LONDON'S BUDGET.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 13428, 21 May 1909, Page 6

LONDON'S BUDGET.

The annual estimates of fho London County Council indicate in a striking manner the onerous duties that devolve upon the chairman of the Finance Conimitt«> of that body,. and incidentally carry a suggestion of tie vast population the Council governs. His Budget deals with revenue and expenditure that together exceed by millions the revenue and expenditure of this Dominion. The estimated income of the- Council for t : ho current year is over ten and a half millions, a quarter of a million more than last year; the expenditure is calculated at over ten and throe-quarter millions, which also shows a-rise of more than a quarter of a million. It is interesting to note that more than half the total revenue -raised by the Council is ispent on education, tho amount being practically five and a half millions, whereas for ordinary administration purposes only five millions are raised. The rate now stands at 3s Ojd, being mnde up >of a general rato of Is 56 and an education ' rate of Is 7sd. The three-farthings is this year's addition to the rates, and is largely necessitated by an increase of no less than £86,000 in the votes for salaries of teachors in elementary schools. Apart from this the cost of education increases automatically with the growth of population. But the present Finance Committee., are exercising careful economy, and although they cannot help the growth in the cost of education they are keeping a very firm hand on other branches of expenditure, and they do not expect to increase the genoral rate of Is sd. Unfortunately, the members of the present Council are still suffering for the extravagance of their predecessors. The river service of steamers, which was such a dismal failure, still costs the Council £33,000 a year. The defunct Works Committee, a channel through which poured much of the good red gold of the London ratepayers, left a legacy of loss which has apparently only just been concluded. And the ambitious street improvement schemes in the Strand and Westminster, to which to-day's cable

message refers, arc a serious drain on the finances. In. the case of the Holborn to Strand improvement, as Mr Hayes Fisher, chairman of the Finance Committee, pointed out in his Budget, the people of London were led to oxpect, with an estimated recoupment of £4,361,920, that the net cost would be only £774,200. "But if they took into " account the compound interest which " had to be paid on the initial expenditure, £2,000,000 would hay* to be "added to that. At'present the in"come which the Council received "from those improvements was only " £42,000, or about 1 per cent. "on the capital expenditure." The £200,000 a year paid in interest on the land tak&n over and not yet leased, represents a penny of the rate. It is little wonder,. therefore, that the Council want to get rid of such expensive property. The tramways iiave, under the reformed administration, been made to show a balance on the right side, but there is still a deficit in connection with the • workmen's dwellings schemes. Byt the party of municipal reform who won such a victory at the polls at the Council elections have done excellent work in reducing the debt and diminishing wasteful expenditure, and their worst difficulties should gradually disappear as the effects of fcfooir sane administration make ihemftves felt.