The problem is clear, the rents of the workmen's houses are too high in proportion to their wages, amounting to between a quarter and a third of the wages of the head of the family. From a careful study of the issues I reluctantly conclude that the Council would not supply houses cheaper as the private builder. To put it in figures, I fear that the houses proposed to be built must be let at 7s. a week at least to make them self-supporting, and self-supporting they must be.

We must not be deceived by the phrase "free education". No education is free; it is always very costly. Someone must pay; the question is: who? In this case a large part of the cost will fall on the rates and taxes. The rates are already a grievous burden everywhere, and they press hardest on the poorest. Secondary schools are and can be used by well-to-do parents. No working man can afford that his child spend the years from 14 to 16 in continuing his education.

The Council is empowered to collect rates compulsory from everyone, therefore those rates should only be spent on necessary objects, which everyone who contributed could share in using, or were so beneficed that no sensible man could refuse to consider in their provision. I sympathise with the desire to procure the young men a football ground. There are several ways of obtaining that. They could subscribe for it and by the aid of friends purchase it or they could hire it. To attempt to provide it out of the rates was utterly and entirely unjust and against every principle which should guide the spending of public rates.

This recreation ground could be used, not as a general space, but simply as a recreation ground that would only benefit a small number of one class. If people want a football ground let them form a club to pay for it.