Lord Binning,in consequence of his notice, rose to move, That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of the exemption from Toll granud to Mail Coaches in Great Britain. He observed, that very serious injury was sustained throughout ail parts of the kingdom by this exemption, but more particularly in Scotland, in the north and west of England, and in Wales. The complaint was, that heavy carriages passed up and down the various turnpike roads without contributing to their repair and maintenance. By these mail coaches great facilities were given to commerce, and the revenue obtained an addition of 380,000l.; but the burden fell upon the trustees of the turnpike roads. In Scotland the hardship was peculiarly severe. There were ten mails running through 19 or 20 Scotch counties, and affecting the rate to the amount of 6,885l. annually; in some in- 684 stances depriving the roads of a third and even half of what they would otherwise obtain. The case was much the same in Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Cornwall, Devonshire, &c. There were 220 mail coaches. They ran about 10,000 miles a day; and the annual loss to the trustees of the roads by their exemption from toll, amounted at least to 50,000l. If it were said that the revenue would suffer in the event of abolishing the exemption, he would reply that such an argument ought not to be urged against an injury such as he had described. But it was not necessary that the revenue should suffer. He understood that the profits of the proprietors of the mail coaches were immense, and he did not see why they might not bear a part of the burden. At any rate, in proportion to the advantage which the revenue might derive from the exemption, was the injury which the roads sustained: and he knew there were many parts of the country in which persons bad been deterred from making new roads by this consideration alone. Convinced that the exemption was partial and oppressive, he moved for the appointment of a Committee.
§ Sir Patrick Murrayseconded the motion, and repeated the arguments of the noble lord. In Ireland the mail coaches paid the toll, and why not in this country? If it were apprehended that it might prove an impediment to the rapidity with which the mail travelled, such an inconvenience would be obviated by an arrangement, enjoining the Post-office to pay the trustees of the roads quarterly. He was persuaded, that the exemption prevented the formation of new roads, particularly in Scotland; and instanced a case, in which it had induced him to advise a forbearance from an undertaking of that nature.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas of opinion that the House would not be disposed favourably to consider the present proposition, when they recollected the length of time which had elapsed since the exemption was first established. Twenty-five years ago that measure had passed the legislature, but in this long interval, no application had been made for redress, a pretty convincing proof that the injury sustained had not been of a very serious nature. Antecedently to the establishment of mail coaches the post was exempt from toll. An hon. bart. was, he was persuaded, rather singular in his advice, to refrain from the construc- 685 tion of a new road, on the ground that the mail coach would pass upon it toll free. The fact was, that wherever a road, on which a mail could travel, could be made with any advantage, there were always numerous applications that it might be made. Nor was this surprising; for the facilities of communication, and the consequent influx of wealth which the mail coach afforded, were ample equivalents for the exemption from toll. Scotland had much less right to complain on this subject than any other part of the island, for it was well known that considerable sums had been expended out of the public purse for the construction and maintenance of roads in that country. He was satisfied that the House would be of opinion with him, that the Committee proposed by the noble lord ought not to be appointed.
Mr. Wynnbore testimony to the statements of the noble lord with respect to the inconveniences which the exemption occasioned. He characterised it as a most unprincipled robbery on private property, and quoted the authority of Mr. Pennant in its reprobation. When the system of mail coaches originated, it was promised that they should be constructed of the lightest materials, that no passenger should be permitted to carry with him above 14 pounds weight of luggage, &c. Now, however, the mails were much heavier, and were made the vehicles for the conveyance of goods from one part of the kingdom to another; by which means the injury done to the roads had considerably increased. If it was desirable that the revenue should not suffer from the abolition of the exemption, he thought that at least the burden might be taken from the shoulders of the trustees of the roads, and placed on those of the passengers and senders of parcels.
Mr. Rosethought, if the proposed alterations were made, the mail coach proprietors would charge the public not merely in proportion as they were charged, but much more; as on such occasions was uniformly found to be the case. He could not give his assent to a measure of this description, which, he was of opinion, must necessarily affect the national revenue.
§ Mr. R. Dundascould not give a negative to what had been advanced by his right hon. friend; but be doubted if his view of the subject was correct, and if the measure proposed would be followed by the 686 new charge on the public which he had anticipated. He thought the mails had no right to the exemptions they enjoyed, and hoped enough had been stated to the House, to induce them to appoint a Committee on the subject, in which the facts could be proved or disproved, so as to enable them to form a correct judgment on the state of the case.
§ Mr. W. Smith and Mr. D. Giddywere in favour of the appointment of a Committee.
§ Mr. Fullerthought the question before the House the simplest of all questions, and that nothing could be more fair than that the parties who derived the greatest advantages from the system should be called on to pay for those advantages.
The House divided, when the numbers were—
| Ayes | 39 |
| Noes | 34 |
| Majority | —5 |