. They refuse to do this notwithstanding the splendid lead given by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in his recent public speeches,

In a leading article dealing with the election, the Daily News (16/12/03) says:—"Behind protection lies the far greater question of the land, that need will become apparent as the light of day. The Liberal Party must do its best not only to oppose the bad policy, but to promote the good, and to give the country the assurance of its power and its will to end the long and tragic divorce of the people from the land."

The Town Council of Eccles have adopted a motion approving the taxation of land values. Mr. Nuttall, referring to the English Bill, said that if carried into law it would have the effect of bringing into use vacant plots of land in large centres of population that were now being held up for speculative purposes.

A tit-bit for Mr. Chamberlain. A financial paper advocates the purchase of certain freehold agricultural land, by stating that, "in view of the new fiscal laws and the consequent increase in the value of agricultural land, we consider a purchase is, at the prices at present ruling, well advised." Just so—money into the pockets of the landed proprietors!—Daily News, 12/12/03.

Mr. Fred. Skirrow opened a discussion at the Bingley Liberal Club Debating Society (8/12/03) on the subject of " Direct v Indirect Taxation." He argued for the removal of taxes that now fall upon labour and capital, substituting for them a tax on land values. A discussion followed, and at the close a vote of thanks was heartily accorded to the opener of the debate on the motion of Mr. B. Garnett, seconded by Mr. Watson. Mr. Skirrow, as representing the English League for the Taxation of Land Values in Yorkshire, will be only too pleased to enrol members of the League, to send literature on the subject and attend similar meetings; his address is 59 Fell Lane, Keighley.

The two London Bye-Elections, Dulwich audand [sic] Lewisham, have gone protectionist by majorities of 1437 and 2012 respectively. At Dulwich 10,201 voted out of an electorate of 13,515. Compared with the election of 1895, which resulted in a Conservative majority of 3082, the Liberal vote has more than doubled, while the protectionist vote has increased