The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-09 00:00:00

BILL.

Sir G. C. LEWIS moved the second reading of this bill.
The right hon. gentleman said the house was aware that
duties were now raised on all coal imported into the city of
London and within a radius of 20 miles from some central
part of the metropolis. The amount thus raised consisted
of three portions. Fourpence , a ton was levied for the
benefit of the corporation of London, and there were two
sums of eightpence and one penny levied under the autho-
rity of several acts of Parliament, the proceeds of which
had been appropriated for works of public utility. During
the last session a committee sat to consider the question of
the embankment of the Thames, and they unanimously
came to the following resolution :—" That as in 1861
the eightpenny and the one penny duties on coal and
the halfpenny duty on wine, which were imposed and
continued by Parliament for the purposes of public im-
provements in the metropolis, would cease, they recom-
mended that those duties be renewed for a limited period,
and that the whole or a part of the probable cost of the
Thames embankment be made a first charge on them."
The present measure was introduced with the object of
carrying that recommendation into effect. The main fea-
ture of the bill was to continue for ten years the ninepenny
duties described in that resolution. With regard to the
question of the Thames embankment, the committee re-.
commended that that great and useful work should be exe-
cuted. Since that time her Majesty's Government had
issued a commission composed of persons having a profes-
sional knowledge on the subject, and others who were likely
to be affected by the execution of the work, with a view of
selecting the best of the different plans proposed. The deci-
sion of that commission would be of an engineering cha-
racter, and when their report was made, the house
would be in a position, if it thought fit, to legislate upon
the subject; and when they agreed to a plan, it would then
be in their power to appropriate the produce of the nine-
penny coal duties towards the expense of the embankment.
In addition to the ninepenny duties the bill would likewise
continue the:fourpenny now levied by the City. That tax,
he understood, had been levied continuously by the city for
many years. He. was informed by the officers of the cor-
poration that their books showed it had been levied unin-
terruptedly since the year of the fire of London, at which
time many of the archives of the city were destroyed. How
long before 1666 the tax had been imposed it could not
be ascertained, but that was unimportant as regarded the
question. With respect to the 4d. duty on coal he was
aware that a great deal of discussion would be raised.
(Hear, hear.) It might be said that a corporation ought
not to levy for th'eir own purposes this duty of 4d. on all
consumers of coal in London and within 20 miles of it.
(Hear, hear.) The City, however, maintained that they
had a right of property in the impost. He was unwilling,
however, to enter into a controversy which he knew
from previous experience was not easily determined in that
house, owing to the great differences of opinion which
existed upon it. He would propose to the house a plan
for abridging that controversy by inserting in the bill
when in committee a clause appropriating the whole of the
4d. to the extinction of the debt created by the corporation
for purposes of public Utility under the authority of acts of
Parliament. If that were done, there would be no discre-
tion on the part of the corporation, and they would have to
apply the money in the manner prescribed. The City,
having raised £540,000 for the purposes of forming Cannon-
street, obtained power under act of Parliament to charge
that sum on any of their revenues and the Common Council,
by resolution, ordered the charge to be made on the 4d.
coal duty. He hoped that both the house and the corpora-
tion would approve of this proposition, that the whole pro-
duce of this 4d. for the next ten years should be appro-
priated to the payment of interest on the £540,000, and the
redemption of the principal. The bill would reduce the
radius, and therefore somewhat diminish the income arising
from the tax. He calculated that the tax would produce
£60,000 a year, of which £20,000 would be required for in-
terest, leaving £40,000 to be applied to the redemption of
the debt, which he trusted they would effect in the course
of the 10 years. With regard to the 9d. tax, he proposed
that it should be applied to the purposes of the Thames em-
bankment. He also would propose that the radius of the
tax should be reduced from 20 to 10 miles, which was the
limit of the metropolitan police district. Before railways
were opened the metropolis was almost entirely supplied
with sea-borne coals, upon which duty was paid to the City,
but no drawback allowed, even though they might have
been conveyed beyond the limit of 20 miles. Some years
ago the City consented to allow a drawback on coals sent be-
yond the 20 ro iles, and thus what was represented as a grasp-
ing. and rapacious act on the part of the City of London,
was in truth a concession to the consumer. (Hear.) Under
the present bill coals consumed in places beyond the metro-
politan police d istrict would be entitled to a drawback. He
had entered into this explanation in the hope that it would
induce hon. members to abstain from antiquarian or legal
discussions on the origin of the 4d. duty, on which his
experience led him to anticipate a great deal of irre-
levant matter, occupying unnecessarily the time of
the house. He hoped the house would look at
the question not as one of the law, but as one
of expediency. (Hear, hear.) He was informed by the
chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works that direct
taxation on the metropolis had already reached the extent
to which the ratepayers were willing to go. (Laughter.)
The main drainage scheme had added to their burdens, and
he did not think that any gentleman who came forward and
proposed to raise a large sum for works of public utility by
direct taxation on the metropolis would have a very easy
task. (Hear.) Was it then desirable or not that a certain
sum should be raised for public purposes within the metro-
polis ? That was a question which every gentleman could
answer for himself. He could only say that he had no per-
sorrel interest in pressing the matter on the consideration
of the house, and that the Government were perfectly wil-
ling to abide by the verdict which the house might pro-
nounce upon it. He relied on 'the recommendation of the
committee ; and his belief was that unless they continued
this tax, which was not found a heavy burden on
any class of consumers in the metropolis, there
was no other feasible method' by which the Thames
embankment, or any similar works, could be
executed. With regard to the principle of a port duty on
coals, he would remind hon. members connected with the
coal districts in the north, that there was not a single one
of the large ports in the north from which coal was ex-
ported in which a port duty on coal was not collected. From
a return made to the house in 1851, it appeared that at
Newcastle, Stockton, and Sunderland, such a duty was
1 Ailed on coal for municipal purposes, and he believed in all
the other ports in the north of England and in Scotland a
similar impost was levied. Therefore gentlemen coming
from the coal districts would not object to the principle of a
municipal duty on coals. With these explanations, he
begged to move the second reading of the till.
Kr; NV) NVIIALIARS to* the; ight b,c bAront 1T9U14

consent to postpone the bill, to give the inhabitants of the
metropolis, and especially the poorer classes, whom it would
seriously affect, an opportunity of considering its provi-
sions. He had himself only seen the bill cn his return to
town after the recess.

Sir G. C. LEWIS said be believed the bill was in the
hands of members on the 20th of March.

Mr. WILLIAMS said that as yet no portion of the me•
tropolis had expressed any opinion on the measure.. In the
first place, he thought it most objectionable to tax coals,
which, next to bread, might be looked upon as almost a
necessary of life. He objected to placing in the hands of
the Metropolitan Board of Works power to tax the metro-
polis for ten years, involving a sum of two or three mil-
lions of money, and thought it would be better to entrust
that power to some department of the Government. He
was opposed to the continuance of this tax except for the
embankment of the Thames, without which he knew that
the lower portion of the proposed main sewers could not be
carried out. He, however, thought that the money ought
not to be exclusively a; plied to embanking the north side
of the Thames, as the south side required a similar embank-
ment quite as much.
Mr. ROUPELL, in moving the adjournment of the de-
bate, expressed his surprise that the Secretary of State for
the Home Department should be totally ignorant of the
existence of the committee on local taxation and metropo
litan self-government. He could not properly refer to the
proceedings before that committee, but he might mention
that they demanded from the corporation authorities of
London certain information, which was at first refused, but
was now, he believes, about to be granted. It was said
that this tax had been mortgaged to pay certain debts of the
corporation ; but what was the nature of the mortgage ?
The corporation issued their ordinary bonds for the amount
borrowed, which were not charged on any specific source
of their revenue but upon the whole property of the corpo-
ration. (Hear, hear.) He thought the bill ought to be
postponed till the committee on the subject had reported.
This was a question affecting several millions of people,
and involving large sums of money, and it was necessary
that, in dealing with it, there should be no uniue haste.
He concluded by proposing that the debate should be
adjourned for six weeks.
Sir J. SHELLEY seconded the motion.

Viscount HOLMESDALE understood from the right
hon. gentleman that the object of the measure was not to
extend but to contract the area of the tax; but he found
that Gravesend, Northfleet, and Dartford would become
liable to it for the first time if the bill passed.
Alderman SIDNEY denied that there was any necessity
to wait for the report of the committee, for the subject had
already been inquired into four times during the last seven
years. Neither could it be said that the City had made any
improper use of the money which it had raised by the tax.
Expensive improvements were needed in the metropolis,
which were for the benefit rather of the nation at large than
of the citizens ; and he did not know how the money could
be raised in a better manner. The hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Lambeth said that a tax upon coals was as bad as
one upon corn. But the tax upon coals did not affect any
poor man beyond 6d. or ls. in the course of the year. (Oh.)
He maintained that there were many poor persons who did
not consume more than a ton in a twelvemonth. Besides.
there was no class more interested in metropolitan improve-
ments than the labouring population, for it provided them
with a great deal of highly remunerative employment. The
opposition to the bill proceeded from nothing but a feeling
of jealousy which metropolitan members felt towards the
City. He could wish that the boroughs which they repre-
sented had lord mayors and corporations, but the fact that
they had not was no reason why the City should give up
its ancient rights. (Cheers.)
Sir J. SHELLEY felt precluded from entering upon any
discussion of the bill, because he was a member of the com-
mittee, and on that account he should support the amend-
ment. Indeed, it did seem to him a very extraordinary
course for the right hon. bart. to take, to giVe his support
to the appointment of the committee, and then, while it
had the subject under its consideration, to bring forward
the second reading of this bill. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. CUBITT denied that the object of the ccmmit-
tee was to inquire into the right of the corporation to the
tax. If such had been the avowed purpose of the motion
for its appointment he very much doubted whether the
house would ever have been induced to accede to it. (Hear.)
Neither did he agree that there was no need for proceeding
at once with the bill. In times like these six weeks was a
long period. A great deal had been said about the right of
the City to collect the 4d. and to do what it liked with it.
That no doubt was the fact; but the corporation took far
higher ground. They asserted not only that they had pro-
perly expended the proceeds of the tax, but that they had
also laid out a great deal more upon objects of public be-
nefit. (Hear, hear.) Every one that ever went through
the City must be aware how pressing a demand there was
for improvements ; and the only mode in which money
could be raised for them was by taxation. The only ques-
tion, therefore, was whether that taxation should be con-
tinued in a form to which the public had been long accus-
tomed, and which pressed very lightly upon them, or
whether they should attempt to frame some untried scheme
far raising the money by means which they might fancy
would press upon the inhabitants with less weight ? He did
not think himself that there was any 'possibility of finding
a better tax. (Hear.) Cannon-street they knew had cost
half a million ; and the corporation had been compelled by
clamour to spend a scarcely smaller amount in the removal
of Smithfield market. They had also had to spend £lOO,OOO
in building a prison, for which a far less sum would have
sufficed if it had been intended for the criminals of the City
' alone. There were many other special circumstances in
the case of the City which took it out of the category of
ordinary towns. It was, for instance, seated on the bank
of a broad river, and it had several bridges, each of
which cost a million. • It was absurd to suppose that a
town of 130,000 inhabitants could itself bear all these
expenses. With the increasing traffic of the City, it
would be as impossible to go on without further im-
provements as it would be to find an easier mode of raising
the necessary funds. There was no tax collected with less
expense. When a collier came into the river a clerk had
merely to go on board and ask for the money, and it was
paid without any detention or personal inconvenience. He
should not like to see the town surrounded with walls and
a hundred gates, at thirty of which no commodity was al-
lowed to enter, and at the remaining seventy octroi was
taken on all that came in. But it was absolutely necessary
to devise some means of indirect taxation, for they had
already carried direct taxation to its utmost limit. Depend
upon it, if they threw away this impost on coals they
would involve themselves in difficulties from which they
would find it no easy matter to extricate themselves.
Mr. HANKEY could not help expressing a feeling of
deep regret that the amendment should have been moved ;
for he could not understand at what period of the session
the bill :could be more conveniently discussed. (Hear.)
It might be very true that the City was only now a small
portion of !the metropolis, but still it was the nucleus by
which action was taken in matters that were required for
the general advantage. It had always appeared to him that
a constitution more or less resembling that of the city of
Paris would have been much preferable to the adoption of
a mere Board of Works. The precedent of establishing a
number of smaller municipalities around the ancient corpo-
ration had not, however, been followed, and the City re-
mained the only portion of London which possessed the
prestige and the facilities which were conferred on it by its
municipal institutions. It was not a question whether
some better tax might not have been devised, but the
coal tax was as near a house tax as could be contrived.
The only other question was as to the area. He thought it
would have been better to have confined the area to that of
the Metropolitan Board of Works. There were two other
larger areas of taxation, and he thought it highly objec-
tionable that it was so. But when they came to the
smallest of the three areas, it was found that smuggling
must [necessarily be very common, without the
institution of something like an octroi, which would be ex-
tremely unpopular. They were compelled, therefore, to
adopt the intermediate area, that of the metropolitan
police. He then came to the body whose duty it was to
distribute these funds, and he thought no better body would
be found for this purpose than the corporation of the City
of London.

Mr. CRAWFORD said the motion before the house was
for an adjournment. He hoped the house would proceed to
the second reading at once.

Mr. ME said, on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of
Works, that they were not anxious to have the control of
these works, but when the amount of taxation was so high
as it was at present, it was impossible that his poorer neigh-
bours in the parish where he resided could bear a further
amount of direst. taxation. One of the features of the
Thames embankment scheme was the construction of a road
along the banks of the river, and how much would the traffic
of the main thoroughfares be relieved by such a process.
It had been said that it was bard this expense should be
borne by the coal-hole ; but it was the fact that what largely
contributed to fill up the streets were the heavy waggons of
the coal traders. (Hear.)
Mr. G. PULLER said he supposed no one wished to
diminish the ancient right of the City of London, if it
existed, to 4d. a ton on sea-borne coal ; but they could
scarcely contend that the City had an ancient right to 4d.
a ton on coals brought in by railways and canals. (Hear.)
The advantage to the houseowners would really be this,
that the burthen on them would be diminished, but it would
rather be placed on the grelt manufacturers, who used much
coal in their business. It was a matter of little importance
whether this amount should be raised by a coal tax or a tax
on houses; but the area of taxation ought to be justly de-
fined, and it should not extend beyond the district which
was to share in the administration, and to be benefited by
the outlay. He did not see on what grounds the inhabitants
of those parishes included in the police district should be
made subject to this bill—taking, for instance, such a place
as Hatfield, which was 20 miles from Charing• cross. Un-
less the right hon. gentleman would alter the proposed area
of taxation, he must vote against the bill.

Mr. AYRTON, as he was chairman of the select com-
mittee appointed to inquire into the local taxation, must
repel the accusation made by the Lord Mayor that it had
been moved for without giving any notice to the Corporation
of London as to what its objects were. The fact was, that
last year, when the Secretary of State brought in a bill for
the reform of the Corporation, he (Mr. A.yrton) put a notice
eIA the 10eelil t 9 4491,-9 Or lelacc 49nowittP4 t 9 ipitkir9 iy,t9

the local taxation and government of the metropolis and
in the notice given this year this coal tax was distinctly
mentioned among the subjects to be inquired into by the
select committee. He would also take it upon himself to
assure the house that before no committee upon this ques-
tion had the Corporation of London ever claimed, as its
right, that tax which the' right hon. gentleman was now
about to give them by law, though he was not at liberty to
say what they did claim now before the select committee.
He thought the house ought not to stultify itself by pro-
ceeding with this discussion, without having received the
information that it required. He would, however, make
one suggestion. Under the present law not only was the
13d. levied, but the City of London was to pay into a fund
into which the coal tax was paid a sum exceeding £12,000
a year. That was the condition on which it continued at
present to receive its 4d. But now the right hon. gentleman
would gratuitously make them a present of that £12,000 a
year. The act of Parliament had provided that those dues
should continue till July 13, 1862. But a question of con-
struction had arisen, as to whether, if there were no public
improvements or other objects to which that fund could be
applied during two or three months, the power to levy
those dues would not expire then, instead of in July, 1862.
The Corporation had always thought it might get this
tax until 1862. He would, therefore, suggest to the right
honourable gentleman to pass a short bill now, to con-
tinue the present state of things. By doing that, no
opinion would be expressed by the house on any single
question, but all would remain just as it was, and there
would be no compromise of these claims. He thought
it was never before known that a Minister of the Crown
should come down there and impose taxation for ten years,
amounting to £260,000 a year without having settled in his
own mind what was going to be done with that money, and
without any specific appropriation of it. The house ought
first to be supplied with an estimate of the proposed work.
Mr. NORRIS said it would be unwise to postpone the
question any longer. If they did, the embankment of the
Thames and other great improvements projected by the
Corporation and the Metropolitan Board of Works, would
have to be abandoned sine die. The coal tax was easily col-
lected, in no way oppressive, and the purposes to which it
was applied were of great advantage, not merely to London
proper, but to the metropolitan districts generally.
Gen. PEEL objected to the area proposed by the bill, but
in most other respects approved of it.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he would not persist in retaining
the town of Greenwich. The boundary question, however,
might be considered with more advantage in committee.
The motion for delay went in his opinion to the merits of
the question, although that had been denied. The motion
virtually was equivalent to postponing it, not for six weeks,
but for six months. It was quite evident that it would be
uncertain when the committee now sitting would make its
report. (Hear.) He could not admit that the appointment
of the committee could at all influence the decision of the
house. When the hon. member moved for a committee, he
(Sir G. C. Lewis) specially guarded himself from being
precluded from bringing the subject before the house.
Neither was any member precluded from entering on the
subject because he was a member of the committee, or from
using any information he had obtained aliunde on the sub-
ject. He hoped that as the bill was only for imposing the
tax for a limited period that the house would not object to
read it a second time.

The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment
Against it 135
Majority —lls

On the motion that the bill be read a second time,
Mr. AYRTON moved that the bill should only be con-
tinued until July 1862. He wished to state the reason why
he made this amendment. In the first place the bill related
exclusively to the coal and wine duties. If the present bill
were passed it would exclude the city of London from con-
tributing its share a taxation in respect to a portion of
these duties which had existed for upwards of 150 years.
That question had already been decided by that house, for
on a former occasion it had resolved that the whole of the
funds derived out of these. duties should be continued, on
the ground that the city of London ought not to be relieved
from the payment of £12,000, which it contributed to those
funds. There were Ministers representing constituencies
deeply interested in the sense in which the bill was framed,
and no justice was done to the great bulk of the population
of the metropolitan district. It behoved the house, there-
fore, to be very cautious ere it acceded to a bill of such a
nature. He wanted the whols subject to be carefully con-
sidered, as the resolution would provide for, with the view
of bringing the bill back within the limits of justice. The
position of the matter then was, that justice was openly set
at defiance because the population interested in the question
could only depend upon some dozen votes in that house to
enforce its views.

Sir G. C. LEWIS wished to remind the house that the
bill was founded upon the recommendations of a committee
which sat last session, and in which the metropolis was
duly represented. The hon. members for Lambeth and
Westminster were upon that committee, and did not object
to the resolution that was come to by it. If they had
proposed to continue the coal duties only for one year, the
house could not have applied the produce of them to the
purpose recommended, namely, the Thames Embankment,
as the time would be too short. if ten years were too
long a period it might be reduced in committee, and they
therefore thought they were not asking too much. For
that reason he could not assent to the limitation to one
year, which was proposed by the resolution of the hon.
gentleman. With respect to the London Bridge Ap-
proaches Fund of £ll,OO ), it involved something more than
the coal duties, and being therefore beside the coal duties
altogether, he did not propose to deal with it.
The SPEAKER here observed, that he thought the
amendment was irrelevant, because he could find nothing in
the bill relative to the London Bridge Approaches Fund.
In his opinion, therefore, those words should not be in-
cluded in the amendment.

Mr. AYRTON explained that the act recited in the bill
directed taxes to be levied and applied under the act which
constituted the London Bridge Approaches Fund.
Sir G C. LEWIS observed that the act in question was
only recited in the preamble, but not in the enacting part of
the bill.

Mr. AYRTON then expressed his readiness to omit from
the amendment the reference to the act, and the same
point would still be raised substantially. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.)

Sir G. C. LEWIS observed that if the amendment was
so altered, it could be dealt with in committee ; and, there-
fore, it was either out of order or nugatory.

The amendment was then, by leave, withdrawn, and in
place of it the following resolution submitted, " That in
the opinion of this house the coal and wine duties should be
continued till the Ist of July, 1862."

Mr. JACKSON said he wished to call the attention of the
house to the recommendations of another committee whioh
sat in 1854, and of which he had the honour to be chair-
man. hat committee recommended that the Metropoli-
tan Board of Works should take into its consideration the
purchase of the various bridges across the river upon which
tolls were then levied.

Sir J. V. SHELLEY said they had no bill before them
for carrying out the Thames embankment, and when they
had such a bill before them it would be time enough to
know what the expense would be. Certainly he did not
see that this bill carried :out the recommendation of the
committee. The question before them was, would they
continue the coal tax for another ten years? He alto-
gether denied that the City of London had a prescriptive
right in the 4d. tax on coals. (Hear, hear.)

Sir M. PETO said the motion of the hon. and learned
member (Mr. Ayrton) would simply have the effect of put-
ting off the question of the embankment for another year.
As he understood the matter the Government by this bill
had been merely carrying out the recommendation of the
committee. They should recollect that these improvements
required a great deal of money, and he hoped the Govern-
ment would act upon the advice which the committee had
given. He thought they would be doing far better by sup-
plying the means than by wasting the time of the house by
such discussions as the present.
Mr. LOCKE must say he should have been glad to have
seen the bill for the embankment of the Thames brought in
in the first instance, because he had doubts that such a bill
would ever be brought in. The right hon. gentleman the
Commissioner of Works had begun at the wrong end, but
he, no doubt, thought it would be to the advantage of the
electors of Hereford if this bill could be carried out. All he
(Mr. Locke) could understand by this measure was, that
the metropolis was to be deprived of the saving of £50,000
by a remission of taxation to that amount. Ought they not,
then, to adopt the proposal of the hon. and learned member
for the Tower Hamlets ? He submitted to the house, there-
fore, that the proposition of the hon. gentleman the member
for the Tower Hamlets ought to be agreed to. They ought
not to legislate for Hertfordshire on pretence of legislating
for the Thames embankment. Let them not throw away the
money provided for up to 1862, when there was no neces-
sity for it. Let them not lose needlessly a year's taxation.
Mr. COWPER said hon. gentlemen teak care to say
that they were not against the embankment, but they
urged delay, the most effectual means of opposing the
embankment. They ought to provide first the money, as
the embankment would depend for its main features on
the amount of money available. The embankment on the
south side of the Thames would be considered as well as
that on the opposite side, and the proposition, therefore,
ought Rot to be opposed by hon. gentlemen from that part of
the metropolis.

The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority for second reading —lO9
The bill was then read a second time.