THE RICHEST CITY

Evening Star, Issue 19902, 26 June 1928, Page 5

THE RICHEST CITY

A story with which we have long flattered our Cockney vanity relates that Marshal Blucher, having seen London, was moved to exclaim, “What a city to sack!” But, according to tho last estimates of rateable value, the City of London is not the richest in Groat Britain (says the ‘ Daily Telegraph 1 )- It is not even tho richest part of the great area which has been amalgamated into London County. According to the rate books, Glasgow comes first. St. Mungo’s burgh is now assessed at about £ll,500.000. The City of London, in spite of all the wealth it wields, is content to bo housed in buildings rated at some £8,000,000. This is well ahead of Liverpool and Manchester, which comes next with round about £7,000,000 each. But the second place in the kingdom is taken by 'Westminster. Her ratable value is now nearly £9,500.000. These comparisons are between cities of different kinds. Glasgow had at (Tie last census a population of more than 1.000. the City of London less than 14,000, Westminster lass than 142.000. Both Westminister and London have been, as regards number of residents, growing smaller. Since 1901 the population of "Westminster lias declined by 40,000. Yet in the last half-dozen years the ratable value has increased enormously. In 1922 it was about £1,500,000 less than it is to-day. It has grown by £500.000 in a year or two. The reason is that large estates in the -West End have recently been, developed and rebuilt. Tho efficiency, the earning power, of the new structures is enormously greater than the old. The change is doubtless for the public good, as well as to private advantage. It is generally advantageous that the utmost nossiblo use should be made of the areas of London. But these great increases in tho rateable value of districts of comparatively small •population have certain dangers. The rich borough is abused by the apostles of Poplarism, in the spirit of Blucher, is a city to sack. Its ‘ratepayer is "•ailed on to contribute more and more f o expenditure over which he has little ir no control.