128 LOCAL TAXATION 



(4) The amount proposed by the Majority as being the 

 sum which should come from the central Government is 

 9,715,000 (or, according to the report of Sir E. Hamilton 

 and Sir G. Murray, 10,025,000, less the amount granted 

 under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896-1901), instead of 

 7,145,000, the sum allowed at present. (This means an 

 additional grant of rather more than 2 millions to local 

 authorities.) (Pages 32, 133.) 



(5) The recommendation that the Inhabited House Duty 

 should be transferred to the Local Account. (Pages 21, 22.) 



(6) The impracticability of the suggestion to impose a 

 " Local Income Tax." (Page 13.) 



(7) The unqualified opposition of nine out of the fifteen 

 Commissioners to the " Taxation of Ground Values." 

 (Page 44.) 



(8) The admission that the nature of agricultural land 

 makes it unfair for it to contribute more than half towards 

 national services, and one -fourth in respect to certain local 

 burdens. 



[NOTE. Sir E. Hamilton and Sir G. Murray agree that 

 agricultural land should be taxed at one -half for 

 national services.] (Page 37.) 



(9) The declared inability of the Commissioners to deter- 

 mine the final incidence of local taxation, and the insertion 

 of a table (page 15) as some evidence of its apparent incid- 

 ence, showing that 82.8 per cent, of the revenue raised by 

 local authorities is derived from rateable property, and 

 only 17.2 per cent, is borne by non -rateable -property 

 owners. (That the signatories of both the Majority and 

 Minority Reports do not consider this equitable, is shown 

 by their recommendation paragraph (4) above that half 

 of 20 millions, which is the sum annually expended by local 

 authorities for national services, should be defrayed by the 

 Imperial taxpayers.) (Pages 10. 11, 15.) 



It is difficult to see why Sir E. Hamilton and Sir G. Murray 

 did not join in the Majority Report, agreeing, as they do, on all 

 the essential points, and differing in the main only as to whether 

 special taxes should be allocated for relief of local taxation, or 

 whether, as they prefer, it should be done by a fixed grant, and 

 also as to whether the distribution of this grant to local authorities 

 should be through the channel of the County Councils, or direct 

 from the Local Government Board to the local authorities. These 

 are not essential articles of difference, but only differences of 

 administration, which do not affect the general principle that a 

 large amount from the Imperial sources should in equity be 

 given in aid of local rates. If the questions of " Taxation of 

 Land and Site Values " be excepted (matters which are outside 

 the scope of this Committee), the same may almost be said of 

 the Special Reports, or Reservations, of Lord Balfour of Burleigh,. 



