HC Deb 25 June 1861 vol 163 cc1551-61

Order for Committee read.

MR. AYRTON

moved, 1. That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provision therein continuing the fund provided by Sections 2 and 5 of the Act 11 Geo. IV., c. 64, and for paying the proceeds thereof to the account to be opened under the Bill. He could not but express his regret that towards the close of a Session in which there had been so little real work done, the Government should have appointed a morning sitting for the consideration of a Bill so important as that before the House. The Government made and kept a House—with difficulty it was true—but it was composed chiefly of Gentlemen who were its immediate supporters; and it was hardly to be expected that independent Members should attend. Consequently that a Member should speak at such a time was like appealing to the Government, and not to the House itself. The Government in acting as they had had failed in one of their most responsible duties, and had lent themselves to the Corporation of the City, in bringing in a Bill to promote the advantage of that Corporation. He was compelled at this stage to interfere by moving a series of Instructions, which as they related to distinct funds would have to be taken separately and distinctly, though they all were proposed with the single purpose of doing justice between the comparatively small body of the inhabitants of the City and the large and important body of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. The following were the Instructions of which he had given notice:— That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provisions in the Bill for continuing the fund provided by Sections 2 and 5 of the Act 11 Geo. 4, c. 64, and for paying the proceeds thereof to the account to be opened under the Bill. That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill for transferring to the Metropolitan Board of Works the lands, tenements, and hereditaments called the Bridge House Estates, now vested in the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of the City of London, subject to any trust affecting the same, and any charges thereon, and for paying the surplus income thereof to the account to be opened under the Bill. That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill for transferring to the Metropolitan Board of Works all lands, tenements, and hereditaments now vested in the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of the City of London under any statute for making improvements within the Metropolis (except markets), subject to the trusts affecting the same, and the repayment of any monies raised by the said Corporation under such statutes, and thereby charged on such lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and for transferring to the Metropolitan Board of Works all the powers conferred by such Statutes on the said Corporation. That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill for the payment of the metage dues on grain, fruit, wares, or merchandize received by the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of the City of London, to the account to be opened under the Bill. That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill for payment by the Conservators of the river Thames of the surplus of the annual income received by them to the account to be opened under the Bill. Confining his attention for the present to the first, the question it raised was simply whether the House, at the instance of the Government, should make a free gift to the Corporation of the coal dues, instead of retaining them for the purposes to which they had been applied for the last hundred years? It was really quite startling that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should have taken the course he had, after the preliminary information he had received. After the great fire the House, out of compassion, consented to a tax being imposed on the coal imported into the City for the purpose of rebuilding the town, then re-erecting its churches, and then embanking the Thames. After the Revolution of 1688, the orphans of the City complained to Parliament that the City had taken possession of their fortunes, in order to keep them till their owners came of age; but that the City had refused to repay the money, alleging that they were hopelessly insolvent in consequence of the civil troubles through which it had gone—though, in truth, it had been caused in no small degree by its revellings. Parliament, therefore, decided that the City should have a fixed sum of £8,000 or £10,000 a year for its expenses, and that the rest of its revenues should be applied to the payment of its debts. The City would not, however, accept that, but, following the example of the East India Company, it bribed the House of Commons from the Speaker down to the clerk; the result was that Parliament agreed that the City should be left in possession of its revenues, and that its debts should be consolidated into permanent annuities, the interest of which should be defrayed out of certain special ways and means, namely, £8,000 out of the Corporation of Revenue, £990 the profits of certain aqueducts, and certain apprentice and other fees. Parliament also granted duties on coal and wine, the whole amounting to a revenue of £20,000 a year. As the City increased the fund became larger than the money required for payment of the interest on the annuities, and since 1767 the fund was converted into a Metropolitan Improvement Fund, but, at first, it was charged by various Acts of Parliament with the cost of peculiar works. When London Bridge was to be pulled down, a new fund of a million was created, and called the London Bridge Approaches Fund. On that occasion, the Corporation had the Act so artfully framed, that they were enabled by it to withdraw the fund to which he was now referring. It soon, however, came to the knowledge of the public that Parliament had been duped; the House of Commons in 1830—not then "a reformed," but what was called a corrupt one—was indignant at the fraud, and the next Session it passed an Act ordering the Corporation to pay back the money. Then, as now, the Corporation had endeavoured to fix the attention of the House and of the public upon the magnitude of the works they had in hand, forgetting that the real question was not one of a great public work, but simply whether the House should make the Corporation a free gift? He denied that the Corporation had any right to the money at all. The fund was given to assist the Corporation when it was insolvent, and the annuities had been redeemed by the growing population of the Metropolis. The inhabitants had therefore, paid the debt, and ought to have the fund. He trusted, therefore, that the House would agree to the first Instruction, the only object of which was to enable the subject to be discussed in Committee.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

seconded the Resolution.

MR. ALDERMAN CUBITT

said, he would not follow the hon. Gentleman through his historical reminiscences. The City was not much interested in the question, which was merely the carrying out of those great works of improvement which were so much required in the Metropolis. The City was only interested in 4d. out of the 13d. imposed by the Bill, the remaining 9d. having been under the control of Parliament for a great number of years. The City merely collected the money and handed it over, but it had no other interest in the matter.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had, according to his wont, addressed to the House a Jeremiad, in which he had represented himself to be the only person that cared for the public good. The great delinquent, according to him, was the Corporation, but the Government, he said, were also very much to blame. It was only on the previous evening that the Government had been blamed for bringing in Bills of importance in preference to Supply, which was this Session in arrear. If he (Sir George Lewis) had placed the present Bill on the Paper for a Government night, he was perfectly certain that he should have been blamed for giving it precedence over Supply. He would appeal to the House whether it was not the usual and convenient course to bring on such Bills at this period of the Session at morning sittings? The Bill was founded upon the Report of a Committee of last Session, which might be taken as a fair embodiment of the sense of the House, and which had recommended that the embankment of the Thames should be carried out with money raised by means of the coal and wine dues. He had never proposed to deal with the London Bridge Approaches Fund—he merely dealt with the duties on coal and wine, which were paid by the whole Metropolis. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets might as appropriately move an Instruction that funds should be paid out of the income tax or the spirit duty for the purpose he specified as the one he had proposed. The scheme of the hon. Gentleman was one that might well be considered in connection with a general plan for reforming the Corporation, but it had nothing whatever to do with the Bill before the House. The House knew what the coal duties were, and the very question they had now to consider was simply whether those duties should be appropriated to the embankment of the Thames? He believed that the Bill provided an unexceptionable fund for a work of admitted utility; and he hoped, therefore, that the House would not accept the Instruction, but would proceed to discuss the clauses of the Bill.

LORD JOHN MANKERS

said, he willingly bore witness to the zeal and courtesy with which the hon. and learned Gentleman had discharged the duty of Chairman to the Committee over which he presided, and he was not surprised that he objected to the passing of the Bill before that Committee had finished its labours. He agreed, however, with the right hon. Baronet that the Bill would not interfere with the reform of the Corporation. At the same time he (Lord John Manners) thought the House ought not to take the same view of the case that the hon. Member had done; but that they should proceed with the measure before them without any delay. The object of the Bill was to provide a great public improvement, and he hoped, therefore, the House would now go into Committee.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, without doubt the embankment of the Thames ought at once to be proceeded with, as it was impossible to place the sewerage of the Metropolis on a proper footing without that improvement. He objected, however, to its being carried out by the very objectionable means of a tax levied on coal. He hoped the great improvement would be carried out, and that it would not be limited to one side of the river; but it might be effected in some other way than that proposed by the Bill. The Corporation lent, in years gone by, £700,000 to Charles II., of which he never repaid one farthing, but gave power to the Cor- poration to levy a four penny duty on coal. The £700,000 had been repaid some seventy years ago, but the tax had been continued up to the present day. He should feel it his duty, when they came to that part of the Bill which gave the City power to continue the tax, to move an Amendment to terminate such an arrangement.

MR. LOCKE

said, that there was a debt of £11,500 a year due by the Corporation of the City, which was by Act of Parliament appropriated to purposes of public improvement, and the Bill proposed to get rid of that contribution. He wanted to know upon what principle that item was to be remitted to the City of London? That was the real question with which the Instruction of his hon. Friend dealt, and to which the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor had not made any allusion? There were other sums also which were to be remitted to the Corporation, and though those sums were not very large he saw no reason why the Government should make a present of them to the Corporation. All his hon. Friend proposed was that the items hitherto appropriated to the improvement of the Metropolis should be so appropriated still.

MR. NORRIS

said, that the objections which had been made did not in reality apply to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. No case had been made out against the Corporation, and even if there were charges to be investigated the Committee then sitting, and not that House, was the proper place in which to bring them forward. The annual sum of £11,500 had been contributed by the Corporation until the entire debt to which it was appropriated was extinguished, and though it was true that the Corporation had from time to time devoted that sum since the extinction of the debt to certain improvements within the metropolitan district as it was a free will offering it would not be fair to bind the Corporation down to pay any such sum under this Bill. He denied, therefore, that any gratuity was given to the Corporation by this Bill, and hoped that it would without delay be proceeded with in Committee.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS

said, he felt that he was a sort of hybrid Member, being both a Member of the Corporation, and bound, therefore, to consult its interests; and also the representive of a portion of the Metropolis which was not connected with the City. The necessity for new thoroughfares to relieve the over- grown traffic of the Metropolis must be apparent to every one, and he did not think, therefore, that the coal tax could be more usefully appropriated than to the embankment of the Thames. At the same time he wished that they were not to be wholly confined to that object; for he should like to see Waterloo and Southwark bridges, and also the bridge over Deptford-creek, thrown open to the public. The last would be a great boon to the labouring classes.

LORD FERMOY

said, that the question really was how were the necessary metropolitan improvements to be made? To carry out those improvements they had no alternative but to continue the coal and wine duties. The sum of £11,500 contributed by the London Corporation had, no doubt, been always appropriated to metropolitan improvements, but he did not think the present was a proper occasion on which to deal with the subject. It was one which should be taken up along with the other matters that might be reported upon by the Committee now sitting.

MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND

said, he would make but a few remarks on the subject before the House. The Corporation had been spoken of in the course of the present discussion as if they were legislating solely for their own private interest. As a member of the Corporation, he must say that that body had only one object in view, and that was to give every possible facility to those having business to transact in the City without regard to any private interest of their own. The Corporation received a revenue of £5,000 from old Meet Market, and although the constructing of Farringdon Market had proved a failure, no blame was to be attached to the Corporation for such an event. The City had pledged its credit for the cost of constructing the New Cattle Market and new Cannon Street, and in doing so they had expended in the various improvements during the last sixty or seventy years, as had been proved before the Committee, nearly £340,000 more than their receipts. There would still exist, supposing the new improvements were carried out, great demands upon the City, for assuredly, as soon as the Thames embankment was constructed, a new street from thence to the Bank of England would have to be made.

Motion made, and Question put, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London Coal and Wine Dues Continuance Bill that they hare power to make provision therein for continuing the fund provided by sections 2 and 5 of the Act 11 Geo. 4, c. 64, and for paying the proceeds thereof to the account to be opened under the Bill.

The House divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 160: Majority 155.

MR. AYRTON

said, that after what had taken place, it would be wrong in him to prolong the discussion, and he should not, therefore, divide the House, although he would, in order to place them on the record, move the following Resolutions:—

Motion made, and Question, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London Coal and Wine Dues Continuance Bill, that they have power to make provision therein for transferring to the Metropolitan Board of Works the lands, tenements, and hereditaments called the Bridge House Estates, now vested in the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of the City of London, subject to any trust affecting the same, and any charges thereon, and for paying the surplus income thereof to the account to be opened under the Bill.

Put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London Coal and Wine Dues Continuance Bill that they have power to make provision therein for transferring to the Metropolitan Board of Works all lands, tenements, and hereditaments now vested in the Mayor, Comonalty, and Citizens of the City of London under any Statute for making improvements within the Metropolis (except markets), subject to the trusts affecting the same, and the repayment of any monies raised by the said Corporation under such Statutes, and thereby charged on such lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and for transferring to the Metropolitan Board of Works all the powers conferred by such Statutes on the said Corporation.

Put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London Coal and Wine Dues Continuance Bill, that they have power to make provision therein for payment of the metage dues on grain, fruit, wares, or merchandize received by the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of the City of London, to the account to be opened under the Bill.

Put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London Coal and Wines Dues Continuance Bill, that they have power to make provision therein for payment by the Conservators of the River Thames of the surplus of the annual income received by them to the account to be opened under the Bill.

Put, and negatived.

House in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Continuance of Coal Dues),

MR. MOWBRAY

said, he wished to move Amendments which would have the effect of abolishing altogether the penny duty which had been levied for the purpose of building the Coal Exchange; and also imposing a tax of 8d. per ton for fifteen years instead of 1s. per ton for ten years. The cost of embanking the Thames would not be more than a million, and a tax of 8d. would produce £100,000 a year.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he thought the pressure of the coal dues was not so strong as had been represented. The proposition was to reduce the duty received for metropolitan improvements. The 5d. tax, which would remain after the proposed alteration, would produce about £90,000, while the 9d. produced £160,000. Therefore, the amount of tax applicable to the Thames Embankment would produce £150,000 nett, and if they took away £9,000 a year he feared they would not leave a sufficient sum to defray the probable expense of such a large undertaking. He could not concur in the Amendment.

MR. LOCKE

said, he inferred, from the very fact that the Motion was made by the Member for Durham, that it was intended for the benefit of the coal-owner. He should, therefore, give it his determined opposition.

MR. R. HODGSON

supported the Amendment.

MR. LIDDELL

denied that his right hon. Friend was acting solely on behalf of the coal owners. It was certainly very unfair to retain the penny for the Coal Exchange, which had long since been paid for, and in respect of which a large surplus actually remained in hand.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he should support the clause as it stood, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion.

MR. SLANEY

defended the proposal contained in the Bill.

MR. MOWBRAY

said, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Application of Duties),

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he proposed to substitute the words "the Lords' Commissioners of the Treasury" for "the Metropolitan Board of Works," his object being to bring the funds under the direct control of the House until it was determined what to do with them.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he had no objection to the alteration proposed, which was merely of a formal character. The money would be in the Bank of England, and, if the House wished, the account could stand in the name of the Lords of the Treasury, instead of the Metropolitan Board of Works.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said he proposed to strike out words in the clause, in order to confine the application of the funds to the embankment of the Thames only.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, general terms were used in the clause, but no special application of the funds could be made without an Act of Parliament.

MR. ALDERMAN CUBITT

remarked, that the Thames embankment would not fulfil its object unless a new street was made from Blackfriars to the Bank.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Application of the Duty of 4d. to the Payment of the Interest and Principal of Sums charged thereupon for Improvements),

MR. AYRTON

said, he proposed to add at the end of the clause the following words—"And after discharging the sums mentioned in the clause, the said duty of 4d. shall be paid to the account opened by Clause 5."

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, that the Amendment would practically have no effect, but would raise the question whether the 4d. should be considered as the property of the City. He believed the fourpenny duty would not be adequate to the extinction of the debt, keeping down the annual interest, within ten years, and there would be no surplus. [Mr. AYRTON: There would.] His calculation was not consistent with that hypothesis. But to save time he was willing to accept the Amendment in the following modified form:—"After discharge of said sum and interest, the said duty of 4d. shall be applied by the Corporation of London towards, or in aid of, such public improvement or improvements in or adjacent to the City of London as Parliament shall hereafter sanction."

The Amendment of Mr. AYRTON was withdrawn; the Amendment of Sir GEORGE LEWIS was introduced, and the clause thus amended was agreed to.

Clause 7 (Drawback upon Coals to continue to be allowed),

MR. AYRTON

proposed, that a drawback should be allowed on coal used by the manufacturers of the Metropolis.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he could not agree to the proposal.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Back to