METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENT BILL. (Hansard, 9 March 1853)

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, it appeared to him that apart from the savings to be effected by the Bill, there were very grave objections to its principle. An amount not exceeding 1,220,000l. was to be transferred for the purposes of the Bill; but the total debt, with interest, only amounted to the sum of 961,302l. The Bill capitalised the arrear of interest, 1360 giving only the local taxation as security. The question would arise if this arrear of interest was the result of malappropriation of the London Bridge approaches fund, and if any monies had been improperly charged on this fund. The Act had been reprinted for the purpose of being made more intelligible to the House; but there were defects in it which still required amendment. The principle involved the liability of the taxpayers of the metropolis; but certain passages in the preamble made the whole Bill most obscure. The House should clearly understand that no further taxation was to be inflicted on the metropolis.

MR. HUME
said, he did not think that any statement could remove the doubt which existed with regard to the Report on this subject. The Report stated that 296,000l. interest had been allowed to accumulate up to the 5th of January last. It was a great slur on a public department that such a sum should be allowed to accumulate. He thought that the subject should be referred to a Committee up-stairs.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he objected to the Bill being sent upstairs. He did not believe there was any information which might be asked for, that he was not in a position to give. He could assure the hon. Member (Sir W. Jolliffe), as he had on a former occasion assured the House, that, so far as the taxation of the City of London was concerned, so far as the duty on coals was concerned, so far as the whole question of the London Bridge Approaches were concerned, this measure introduced no changes whatever, one way or the other. It was entirely a question as to the mode of applying the money, and with regard to the London Bridge Approaches Fund, whether it should go through one department of the Government or another. One reason why he objected to sending the Bill before a Committee upstairs was, that every day's delay was a cost of 150l. to the Treasury. The object of the Bill was to save 130,000l. to the public, without injuring a human being, as far as he was aware of. Putting himself for the State, the case stood thus:—he had borrowed 895,000l. (which with the interest of 134,000l. upon it, amounted to 1,029,000l.), for the purpose of effecting certain improvements in the City. He had therefore to pay a sum of 30,000l. every year. At the same time he had several unemployed balances at his bankers, and he thought it was better to make use 1361 of these for the purpose of getting rid of this heavy annual payment of 30,000l. By doing this he would also relieve the land revenues of the Crown out of a position in which they ought never to have been placed, and would restore to that House the full jurisdiction which they ought to have over these revenues, and which they never would have as long as they remained mortgaged. These claims originated in this way. In 1839, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, under the authority of an Act of Parliament, charged the London Bridge Approaches Fund with a sum of 665,000l. for the purpose of promoting certain improvements in the City of London. But there were no proceeds from that fund at the time, because it was subject to certain prior charges. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests, therefore, undertook to mortgage, and did mortgage, under the authority of an Act of Parliament, a certain portion of the laud revenues of the Crown, as security for repayment of the money. A sum of 895,000l. was borrowed in this way, and the improvements were effected. The interest on this had been regularly paid, but the land revenues continued meantime under mortgage. There were several sources at command for the liquidation of this debt, the principal one being the London Bridge Approaches Fund. But there was a prior charge of 665,000l, on that fund, and the interest upon that principal sum accumulated to 296,000l. He did not mention this to the discredit of any one, because as he had before stated, no revenue would be derivable for some time from that source. Therefore there was due upon the 5th of January a sum of 961,000l. There was also a sum of 30,000l. advanced to the Westminster Improvements Commissioners, hearing interest at 4 per cent, and a further sum of 50,000l. made over as a gift to the same Commissioners, Then there were two sums of 30,000l. each, given on the fulfilment of certain conditions to the Southwark Improvement Commissioners, the one of these sums bearing interest, and the other not. There was, therefore, the principal sum of 1,029,000l., consisting of 895,000l. principal, and 134,000l. interest, borrowed on the security of the Crown Revenues; there were two sums of 30,000l. and 50,000l. advanced to the Westminster Improvement Commissioners; and two sums of 30,000l. each advanced to the Southwark Improvement Commissioners. It was also necessary to allow a certain sum for the interest that might become due on the principal 1362 sum of 895,000l. That was subject to certain conditions of notice, so that it would not be in their power to pay it off at once. He took 25,000l. prospectively as the possible maximum amount of that interest. It would be necessary also to allow a liberal amount for interest on the other sums, and for this he allowed 21,775l. Adding all these sums together, the right hon. Gentleman would find that they amounted to 1,216,000l., which would be the maximum of charge on the Consolidated Fund. With regard to the assets, there was 961,000l. to come from the London Bridge Approaches Fund, that is to say, for the principal sum of 665,000l., and the interest of 296,000l. thereon. There was 30,000l. to be repaid by the Westminster Commissioners, and 250,000l. the anticipated proceeds from ground rents. These added together made about 1,241,000l., which was more than amply sufficient to cover the maximum charge on the Consolidated Fund. There was another sum for which he did not take credit, as it would depend on the productiveness of the London Bridge Approaches Fund; but without that the assets were more than sufficient to meet the liabilities. He hoped that he had now satisfactorily explained to the hon. Gentleman and the House the seeming discrepancy between the debt and the sum asked for in the Bill. He was sure that nothing more was required than discussion across the table to insure the approval of this Bill.