COAL DUTIES (LONDON) ABOLITION BILL—SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDERS). (Hansard, 3 July 1889)

§ * MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)
I do not intend to delay the House on this matter, but I propose to take a Division upon it because I do not approve of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to prosecute a Bill of this nature by having recourse to the suspension of the Standing Orders. No doubt there is a difficulty in the way of the Government in getting the Bill passed before the 5th, but they had time enough before the Bill got into this critical position to make up their minds in regard to it. We were certainly led to believe that they intended to abolish the Coal Dues in their entirety. I will not, however, enter into the merits of the Bill. I will only say that in opposing the suspension of the Standing Orders, we believe that if the Bill were to drop altogether, we should be freed from the imposition of the dues which the City now proposes to raise for a 1358 year. We entirely object to the manner in which it is proposed to deal with a Bill which relates solely to the pockets of the people of London. In order to pay a debt of the City it is proposed to tax the whole of the Metropolitan area, which is a hundred times as large as the area of the City, although the City provides one-eighth part of the rateable value. On that account, and on account of its importance to the Metropolitan constituencies, and believing that all this inconvenience could have been avoided if the Government had made up their minds in due time without resolving at the last moment to support the City at all hazards, I beg to oppose this Motion, and hold that the ordinary course of our proceedings be not interrupted.

§ * SIR R. FOWLER (London)
I do not propose to detain the House at any length.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
Does the hon. Member second the proposal of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. J. Stuart)?

§ * SIR R. FOWLER
Certainly not. I only wish to say that the City of London consider that they have a moral claim to the support of this House, because they on the faith of these dues have carried out extensive improvements which were not especially wanted by the City, but which have been valuable to the whole of the Metropolis. The House decided to refer the matter to a strong Committee, presided over by an eminent Member of this House. The Report of the Committee is not what we had hoped, and would have liked it to have been. To a certain extent it is disadvantageous to us, but we are prepared loyally to accept it.

§ * SIR L. PLAYFAIR (Leeds, S.)
I shall, of course, reserve any remarks as to the merits of the question until a 1359 later period. I only wish to say that unless the Bill is passed everything will be dislocated, and there will be an immense inconvenience to the coal trade of the City. On this account I think the course proposed by the Government is a proper one.

§ MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)
In regard to the question whether there was any necessity for the Government to drive us into a corner, I must say that the course they have pursued in reference to this Bill reflects very little credit upon the Front Bench. We have something to consider irrespective of the burden which is proposed to be placed upon the Metropolitan constituencies. We feel that some time ought to have been given after the Second Reading of the Bill for an expression of opinion on the part of the Metropolitan constituencies, instead of which Her Majesty's Government have, twice within a fortnight, resorted to the extraordinary proceeding of suspending the Standing Orders in order to force the Bill through the House. It is a very serious matter, and hon. Gentlemen on the other side who propose to go into the Lobby against us may hereafter find that they have established a precedent which may tell to their own disadvantage. Nothing has been said that can justify the conduct of the Government in proposing the suspension of the Standing Orders. Of course it is very easy for the government with a large majority at their back to put down those who are interested in the Bill, and there are hon. Members who may look upon it as a moral act, but I am afraid that there are people outside who will regard it as a most immoral act. And, as I have already said, it must not be forgotten that the precedent may be used hereafter in the case of Bills against which hon. Members opposite may have a stronger objection than we have to this Bill. We believe that the Government are forcing the Bill through in a most unjustifiable manner for the benefit of a very small section of the Metropolis.

§ * MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)
I would submit that the plea of urgency which has been put forward on behalf of this Motion is not well founded. We are told unless the Bill is passed by Friday next it will be of no use. I entirely traverse that assertion, because 1360 it is a well-known fact that Taxing Bills have frequently been made retrospective in their operation. And if the Motion is unnecessary on the ground of urgency, it is still more objectionable on the ground of expediency. If ever there was a case in which it was desirable that the House should be in full possession of the evidence, this is that case. As the matter now stands, we are asked to accept the decision of the Committee without being made acquainted with one iota of the evidence upon which it is founded. For these reasons I shall oppose the Resolution of the Government.

§ MR. A. ACLAND (Yorkshire, W.R., Rotherham)
I think it is to the interest of private Members to resent, at the proper time, the inroads which have been made upon their time during the present Session. When the question of taking away a further portion of their time comes under consideration, I trust that Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the amount of time which will be taken to-day.

§ * THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,) Strand, Westminster
I think the House will see that I have endeavoured to take as little of the time of private Members as possible. It is only proposed that the Standing Orders shall be suspended at the hour when, by the Rules of the House, the business would, of necessity, be disposed of.

§ MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)
I do not think the House should be asked to pass this very important Resolution simply on the ground which has been stated by the First Lord of the Treasury. It is a most unexampled proposition, and I, for one, object to consider the Bill further until the evidence taken before the Select Committee has been published. We have no knowledge of the evidence taken upstairs, except that it was of the most meagre character, and that it fails to satisfy the demands either of hon. Members here or of the ratepayers of the Metropolitan constituencies. We are asked to allow the Standing Orders to be suspended simply to oblige the Government, who, while professing themselves in favour of the abolition of the dues, have yet allowed the matter to stand over to the very last moment. I shall vote against the proposal of the First Lord of the 1361 Treasury, as a protest against the method of government by surprises which is now being adopted.