ETTEI 
 
 V 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■COUPMENT 
 
 ARTHUR A, HAUMANN, B. A.
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT 
 
 RECOUPMENT.
 
 
 
 
 y° 
 
 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT 
 
 RECO 
 
 WITH A NOTE ON BETTERMENT IN AMERICA. 
 
 ARTHUR A. BAUMANN^ B.A., 
 
 BARRISTER-AT-LAW, OF THE INNER TEMPLE, 
 AND FORMERLY MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR PECKHAM. 
 
 PROPERTY PROTECTION SO 
 
 PARLIAMENT STREET 
 
 S.W. 
 
 LONDON: EDWARD STANFORD, 
 26 & 27, COCKSPUR STREET, CHARING CROSS, S.W. 
 
 1894.
 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Since the publication of my book on " Better- 
 tSment" last year, a great deal has happened. 
 >» The inquiry before the hybrid committee of 
 « the House of Commons has furnished some 
 
 so 
 
 3 valuable evidence ; while the debates in the 
 House of Lords and the correspondence in 
 the Times have defined the points of differ- 
 ence, and thus brought the controversialists 
 % to closer quarters. I have therefore entirely 
 to re-written my book, having profited, I hope, 
 by the light of extended knowledge. A dis- 
 cs pute has unfortunately arisen between the two 
 Houses of Parliament as to whether Betterment 
 should be dealt with by private or public bill, 
 and a proposal for a joint conference made by 
 the Upper House has been rejected by the 
 i£ Commons, on the advice of the Government. 
 The dispute is not, as might be supposed, one 
 
 ■C 
 
 390686
 
 VI 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 of form or procedure. The question is, whether 
 a change in the law of local taxation should 
 not be preceded by some enunciation by the 
 Legislature of the general principles on which 
 it shall be based. In the following pages I 
 have avoided entering into this quarrel, which 
 has been made one of party politics. As Lord 
 Onslow pointed out, in his eloquent and states- 
 manlike speech in the House of Lords, a 
 certain party in the House of Commons and 
 the London County Council have deliberately 
 selected Betterment as " a good fighting ques- 
 tion, on which to have it out with the House 
 of Lords." This is not exactly the frame of 
 mind or the atmosphere in which to discuss a 
 complicated problem of local taxation. The 
 taxation temperature should be low, and I have 
 done my best to keep it so. 
 
 A. A. B. 
 
 i, Essex Court, Temple, 
 1894.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER *I. 
 
 I'AGE 
 
 BETTERMENT : WHAT IT IS " I 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT 35 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 WORSEMENT 7 1 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 RECOUPMENT 84 
 
 NOTE ON BETTERMENT IN AMERICA I04
 
 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, 
 
 AND 
 
 RECOUPMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 BETTERMENT : WHAT IT IS. 
 
 The Duke of Argyll having twice made the 
 remark in the House of Lords that betterment 
 is "an absurd, foreign, and vulgar" word, it 
 may be as well to say that it has at least two 
 literary sponsors of perfect respectability. In 
 Bunyan's Pilgrims Progress, Christian says of 
 Hopeful, " it will appear that there is no better- 
 ment 'twixt him and myself," meaning, obviously, 
 superiority ; though in editions subsequent to 
 the first, editors have presumptuously altered
 
 i;i;i rERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 "betterment" into "difference." The word is 
 also to be found in Johnson's Dictionary, which 
 surely ought to protect it from the Duke's 
 description. But if the word is respectable, the 
 thing is not ; for it is an immigrant from 
 America, whose aims are predatory, and whose 
 methods are vague, uncertain, and undefined. 
 
 What is precisely the proposal of the London 
 County Council with regard to improvements, 
 which is known as betterment ? As Acts of 
 Parliament have to be administered by courts 
 of law, not according to the a priori explana- 
 tions of their authors, but according to the 
 natural and logical meaning of the words 
 employed, the only satisfactory way of ascer- 
 taining the proposal of the Council is by turn- 
 ing to the clause in the London Improvements 
 Bill, which starts with a recital of the principle, 
 and proceeds to apply it in various sub-sections 
 and sub-heads. The clause runs as follows 1 : — 
 
 1 I only print such parts of the clause as are necessary.
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. 3 
 
 " And whereas the Improvements will be 
 effected out of public funds charged over the 
 whole county and will or may increase in 
 value or benefit lands in the neighbourhood 
 of the Improvements which will not be acquired 
 for the purpose thereof and it is reasonable 
 that provision should be made under which 
 in respect or in consideration of such increased 
 value or benefit a charge should be placed 
 on such lands. Therefore the following pro- 
 visions shall have effect : — - 
 
 " (1) All lands within the limits marked on 
 the deposited Plans as ' Limits of Deviation ' 
 in relation to the Improvement but which shall 
 not be purchased and taken by the Council 
 under the powers of this Act shall be liable 
 to have an Improvement Charge placed on 
 such lands or some of them (in accordance 
 with the provisions hereinafter set forth) in 
 respect or in consideration of any increased 
 value or benefit which such lands may respect-
 
 4 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 ively derive from the Improvement by this 
 Act authorised ; 
 
 " (2) The Council shall as soon as con- 
 veniently may be (but not later than seven 
 years after the passing of this Act) cause to 
 be framed an Assessment describing such of the 
 lands situate within the said limits as in the 
 opinion of the Council ought to bear and pay 
 the said Improvement Charge and the Council 
 shall in such Assessment state and specify : 
 
 " (a) The names of the owners lessees and 
 occupiers of the lands described in the said 
 Assessment respectively so far as they can be 
 ascertained. 
 
 " (6) The apportioned amounts by way of 
 charge which in the opinion of the Council 
 ought to be charged upon such lands respect- 
 ively ; 
 
 " The Assessment shall contain a statement 
 of the amount which in the opinion of the 
 Council will be the enhanced value or benefit
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. 5 
 
 derived or to be derived by the lands respect- 
 ively from the Improvement ; 
 
 "The amount to be proposed in the Assess- 
 ment as the charge to be placed on any lands 
 under the provisions of this Section shall be 
 equal to three per centum per annum upon 
 •one-half of the amount which in the opinion of 
 the Council will be the enhanced value or 
 benefit derived or to be derived by the said 
 lands from the Improvement ; 
 
 " (8) If any such notice of objection be served 
 on the Council within the said period of one 
 month then the Council may and shall apply 
 to the Local Government Board to appoint an 
 Arbitrator for the purposes of this Section and 
 the Local Government Board shall appoint 
 an Arbitrator accordingly. 
 
 "(13) If no objection as hereinbefore pro- 
 vided be made to the Assessment the amount 
 defined by the Assessment or the amended 
 Assessment (and if an Award be made as
 
 6 i;i I rERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 hereinbefore provided then the amount defined 
 by the Award) as the Charge in respect of 
 each property shall be a charge; and incum- 
 brance thereon and the Council shall cause the 
 same to be registered as a land charge under 
 ' The Land Charges Registration and Searches 
 Act 1888' ; 
 
 "(14) The Charge in respect of any lands 
 as fixed by the Award shall (subject to the 
 following provision) begin to be payable on 
 the first day of April or October as the case 
 may be next ensuing after the date of the 
 Award and shall be payable thereafter half- 
 yearly until redeemed and satisfied. 
 
 "Provided as follows: Where the lands 
 charged shall have been in the possession of 
 the freeholder at the passing of this Act or at 
 at any time between the passing of this Act and 
 the date of the Award the charge shall be pay- 
 able by the freeholder and where the lands 
 charged shall not have been in the possession of
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. 7 
 
 the freeholder at the passing of this Act or 
 before the date of the Award the Council in 
 framing the Assessment or the Arbitrator in 
 making the Award may take into consideration 
 all the circumstances of the case and in particu- 
 lar may consider the several interests in such 
 lands and the time at which they severally 
 expire and may make the commencement of 
 such Charge dependent on the expiration of 
 any term of years or other period or on the 
 happening of any event as they shall deem fair 
 and equitable and may apportion the incidence 
 of such Charge as between the freehold and any 
 other estate or interest in the lands during the 
 period of any existing term of years for which 
 the same is held at the date of the Award ; 
 
 "(15) The Charge due in respect of any 
 property shall be payable to the Council on 
 demand and may be collected on behalf of the 
 Council by such persons as they may appoint 
 for that purpose ;
 
 8 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 "Where any lands in respect of which a 
 Charge is payable are occupied by any person 
 the Council may collect the annual payments 
 due in respect of the Charge from such person. 
 But if he be not the person for the time being 
 liable to the payment of the Charge or any part 
 thereof then he may deduct from any rent pay- 
 able by him the Charge or any part thereof pay- 
 able by any other person and any person receiv- 
 ing such rent (if he be not the person liable to 
 pay the Charge or any part thereof) may in 
 like manner deduct from any rent payable by him 
 the Charge or such part thereof as is payable 
 by any other person so that the proper deduc- 
 tion may in each case be made from the rent 
 paid to the person or persons by whom the 
 Charge or any portion thereof is payable ; 
 
 " In case of default being made in any pay- 
 ment due to the Council in respect of the 
 Charge the amount thereof may be recovered 
 in any court of summary jurisdiction and in
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. 9 
 
 addition the Council may have and exercise 
 such remedies for recovering the same as are 
 conferred by ' The Conveyancing and Law 
 of Property Act 1811 s with regard to sums 
 payable by way of Rent Charge." 
 
 Such, in the carefully chosen words of its 
 parliamentary draughtsman, is the Council's 
 statement of the principle of betterment, and 
 its proposal for its application. With regard 
 to the recital of the principle, or preamble, 
 as it may be called, of the clause, I must 
 observe that the Council has resorted to the 
 very common logical trick of drawing its major 
 premiss to suit its conclusion. As most logi- 
 cians are aware, given your major premiss, 
 there is hardly any inference that may not be 
 drawn. Put syllogistically, the reasoning con- 
 tained in the recital is this : the Improvement 
 will be paid for by the whole county : certain 
 lands in the neighbourhood will be benefited by 
 the Improvement : therefore, certain lands in
 
 io BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 the neighbourhood should have a charge laid 
 on them. But what is the Improvement, and 
 why is it to be paid for by the whole county ? 
 The Improvement in question is the construc- 
 tion of a southern approach to the Tower 
 Bridge by means of a new street cut through 
 Bermondsey ; and it is a violent departure from 
 the previous and sound practice to throw 
 the whole cost of such an improvement on 
 the whole county. Public improvements in 
 London are of three kinds : (a) those purely 
 metropolitan ; (/?) those purely parochial ; (c) 
 those partly metropolitan and partly parochial. 
 Hitherto, under the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works and the County Council, the cost of 
 purely metropolitan improvements has been 
 born by the metropolis as a whole, i. c. by a 
 county rate levied all over London ; the cost 
 of purely parochial improvements has been 
 borne by the parish ; and the cost of by far 
 the largest class of improvements, those,
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. n 
 
 namely, which are both metropolitan and local, 
 has been divided, in varying proportions, be- 
 tween the whole county and the parish. For 
 instance, the Council has deposited a bill to 
 widen Wood Lane, Hammersmith, in which 
 half the cost is to be paid by the Vestry, and 
 half by the County of London. In the Dept- 
 ford Improvement, again, it is provided that 
 the Greenwich district Board of Works shall 
 contribute a proportion of the cost of the new 
 street from Evelyn Street to Creek Lane. 
 Why is the entire cost of the southern approach 
 to the Tower Bridge to be thrown on the whole 
 county ? And why is no contribution to be 
 made by the parishes of Bermondsey and St, 
 Olave's ? It cannot be because the Improve- 
 ment is purely metropolitan, and will not 
 benefit those parishes, for it is recited that 
 certain lands in the neighbourhood will or may 
 be increased in value or benefited, and there- 
 fore should have a charge laid upon them.
 
 12 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 Obviously the established practice has been 
 departed from, and the whole cost of the new 
 street thrown upon the whole county, because 
 it makes a much stronger case for betterment. 
 If the cost had been divided as heretofore 
 between county and parish, the argument for 
 singling out individual properties for special 
 taxation would have been weak. But if you 
 begin by throwing the whole cost of an Im- 
 provement, which is ex kypothesi partly local, 
 upon the whole county, you seem, upon the 
 first blush of the thing, to be acting reasonably 
 when you come back and say, "We must have 
 a contribution from the particular properties 
 in the locality which are or may be increased 
 in value." But I demur to the first step in 
 this vicious argumentation. The Council has 
 no right to throw the cost of the Tower Bridge 
 approach upon the whole county : it ought to 
 be divided, according to precedent, between 
 the whole county and the adjacent parishes.
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. 13 
 
 But when we are told, in the language of the 
 recital, that it is " reasonable " that a charge 
 should be placed on such lands as will or may 
 be increased in value or benefited by a street 
 improvement, in respect of such increased value 
 or benefit ; and when we are informed, in the 
 sub-sections, how this charge is to be assessed, 
 and by whom it is to be paid, let us ask our- 
 selves, to what propositions of political economy, 
 or municipal policy, is our assent invited ? 
 
 Is it to the proposition that a man should 
 contribute to the cost of public improvements, 
 which increase the value of his property ? 
 Surely not ; for we all so heartily assent to that 
 proposition, that it is embodied in the existing 
 practice. As soon as the cost of an Improve- 
 ment is estimated, and the bill authorising the 
 raising of the money is passed into law, the 
 rate is struck and levied, whether as a county 
 or parish rate, or both. Suppose, by way of 
 example, that the cost of the Improvement is
 
 i 4 BETTJ RMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 estimated at £"1,000,000, and that half the net 
 cost is to be borne by the county and half by 
 the vestry. The occupier in Bermondsey will 
 then have to contribute to ,£500,000 under the 
 head of County Council rate, and to ,£500,000 
 under the head of Parish rates. Or suppose 
 that, as in the case of the London Improve- 
 ments Bill, the whole cost is to be thrown on 
 the county, the Bermondsey ratepayer will 
 then be called on to contribute to an extra 
 £1,000,000 under the head of County Council 
 rate. Of course, the larger the proportion 
 thrown on his parish, the more the individual 
 ratepayer has to pay. But in any case, whether 
 the expenditure is divided between the whole 
 metropolis and the vestry, or whether it is 
 thrown wholly on the one or the other, no 
 occupier, and consequently no owner, of property 
 in the locality concerned can escape his con- 
 tribution to the cost of the Improvement. 
 This contribution is, of course, one which is
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. 15 
 
 made by all ratepayers alike in proportion to 
 the rateable value of their houses, and has 
 nothino- to do with betterment, or enhanced 
 value. A, whose house is in no way increased 
 in value by the Improvement, may pay as 
 much as or more than B, whose house is on 
 the line of the new street. It is therefore 
 argued, that they whose properties are specially 
 benefited, or visibly increased in value, by an 
 Improvement paid for out of public money, 
 should specially contribute, over and above 
 what they pay together with the general public, 
 by a special rate levied on the increased value. 
 I unreservedly accept this proposition : but is 
 this betterment ? It cannot be ; because this 
 proposition is so indisputable, that it has been 
 for twenty-five years carried into practice by 
 the Metropolis Valuation Act of 1869. Section 
 46 of the Valuation of Property (Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869, enacts as follows : — " Every valuation 
 list shall be revised in manner directed by this
 
 1 6 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 Act, and such revision in every period of five 
 years shall be conducted as follows: — (i.) In 
 each of the first four years of such period a 
 supplemental list shall, if necessary, be made 
 out in the same form as the valuation list, and 
 shall show all the alterations which have taken 
 place during the preceding twelve months in 
 any of the matters stated in the valuation list, 
 but shall contain only the hereditaments affected 
 by such alterations, (ii.) In the fifth year of 
 every such period the overseers shall make a 
 new valuation list, (iii.) A supplemental list 
 and a new valuation list shall come into force 
 at the beginning of the year succeeding that in 
 which they are made." Section 47 enacts : — 
 " If in the course of any year the value of 
 any hereditament is increased by the addition 
 thereto or erection thereon of any building, or 
 is from any cause increased or reduced in value \ 
 the following provisions shall have effect : (i.) 
 The overseers of the parish in which such
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. 17 
 
 hereditament is situate may, and on the written 
 requisition of the assessment committee or of 
 any ratepayer of the union, or of the surveyor 
 of taxes for the district, shall, send to the 
 assessment committee a provisional list con- 
 taining the gross and rateable value as so 
 increased or reduced of such hereditament." 
 Then follow various provisions for serving 
 notice on the occupier ; for the hearing and 
 decision of objections ; and for the signing by 
 the assessment committee. Sub-section (8) 
 enacts that " a provisional list, signed as afore- 
 said, shall have operation from the date of the 
 service by the clerk of the assessment com- 
 mittee of a copy of the list and notice on the 
 occupier, and shall continue in force until the 
 first list (supplemental or other) which is 
 subsequently made comes into force," and the 
 rates of the occupier are immediately raised or 
 lowered in accordance with this provisional list. 
 
 It thus appears that not only every five years, 
 
 c
 
 1 8 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPxMENT. 
 
 but by means of supplemental and provisional 
 lists, every year and every month, a man's 
 rating may be put up or down, according as 
 the value of his property rises or falls. The 
 overseers, the surveyor of taxes, the members 
 of the assessment committee, exist for nothing 
 else but to watch the rise and fall of values in 
 the parish ; and there is not a bay-window 
 thrown out, or a new storey added, that escapes 
 their lynx eyes. Suppose that a house in 
 Bermondsey, now situate in a back street (to 
 take Mr. Cripps's illustration), acquires a 
 frontage on a wide thoroughfare, and that 
 thereby the letting or annual value is increased 
 by ^ioo a year. An increased letting value of 
 ^iooa year means an increased rateable value 
 of £q)2 : the rates in Bermondsey are ys. 6d. in 
 the £ : therefore the occupier of that house 
 would have to pay 92 seven-and-sixpences, or 
 ^34 10s. a year in new rates (in addition to 
 what he has already paid to the County Council
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. 19 
 
 rate), 1 as his special assessment or contribution, 
 over and above what his neighbours pay, for 
 the improved value of his property. It may 
 be urged that thirty-four and a half per cent, is 
 not a large enough proportion of the increased 
 annual value for the owner to pay (for what is 
 added to the rates is, in the long run, sub- 
 tracted from the rent), and that he is still left 
 with ^"65 10s. in his pocket. But a question of 
 amount is not a question of principle ; and at 
 present I am only pointing out, that the pro- 
 position, that properties specially benefited by 
 a public Improvement should be specially as- 
 sessed, cannot be denied, and cannot be the 
 principle of betterment, for it is already part of 
 the existing law. 
 
 Is the principle of betterment the proposition 
 that when the community makes an Improve- 
 
 1 Supposing the cost of the improvement to have been 
 divided, in the ordinary way, between the county and the 
 parish.
 
 20 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 meat out of public funds, the community is 
 entitled to pocket the profits of the undertaking ? 
 It cannot be, because this proposition was 
 solemnly affirmed by the Legislature in 1877, 
 when Parliament decided that the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works should be empowered to ac- 
 quire more lands than it actually required for 
 the Improvement, in order that it might recoup 
 itself, as far as possible, by re-selling the lands 
 at an enhanced value. Northumberland Avenue 
 was, on this principle, made, not only without 
 loss, but at an actual profit to the ratepayers, 
 who thus pocketed, not half, but all the en- 
 hanced value. Mr. Charles Harrison, being 
 asked by his counsel before the House of 
 Commons Committee last year to explain the 
 " underlying principle " of clause 41 (now cl. 2,7), 
 said : — " We consider that those properties which 
 arc specially benefited should have a portion 
 of that special benefit intercepted and stopped 
 in the form of a rate before being allowed to
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. 21 
 
 enure to the benefit of the particular property 
 to which it would otherwise attach " (Evidence, 
 q. 13). In answer to question 16 the same 
 witness said : — " Supposing a house now let at 
 ^iooa year is brought up to a broad frontage 
 and lets at ^200 a year, the intention of the 
 principle is that that extra ^"100 a year as a 
 special benefit conferred upon that particular 
 property should be intercepted to the extent of 
 the amount proposed to be levied, in the form 
 of a rate under this bill. O. 17. The utmost 
 extent to which you would intercept the benefit 
 would be a half, according to your own pro- 
 posal ? — The utmost in any case is not to exceed 
 a moiety of that additional accretion ; there 
 must be an accretion in the first place, and it 
 must be limited to a half. O. 18. Here you 
 have as it were a balance in hand of 50 per 
 cent. ? — Yes, and the proposal is to capitalise 
 that at 3 per cent." Taking Mr. Harrison's 
 own illustration, the result of laying a better-
 
 22 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 ment charge upon a property so increased in 
 value, and collecting an annual rate of 3 per cent. 
 on the charge, would be to intercept not 50, but 
 72 per cent, of the special benefit, or enhanced 
 value. We have already seen that the property 
 has to pay an additional ,£34 10s. in rates. 
 Three per cent, on ^1250, which is the moiety 
 of ^100 capitalised at 25 years, comes to £$7 
 10s., which, added to ,£34 10s., equals £j2, 
 and that is the proportion of the special benefit 
 that would be intercepted by the community 
 under this clause. But the Legislature has 
 gone further than Mr. Charles Harrison pro- 
 poses, or says that he intends (for I shall show 
 presently that the real effect of the clause is 
 very different) to go in the direction of inter- 
 cepting accretions of value. The Legislature, 
 in sanctioning recoupment in 1877, has affirmed 
 the principle that the community, in carrying 
 out a street improvement at the public expense, 
 is entitled to take, not 50 per cent., not 70 per
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. 23 
 
 cent., but the whole of the profit of the transac- 
 tion, provided that the community will also 
 bear the risk of loss. By all means let the 
 public authority buy up the chance of pocketing 
 all the betterment, because it also buys the 
 chance of there being no profit, or a loss. This 
 is an ordinary commerical transaction, when 
 you buy a thing for better or worse. But for 
 the community to take from the owner half the 
 profit, if there is any, and to leave him to bear 
 all the loss, if there is any, is merely playing 
 the game of " heads I win, and tails you lose." 
 Betterment, therefore, is not the proposition, 
 (a) that an owner or occupier should contribute 
 to the cost of an Improvement which will or 
 may increase the value of his property ; for that 
 he is now obliged to do under the existing law. 
 Betterment is not the proposition, (0) that where 
 a property is specially benefited, i. e. actually 
 and visibly increased in value, it should be 
 specially assessed in respect of that increase,
 
 24 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 for this is the law and the practice under $§46 
 and 47 of the Metropolis Valuation Act, 1869. 
 Betterment is not the proposition, (7) that where 
 the community makes an Improvement out of 
 public funds, it is entitled to take all the profit, 
 provided it takes all the loss, for that is the law 
 of recoupment, and involves the purchase of the 
 property in question. Men of all parties are 
 agreed on propositions (a), (6), and (7), which 
 have found their way into the Statute Book. 
 Betterment is, therefore, none of these things, 
 but must be something more than, or different 
 from, them all. What is it ? 
 
 A closer examination of the wording of the 
 clause itself than, unfortunately, most persons 
 can be induced to bestow, will show that 
 betterment is a proposal to make a man, whose 
 interest in a property will, in the opinion either 
 of the County Council or of an arbitrator, be 
 increased in value at some future time by a 
 public Improvement, contribute to that Im-
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. 25 
 
 provement before that time has arrived, and 
 in addition to the contribution he has been, 
 or may be, called on to make under the rating 
 law. Such is, substantially, the definition of 
 betterment given to the House of Lords in the 
 debate on November 24 last by the Duke of 
 Argyll, with that perspicuity of style which 
 is but too rarely the vehicle of profundity of 
 thought, but which is characteristic of that 
 eminent orator and author. And, upon com- 
 parison with the provisions of the clause itself, 
 it will be found to be a definition both full and 
 accurate. It is true that Lord Hobhouse, who 
 spoke on that occasion on behalf of the County 
 Council, vigorously protested against this 
 definition of betterment. He said, 1 " The im- 
 provement must be visible and ascertainable 
 at the time when the contribution was required ; 
 not something to arise fifty years hence, but 
 something existing at the moment the owner 
 1 Parliamentary Debates (Lords), November 24, 1893.
 
 26 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 was asked to pay." If this were really so, 
 much of the objection to betterment would 
 be cut away ; but it is not Lord Hobhouse's 
 speech that is the law we are asked to sanction, 
 but the words of the clause, which are these : — 
 " (2) The Council shall as soon as conveni- 
 ently may be (but not later than seven years 
 after the passing of this Act) cause to be framed 
 an Assessment describing such of the lands 
 situate within the said limits as in the opinion 
 of the Council ought to bear and pay the said 
 
 Improvement charge The Assessment 
 
 shall contain a statement of the amount which 
 in the opinion of the Council will be the enhanced 
 value derived or to be derived by the lands 
 respectively from the Improvement. The 
 amount to be proposed in the Assessment as 
 the charge to be placed on any lands under 
 the provisions of this section shall be equal 
 to three per centum per annum upon one-half 
 of the amount which in the opinion of the
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. 27 
 
 Council will be tlie enhanced value or benefit 
 derived or to be derived by the said land from 
 the Improvement." We have here not only a 
 future, but a paulo-post future tense : the 
 betterment charge is what the Council's sur- 
 veyor thinks will be the enhanced value 
 derived (i. e. at some near future) or to be 
 derived (z. e. at some distant future) from the 
 Improvement. From the Provisional Assess- 
 ment there is an appeal to an arbitrator, but 
 that is merely the substitution of the opinion of 
 a surveyor nominated by the Local Govern- 
 ment Board for the opinion of the surveyor 
 of the London County Council. If Lord 
 Hobhouse was right in his contention, that 
 " the improvement must be visible and as- 
 certainable at the time when the contribution 
 was required, and not something to arise fifty 
 years hence," the increase in rateable value, 
 on which the higher rates are charged, would 
 be the same as the "enhanced value," on which
 
 2 S BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 the betterment charge is levied, as that very 
 acute witness Mr. Fletcher Moulton, Q.C., saw 
 clearly enough (qq. 1 330-1). But both Mr. 
 Charles Harrison and Mr. Andrew Young, 
 the surveyor of the London County Council, 
 repeatedly denied that increased rateable value 
 had necessarily anything to do with enhanced 
 value, or was more than " one of the elements " 
 of enhanced value. If Lord Hobhouse had 
 taken the trouble to look at the evidence given 
 to the Select Committee of the House of 
 Commons before explaining the Bill to the 
 House of Lords, he would have been aware 
 that Mr. Harrison and Mr. Young had both 
 given it as their opinion that in the case of 
 Messrs. Slee's Vinegar Works, the arbitrator 
 would properly defer the betterment charge for 
 forty years, when the lease expired ! Be it borne 
 in mind, that the Provisional Assessment must 
 be framed upon the opinion of the Council's 
 surveyor within seven years, and that the
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. 29 
 
 arbitrator's opinion on the Assessment must 
 be given within three or four months of that 
 date, under the schedule of the Arbitration Act 
 1889, which is incorporated with this Act. 
 Now let us see what Mr. Charles Harrison's 
 idea of enhanced value is. In answer to 
 question 569, on p. 61 of the evidence, Mr. 
 Harrison said : " When you come to assess 
 the property, the street may not be fully 
 developed, and therefore it is not necessarily 
 to be ascertained solely by the rateable value 
 at that date. But if you get the enhanced 
 value and then look at the property, the 
 property may be, in the opinion of the surveyor 
 and the arbitrator, likely, when it is brought 
 in as building land, perhaps ten years hence, 
 with that prospective increase, to be enhanced 
 a oreat deal more than the rateable value 
 at the end of the five years would necessarily 
 show." Again, in answer to question 570: 
 " Take the case of Messrs. Slee with the
 
 3 o BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 vinegar works ; so long as the works may be 
 used as vinegar works, I can quite understand 
 there may be no increase of value ; but I could 
 equally understand that the land on which 
 those works are would in the market sell 
 for a much larger price with the street than 
 without it, because it would carry a different 
 class of building and be valuable as building 
 land. Therefore in fixing the enhanced value, 
 it would have nothing to do with the present 
 rateable value, but there would be, in the 
 opinion of the arbitrator, so much market- 
 able value, which that plot of land would carry 
 even with the vinegar works upon it, and the 
 existing tenure of it would be the enhanced 
 value of the property. Under these circum- 
 stances he would assess a moiety of that 
 increased value, and then you would get the 
 three per cent, on that." In answer to ques- 
 tion 573 : "Any man of business would know 
 that a considerably enhanced value attached
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. 31 
 
 to the reversion the moment the lease ran 
 out, and therefore he would assess that ; but 
 if it does not run up in the rateable amount 
 at the quinquennial period, that is no neces- 
 sary indication of the enhanced value." Mr. 
 Harrison, on its being put to him by counsel 
 that Messrs. Slee had a forty years' lease 
 unexpired, thought the arbitrator would say, 
 " As long as these works are used as vinegar 
 works there shall be no charge " (q. 574). 
 Q- 575- "No charge at all ? — No charge at all. 
 I can quite understand that : but that upon their 
 ceasing to be used as such, and being brought 
 into the market, then the three per cent, should 
 be payable upon the enhanced value." Mr. 
 Andrew Young, surveyor to the London 
 County Council, was shorter, but quite as clear 
 and emphatic. Asked by counsel (q. 1774) how 
 the new street would benefit Messrs. Slee's 
 business premises, he answered : "As the 
 property is used for manufacturing vinegar
 
 32 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 I do not think it would be improved in value, 
 but qua property when that street is made 
 it will improve the value. If Messrs. Slee 
 removed their business to other premises, or 
 for some reason were to discontinue their 
 business there, and to put the property into the 
 market, that property would undoubtedly be 
 considerably more valuable than it would if 
 the street were not made. O. 1775. You are 
 aware, are you not, that Messrs. Slee have 
 a forty years' lease unexpired ? — That being so, 
 I take it the arbitrator would suspend the 
 charge upon that property until that lease either 
 expired, or for some reason Messrs. Slee dis- 
 continued their business there. O. 1776. Do 
 you really mean that the betterment charge is to 
 be deferred until 1933 before it is to be levied ? 
 — I should say so, where the property is so tied 
 up that it is not to be used for any purpose 
 which would make it more valuable." As Mr. 
 Young is the surveyor upon whose opinion
 
 BETTERMENT: WHAT IT IS. 35 
 
 the Provisional Assessment would be framed, 
 his evidence is very important. But what 
 becomes of Lord Hobhouse's assertion, that the 
 improvement must be something visible and 
 accrued, and " not something to arise fifty 
 years hence " ? An arbitrator, giving his award 
 between the years 1S94 and 1901, is to lay as a 
 fixed charge upon a property half of what in 
 his opinion will be the increased value of that 
 property in the year 1934, if the land is put 
 to some other use than that to which it is put 
 when he values it, or if it is brought into the 
 market as building land ! How can any sur- 
 veyor tell what will be the building value 
 of a particular plot of land in Bermondsey 
 half a century hence ? Yet the County Council 
 has itself chosen this Bermondsey Improvement 
 for the purpose of making their betterment 
 experiment ; and I have quoted the evidence 
 of the vice-chairman and the surveyor. 
 
 Betterment is, then, a proposal to tax a
 
 34 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 man in respect of some increase in the value 
 of his property which an arbitrator thinks will 
 attach to it at some future time, before that 
 time has come, and in addition to what he has 
 been, or may be, called on to pay in increased 
 rates.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 
 
 Betterment is, therefore, a present and 
 perpetual tax for a future and prospective 
 benefit. The collection of the tax may, it 
 appears, be deferred till a future date, in which 
 case it will not relieve the present generation of 
 ratepayers : but the assessment of the charge 
 must be made within seven years and a few 
 months of the execution of the Improvement, 
 while the benefit, or enhanced value, may not, 
 according to the evidence of Mr. Harrison 
 and Mr. Young quoted in the last chapter, 
 accrue for forty years. Mr. Harrison has 
 repeatedly declared that the imposition of 
 the betterment charge is not taxation, but an
 
 36 BETTERMEN 1", WORSEMENT, RECOUPM KXT 
 
 intercepting of value or profit by the com- 
 munity before it reaches individuals, into whose 
 pockets it would otherwise go. I know of only 
 two methods in civilised countries by which 
 profits or values can be intercepted by the 
 community, namely, the right of eminent 
 domain, and taxation. The right of eminent 
 domain is the sovereign right of every state 
 to take the property of the individual for a 
 public purpose, giving him full compensation in 
 monev, which is a verv different thinq^ from 
 laying a charge upon his property in return for 
 a street Improvement. Mr. Harrison has 
 further asserted in a letter to the Times, that 
 betterment, or special assessment for benefits, 
 has been decided by the Supreme Court of the 
 United States not to be taxation, and that this 
 proposition has passed as an accepted maxim 
 into the text-books. As Mr. Harrison does not 
 quote any case, or any authority, for this asser- 
 tion, it is difficult to check it. Cooky on
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 37 
 
 Taxation is one of the best-known and most 
 authoritative treatises on the Law of Taxation 
 published in America ; and the learned author, 
 who is professor of constitutional law and 
 political science in the university of Michigan, 
 asserts exactly the contrary. In Chapter XX., 
 on " Taxation by Special Assessment," on 
 p. 623 of the 2nd edition, Dr. Cooley says, 
 "that these assessments are an exercise of the 
 taxing power has over and over again been 
 affirmed, until the controversy must be re- 
 garded as closed ; " and in his footnote he 
 gives a long list of cases that have decided the 
 point. These cases may have been over-ruled 
 by the Supreme Court of the United States 
 since 1886 ; but in the absence of any 
 references, Dr. Cooley's authority, supported by 
 cases, must outweigh Mr. Harrison's unsup- 
 ported assertion. In the states of Alabama, 
 Arkansas, and Colorado, assessments accord- 
 ing to benefit have been held to be unconsti-
 
 3 8 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMEN 1. 
 
 tutional, as contravening the almost universally 
 
 adopted law that taxation shall be equal and 
 uniform. But in the overwhelming majority of 
 cases in which the point has been raised, it has 
 been decided that special assessment for 
 benefits is constitutional, not because it is not 
 taxation, nor because it does not contravene 
 the principles of uniformity and equality ; but 
 because those constitutional provisions were 
 not intended to apply to local taxation for 
 local improvements. "It is safe to assume, 
 as the result of the cases," says Dr. Cooley 
 (p. 636), " that the constitutional provisions 
 refer solely to State taxation, or when they 
 go further, to the general taxation for state, 
 county, and municipal purposes ; and though 
 assessments are laid under the taxing power, 
 and are in a certain sense taxes, yet they 
 are a peculiar class of taxes, and not within 
 the meaning: of that term as it is usuallv em- 
 ployed in our constitutions and statutes." I
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 39 
 
 am quite content to rest on Dr. Cooley's state- 
 ment, that special asssessments for benefits are 
 " a peculiar class of taxes " ; they are so indeed, 
 which is one reason why we object to them. 
 Mr. H. L. Cripps, the parliamentary agent to 
 the London County Council, goes further than 
 Mr. Harrison ; for he maintains that the better- 
 ment charge is neither a rate nor a tax. In a 
 letter which was published in the Times of 
 December 12, 1893, Mr. Cripps draws a dis- 
 tinction between a rate. and a tax. He says : 
 " ' A tax' is a pecuniary payment exacted from 
 a subject of a State by the Government in aid of 
 the national expenditure. ' A rate ' is the pro- 
 portion of a fixed ascertained gross sum pay- 
 able by an individual as a contribution towards 
 municipal or local expenditure ; the term ex- 
 pressing apportionment according to some 
 defined standard or basis (usually the assess- 
 ment of the annual value of hereditaments) 
 of a gross sum required to be levied on the
 
 4 o BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 individuals in a defined rateable area. To 
 assert that the arrangement proposed by the 
 London County Council would be accurately 
 described as the imposition or levy of ' a rate ' 
 or ' tax ' is, in my humble opinion, to provoke 
 ' a misunderstanding by the use of ambiguous 
 language.' ' There is no sound distinction, 
 economical or legal, between a tax and a rate. 
 By popular usage, the word " rate" is applied 
 to contributions for local, as distinguished from 
 imperial, purposes. But in the statutes, the 
 words are used alternately and synonymously, 
 the word "tax" being nearly always followed 
 by the words "or rate," and "rate" by the 
 words "or tax." In the Rating Act of 
 Elizabeth (43 Eliz. c. 2), on which the 
 existing rating law is founded, the overseers 
 are directed " to raise by taxation of every 
 inhabitant, parson, vicar, and other, and 
 of every occupier of lands, houses, tithes, etc., 
 competent sums of money for and towards the
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 41 
 
 relief of the lame, impotent, old, blind, and such 
 other among them being poor and not able to 
 work, to be gathered out of the same parish 
 according to the ability of the same parish." 
 
 In the 3 and 4 Victoria c. 89, an Act passed 
 to exempt personal property from rates, the 
 words are : " That from and after the passing 
 of this Act it shall not be lawful for the over- 
 seers of any parish, township, or village to tax 
 any inhabitant thereof, as such inhabitant, in 
 respect of his ability derived from the profits 
 of stock-in-trade or any other property for 
 the relief of the poor." In the Act of 
 George III. the land-tax is spoken of as " a 
 rate, a tax, and an assessment." 1 Both taxes 
 and rates are personal obligations, to which the 
 individual is liable in respect of the property 
 which he enjoys. All taxes, including those on 
 commodities, are levied on enjoyment. Im- 
 
 1 38 Geo. III. c. 5. In the preamble to 38 Geo. III. 
 c. 60, the land-tax is called a " duty on land."
 
 42 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 perial taxes, except inhabited house-duty, are 
 levied on the income which a man enjoys ; 
 parish rates are levied on the hereditaments 
 (/. c. lands, houses, or easements) which he 
 enjoys, or profitably occupies. If a man has 
 no income (/. e. if it falls below a fixed point), he 
 pays no direct imperial taxes ; if his heredita- 
 ments are not profitably occupied either by 
 himself or another, he pays no parish rates ; for 
 usufruct is the basis of both national and local 
 taxation. There is no such distinction as Mr. 
 Cripps draws. A "tax," as well as a "rate," is 
 " the proportion of a fixed ascertained gross 
 sum," namely, that required by the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, "payable by an individual as 
 a contribution " : the term " tax," as well as the 
 term "rate," expresses "apportionment accord- 
 ing to some defined standard or basis," namely, 
 income, "of a gross sum required to be levied 
 on the individuals in a defined," not rateable, 
 but taxable, "area," namely, the United King-
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 43 
 
 dom. The area over which a tax is levied 
 is wider than that of a rate, and consequently 
 the calculations of the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer cannot be so exact as those of a 
 municipal authority. But a Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer asks himself, How much do I 
 want ? And how much will a penny in the 
 £ produce ? just as does a Vestry or County 
 Council before striking its rate. The fact that 
 betterment is a charge upon the property does 
 not prevent it from being a tax or rate. The 
 land-tax is a charge upon the land : private 
 improvement rates, under the Public Health 
 Act of 1875 and the Housing of the Working 
 Classes Act 1890, may, if unpaid, be made a 
 charge upon the property. There being, then, 
 no logical, legal, or economical ground for 
 pretending that a betterment charge is not 
 taxation, I proceed to give the objections to 
 betterment in a series of propositions, some 
 of general application, and some based upon
 
 44 BET 1T.RM ENT, WORSEM ENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 the particular application of the theory to the 
 Bermondsey Improvement submitted to Parlia- 
 ment by the County Council. I will state first 
 the general objections. 
 
 I. Betterment is taxation of capital value. 
 The Bill of this yeat differs from that of last 
 year, inasmuch as the charge to be laid on 
 the property is not the moiety of the enhanced 
 value, but 3 per cent, on that sum. But this 
 annual charge is levied on half of a capital sum, 
 which is added by the arbitrator to the capital 
 value of the property. The proof that the 
 betterment charge is taxation of capital value is 
 that the charge may be imposed on vacant land 
 and houses, which are producing no annual 
 value. Capital value is taxed in America ; but it 
 has never before been taxed in this country. It 
 has been considered by our political economists 
 to be advantageous to the community that 
 certain kinds of property should be owned 
 which produce no annual value, and which,
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 45 
 
 if taxed, tend to disappear, such as open spaces 
 for public gardens and recreation grounds, 
 works of art, precious stones, and libraries. 
 But an even stronger reason against this 
 species of taxation is, that capital value is 
 generally a matter of speculation ; whereas 
 annual value is a matter of fact. 
 
 2. Betterment cannot be equal and uniform, 
 because it has no relation to the total annual 
 value of a property, but only to a fraction of 
 that value. Equality and uniformity of tax- 
 ation mean an equal proportion, a uniform 
 ratio to capacity, and the measure of a man's 
 taxable capacity is the value of the property 
 he enjoys. But betterment only relates to 
 what an arbitrator thinks will be the enhanced 
 value of the property. Thus a house rented 
 at ^"100 a year may bear twice the charge of 
 a house rented at ^200 a year, if, in the 
 opinion of the arbitrator, it will be twice as 
 much improved.
 
 46 BETTER M EN I\ WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 3. Betterment must be uncertain and arbi- 
 trary. Certainty in taxation is only to be at- 
 tained by, having certain, recognised, taxing 
 areas, parochial or political. But the better- 
 ment area, which is the " limits of deviation," 
 must be different in the case of every improve- 
 ment. The amount of the charge must be 
 wholly arbitrary, because it will depend on the 
 prophetic capacity of an arbitrator acting 
 without the guidance of any known principles. 
 
 4. It will be very inconvenient. The 
 Provisional Assessment need not be framed 
 by the Council until seven years after the 
 passing of the Act, and if it is framed before 
 that time it will be mere guess-work. The 
 settlement of the appeals before an arbitrator 
 will probably take another year. For seven 
 or eight years the cloud of the award will 
 hang over the property, preventing the owner 
 either from disposing of it in the market, or 
 executing any but the most necessary repairs.
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 47 
 
 No taxation is convenient ; but betterment 
 involves the maximum of inconvenience. 
 
 5. It will be costly to collect. Owners and 
 lessees will begin by opposing the betterment 
 clauses in private bills before the committees 
 of both Houses of Parliament ; and a battle 
 in the committee rooms at Westminster, if 
 waged with spirit and resolution, is a costly 
 campaign. The London County Council has 
 selected for its first experiment a wretched 
 strip of poor tenements in Bermondsey, from 
 which the parliamentary opposition is natur- 
 ally feeble. But wait till a County Council 
 comes into collision with a railway company, 
 or a brewer, or a large manufacturer or mill- 
 owner, or a metropolitan vestry, and the friends 
 of betterment will see some real fighting. After 
 the parliamentary battle will come the process 
 of assessing a large number of particular 
 properties for special benefits, and a separate 
 report on each property will have to be in-
 
 4 8 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 eluded in the Provisional Assessment. This 
 will require an army of surveyors, valuers, and 
 assistants, whose salaries and fees will consti- 
 tute a large item of expense. As some of 
 the occupiers, lessees, or owners are certain to 
 object to the provisional assessment, there 
 will follow the hearing before an arbitrator, 
 the costs of which cannot fail to be consider- 
 able. Expert witnesses will be produced on 
 both sides, and the testimony of eminent 
 surveyors is not obtained for nothing. Counsel 
 will appear (the London County Council 
 generally retains two leaders and a junior) ; 
 leases and deeds of assignment will have to 
 be examined ; mortgagees, remainder-men, 
 representatives of deceased building owners, 
 public and private trustees, will spring like 
 Cad mean warriors from the ground, and give 
 battle to the common invader. It is certain 
 that in the particular case submitted to us as 
 a test of the virtues of betterment, the cost of
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 49 
 
 recovering the charge would have been very 
 much greater than the amount of the charge. 
 There were forty-three properties scheduled 
 as liable to have a betterment charge imposed 
 upon them. Leaving out Messrs. Slee's Vinegar 
 Works, on which Mr. Harrison and Mr. Young 
 thought the charge might equitably be deferred 
 for forty years, there were forty-two properties, 
 of which the aggregate rateable value was 
 ^"2200, among which a total betterment charge 
 of ^"5467 l had to be apportioned. The parlia- 
 mentary bill of costs alone has been admitted 
 to be ^"5000, and the costs of surveying and 
 assessing for special benefit forty-two pro- 
 perties, and the costs of possibly forty-two 
 arbitrations, would be more than as much 
 again. 
 
 6. It is proposed to deprive objectors to the 
 provisional assessment of the right of ap- 
 
 1 Or ^5987, according to another calculation, for several 
 were attempted.
 
 5o BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 pealing to a jury. Under the Lands Clauses 
 Act an owner has the option of an arbitrator or 
 a jury. Under the Rating Acts, any occupier 
 can appeal to sessions to have a rate quashed, 
 or an assessment reduced. Even under the 
 Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890, 
 an appeal from the arbitrator to a jury is 
 allowed where the amount of compensation 
 exceeds ^"2000. But the London County 
 Council proposes, that the question whether or 
 not a perpetual annual charge is to be assessed 
 upon a man's property shall be decided by a 
 single arbitrator, appointed by the Local 
 Government Board, upon the ex pai'te ap- 
 plication of the party seeking to impose the 
 charge. It is true that under the Arbitration 
 Act of 1889, which codified previous practice, 
 the award of the arbitrator is final and con- 
 clusive. But, in the first place, arbitration 
 does not deal with taxation ; secondly, the 
 reference of the dispute is a matter of agree-
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 51 
 
 ment ; l and thirdly, if the two parties are 
 unable to agree upon one arbitrator, each party 
 appoints his own, with an umpire to decide 
 between them. It is a very ancient and valu- 
 able privilege of every Englishman (and indeed 
 of every free and civilised citizen), that where 
 his life, his liberty, or his property is at stake, 
 he shall, if he likes, have the matter decided by 
 a jury. 
 
 7. It must increase the cost of lodging to 
 all classes of occupiers, but especially to the 
 working classes. I have shown in the pre- 
 ceding chapter, that in the case of a parish like 
 Bermondsey, where the rates are at js. 6rf. in 
 the £, the addition of the annual betterment 
 charge to the higher rates, which must be 
 assessed if the property is really improved in 
 value, means an increase of 72 per cent, in the 
 annual charges which the property has to bear. 
 
 1 A cause may be referred compulsorily, under certain 
 circumstances, by order of the High Court.
 
 52 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 The owner will get that 72 per cent., or as 
 much of it as he can, out of the occupier. The 
 artisans are the most over-rented class in the 
 metropolis. A working man earning a pound 
 a week will pay four shillings in rent, and a 
 man earning thirty shillings will pay six 
 shillings for his room or rooms. Twenty per 
 cent., or one-fifth, is probably a larger pro- 
 portion of income devoted to rent than is paid 
 by any other class. Nor is this altogether the 
 fault of the much-abused middle-man, or house- 
 sweater, who in dealing with house-property 
 let to the poorer class, must make an unusually 
 large allowance for depreciation and defaults, 
 owing to the habits of his tenants. According 
 to the last calculation given to the committee by 
 Mr. Young, the Council's surveyor, there was, 
 leaving out Messrs. Slee's property, ^"5987 to 
 be apportioned in betterment among forty-two 
 properties, which gives an average amount of 
 ^"142 on each property. Three per cent, on
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 53 
 
 £\\2 is ^"4 55., or over is. yd. a week, which 
 means an addition of 25 per cent, to a rent of 
 six shillings, and 35 per cent, to a rent of four 
 shillings. It is remarkable that politicians, who 
 would denounce a tax on the food of the poor, 
 propose to lay a new tax on what is quite as 
 much a necessary, namely, lodging. Nor is it 
 only on the working classes that this new tax 
 will press : it will fall on the whole class of 
 occupiers, to whatever section of society they 
 belong. The intention of the Council is to 
 throw the payment of the new charge on the 
 ground-landlord ; but, unless the Legislature is 
 going to fix rents in London, the ground- 
 landlord will throw it back on the lessee, and 
 the lessee will pass it on to the occupier. 
 Under some pressure before the Committee, 
 Mr. Harrison agreed to insert a clause re- 
 specting existing covenants. In nearly every 
 existing lease the ground-landlord is protected 
 by the building-owner's covenants to pay all 
 rates, taxes, charges, or assessments, present
 
 54 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 and future, and the building-owner, in his turn, 
 protects himself by his lessee's covenants to a 
 similar effect. The betterment charge cannot 
 therefore affect anybody but the occupier, until 
 existing leases have expired, which is rather an 
 important point, as a great many new leases 
 have recently been granted all over London. 
 In future leases the same covenants will be 
 inserted, for there is nothing to prevent " con- 
 tractinof-out " of the betterment charge. If 
 the Legislature should in the future go so far 
 as to forbid landlords and tenants to make their 
 own agreements about the payment of annual 
 burthens, the only result will be a corresponding 
 increase of rent. Whatever provisions may be 
 made for deducting the betterment charge from 
 the superior rent, or even for preventing con- 
 tracting-out, the main burthen of the charge 
 must fall upon the occupier, so long, that is, as 
 population increases, and people want to live in 
 London. 
 
 8. Betterment is a plan to assess the in-
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 55 
 
 dividual instead of the parish in which he lives, 
 because the individual can't resist, whereas the 
 Vestry can oppose the Bill before Parliament. 
 Only those who have had actual experience are 
 aware of the very heavy expense involved in 
 opposing a private Bill before committees of 
 both Houses. The costs are so formidable, that 
 most individuals will submit to any injustice 
 rather than appear as petitioners against a public 
 authority, which has a public purse to dip into. 
 
 9. So far as assessment for benefits has been 
 tried as a system of taxation, it stands con- 
 demned by experience. The London County 
 Council was ordered by the committee last year 
 to print their legislative precedents for better- 
 ment ; and accordingly an Orange-book has 
 been issued from Spring Gardens, containing 
 what looks at first sight like a very formidable 
 bundle of public and private Acts of Parlia- 
 ment. Upon examination, however, it appears 
 that about one-half of these precedents have
 
 56 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 been made the subject of a recent and 
 prolonged inquiry by a Committee of the 
 Legislature, and reported on as unsatisfactory ; 
 while the other half have nothing whatever to 
 do with betterment. The precedents produced 
 by the Council may be divided into four 
 categories : (i.) Acts relating to sewerage, 
 drainage, and river conservancy, (ii.) Acts 
 relating to lighting and paving, (iii.) Private 
 improvement rates, (iv.) Street improvements. 
 Let us examine them shortly. 
 
 (i.) In 1877 a Committee of the House of 
 Lords was appointed " to inquire into the 
 operation of existing statutes in regard to the 
 formation of, and proceedings by, Commissioners 
 of Sewers, and Conservancy, Drainage, and 
 River Navigation Boards." The Committee 
 was an exceptionally strong one, and was com- 
 posed of the Duke of Richmond, the Duke 
 of Bedford, the Duke of Northumberland, the 
 Marquis of Salisbury, the Marquis of Ripon,
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 57 
 
 Earl of Sandwich, Earl Cowper, Earl Stanhope, 
 Lord Monson, Lord Vernon, Lord Stewart of 
 Garlies, Lord Meldrum, Lord Ker, Lord 
 Penrhyn, Lord Somerton, Lord Winmarleigh. 
 In their Report they say: "The principle of 
 rating exclusively according to the benefit re- 
 ceived is difficult of application, and is frequently 
 found to work unsatisfactorily in practice. . . . 
 The principle introduced by the statute of 
 Henry VIII., and observed ever since, of tax- 
 ing in proportion to the benefit conferred in 
 each particular case by the works of conserv- 
 ancy, appears to work unfairly in some in- 
 stances, and to be incapable of application in 
 others." This disposes of all the precedents 
 but two that are at all relevant, i. e. which con- 
 tain something like the principle of betterment, 
 though I must point out this very important 
 difference between them and the proposal of 
 the County Council, that in the case of the 
 drainage of land, or the connection of a property
 
 5S BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 with a sewer, or the embankment of a river, 
 the fact of benefit is indisputable, though the 
 amount of benefit may be matter of specula- 
 tion ; whereas in the case of street improve- 
 ments, both the fact and the amount of benefit 
 may be in dispute. I observe with surprise 
 that Mr. Harrison in this Orange-book quotes 
 from the evidence o^iven to this Committee in 
 1877 answers which are favourable to assess- 
 ment for benefits, but says nothing about the 
 Report. 
 
 (ii.) A considerable number of Acts, private 
 and public, are quoted, which contain sections 
 for the levying of special rates upon adjoining 
 occupiers for paving and lighting and some- 
 times for street-making ; but none of them have 
 anything to do with betterment. In every case 
 the special rate is directed to be so much in the 
 pound of the rent or annual value, and is the 
 same for everybody within the area defined. 
 A few minutes' reflection will detect the con-
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 59 
 
 fusion of mind that produces as a precedent 
 for betterment a special rate for a particular im- 
 provement. All local rates are assessment for 
 benefits ; that is to say, the ratepayer pays 
 for certain services rendered him by the local 
 authority, such as paving, scavenging, lighting, 
 or, it may be, the widening of old, or the making 
 of new, streets. In the case of a special rate 
 for a particular work or improvement, the area 
 is narrowed, because the benefit is narrowed. 
 But within that area the rate is equal and uni- 
 form, being a fixed percentage, according to 
 the total sum required, of the rent. A special 
 rate is assessment for benefit in proportion to 
 the value of the property. Betterment is 
 special assessment in proportion to the amo?mt 
 of benefit, irrespective of the value of the 
 property. I will quote an instance from one of 
 the Shoreditch Acts given (14 Geo. III. c. 
 116, a.d. 1775), which is a very fair sample 
 of the bulk. "The assessors for each of the
 
 60 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPM ENT. 
 
 said respective parishes shall make, sign, and 
 return, as aforesaid, a rate or assessment of six- 
 pence in the pound upon the several inhabitants, 
 or occupiers of all houses, shops, warehouses, 
 coach-houses, stables, or other buildings, yards, 
 and gardens (not being gardeners' or nursery 
 grounds) situate in their respective parishes by 
 the side of the said high road, or within two 
 hundred yards thereof, of the yearly rent or 
 value of ten pounds or upwards, according to 
 the annual improved rent or value thereof." 
 There is nothinq- like betterment in this. There 
 is neither uncertainty nor inequality here. All 
 houses fronting the road or within two hundred 
 yards of it of the annual improved rent of 
 £10 and upwards are to be rated at 6d. in 
 the £. There is not a word about assessing 
 the occupiers in proportion to the amount of 
 benefit they receive from the road. The rate 
 in these cases has relation to two things : the 
 yearly value of the property, and the cost of
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 61 
 
 the paving, lighting, or new street. The area 
 has relation to the fact of benefit, as it always 
 has in every case. When it is a question 
 whether the cost of an improvement, under 
 the existing practice, shall be borne by the 
 metropolis, or by one or more parishes, or 
 should be divided between the metropolis and 
 the parish or parishes, the rating area is decided 
 with reference to the fact of benefit; and within 
 that area there is no question of the amount of 
 benefit which each individual may or may not 
 enjoy, for each pays in proportion to the value 
 of his house. Betterment, on the other hand, 
 has no relation to either the annual value of the 
 house or the cost of the improvement, but solely 
 to the amount of benefit which the individual 
 may or may not derive. The only common 
 mark between betterment and special rates on 
 adjoining property for paving and lighting is, 
 that in both the area is determined with reference 
 to the fact of benefit. The differences between
 
 62 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 them are essential, and are these: (a) In the 
 case of paving and lighting the fact of benefit is 
 indisputable ; in street improvements the fact 
 of benefit may be disputed, (b) In paving and 
 lighting rates, the rate is struck between the 
 sum wanted to pay for the paving or lighting 
 and the rateable value of the adjoining houses ; 
 the betterment charge has nothing to do with 
 either the sum wanted or the value of the 
 property charged. The analogy therefore 
 altogether fails. 
 
 The same remark applies to section 159 of 
 the Metropolis Management Act 1855. The 
 words are : " Where it appears to any vestry 
 or district board that all or any part of the ex- 
 penses, for defraying which any sum is by such 
 vestry or board ordered to be levied as afore- 
 said " (/. e. for paving, lighting, and drainage), 
 " have or has been incurred for the special 
 benefit of any particular part of their parish or 
 district, or otherwise have or has not been in-
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 63 
 
 curred for the equal benefit of the whole of their 
 parish or district, such vestry or board may, by 
 any such order, direct the sum or sums necessary 
 for defraying such expenses or any part thereof 
 to be levied in such part," etc. I should have 
 thought these words meant simply that the 
 vestry might, in some particular case, take a 
 smaller area than the parish, and within that 
 special area, created pro hdc vice, levy a uniform 
 rate upon the annual values of the properties. 
 But in the case of Howell v. London Dock 
 Company (8 Ellis and Blackburn, 213), quoted 
 in the Orange-book, Mr. Justice Earle did say, 
 "We consider that by the 159th section the 
 duty is cast on the vestry in the cases to which 
 it applies to apportion the burden according to 
 the benefit." But by section 161 the over- 
 seers "shall make such respective rates of such 
 amount in the pound on the annual value of 
 the property rateable as will in their judg- 
 ment, having regard to all circumstances, be
 
 64 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT 
 
 sufficient to raise the sums specified," etc., 
 which clearly distinguishes such rates from 
 betterment. 
 
 (iii.) Under the Public Health Act of 1875 
 (which does not apply to London), where an 
 owner neglects to connect his house with a 
 drainage system, or refuses to provide sufficient 
 water-closets, or a proper water-supply, or to 
 pay the sewers rate, or to pay a paving rate as 
 an adjoining occupier, the local authority may 
 charge upon the property the money spent on 
 these objects as a private improvement rate. 
 Is there any analogy between charging a 
 liquidated sum laid out in works absolutely 
 necessary to the health of the community, and 
 assessing a betterment charge for a new street 
 made to ease traffic, or beautify the metropolis ? 
 Under the Housing of the Working Classes Act 
 1890 (sect. 38, sub-sec. 8), the cost of demolish- 
 ing obstructive buildings, which stop ventilation, 
 and conduce to make other buildings unfit for
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 65 
 
 human habitation, or dangerous, or injurious 
 to health, can be partially defrayed by laying 
 private improvement rates as a charge upon the 
 adjoining properties. But this provision applies 
 only to insanitary property, and there are five 
 preliminary steps necessary before the County 
 Council can proceed with an improvement 
 scheme : the medical officer of the parish must 
 make an official representation that the area is 
 unhealthy ; the local authority must petition the 
 Home Secretary to confirm their scheme ; the 
 Home Secretary must order a local inquiry to 
 be held ; there must be a provisional order 
 authorising the scheme ; and this order must be 
 confirmed by Parliament. This is very different 
 from Betterment. 
 
 (iv.) Street Improvements. — Under this 
 head Mr. Harrison has been more fortunate in 
 his hunt for precedents ; for there undoubtedly 
 are in the Statute Book two Acts passed in 
 the reign of Charles II., which contain words
 
 66 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 authorising an assessment upon owners and 
 occupiers, in the case of new streets, " of such 
 
 competent sum or sums of money in 
 
 consideration of such improvement," as to the 
 Commissioners shall seem just. To the 13 
 and 14 Charles II. c. 2 (1662), which contains 
 the above words, I have no answer to make. 
 With regard to 18 and 19 Charles II. c. 18 (1667), 
 and the now familiar passage in Pepys' Diary, 
 I can only repeat what I said last year, 1 that the 
 state of London after the Great Fire was very 
 exceptional ; and that another Act was passed 
 in the same year (cap. 3) fixing the price of 
 bricks and mortar, and the wages of all work- 
 men connected with the building trade, "to the 
 intent no brickmaker, carpenter, bricklayer, 
 mason, plumber, workman, or labourer, may 
 make the common calamity a pretence to extort 
 excessive or unreasonable wages." The other 
 private Acts quoted under this head — the 
 1 v. Betterment (Edward Arnold), p. 5.
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 67 
 
 Wapping, Southwark, St. George's Hanover 
 Square, and Kensington Acts — are all, like the 
 other precedents, mere instances of special rates 
 for particular purposes, as the following quotation 
 from the last-mentioned Act will show : " that a 
 separate, special rate or assessment, not exceed- 
 ing in any one year the sum of one shilling and 
 threepence in the pound of the annual rateable 
 value, shall from time to time be made or 
 assessed by the said Commissioners in respect 
 of and on all occupiers of the houses and build- 
 ings in each of the squares after-mentioned 
 respectively for the purpose of main- 
 taining and keeping in order the gardens, etc. 
 etc." Mr. Harrison has gone all the way to 
 Gibraltar for a precedent, and has cited "a 
 Sanitary order in Council " ; but here again he 
 has only confused special assessment for par- 
 ticular benefit with assessment in proportion to 
 particular benefit. So much for the legislative 
 precedents.
 
 OS BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 10. Betterment is a fixed charge on a fluctu- 
 ating value. No matter how much the property 
 may fall in value, from one cause or another, 
 the charge remains the same. 
 
 n. It is a perpetual tax on a terminable 
 advantage. No street improvement can last for 
 more than a limited number of years. Consider- 
 ing the wear and tear caused by traffic in modern 
 London, so-called " permanent " improvements 
 are likely to have their lives considerably short- 
 ened : but the betterment charge is in perpetuity. 
 The Council proposed to defer a betterment 
 charge for forty years ; that is to say, when an 
 improvement was half worn out, they proposed 
 to impose a charge for ever. 
 
 12. It is ridiculously unremunerative. The 
 estimated cost of the Tower Bridge approach 
 is ,£436,000. According to the last and finally 
 corrected calculation of Mr. Young, the Council's 
 Surveyor (Evidence, qq. 2998, 2999), the amount 
 of betterment which the Council expects to be
 
 OBJECTIONS TO BETTERMENT. 69 
 
 able to impose on the forty-three properties 
 scheduled is the half of ,£17,960, or £8,980; 
 leaving out Messrs. Slee's Vinegar Works (on 
 which the charge may be deferred for forty years, 
 and which is in value a third of the scheduled 
 properties), the amount of betterment is re- 
 duced to ,£5,987. Three per cent, on this sum 
 would bring into the coffers of the Council 
 £179 a year; and this, it must be remem- 
 bered, is the estimated maximum. 1 The actual 
 amount realised might be less, and the costs 
 of the provisional assessment and the arbi- 
 tration have to be deducted. 
 
 13. It is taxation without representation. 
 The owners, upon whose reversionary or present 
 interests it is intended to throw the burthen 
 of betterment, have no representation on the 
 County Council as owners, but only as occupiers. 
 Before saddling a man's property with a 
 
 1 The estimate is based on the assumption that better- 
 ment could be proved in each of the forty-two cases.
 
 7 o BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 perpetual charge for an improvement, he is surely 
 entitled to vote upon the questions, whether the 
 work will be an improvement, and whether he 
 wants it. 
 
 14. It is unaccompanied by Worsement. 
 Special assessment in proportion to estimated 
 benefit should be accompanied by special com- 
 pensation in proportion to estimated injury. 
 But this branch of the subject demands a separate 
 chapter.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 WORSEMENT. 
 
 To avoid the possibility of any unfairness 
 to the London County Council, I shall cite, as 
 before, the evidence, not of the witnesses who 
 were called by the opponents of the Bill, but 
 of the witnesses who were put into the box by 
 the promoters. The Council called Mr. J. F. 
 Field, a valuer and surveyor of twenty years' 
 experience, who said in answer to Mr. Snape, 
 a member of the Committee (qq. 2068 — 2070) : 
 " We know as we go through the metropolis, 
 that when a great artery is pierced through 
 a new district, there must be certain other 
 thoroughfares which, before that main artery 
 was formed, had a larger amount of traffic
 
 72 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 through them than they now enjoy ; we are 
 sorry for the occupants in those streets, but we 
 cannot help it. I do not see how it is capable 
 of remedy. A main artery is pierced through 
 a public street, and the individual suffers, and 
 we cannot help it. O. 2069. If you are going 
 to charge betterment, or if you are going to do 
 betterment to some person, ought you not also 
 to give compensation for the worsement which 
 you inflict upon that person ? — I think if such 
 a suggestion as that was made, the time of the 
 whole Surveyor's Institution would be in- 
 definitely occupied. O. 2070. Then are the 
 Committee to understand, that the London 
 County Council is unwilling to compensate in 
 cases of injustice of that kind, by making 
 provision in the Bill for that purpose ? — I do 
 not think cases such as that are capable of 
 being met by specific compensation." A little 
 later the same witness was questioned by Mr. 
 Leake, another member of the Committee.
 
 WORSEMENT. 73 
 
 Q. 2100. " I think it would be desirable to 
 have your opinion with regard to the fairness 
 of compensating for worsement. I take your 
 answer to mean, that you consider that it would 
 not be a practicable thing to compensate every 
 one who is damaged, or might be damaged, 
 under the Bill by any improvement ? — Yes. 
 Q. 2 10 1. In fact, in endeavouring to act with 
 theoretical fairness and justice you would create 
 a great deal of practical injustice and injury ? 
 — That is my opinion." 
 
 Here we have two damaging, if not fatal, 
 admissions : (i.) that street improvements 
 create worsement ; (ii.) that it is practically 
 impossible to assess the compensation for this 
 worsement. But if cases of worsement are not 
 capable of being met by compensation, how are 
 cases of betterment capable of being met by 
 the imposition of a charge ? Surely the two 
 things are co-relative ; and if it is possible to 
 assess the benefit, it must be possible to assess
 
 74 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 the damage. Under pressure from Mr. Kim- 
 ber, the witness made another admission (qq. 
 2076-7): " I did not say it would be impossible 
 to ascertain it" (i.e. the worsement), "but it 
 would be opening the door to illimitable inquiry. 
 O. 2077. I as k you whether it would not be 
 fair to devise some plan by which he could be 
 compensated ?— If such a plan could be de- 
 vised it would receive my hearty concurrence." 
 So that, according to the surveyor called by the 
 County Council, it would be fair, if possible, 
 to provide compensation for worsement (ad- 
 mission iii.). Mr. Fletcher Moulton, O.C. 
 was also called by the Council, and he also 
 made an important admission (qq. 1444-7). 
 This eminent and ingenious lawyer admitted 
 that where a man had two properties, one of 
 which was bettered and the other worsened, 
 the owner ought to be allowed to set off the 
 worsement against the betterment, and pay or 
 receive, as the case might be, the balance. Mr.
 
 WORSEMENT. 75 
 
 Saunders, O.C., who was the leading counsel 
 for the County Council, went further even than 
 this, for he explicitly bound his clients to insert 
 words in the Bill to enable an owner to set off 
 worsement against betterment. " We are 
 perfectly ready that it shall be made clear, if it 
 is not sufficiently clear, that in both cases, where 
 compensation has to be paid, the enhancement 
 of value should be taken into account, and that 
 where betterment is going to be charged any 
 enhancement, or injury done to the property, 
 shall be taken into account by the arbitrator. 
 . . . I aeree with Mr. Moulton that that 
 ouQfht to be so, and if it can be made clearer to 
 your mind that he should do so, we should be 
 prepared to put any words into the Bill." 1 Not- 
 withstanding the above admissions by its own 
 witnesses, and this distinct engagement by its 
 counsel, the County Council has inserted no 
 words in their Bill to enable an owner or 
 1 Evidence, p. 151.
 
 76 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 lessee to set off worsement on one property 
 against betterment on another. But why should 
 the right to compensation for worsement be 
 confined to owners of more than one property ? 
 Why, in other words, should it be a right of set- 
 off, and not a right for all alike ? Mr. Harrison, 
 when questioned about worsement, said he 
 would give no compensation except what the 
 existing law allowed (qq. 945 — 966) ; and as 
 it has been frequently stated in the House 
 of Commons, by Mr. James Stuart and others, 
 that there is compensation, under the existing 
 law, for worsement, it may be as well to point 
 out how utterly erroneous that statement is. 
 
 The law of compensation with which we 
 need concern ourselves is the 68th section 
 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 
 1845 (which was the codification of previous 
 practice), as interpreted by the judges. The 
 opening words are the material ones, on which 
 disputes have arisen. "If any party shall be
 
 WORSEMENT. 77 
 
 entitled to any compensation in respect of any 
 lands, or of any interest therein, which shall 
 have been taken for, or injuriously affected by 
 the execution of the worhs" etc. The words in 
 italics are of course those which have reference 
 to worsement, as if the lands are taken for the 
 improvement, they are purchased. The first 
 thing to be impressed upon the layman is, that 
 the above section of the Lands Clauses Act 
 confers no new rights upon anybody ; it merely 
 gives a new form of remedy, by substituting, 
 in cases where the injury complained of is done 
 under the authority of the legislature, arbitra- 
 tion, as to the amount, for an action in a court 
 of law. But no compensation is claimable 
 except for what lawyers call actionable damage 
 to property : it is only the amount of damage 
 that is submitted to the arbitrator or the jury ; 
 the question whether the claimant is legally 
 entitled to any compensation, i. e. whether he 
 has suffered a legal injuria, is one of law, and
 
 7 S BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 it is on that question that the celebrated 
 decisions have been given. The judgments 
 in the House of Lords have now settled that 
 the words "injuriously affected " must be taken 
 to mean the suffering of a legal injuria, or 
 infringement of some legal right, which is 
 not personal, but incident to the ownership 
 of land. No man has a right to have traffic 
 brought past his door ; the flow of passengers 
 and vehicles through the street in which his 
 house stands, is not a right incident to the pos- 
 session of that house, and therefore there is no 
 compensation claimable for diversion of traffic. 
 But the right of access is a right incident 
 to the possession of a house ; and therefore 
 if you stop up or interfere with a man's right 
 of access he has a claim for compensation. 
 This was the ground of the decision in Howard 
 v. the Metropolitan Board of Works, popularly 
 known as " the Putney Bridge case," and 
 triumphantly, but wrongly, quoted as an in-
 
 WORSEMENT. 79 
 
 stance of compensation for worsement. The 
 facts were, that the ' Five Bells ' public-house 
 stood in a street that ran straight on to old 
 Putney Bridge. The Board of Works stopped 
 up Old Bridge Street, which then became a 
 ail de sac, removed old Putney Bridge, made 
 a new bridge higher up the river, and a new 
 street turning off to the right at the corner 
 of Old Bridge Street, along which, of course, 
 all the traffic passed. The owner or lessee 
 of the ' Five Bells ' got compensation because 
 he had a right of access to the river and the 
 bridge over the river, which was cut off, with 
 consequent damage to his trade. But his loss 
 of custom was the measure of his damage, not 
 the ground of it, which was the interference 
 with his legal right, for which he might have 
 brought an action in a court of law. 
 
 The House of Lords has also decided that 
 the words "by the execution of the works" 
 mean the construction, and not the user, of
 
 So BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 the works. If, for instance, a railway is built 
 in front of a man's house, and he can prove 
 that his house is injured by the vibration, or 
 his garden by the smoke, of a contractor's 
 engine used to bring up ballast or materials for 
 the construction, he would get compensation. 
 But for the daily vibration and smoke of the 
 trains running on the completed line he would 
 get no compensation, as that would be damage 
 from user. Or aofain, a bridp-e is built along- 
 side of a ferry, which is ruined. If a ferry-boat 
 should be injured by the piles in the river, 
 the owner would be compensated ; but he has 
 no claim for the ruin of his trade, upon the 
 ground that it is not the construction of the 
 bridge that has damaged him. for if the bridge 
 had been built and not used, it would have 
 done him no harm. To such absurdities and 
 practical injustice has the law of compensation 
 been brought by the pedantic interpretation of 
 half-a-dozen words in a statute by half-a-dozen
 
 WORSEMENT. 81 
 
 judges, a pedantry and narrow-mindedness 
 against which both Lord Cairns and Lord 
 Westbury have protested. 1 To complete the 
 unfairness, it is the law that if a man has any 
 property taken for the improvement, he can 
 claim compensation for almost any kind of 
 damage that he can be proved to have suffered 
 with regard to the rest of his property, under 
 the head of " consequential " damage. Loss 
 of trade, interference with the amenities of 
 the house, injury from user as well as from 
 construction, can be made the ground of a 
 claim for compensation where lands are " held 
 with " land taken for the improvement. 
 
 Now, I agree with the witnesses called by 
 the Council, that it would be practically very 
 difficult to compensate everybody who is in- 
 jured by a street improvement. But the task 
 is not a bit more difficult than that of ascer- 
 
 1 Law of Compensation ; by. C. A. Cripps, Q.C., ch. ix. pp. 
 139 — 168 ; and see cases there referred to. 
 
 G
 
 82 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 taining the exact amount of benefit derived by 
 each individual from the new street, and laying 
 a perpetual charge upon him in proportion 
 to that. If the experiment is to be tried as 
 against the subject, let it also be tried in his 
 favour ; and if the imposers of betterment are 
 to select their own area, let the claimants of 
 worsement choose theirs, for of course it would 
 be futile to confine claims for injury to the 
 "limits of deviation." Let words be inserted 
 by the Council in their Bill, firstly, providing 
 for the set-off of worsement against betterment, 
 as was suggested by Mr. Fletcher Moulton, 
 Q.C., and promised by the late Mr. Saunders, 
 O.C.; secondly, defining worsement to be any 
 diminution in the value of the premises or the 
 land, which can be proved to be due to the 
 user as well as the construction of the works ; 
 and thirdly, describing the area within which 
 these claims must be made. The area must, I 
 agree, be a reasonable one ; but it cannot from
 
 WORSEMENT. 83 
 
 the nature of the case be the same as the 
 betterment area ; and if we are to have 
 exceptional legislation in one direction, we 
 must have it in another.
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 RECOUPMENT. 
 
 In the year 1877 the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works applied to the Legislature for powers to 
 carry out two great metropolitan improvements, 
 Charing Cross Road and Shaftesbury Avenue. 
 After much discussion, and a joint conference 
 of both Houses, it was decided to give the 
 Board of Works power to buy more land than 
 was actually required for the construction of the 
 new streets, in order that by re-selling the sur- 
 plus lands at their enhanced value, the net cost 
 to the ratepayers might be reduced. Thus 
 was the principle of Recoupment deliberately 
 affirmed by Parliament after prolonged inquiry,
 
 RECOUPMENT. 85 
 
 sixteen years ago ; and from that date to the 
 creation of the County Council in 1S88, it was 
 applied to London street improvements. For 
 a description of this principle I again resort to 
 the evidence given by the County Council 
 before last year's committee. In answer to 
 question 51, put to him by his own counsel, 
 Mr. Charles Harrison said that recoupment " is 
 the principle of betterment in which you give 
 the whole of the enhanced value to the local 
 authority. The object of recoupment is to 
 purchase the land before the improvement at 
 the time of the improvement, and to sell it after 
 the improvement is made ; and you take it, 
 because the improvement gives such additional 
 value, that the price which you sell it for after 
 the improvement is made, is a profit, which goes 
 to reduce the cost of the work. It is nothing 
 more than giving the whole of the enhanced 
 value in that case to the local authority. It 
 would be a very good principle if you could
 
 86 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 exclude having to take and compensate trade 
 interests and other interests which are not 
 saleable, and represent no value at all. The 
 practical result has been that we have found 
 that the recoupment principle in all of what I 
 may call the streets improvement proper have 
 been not only not profitable, but in many cases 
 a positive loss." In proof of this last assertion 
 Mr. Harrison put in a Table (A), dealing only 
 with four out of the thirty-eight cases of London 
 improvements carried out on the recoupment 
 basis, which are given on Table B, and were 
 laid before the Committee. (See pp. Sy — 91.) 
 With regard to Table B, it will be found, on 
 addition, that the gross cost of these thirty-eight 
 London improvements has been £"10,355,688 ; 
 that the amount realised by the re-sale of 
 surplus land has been ,£4,501,693 ; and that 
 consequently the net cost has been reduced to 
 £"5,853,995. If the calculation be confined to 
 what Mr. Harrison calls street improvements
 
 RECOUPMENT. 
 
 Illustrations from Table A, showing the saving that would 
 have been effected had the property actually required for 
 the new street only been purchased, and no extra land 
 taken for recoupment. 
 
 GRAY'S INN ROAD (i.). 
 
 
 (i.) 
 
 Amount paid 
 for compensation 
 excluding costs. 
 
 (2.) 
 
 Receipts from 
 or value of sur- 
 plus property. 
 
 Difference be- 
 tween columns 1 
 and 2, being net 
 cost of roadway 
 (irrespective of 
 works and inci- 
 dental expenses). 
 
 As carried out on a re- 
 coupment basis 
 
 If only the property 
 actually required for 
 the street had been 
 taken 
 
 £ 
 
 423,413 
 
 285,300 
 
 £ 
 
 84,421 
 
 32,600 
 
 £ 
 
 338,992 
 
 252,700 
 
 Extra cost incurred by 
 the Recoupment 
 system, exclusive of 
 the additional legal 
 and other expenses 
 involved in the ac- 
 quisition of the extra 
 properties ... 
 
 Percentage of extra cost 
 
 
 
 86,292 
 25 
 
 CHARING CROSS ROAD (ii.). 
 
 As carried out on a re- 
 
 
 
 
 coupment basis 
 
 690,913 
 
 180,739 
 
 510,174 
 
 If only the property 
 
 
 
 
 actually required for 
 
 
 
 
 the street had been 
 
 
 
 
 taken 
 
 477,913 
 
 55,000 
 
 422,913 
 
 Extra cost incurred by 
 
 
 
 
 the Recoupment 
 
 
 
 
 system, exclusive of 
 
 
 
 
 the additional legal 
 
 
 
 
 and other expenses 
 
 
 
 
 involved in the ac- 
 
 
 
 
 quisition of the extra 
 
 
 
 
 properties 
 
 
 
 87,261 
 
 Percentage of extra cost 
 
 
 
 17
 
 88 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 SHAFTESBURY AVENUE (iii.). 
 
 
 (i.). 
 
 Amount paid f >r 
 
 compensation 
 excluding costs. 
 
 (2) 
 
 Receipts from 
 
 or value of 
 
 surplus property. 
 
 Difference 
 between columns 
 1 and 2, being net 
 cost of roadway 
 (irrespective of 
 works and inci- 
 dental expenses). 
 
 As carried out on a re- 
 coupment basis 
 
 If only the property 
 actually required for 
 the street had been 
 taken 
 
 £ 
 
 1,004,990 
 
 690,990 
 
 £ 
 
 377,569 
 
 65,000 
 
 £ 
 
 627,421 
 
 625,990 
 
 Extra cost incurred by 
 the Recoupment 
 system, exclusive of 
 the additional legal 
 and other expenses 
 involved in the ac- 
 quisition of the extra 
 properties 
 
 Percentage of extra cost 
 
 
 
 1-431 
 •2 
 
 MARSHALSEA ROAD (iv.). 
 
 As carried out on a re- 
 
 
 
 
 coupment basis 
 
 125,928 
 
 17.413 
 
 108,515 
 
 If only the property 
 
 
 
 
 actually required for 
 
 
 
 
 the street had been 
 
 
 
 
 taken 
 
 95.475 
 
 7,850 
 
 87,625 
 
 Extra cost incurred by 
 
 
 
 
 the Recoupment 
 
 
 
 
 system, exclusive of 
 
 
 
 
 the additional legal 
 
 
 
 
 and other expenses 
 
 
 
 
 involved in the ac- 
 
 
 
 
 quisition of the extra 
 
 
 
 
 properties 
 
 
 
 20,890 
 
 Percentage of extra cost 
 
 
 
 19
 
 RECOUPMENT. 
 
 89 
 
 Table B, showing effect of Recoupment principle in cases 
 of Metropolitan Improvements. 
 
 1. — Cases of Formation of New Thoroughfares. 
 
 Date of Act 
 
 
 
 
 
 sanction- 
 ing the 
 improve- 
 ment. 
 
 Improvement. 
 
 Amount 
 paid for 
 compens- 
 ation. 
 
 Value of 
 Surplus 
 Land. 
 
 Net cost of 
 Property. 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 1857 
 
 Covent Garden Ap- 
 
 
 
 
 
 proach (Garrick St.) 
 
 106,691 
 
 89,072 
 
 17,619 
 
 ,, 
 
 Southwark Street 
 
 476,238 
 
 218,860 
 
 257,378 
 
 1S58 
 
 Victoria Park Approach 
 
 
 
 
 
 Burdett Road 
 
 30,408 
 
 9,945 
 
 20,463 
 
 186 3 
 
 Mansion House St. 
 
 
 
 
 
 (Queen Victoria St.) 
 
 2,055,408 
 
 1,224,233 
 
 831,175 
 
 1865 
 
 Whitechapel (Com- 
 
 
 
 
 
 mercial Road) 
 
 205,869 
 
 42,270 
 
 163,599 
 
 1872 
 
 Willow Walk (Great 
 
 
 
 
 
 Eastern Street) 
 
 367.487 
 
 178,990 
 
 iSS,497 
 
 1873 
 
 Charing Cross and 
 Victoria Embank- 
 ment Approach 
 (Northumberland 
 
 
 
 
 
 Avenue) 
 
 658,646 
 
 831,310 
 
 172,664 
 (surplus) 
 
 1877 
 
 Southwark Bridge Road 
 
 
 
 
 
 (Marshalsea Road) ... 
 
 125,928 
 
 i7,4i3 
 
 108,515 
 
 1883 
 
 South Lambeth Road 
 
 17,928 
 
 7,755 
 
 io,i73 
 
 18S4 
 
 Kentish Town Road to 
 Great College Street 
 
 
 
 
 
 (Clarence Road) 
 
 Totals ... £ 
 
 6,382 
 
 3,5oo 
 
 2,8S2 
 
 
 4,050,985 
 
 2,623,34s 
 
 1,427,637
 
 9o BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 2.— Cases of Simple Street Widenings. 
 
 Date of Act 
 sanction- 
 ing the 
 improve- 
 ment. 
 
 Improvement. 
 
 Amount 
 paid for 
 compens- 
 ation. 
 
 Value of 
 Surplus 
 Land. 
 
 Net cost of 
 Property. 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 1865 
 
 Holborn (Middle Row) 
 
 68,927 
 
 
 68,927 
 
 IS66 
 
 Kensington (High St.) 
 
 164,963 
 
 60,520 
 
 104,443 
 
 1869 
 
 Park Lane (Hamilton 
 
 
 
 
 
 Place) 
 
 109,288 
 
 33,456 
 
 75,832 
 
 1872 
 
 Wapping (High Street) 
 
 197,333 
 
 37,187 
 
 160,146 
 
 J> 
 
 Shoreditch (High St.) 
 
 184,184 
 
 89,887 
 
 94,297 
 
 jy 
 
 Harrow Road ... 
 
 165,866 
 
 62,380 
 
 103,486 
 
 5 J 
 
 Xewington Butts 
 
 10,123 
 
 1,566 
 
 8,557 
 
 1877 
 
 Coventry St. Widening 
 
 170,845 
 
 85,880 
 
 84,965 
 
 ,, 
 
 Gray's Inn Road (in- 
 cluding Elm Street, 
 
 
 
 
 
 1884 and 1887) ... 
 
 423,413 
 
 84,421 
 
 338,992 
 
 >, 
 
 Kentish Town Road ... 
 
 101,861 
 
 26,695 
 
 75,i66 
 
 
 Islington ("Angel") 
 
 32,159 
 
 10,359 
 
 21,800 
 
 , , 
 
 Mare Street, Hackney 
 
 54,175 
 
 24,340 
 
 29,835 
 
 ,, 
 
 Tooley Street ... 
 
 399,262 
 
 77,108 
 
 322,154 
 
 , , 
 
 Jamaica Road 
 
 80,386 
 
 17,578 
 
 62,808 
 
 ,, 
 
 Camberwell and Peck- 
 
 
 
 
 
 ham ... 
 
 508,924 
 
 155,226 
 
 353,698 
 
 ,, 
 
 Deptford Bridge Ap- 
 
 
 
 
 
 proaches 
 
 120,144 
 
 26,889 
 
 93,255 
 
 1882 
 
 Tooley Street Extension 
 (Bermondsey Street 
 
 
 
 
 
 to Dean Street) 
 
 68,673 
 
 45,388 
 
 23,285 
 
 1S83 
 
 Upper Street, Islington 
 
 222,589 
 
 54,643 
 
 167,946 
 
 ,, 
 
 Green Street, Bethnal 
 
 
 
 
 
 Green 
 
 57,187 
 
 11,832 
 
 45,355 
 
 ,, 
 
 Little York St., Bethnal 
 
 
 
 
 
 Green 
 
 1,903 
 
 
 1,903 
 
 ,, 
 
 Tower Hill 
 
 65,465 
 
 
 65,465 
 
 
 Hammersmith 
 
 Star Corner, Bermond- 
 
 43,688 
 
 12,480 
 
 31,208 
 
 
 sey ... 
 
 99,823 
 
 7,033 
 
 92,790 
 
 ,, 
 
 Walworth Road 
 
 Totals ... £ 
 
 60,183 
 
 12,158 
 
 48,025 
 
 
 3,4",364 
 
 937,026 
 
 2,474,338
 
 RECOUPMENT. 
 
 9i 
 
 3.— Cases which include New Thoroughfares and 
 Street Widenings in one Improvement. 
 
 Date of Act 
 
 
 Amount 
 
 Value of 
 Surplus 
 
 
 sanctioning 
 the im- 
 
 Improvement. 
 
 paid for 
 compensa- 
 
 Net cost of 
 property. 
 
 provement. 
 
 
 tion. 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 1872 
 
 J) 
 
 Bethnal Green Road ... 
 
 Old Street to Oxford 
 Street (Clerkenwell 
 Road and Theobald's 
 
 247,501 
 
 98,673 
 
 148,82s 
 
 
 Road) 
 
 950,935 
 
 284,338 
 
 666,597 
 
 1S77 
 
 Piccadilly to Blooms- 
 bury (Shaftesbury 
 
 
 
 
 
 Avenue) 
 
 1,004,990 
 
 377,569 
 
 627,421 
 
 >» 
 
 Charing Cross to Totten- 
 ham Court Road 
 
 
 
 
 
 (Charing Cross Road) 
 Totals ... £ 
 
 690,913 
 
 180,739 
 
 510,174 
 
 
 2,894,339 
 
 941,319 
 
 1,953,020 
 
 proper, Table B 1, the case is still stronger. 
 The amount paid for compensation was 
 ,£4,050,985 ; and the amount realised by the 
 sale of surplus lands (/. c. recoupment) was 
 £"2,623,348, thus reducing the net cost to 
 £"1,427,637, a reduction of nearly 66 per cent. 
 The case of Northumberland Avenue deserves 
 special notice. The amount paid for the 
 land was £658,646 ; the amount realised by 
 recoupment was £831,310; thus this mag-
 
 92 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 nificent thoroughfare was constructed, not only 
 without expense to the ratepayers, but actually 
 at a profit to the public of ,£172,664. 
 
 The answer of the County Council to these 
 figures is, that Northumberland Avenue was a 
 very exceptional case, because there was only 
 one landowner, the Duke of Northumberland, 
 to be dealt with, and there were no trade 
 interests to compensate. This of course is 
 true ; but I shall show presently that the 
 amount realised by recoupment in Northumber- 
 land Avenue ought to have been twice as large 
 as it was. With regard to the other cases, the 
 Council's witnesses say in effect — " The profit 
 shown by your tables is apparent, not real ; 
 the streets would have been made at a much 
 less cost if the Board of Works had only 
 bought such lands as were actually required for 
 the street." As a matter of business, it is 
 obvious enough that if the amount of land 
 actually required for a street costs a million, and
 
 RECOUPMENT. 93 
 
 I pay two millions for a larger amount, and 
 sell the surplus for half-a-million, I am half- 
 a-million out of pocket. That the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works did something like this in 
 certain cases, I am not able to deny ; but that 
 was because the Board was cheated by its 
 servants, not because the principle of recoup- 
 ment was unsound. Recoupment there was, 
 but it was " intercepted " on its way to the 
 public pocket by individuals. Mr. Harrison 
 now proposes that the public should " inter- 
 cept " betterment on its way to the pocket 
 of individuals ; to which, as I said before, I 
 have no objection, provided Mr. Harrison 
 will intercept the whole amount, by buying 
 the risk of loss as well as the chance of gain. 
 
 Let us look at the first of the four cases 
 which Mr. Harrison produces to support his 
 assertion that recoupment is a failure, that of 
 the Gray's Inn Road. According to the figures, 
 the amount paid in compensation was ,£423,413 ;
 
 94 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 the amount realised by recoupment was ,£84,42 1 ; 
 and the net cost was ,£338,992. According to 
 the surveyor of the Council (whose figures, by 
 the way, must be more or less speculative), if 
 only the property actually required for the 
 street had been taken, the amount paid in com- 
 pensation would have been £"285,000 ; the 
 amount realised by sale of surplus property 
 (of which apparently there would have been 
 some in any case) would have been £"32,300 ; 
 and the net cost to the public £"252,700, or 
 ^£86,292 less than the former sum, a saving of 
 25 per cent. Now, with regard to this particular 
 improvement in Gray's Inn Road, it is a fact 
 that there were a large number of public-houses 
 in the neighbourhood ; and, as every experienced 
 valuer knows, public-houses are the most ex- 
 pensive class of trade interests to buy up. But 
 apart from this local peculiarity, I assert, and in 
 proof of my assertion I simply put in the Report 
 of Lord Herschell's Commission on the Metro-
 
 RECOUPMENT. 95 
 
 politan Board of Works in 1888, that if recoup- 
 ment had been applied to the Gray's Inn Road 
 improvement, with ordinary honesty and with 
 ordinary business intelligence, the amount paid 
 in compensation would have been much less, 
 the amount realised by re-sale of surplus lands 
 would have been far larger, and consequently 
 the net cost to the public would have been 
 much smaller, if there had not been an actual 
 profit. From the evidence given before Lord 
 Herschell's Commission, it appears that there 
 was a regular arrangement between the 
 surveyor to the Metropolitan Board, and 
 a firm of valuers of public-houses, by which 
 they gave one-third of their commission to 
 the Board's Surveyor, their commission being 
 fixed according to the amount paid as compensa- 
 tion to the publican for the interference with 
 his trade interest. This was not an isolated 
 case ; it was the regular system. Is it likely 
 that under such a system the amount of com-
 
 96 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 pensation paid to trade interests would be kept 
 within reasonable limits ? I have no particular 
 desire to fish in the mud of Lord Herschell's 
 Commission, which those who run may read for 
 themselves ; but I must give one or two 
 samples, drawn not unfairly, as those who know 
 will admit, from the bulk of the evidence, of the 
 manner in which recoupment was turned to the 
 profit of individuals and to the defrauding of 
 the public. 1 In this Gray's Inn Road improve- 
 ment, L., the tenant of the ' Yorkshire Grey ' 
 public-house, gave ^2500 for a site on the 
 new street, and afterwards made a present of 
 ^2000 to R.. the valuer of the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works. In selling the surplus lands, 
 R. fixed the price which the Board accepted, 
 and R. himself and his brothers, under the false 
 name of G., bought a great many properties from 
 the Board at prices much below the market 
 
 1 To avoid causing unnecessary annoyance to any one, I 
 give initials instead of names.
 
 RECOUPMENT. 97 
 
 value. And then Mr. Harrison declares in the 
 box, with perfect truth, that the Gray's Inn 
 Road improvement might have been carried 
 out a great deal more cheaply without recoup- 
 ment ! Without this sort of recoupment — yes. 
 
 Let us take the third of Mr. Harrison's 
 instances of the failure of recoupment, the 
 case of Shaftesbury Avenue. On the recoup- 
 ment basis, the amount paid in compensation 
 was ,£1,004,990 ; the amount realised by sale of 
 surplus land £"377,000 ; and the net cost there- 
 fore £"627,421. If only the property actually 
 required for the street had been acquired, 
 the compensation would have been £690,990 ; 
 the value of surplus property £"65,000 ; and 
 the net cost £625,990. So that here the 
 difference between recoupment, dishonestly 
 carried out as it was, and no recoupment, is 
 only £"1,431, and, on Mr. Harrison's own 
 figures, the percentage of extra cost is only 
 •2. In this case again, the greater part of
 
 9 8 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 the betterment went into the pockets of the 
 officials of the Hoard and the land speculators, 
 who made terms with them. If recoupment 
 had been honestly applied to this case, I believe 
 this great metropolitan improvement would 
 have been carried through at a trifling cost 
 to the public. 
 
 What happened with regard to the cele- 
 brated Pavilion site is as good an example 
 as any of the way in which the Metro- 
 politan Board allowed the enhanced value 
 to slip through its fingers. I cannot go 
 into the details of this notorious job ; it is 
 enough to say that the site, one of the most 
 valuable in all London, was never offered for 
 public competition, and that the Commissioners 
 report on p. 10, par. 9, "it is probable that 
 ^20,000 at least might have been obtained 
 beyond what the Board actually received." 
 For "his assistance in obtaining the site," 
 G., the Board's surveyor, was given 5000
 
 RECOUPMENT. 99 
 
 debentures in the Pavilion Company, and 
 the Commissioners observe, that " it is un- 
 necessary for us to characterise the conduct 
 of G. and R. in relation to the Pavilion 
 site." A man called H. bought a great many 
 properties from the Board in Clerkenwell and 
 Shaftesbury Avenue. On p. 18, par. 42, the 
 Commissioners report, " We may mention that 
 one plot in Clerkenwell which he purchased 
 from the Board for ^1500 he sold within a 
 year for ^3000 ; and in another instance " 
 (this was in Shaftesbury Avenue), " he secured 
 a purchaser at a profit to himself not far short 
 of ^"2000 before he had actually obtained 
 the land from the Board." This gentleman 
 handed over one-eighth of his profits on 
 Shaftesbury Avenue to R., the valuer of the 
 Board. 
 
 There were two clerks in the valuation 
 department of the office of the architect to 
 the Board who bought some property in
 
 ioo BETTERMENT, W'ORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 Deptford (Report, p. 20, par. 45), which it was 
 practically certain would be taken, which they 
 afterwards sold to the Board for ,£3000. 
 
 I said above that Northumberland Avenue 
 ought to have been constructed at a much 
 greater profit to the public than the ,£170,000 
 actually realised ; in proof of my assertion 
 I cite the following case (Report, p. 17, par. 40). 
 H. offered 27 years' purchase for the site 
 of the Colonial Institute. To his surprise 
 and joy, he got it for 25 years' purchase of 
 a rental of £560, and sold it next year for 
 2S years' purchase of a rental of £1090. In 
 other words, he bought the site for £13,000 
 and sold it for ,£30,520, thus clearing a recoup- 
 ment profit of ,£17,520, which ought to have 
 gone to the Board, within a twelvemonth. 
 H. made a present to R., the Board's valuer, 
 after this business. 
 
 From these transactions it will be seen that 
 when the Metropolitan Board of Works went
 
 RECOUPMENT. 101 
 
 into the market as a buyer, its own servants 
 forestalled it, and resold to their employers 
 at prices fixed in collusion with the Board's 
 valuer. When the Board wanted to sell, the 
 secret partners of its own officials appeared 
 as buyers, and obtained the properties at half 
 their value. Of course if a public authority 
 buys in the dearest market and sells in the 
 cheapest, it is not likely that recoupment will 
 be a profitable policy. Is it possible that 
 Mr. Charles Harrison is not acquainted with 
 the Report of Lord Herschell's Commission ? 
 
 The facts and figures set forth above, which 
 cannot be disputed, show that recoupment, 
 so far from being an unprofitable policy, is 
 an enormously profitable one. H. made one 
 hundred per cent, and more out of his pur- 
 chases from the Board. If that cent, per cent, 
 had been made, as it ought to have been, by 
 the public authority, how would the tables 
 as to recoupment have worked out ? If, with
 
 io2 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 all this robbery and jobbery, which rivals the 
 most daring exploits of the New York boodlers, 
 recoupment has reduced the cost of London 
 improvements in thirty-seven years from over 
 ten millions to close upon six millions, what 
 would the ratepayers have realised if recoup- 
 ment had been honestly and intelligently 
 carried out ? The figures I have given are 
 literally astounding, and prove beyond the 
 possibility of dispute that recoupment is, not 
 only the fairest and most business-like method 
 of dealing with improvements, but would 
 enable the public, in the majority of cases, 
 to make new streets at a comparatively trifling 
 cost, and in some cases at an absolute profit. 
 I do not say this would happen in all cases. 
 A street improvement is always in the nature 
 of a land speculation, which sometimes does 
 not succeed. The owners of property are 
 quite willing to part with all their chance 
 ol betterment to the public, providing they
 
 RECOUPMENT. 103 
 
 are secured, by being bought out, against the 
 risk of loss. But a public authority has no 
 right to drag individuals, without their consent, 
 into a building speculation, and then saddle 
 them with a perpetual charge for an enhance- 
 ment of value, which in their particular case 
 may never be realised.
 
 NOTE ON BETTERMENT IN AMERICA. 
 
 The letter of that eminent American jurist, 
 Mr. F. J. Stimson, speaks for itself, and seems 
 to me to contradict what Mr. Chamberlain said 
 in the House of Commons, namely, that " better- 
 ment works admirably in America." From the 
 subjoined extract from the law of betterment 
 in the city of New York, it will be seen, that so 
 far from having a single arbitrator, from whom 
 there is no appeal, to decide on the betterment, 
 the Supreme Court appoints three commissioners, 
 one to represent the city council, one to re- 
 present the owners and occupiers, and one to 
 represent the Court. The award requires 
 confirmation by the Supreme Court ; but before 
 it gets there a majority of those interested in 

 
 NOTE ON BETTERMENT IN AMERICA. 105 
 
 the award, either for betterment or worsement, 
 can quash the whole scheme. 
 
 " Bosto?i, January 13, 1893. 
 
 Arthur A. Baumann, Esq. 
 
 1 Essex Ct., London, England. 
 
 " My Dear Sir, 
 
 Your letter of December 8th was 
 received, but I have been somewhat at a loss 
 how to answer it. I should be very glad to 
 write anything I could to help you on the 
 subject of Betterments as experienced in this 
 country, but really it seems to me an impossible 
 task. You must know that we have different 
 laws in every state and territory — all quite 
 elaborate. Not only that, but we have often 
 several statutes in the same state applying 
 generally ; not only that, but each large city 
 and town may have, and probably has, a special 
 code for itself, and usually more than one. 
 For instance, in the city of Boston there are 
 three betterment laws under which the city can 
 pay for laying out streets — each one an elaborate 
 system, and it is usually optional with the city 
 under which it will proceed. Again, there is a
 
 106 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 general law for the state outside of the city of 
 Boston. And the same condition of things 
 exists elsewhere. Any letter that I can write 
 must, therefore, be confined entirely to the 
 general principle of betterment taxation, the 
 practical objections to which are, of course, that 
 it subjects municipal governments to the tempta- 
 tion to lay out streets not immediately demanded 
 by public necessity, or in excess of the reason- 
 able ability of the city or town to support them, 
 — being enabled by the betterment law to 
 impose the cost of such streets or improvements 
 entirely on the abutting property-owners. We 
 in this country find a further, perhaps even 
 more serious, objection ; that the majority of 
 voters not being property-owners, and a large 
 proportion of them being unskilled labourers — 
 especially the newly-landed emigrants in our 
 large cities — they continually meet in town 
 meetings of the smaller towns and vote for new 
 roads and improvements quite unnecessarily, 
 merely for the purpose of giving work to them- 
 selves and others ; and as, in many of our towns 
 and cities, the town or city is obliged to pay an 
 arbitrary sum of $2.00 a day (which is above
 
 NOTE ON BETTERMENT IN AMERICA. 107 
 
 the market value for unskilled labour), the 
 temptation to the voter, as well as the ex- 
 travagance on the part of the town or city, is 
 even greater ; but owing to the fact that the 
 consequences of such extravagance are only 
 suffered by a limited number of property-owners 
 in a special locality, whose voice of remonstrance 
 is lost in the multitude, there is no proper check 
 upon such schemes. 
 
 "As in our towns, distinct from our cities, 
 (the term ' city ' with us, as you probably 
 know, is applied to a town which is governed 
 by mayor, aldermen, and city council, instead of 
 by direct town meeting of all the legal voters. 
 Usually, hence, a town ceases to remain a town 
 when its population becomes unwieldy for the 
 purposes of a town meeting. In this state, 
 roughly, we may say that towns adopt the city 
 government as they get to from ten to fifteen 
 thousand population) — in our towns, where the 
 common voter votes directly on the question of 
 new streets and improvements, the temptation 
 of the betterment law is more dangerous than 
 in city governments. Luckily, in this state, at 
 least, our betterment laws are not so liberal nor
 
 108 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 so numerous as applying to towns as they are to 
 cities. On the other hand, in a large city govern- 
 ment, possibilities of ' jobbery ' are greater than 
 in smaller towns, where at least all that is done 
 is done with publicity to and by the voters. 
 
 "If all betterment laws could be strictly 
 limited to a small proportion of a total cost — i. e. 
 provide that two-thirds of the cost must be paid 
 by the city or town — only one-third at the out- 
 side can fall upon the local property owners ; if 
 we could be certain of keeping within this limit, 
 they might work well. But our general con- 
 clusion, in this country at least, is, that however 
 just the principle that a property-owner who is 
 benefited by a local improvement should bear 
 part of the expenses attending it, nevertheless 
 the principle of imposing the cost of public 
 works upon a small number of property-holders 
 in a narrow neighbourhood, is so dangerous an 
 encouragement to municipal extravagance, and 
 so great a temptation to the labourer-voter, 
 that the evils resulting from it are often greater 
 than the benefits. 
 
 " Yours faithfully, 
 
 " F. J. Stimson."
 
 NOTE ON BETTERMENT IN AMERICA. 109 
 
 Whenever the municipal council l desires to 
 open any street, avenue, square, or public place, 
 for which it is necessary to take land or houses, 
 application is made on behalf of the mayor to the 
 Supreme Court to appoint " three discreet and 
 disinterested persons " to act as Commissioners 
 of Estimate and Assessment. When the applica- 
 tion is heard, the mayor is entitled to nominate 
 one commissioner, any persons interested in the 
 property affected may nominate another, and 
 the Court appoints the third. 
 
 The commissioners (§ 970) "shall then pro- 
 ceed to and make a just and equitable estimate 
 and assessment of the loss and damage, if any, 
 over and above the benefit and advantage, or 
 of the benefit and advantage, if any, over and 
 above the loss and damage, as the case may 
 be, to the respective owners, lessees, parties, 
 and persons respectively entitled unto or inter- 
 
 1 The following is an extract from the Laws of New York 
 City, 1882.
 
 no BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 ested in the lands, tenements, hereditaments, 
 and premises so required for the purpose. In 
 one part of the city of New York, that, namely, 
 which has been laid out by the Commissioners 
 of Streets and Roads (I presume the older and 
 more crowded part), the said Commissioners of 
 Estimate and Assessment shall not, in making 
 their estimate and assessment of the value of 
 the benefit and advantage of the said operation, 
 be confined to any definite limits, but shall be 
 and hereby are authorised to extend such esti- 
 mate and assessment to any and all such lands, 
 tenements, hereditaments, and premises as they 
 may deem to be benefited by the said operation, 
 and which they may judge expedient to include 
 in the report in the premises." In the part of 
 the city which lies to the north of Fifty-ninth 
 Street, and in those cases where no buildings 
 for which compensation can lawfully be made 
 shall be taken, the betterment area is limited, 
 in the first instance to half the distance of the
 
 NOTE ON BETTERMENT IN AMERICA, in 
 
 next street or avenue thereto, and in the second 
 instance to the ends of the street or avenue 
 sought to be opened ; from which I infer that 
 this limitation applies to new and outlying 
 districts. So much for street improvements. 
 With regard to the opening of public squares or 
 places, by section 973, " the said Commissioners 
 of Estimate and Assessment shall not, in making 
 their estimate and assessment of the value of 
 the benefit and advantage of such public square 
 or place, be confined to the lands, tenements, 
 hereditaments, and premises fronting thereon 
 and lying within half the distance of the next 
 street or avenue thereto from the same on each 
 side thereof ; but on the contrary thereof, the 
 said commissioners shall proceed to make a 
 just and equitable estimate and assessment of 
 the value of the benefit and advantage of such 
 public square or place so to be opened to the 
 respective owners, leesees, parties, and persons 
 respectively entitled unto or interested in the
 
 it2 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 lands, tenements, hereditaments, and premises 
 lying out of the limits of such public square or 
 place, and the said commissioners shall and may- 
 extend their said assessments to any such lands, 
 tenements, hereditaments, and premises as they 
 may deem to be benefited by the opening of 
 the said public square or place, notwithstanding 
 such said lands, tenements, hereditaments, and 
 premises may be situated without and beyond 
 half the distance of the next street or avenue 
 thereto from such said public square or place 
 on any side thereof. 
 
 " § 974. The commissioners appointed in 
 pursuance of the title shall complete said 
 proceeding on their part within four months 
 from the time of their appointment, unless 
 further time shall be allowed by the Supreme 
 Court. 
 
 " §> 986. Any person or persons whose rights 
 may be affected by the said estimate and 
 assessment, and who shall object to the same
 
 NOTE ON BETTERMENT IN AMERICA. 113 
 
 or any part thereof, may, within thirty days 
 after the first publication of the said notice, 
 state his, her, or their objections to the same 
 in writing to the said commissioners ; which 
 statements shall not be received by the said 
 commissioners unless verified by his, her, or 
 their affidavits, or the affidavits of other 
 persons, or both ; and it shall be the duty 
 of the said commissioners in all cases to 
 transmit to the said court, together with 
 their said report, all the written statements 
 and affidavits which may have been served 
 upon them within the time aforesaid. 
 
 " $ 988. After considering the objections, if 
 any, and making any correction or alteration 
 of their estimate or assessment, which said 
 commissioners, or any two of them, shall find 
 to be just and proper, the said commissioners, 
 or any two of them, shall present their report 
 to the court at the time and place specified in 
 said notice.
 
 ii4 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 " § 990. The application for the confirmation 
 of the report shall be made to the Supreme 
 Court at a term thereof held in the city of New 
 York. Upon the coming in of the said report 
 signed by the said commissioners, or any two 
 of them, and upon the hearing of the appli- 
 cation for the confirmation thereof, if persons 
 who appear by the said report to be interested, 
 either by assessment for benefit or reward for 
 damages, to the amount of a majority in 
 amount of the whole of the assessments and 
 awards, shall appear and object to further 
 proceedings upon the said report, the court 
 shall order the same to be discontinued, and 
 the same shall thenceforth be discontinued ; 
 otherwise the said courts shall, by rule or 
 order, after hearing any matter which may be 
 alleged against the same, either confirm the 
 said report or refer the same to the same 
 commissioners for revisal and correction, or to 
 new commissioners, to be appointed by the
 
 NOTE ON BETTERMENT IN AMERICA. 115 
 
 said court to reconsider the subject-matter 
 thereof, and the said commissioners to whom 
 the said report shall be referred shall return the 
 same report corrected and revised, or a new 
 report to be made by them in the premises, to 
 the said court without unnecessary delay ; and 
 the same, on being so returned, shall be 
 confirmed or again referred by the said court 
 in manner aforesaid, as right and justice shall 
 require, and so from time to time until a report 
 shall be made or returned in the premises, 
 which the said court shall confirm ; and such 
 report, when so confirmed by the said court, 
 shall be final and conclusive." 1 
 
 It is impossible not to be struck with the 
 tenderness for the rights of property, and the 
 multiplication of safeguards against municipal 
 oppression, enforced by the law of the most 
 democratic country in the world. It is equally 
 impossible not to compare this caution and 
 1 Laws of New York, 1882, chap. 410.
 
 n6 BETTERMENT, WORSEMENT, RECOUPMENT. 
 
 scrupulosity with the summary and despotic 
 manner in which the London County Council 
 proposes to deal with the property of those 
 who, or whose predecessors, have been guilty 
 of the crime of investing their money in land 
 or houses. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 LONDON': EDWARD STANFORD, 26 &> 27, COCKSPUR STREET, CHARING CROSS, S.W. 

 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 i L9-25»(-9,'47(A5618)444 
 
 UNIVEI 
 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 LIBRARY
 
 HJ 
 
 9428 
 
 L82B32b 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILIT 
 
 AA 000 845 466