View report page

41
sumably fixed with some regard to the total outgoings in
respect of the whole house. An increase in the rates of even
3d. or 4d. in the pound in one parish alone might not lead to
a rise in the rent of weekly properties, because a lower rent
would still prevail in adjoining districts, and competition
would operate. But tho case is altogether different if such
an increase in the rates extends over the whole Metropolis.
Landlords are not likely to assent to a diminution of income,
even if the tendency of all taxation were not to fall upon the
ultimate consumer, in this instance the occupier of one room
or more. Assuming tho additional rent to be but 3d. a week,
and a smaller increase can scarcely be anticipated, the tenant
would have to be a consumer of coal to the extent of 12 tons
a year to balance this extra rent. Such a consumption by
the occupier of one or two rooms is, of course, altogether out
of tho question, Again, the occupier of premises rented at
£80 a year would be called upon to pay additional rates
amounting to upwards of £1 a year, which represents the
duty on about 18 tons of coals. But in how many cases
does the occupier of premises worth £80 a year consume anything
approaching such a quantity of coal per annum?
These two instances are sufficient to show that neither the
working nor ordinary trading classes—which together form
the bulk of the population of London—have any interest in
tho remission of the dues.
The Gas and Water Companies would probably gain by the
change, on account of the amount they contribute in the form
of coal dues being more than they would have to pay if the
rates were increased to replace the dues. The consumer of
gas might derive some advantage, although the Chairman of
the Gas Light and Coke Company recently declared that the
amount of the dues is not large enough, in itself, to affect the
price of gas; but it must be remembered that iu the year