MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN 103 



willing to agree to it, as he was desirous that all classes of property 

 should contribute fairly to local as well as to Imperial taxation. 

 (Hear, hear.) He had publicly stated on many occasions his 

 opinion that personal property did not contribute fairly. . . . 

 He could speak from a large experience of the effect of local 

 taxation in towns and urban districts, and he was bound to say 

 that the grievance was much greater to the shopkeeping popula- 

 tion than it was in the case of the farmers and the landowners. 

 A shopkeeper in a town was charged for all local improvements 

 in proportion to the premises which he occupied. So was the 

 manufacturer or a banker, but it might happen that a banker 

 was making an enormous profit out of premises W 7 hich had a 

 comparatively low rating. He might be rated at 1000, for 

 instance, and might make an annual profit of 20,000 ; but 

 1000 would not be a heavy rating for a large shop, the profits 

 from which could hardly be expected to exceed 3000 or 4000 

 a year. Therefore the shopkeeper would pay five times as much 

 as the banker, and in the same way he might establish another 

 series of illustrations equally exhibiting anomalies and injustice. 

 He knew of a man who died leaving a fortune of about 1,100,000, 

 and who had lived in a house the value of which did not exceed 

 30 a year. Could there be a greater anomaly than that ? " 



Mr. A. J. Balfour, speaking as the previous holder of the 

 same office in Lord Salisbury's administration, said : 



". . . The lion, member for Bermondsey seemed to be 

 animated by the view that there were certain wealthy persons 

 who escaped their fair share of contribution to local burdens. 

 He agreed with the hon. member that there were many persons 

 who now escaped their fair contribution to the rates of the district 

 in which they lived, and from the rates of which they derived all 

 that made life tolerable, and it was earnestly to be trusted that 

 that evil would be remedied. If it was remedied it would be by 

 the adoption, not of the resolution of the hon. gentleman, but 

 by the amendment put by his hon. friend the member for Somerset- 

 shire. Over and over again had Government after Government 

 and Parliament after Parliament assented to the justice of the 

 principle which his hon. friend had laid down. That principle 

 was in accordance with precedent and with justice. It was not 

 put forward and ought not to be accepted by the House as a 

 boon to the large landowners of the country. It was a boon to 

 the small landowners, to the occupiers, to the farmers, and above 

 all to that vast mass of occupiers in the tow r ns who now struggled 

 against unnumbered difficulties, and who had to pay those rates, 

 of which an undue share fell upon them." 



In view of Mr. Childers's Budget of the previous year pro- 

 posing to increase Imperial taxes on real property, Sir R. 

 Paget, on behalf of the Committee, obtained a Return from 



