HC Deb 10 March 1853 vol 124 cc1438-46

Order read, for resuming further Proceeding on Question [9th March],"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."

Question again proposed.

Further proceeding resumed.

On the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on the Metropolitan Improvement (Repayment out of Consolidated Fund) Bill,

MR. HENLEY

said he must characterise this Bill as containing some things which were certain, and others which were uncertain. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was to pay 130,000l. or 140,000l. (stated to be interest now in arrear) to the Commissioners of Works, who were to hand over the amount to the Commissioners of Woods by an operation which the right hon. Gentleman had described. The money would then find its way into the revenue of the Woods and Forests, which would be greater than it would otherwise have been by that 130,000l., or 140,000l., to which a sum of 30,000l. would further come to be added, the whole increasing the revenue of the Woods and Forests, and consequently the Ways and Means for the year 1853–54. That might be a very desirable process, but it would be equally effected by taking a substantive sum of money out of the balances in the Exchequer, and carrying that to the Ways and Means of the year. He did not think he misrepresented that part of the transaction when he said that the money must swell the revenue of the Commissioners of Woods, being paid to them in the shape of interest, and that that would increase the land revenue. He did not complain of the transaction, but that seemed the nature of it. Then came the other part of the transaction—taking funds from the Exchequer sufficient to pay off mortgages on which the land revenue of the Crown was liable to pay interest. The right hon. Gentleman said these could not be paid off at once, because they were under different agreements with the different parties in respect of notices. Those sums, he understood, could be paid off in two years; but on that point the right hon. Gentleman would doubtless give explanations in Committee. There was one other part of the transaction which did not seem so satisfactory. Those funds were originally raised and charged on certain duties which formed what was called the "London Approaches Fund." The right hon. Gentleman did not inform the House when that fund would commence recouping the money into the Exchequer—repaying the Consolidated Fund the money he was now going to take out of it. The taxation by which that money was to be recouped was not very patiently submitted to by those who had to pay it; and it was desirable to know whether it was intended to get rid of that taxation. The present transactions gave a great handle to those who desired to get rid of that taxation; and, had he (Mr. Henley) been one of the parties intent on getting up an agitation, he could not have wished a more favourable card to be played than that which the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had played.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he had on a former occasion moved for some returns connected with this subject, which he elicited at the time, but failed in accomplishing the object he had in view. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would afford the House that information which was so desirable on the subject. There was a debt of 1,200,000l., and the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that there were assets to the extent of 1,216,000l., but that debt had been created for a purely local purpose, namely, to make new streets in the City of London. He saw no reason, therefore, for placing this debt upon the Consolidated Fund. The right hon. Gentleman had not explained how the 1,216,000l. was to be realised. It was true he had stated that he expected to get 250,000l. for building sites along the new streets; but, allowing him full credit for that sum, how was he to get the difference between 250,000l. and 1,200,000l. out of the London Bridge Approaches Fund? He considered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to charge the general revenues of the Crown with any sum for improvements in the City of London, He had also to complain of the short preamble of the Bill. A short preamble was all very well; but in this case the preamble was perfectly unintelligible, and he believed there were not three hon. Gentlemen in the House, with the exception of those connected with the measure, who could understand it.

MR. ALCOCK

said, he was decidedly opposed to this Bill, because the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that it would not make the slightest difference in the duty now charged upon coals. He objected to a tax being levied, not only upon the inhabitants of London, but upon all those who lived within twenty miles of it. The London coal duties were now charged upon 3,000,000 of persons; and not only had the citizens to pay it, but also those who lived in the metropolitan counties, and who derived no benefit whatever from local improvements. The inhabitants of Croydon, for instance—a town situated twelve miles from the heart of London—consumed 40,000 tons of coal annually, and upon that quantity they paid a tax of 3,000l. a year to the City of London. He saw no reason why the City of London should not pay for the maintenance of its own bridges. It had the honour of being a county as well as a city, and therefore, if it enjoyed the distinction, it ought also to bear the responsibility.

Question put, and agreed to.

House in Committee.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he rose to correct an error in his statement on the preceding day. He had stated that the consumers of coals would not have to pay a farthing more or less under this Bill, whereas he should have stated that the consumer of coals would pay considerably less under this Bill than he paid before. By the opposition of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, the consumer of coals might have to pay more than he would otherwise be subject to, for the amount he would have to pay would depend upon the slowness or rapidity with which the Bill should pass through the House, because the longer the debt remained in existence, the greater the interest upon it would be, for it went on accumulating at the rate of 150l. a day. The London Bridge Approaches Fund was liable for the whole of the principal and interest, and the natural operation of this Bill would be to accelerate the paying off of the debt, and thus to stop the accumulation of interest, thereby diminishing the burden upon the London Bridge Approaches Fund. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) said they had no right to charge the general revenue of the country for local improvements. That was a very just and sound principle, and this Bill was in no way inconsistent with it. There seemed to be some idea that they were going to place the principal debt upon the general revenues of the country; but he had already stated that the principal debt was now chargeable on the land revenues of the Crown. The Sovereign, who had a life interest in the land revenues, had been advised by the advice of Her responsible advisers, to assent to the Act which mortgaged part of the land revenues; so that, so far as the period of the Sovereign's life was concerned, a charge on the land revenues was precisely equivalent to a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. So far as anything beyond the Sovereign's life was concerned, he granted that the case was different; but he was sure that the House would never allow the Sovereign to be defrauded of part of the property of the Crown which had been mortgaged for a public benefit in which the Crown had no interest whatever. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) wished to know in what time the debt that had been incurred and charged upon the land revenues would be paid off, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had answered that question by anticipation. He had informed him that it was impossible to define the exact time within which it would be paid off, because it depended upon the productiveness of the London Bridge Approaches Fund. Although it might be very easy to form a fair estimate of the productiveness of that fund, yet it was impossible to form such an estimate as could be relied upon for minute accuracy, because it of course depended upon the state of trade in London, the progress of population, and other circumstances, which must be mere matter of calculation and not of positive statement; but he had the satisfaction of saying that it was very clear that the charge on the London Bridge Approaches Fund would be paid off some considerable time before the law for levying the coal tax expired. He thought he should be speaking within the mark if he estimated the sum which the Government might expect to receive annually from the London Bridge Approaches Fund at some 150,000l. or 160,000l. or so. At present there was a sum exceeding 80,000l. already available for the purpose of the process to which this Bill related; but it was not possible for him to make use of that sum for the purpose of diminishing the total charge on the Consolidated Fund, because there were two questions of priority as to the application of that money which it would be difficult to solve. He should hope that a period of five or six years, or perhaps less, would suffice to terminate and wind up the affair.

MR. HENLEY

said, he understood the hon. Gentleman to say that every day they postponed the passing of this Bill they were increasing the charge on the London Bridge Approaches Fund, and so delaying the period when the coal tax would cease. To the extent of 34,000l., the interest on the 895,000l. which the right hon. Gentleman meant to repay to the several parties, we should be contributing out of the funds of the country for local improvements.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, he wished to ask what was the sum that would have to be repaid to the Treasury from the London Bridge Approaches Fund before any reduction could take place in the coal duties levied from the public? Was it the 895,000l., the 961,000l., or the whole 1,240,000l.? It was impossible to make this point out from the Bill.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that he was now assailed on both sides with regard to this Bill; and he hoped that before the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Alcock) charged him with seeking to increase the burdens of the consumers of coals, he would first settle his quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), who objected to the Bill that it would relieve the London Bridge Approaches Fund of the sum of 34,000l. for interest, which was due to the Consolidated Fund. These were two contradictory charges, and it was impossible that they could both be true. It so happened that neither of them was correct. The Bill, by accelerating the liquidation of the debt, and so curtailing the period for which interest would accrue, would pro tanto relieve the consumer, and enable the duty levied from the people of London and its neighbourhood to be extinguished at an earlier period than would otherwise be the case; but the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood the terms of the Bill when he said hat the interest was to be put an end to at the expense of the Consolidated Fund. The matter was exceedingly difficult and complex, but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was mistaken in this view. The debt had been incurred and the interest accruing upon it was one thing, and the charge that existed for the purpose of replacing that debt was quite a different thing. The obligations of the London Bridge Approaches Fund was not to pay off the debt which the Commissioners of Woods and Works incurred, and the interest thereupon; what it had to do was to pay a certain principal sum, namely, 665,000l., and interest thereon at the rate of five per cent, until the whole was paid off. Now, he was sorry to say that he could not undertake the responsibility of those who originally made this arrangement, and he could not answer the question why, while the sum of 895,000 of principal debt was incurred, a charge of only 665,000l. was taken on the London Bridge Approaches Fund; but he presumed it was because there were other assets to look to. On the whole, considering the complexity and absurdities of the original operation, he was well pleased to find that the matter stood as it did, because whilst, if they did not pass this Bill, the accumulation of interest might be so great that he could not answer for the London Bridge Approaches Fund being able to discharge it, yet, on the other hand, if they did pass it, it would check the growth of interest in a manner which would render it perfectly certain that the Crown would recover all that was due to it, and at the same time the period during which the consumer would have to pay the coal tax would certainly be abridged. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) said they were going to pay off the 895,000l., and the interest would cease, and he asked if the Consolidated Fund was to be at the charge of that interest? Now, the London Bridge Approaches Fund would pay off the 895,000l., and would get no interest; nor had the land revenues of the Crown any power of getting the interest. There was the charge of 665,000l. upon the London Bridge Approaches Fund, upon which 296,000l. of interest had already accrued. The proceeds of the sales of ground rents are estimated at 250,000l.; and there was also a repayment of 30,000l. expected from the Westminster Improvement Commissioners. These were the total assets against the sum of 1,250,000l., which was the maximum liability of the London Bridge Approaches Fund. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) asked which of the amounts was going to be paid into the Treasury—the 895,000l., the 961,000l., or the 1,250,000l. It was not the 895,000l. That was an obligation for the recovery of which they had no claim as such. That was simply a debt of the land revenues of the Crown, and must be liquidated. But then, the hon. Baronet asked, was it the 961,000l.? Certainly that was a part of it—that was a portion of the assets which were available for the Commissioners of Works, as the law now stood, towards releasing the land revenues of the Crown, and repaying the charge that had been incurred for interest. It was not the 1,220,000l.; that was the maximum of charge upon the Treasury; and the assets that would be available for the Consolidated Fund, and which he thought might be considered as entirely of a good and secure character, exceeded the sum of 1,220,000l.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he thought the statement made by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to the London Bridge Approaches Fund was quite satisfactory; but. he still contended that the Consolidated Fund did take upon itself a portion of debt for which there was no security.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

hoped that the object of this measure was to reduce the interest upon the whole amount by one or one and a-half per cent, and that by that process the tax upon coals might terminate the sooner, for the benefit of the metropolis.

MR. HENLEY

said, if the two funds were entirely distinct, he did not understand why the 130,000l. was to be carried to the Ways and Means of the year.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the land revenue was entitled to receive, as the law now stood, from the Commissioners of Works the reimbursement of all that was paid out in interest on the London Bridge Approaches Fund and other assets. He now proposed that they should be reimbursed immediately, instead of remaining longer out of their money This was not a payment that had been made by the land revenues once and for all and without return. The land revenues, although they could not recover that payment of interest, eo nomine, yet they were entitled to that charge on the Approaches Fund. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) said, was it the object of the Government to put it to Ways and Means? Certainly he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no object of that kind. It was a postponed payment on account of revenue; and therefore when this Bill was passed the 130,000l. would come into credit, and become a part of the revenue.

Clauses agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at Twelve o'clock.