COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 22 June 1863)

§ MR COX
objected to the provision enabling the Metropolitan Board of Works to borrow £700,000. He contended that they could only calculate on a surplus of, £481,000, and that if the proposal in the clause were adopted, they should eventually have to levy a rate for payment of £219,000, he proposed to omit from the clause "£700,000," for the purpose of inserting"£481,000."

§ MR. TITE
said, that it did not much matter whether the Amendment was agreed to or not; the money would never be wanted, from the simple fact that the revenue derived from the coal duties would be amply sufficient to carry out all the metropolitan improvements contemplated by the his embankment. This clause merely gave power to anticipate some of those revenues by borrowing on the security of the general rates.

MR. COWPER
said, that he had no objection to make to the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox). He thought the figures, as they stood, were inserted by mistake. The amount was proposed without being submitted to him, though he had charge of the Bill. He thought the House should grant the power to borrow £481,000, but it would not be right to give power to borrow more.

§ MR. DOULTON
submitted that notice should have been given of the intention to propose this alteration in the Bill. The Metropolitan Board of Works expected to obtain £481,000 from the coal and wine 1278 duties and £425,000 from the re-sale of land. They anticipated, therefore, to have funds amounting to £900,000. There was nothing, therefore, unreasonable in asking permission to borrow £700,000 of that sum. He asked the Committee to consider what would be the position of the question, even supposing the assumption of the hon. Member for Finsbury should prove correct, and that ultimately there should be a charge on account of the expense on the ratepayers of the metropolis. No charge whatever could, by any menus, for twenty years come upon the ratepayers. At the end of that time the deficiency could not exceed ¾d. in the pound; and for the sake of that amount the right hon. Gentleman asked them to disagree with the Report of the Committee upstairs. If they were not allowed to charge the rates for the purpose of improving the metropolis, there was no other fund to charge, and the improvements would not he carried out.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
reminded the Committee, that when the Thames embankment was proposed, it was distinctly stated that the cost of the work would be defrayed by the wine and coal duties exclusively, He supported the Amendment.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
wished to know upon whose estimate did the right hon. Gentleman rely when he said the embankment on the Surrey side would be carried out for £480,000.

§ MR. COX
objected to giving power to the Metropolitan Board to pledge the rates of the metropolis as security, in addition to the coal tax and wine duties. This was contrary to the original proposition. He moved the omission of the clause.

MR. COWPER
thought the clause very reasonable.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
thought that this power was not in accordance with the understanding that the cost of the embankment should be defrayed out of the coal tax and wine dues.

§ MR. DOULTON
said, that the only object of the clause was to facilitate the borrowing of money, and enable it to be obtained at a lower rate of interest.

MR. COWPER
said, he was not responsible for this clause, which was proposed by the Metropolitan Board. He admitted that a clear distinction ought to 1279 be drawn between the coal and wine dues and the rates, but it was not intended that any portion of the latter should be applied to defray the cost of the embankment. The clause was intended to enable the Board to borrow money on more favourable terms. It was not intended to raise any portion of the funds to be expended on the embankment from the rates, but these were to be made a security for a temporary loan to be repaid from the other funds at the disposal of the Board. This might be to a slight degree a departure from that principle, but he did not believe it would lead to any practical violation of it.

§ MR. TITE
said, that there was no chance that the rates would be touched under this clause. Its object was simply to put the Metropolitan Board in better credit.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
repeated his objection to the clause.

§ LORD ROBERT CECIL
hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood. The question was one between the rich and the poor. It was clear that the proposed works were for the benefit of the wealthier classes chiefly, and therefore he thought that they ought to look to the rates generally for carrying them out, and not exclusively to the coal duties.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
supported the clause, because its object was, by enabling the Metropolitan Board to borrow at a cheaper rate, to render it more unlikely that the rates would have to contribute anything to this work.

§ THE LORD MAYOR (Mr. Alderman ROSE)
thought that it was desirable that the two accounts should be kept separate. He opposed the clause.