'The Times' mentioned several cases which were instructive, as showing the extent to which municipal extravagance can be carried, and the methods by which this extravagance in some cases has been fostered; and I may quote as an example a few of the facts which it gives in connection with one - namely, the county borough of West Ham. This is one of the most important of the metropolitan suburban municipalities. Its growth has been surprisingly rapid. Half a century ago it had only a few thousand inhabitants, but it has now reached a total of over 275,000. The greater part of the rates is payable by large employers of labour, trades-people, and middle-class or well-to-do residents, of whom there is a small proportion, while the artisans and labourers, who form the bulk of the population and control the electoral power, do not directly feel the local burdens. In 1892 the Socialist societies and trade-unions of an aggressive type which existed in the district, obtained considerable representation in the town council; and in order to create as many openings as possible in the way of municipal employment, they demanded the formation of a works department which was to carry out all the public work decided on by the council - no tendering by outside contractors being then allowed. The work, however, was done by the department in such a fashion that it was described by one alderman as "the municipalisation of laziness." Several examples of the mismanagement of the council are given by 'The Times,' one being that work which could have been completed in the ordinary way for £900 cost £2000. At the end of two years the amount expended on the work of the department, over and above what it would have cost had it been given to contractors, was £50,000. The Socialists steadily strengthened their position in the town council, and in 1898 they found themselves in such a majority that they were able to have all their own way. The finances of the department were then run entirely in the interests of the employees, without any regard to the pockets of the ratepayers; and a large amount of unnecessary work was put in hand for the purpose of employing labour and increasing the number of the supporters of the party. An electric lighting installation was erected which involves a working loss of £2500 a-year; the stabling department was run at a loss of £8000 a-year, equal to a rate of 2d. in the £1. In the municipal contests the favourite election cry was, "Vote for me, and I will vote for an eight hours' day and 30s. a-week." Altogether the combined effect of reduced hours and increased pay was to send up the cost of corporation work by about £12,000 a-year as compared with what it would have cost if done by contractors. At last the eyes of the electors were opened and they began to understand the disadvantages of unrestricted Socialism. "They found that because of the increased rates house-rents were going up 12 1/2 to 20 per cent, notwithstanding the threats of the Socialists that every landlord who raised his rents should have his assessments increased. They found that employers of labour began to talk of doing with fewer hands, of putting down more, and still more labour-saving machinery, of paying lower wages, and even of removing from the borough altogether. They found that the corporation employees (who numbered from 1300 to 1400) were getting 20 per cent over trade-union rates for an eight hours' day in which they did practically as little as they pleased, while workmen not in municipal employment were expected to put in a full day's work for an ordinary wage, and to help, through higher rents, to confer a variety of advantages on an essentially privileged class." It took, however, three elections before the common-sense of the ratepayers was able to neutralise the hold which the labour party had in the town council; and as the result of the rule of Socialism in West Ham the ratepayers in 1901 were saddled with a rate of 10s. 8d. in the £1 as against 6s. in the £1 in 1890.

This, however, we should hope is an exceptional case, and we may congratulate ourselves that the great majority of our corporations are free from such misgovernment.

To pass from the general question of municipal borrowing to the actual facts connected with the various cities, I have selected ten of the largest, and annex three tables, the first giving statistics of the growth of their debts in the period from 1888 to 1901, with the proportion per head of population at each date; the second showing the relation of the debt to rateable value; and in the third the proportion of reproductive and unproductive expenditure respectively. The figures are extracted from the article in The Stock Exchange Official Intelligence' already referred to.

Table showing (1) the Net Municipal Debt of the following cities in 1888 and 1901; and (2) the Amount of Debt per head of the population at these dates.

(The figures in this and the following tables for London include those for the City of London and London County Council; and for Edinburgh the debt is exclusive of gas and water loans, as these are not directly under the Municipal Corporation.)

Table showing (1) the Rateable Value of the following cities in 1901; (2) their Net Debt in 1901; and (3) the Ratio which the Net Debt bears to the Rateable Value.

Table showing (1) the Proportion per cent of the Gross Debt of the following cities incurred for Reproductive Purposes, and (2) the Proportion per cent for Unproductive Purposes.

It will be observed that, excluding London, Manchester heads the list both as regards amount, ratio per head and per £1 of rateable value; but it has to be kept in view that its debt of £17,987,000 includes £5,128,000 advanced to the Manchester Ship Canal Company. Deducting this latter sum, the debt is reduced to £12,859,000, which is still considerably higher than .any of the other cities.