HC Deb 03 July 1889 vol 337 cc1408-24

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1.

* MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

I beg leave to move to omit the words inserted by the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred, allowing the Corporation of London to impose a duty of 4d. a ton on coal for one year from Friday next, to be applied in discharge of the debt on the Holborn Valley improvements. I will not refer to the composition of the Committee except so far as to say that the Government, whenever they have a little intrigue on hand, are exceedingly fortunate in securing the services of a right hon. Gentleman on the opposition side as an ornamental figurehead. The Bill is entitled a "Coal Duties Abolition Bill"; but the words I propose to strike out convert it into a Coal Duties Continuance Bill. Nothing can possibly be more illogical and absurd than the position which the Committee have taken up, because what they in effect propose to enact is this—that the Metropolitan Coal Duties shall be abolished, provided that a material part of those duties be continued. Now, we are in a difficulty in discussing the question owing to the fact that the Committee have not thought proper to make any Report whatever of the evidence placed before them; but from the fact that the Committee have not made a Report, I draw the inference that they have not pursued the instruc- tions given to thorn by the House. In the first place, they were empowered by the House to consider what will be the legal position in regard to the exaction and duties by the London Corporation on Friday next. So far as we know they have not considered that question; at all events, they have not thought proper to put us in possession of what their opinion is with regard to the strictly legal position of the Corporation. In the second place, they were empowered to consider the manner in which the proceeds of the 4d. Duty have been expended. I wish to know whether the Committee have taken any effectual steps to inquire into the manner in which the money derived from the Coal Duties has been expended. I venture to think that a very careful scrutiny into this subject was required, because when the Coal Dues Bill was before the House in 1868 it was proposed that the accounts affecting these duties should be in the hands of a public officer. Lord John Manners, who was then in charge of the Bill, originally consented to the appointment of such an officer to audit the accounts; but he subsequently stated that when he consented so to do he was not aware of the objections entertained by the City Authorities, and, as a matter of fact these accounts have not been audited by a public officer. The third instruction given by the House to the Committee was to ascertain the amount of the debt remaining on the Holborn Valley Improvement. Well, I ask whether effectual steps have been taken to ascertain with precision what the amount of the debt really is? There has been some looseness on the part of the Committee, at least in one respect. I understand in one part of the accounts which were submitted to this Committee there was an item giving the value of the land at present in hand held by the Corporation, and the point to which I wish to draw the attention of this Committee is that the valuation was made by the City architect and not by an independent valuator. I do think that in a case of this kind where the amount of the debt is the essence of the question an independent valuation ought to be made. The House is absolutely ignorant of the reasons which have actuated the Committee, who have followed the advice of the wary Judge who said that one should never give reasons for a judgment. I protest, in the interests of Greater London, against the continuance of this tax, and hope the miners of Durham and Yorkshire will take note of the fact that the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnard Castle (Sir J. Pease), who is supposed to watch over the interests of the coal miners of the North, is going into the Lobby in order to tax coal which, but for the officious intervention of the hon. Baronet, might have been brought free and untaxed into London from Friday next.

Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 8, line 15, to leave out the words after the word "conveyance" to the end of Clause.—(Mr. Pickersgill.)

Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

* MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

For my part I do not wish this discussion to be exhaustively or unnecessarily prolonged, but the Government can hardly expect that Metropolitan Members will allow the Bill in its present form to pass without protest and opposition. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Committee has entirely changed the character of the measure by turning it from a Bill for the abolition into a Bill for the renewal of the Coal Dues. Those who have less trust than I have in the absolute integrity and sincerity of the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnard Castle may have imagined that he brings the Bill forward collusively in the interest of the City, otherwise the City would have had no chance of raising the question which has been tried before the Committee, and in consequence of which a certain amount of compensation has been allotted to them. What is now proposed is that a new tax shall be levied on the whole of London in order to indemnify the City for a debt, in the contraction of which the inhabitants of Greater London have had no voice, and over the discharge of which they will have not the slightest control. The City came before the Committee upstairs, and, in the first place, tried to prove that they still owe a large debt in respect of the Holborn Valley improvements, placing before them a statement of accounts. No one denies that the Bills of 1864 and 1867, enabled the City to carry out what is undoubtedly a Metropolitan improvement, but no debt accrues on this expenditure. They got a third Act to complete the scheme, and took land, involving a large stretch of valuable frontage, which was not needed for the purposes of the Holborn Viaduct, and then they place before us a statement of accounts. We have no means of knowing whether the sum set down as representing the present value of the land unsold at date is correct. I submit that it was not a right thing for the Committee to accept the City's estimate of its position without further investigation, and now the city comes and asks for a compassionate allowance in order to enable them to discharge their debts contracted to the bondholders who took tip their securities. The debt in connection with the Holborn improvements, was contracted first of all upon the security of the Statutory Coal Dues which expire on the 5th inst., and ultimately upon the general estates and revenues of the Corporation amongst which are any prescriptive rights to which the City may lay claim. Therefore, the important point which the Committee had to consider, and which I submit they decided against the City, was—What is the value of those prescriptive rights? The City rights are practically worthless, If the Corporation contest them in a Court of Law it is more than doubtful whether they will be established. The difficulties of collecting the dues in virtue of charter would be immense. They only extend to sea-borne coal, and the whole trade would be transferred to the railways on account of the keen and equal competition. The City Chamberlain, examined before a Committee in 1861, as to the Acts under which the City levy a duty of 1s. 3d. per ton on coal coming into London by certain lines of railway, stated that these rights were repealed by implication by the General Act of 1845. In regard to six railways the City makes no claim, and among these are the Great Northern and the Midland, which bring into London half the amount consumed. Even if we grant to the City the whole of that which they claim, and give them the right to levy a duty on sea-borne coal, I do not suppose it would bring them in more than £10,000 or £12,000 a year. The last time they exercised the right was in 1829, when they only got £15,000; and in order to compensate them for the abolition of that right, you are now going to give them what they calculate at £150,000, being the proceeds of the duty for next year. I trust the Committee will take the view that it is a most unjust thing that the whole of London should be called upon to contribute towards the liquidation of this City debt. We made an offer to the City, and I think it should have been accepted. There is, in the hands of the City, £60,000, being the surplus of the drawback for coal brought into London for re-exportation. We should have admitted their claim to that, and should have been prepared to give them the £100,000 outstanding in the account of the Kew Bridges Joint Committee, but they were not satisfied. In order to make up for waste and extravagance they asked to be allowed to levy this tax for two years over the whole of the Metropolitan Police area, although the people of that area had nothing to say from beginning to end about the construction of the Holborn Viaduct or the carrying out of the other works. I do trust that the House will reverse the decision of the Committee upstairs. Of course, it is very unfortunate that we have not the evidence before us. Most valuable evidence was given before the Committee by Mr. Boulton, on behalf of the London Chamber of Commerce, in opposition to the renewal of the duty. The City, according to the account of the Chamberlain, is not in a bad financial position. He said the City's finance was perfectly sound, that the City credit was good, and that its estates were solvent. If so, I think it is rather beneath the dignity of the City to come here in formâ pauperis to ask for a compassionate allowance to enable it to meet its liabilities. The Bill is so changed that I consider that those who voted for the Second Reading will be fully entitled to oppose it now.

MR. BAUMANN (Camberwell, Peckham)

As a Metropolitan Member, I support this clause as amended, although I moved an Amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill. I should like to explain to the Committee what I take to be the situation. There is an outstanding debt on the Holborn improvement of £744,000. The Corporation ask that the Metropolis should take a moiety of that debt, £372,000, upon its shoulders. From that moiety of £372,000 the Corporation offer to deduct £160,000—£100,000 being the surplus after freeing the bridges, and £60,000 being the surplus in the hands of the Corporation from the drawback, thus leaving £212,000, which the Corporation regard as the share of the liability in the Holborn Valley improvement which the Metropolis should bear. One year's Coal Duty at 4d. produces £143,000; and so the Committee, in amending this clause, grant the Corporation half their demand, which I think is a very reasonable compromise, indeed. The Corporation of London have certain prescriptive charter rights to levy duties on coal, and that those rights were confirmed by the Statute of William and Mary, recognized by the Statutes of William IV. and the present reign, cannot be denied by any sane or reasonable man. Whether the ancient rights to levy a duty on sea-borne coal were extended to railway-borne coal by the modern Statutes is, I think, a very nice question in Statute Law. The money value of these rights is therefore difficult to appraise; but that they have some money value is proved by the evidence of the Registrar of the Coal Market, who told the Committee that the nett produce of the 4d. duty on seaborne coal was £50,000 a year. But the first question to consider is this—Is Parliament prepared to destroy the ancient charter rights of the Corporation to receive an income by way of a rate or duty without any compensation? I submit that such a course on the part of Parliament would be entirely without precedent. The precedents are the other way. When the Tin Dues in Cornwall were abolished, Parliament met the case by a grant, and when the church rates, which were mortgaged, were summarily swept away, Parliament granted a temporary continuance of them. Then there is the case of the Holborn Valley bondholders. Ought we in equity to grant any continuance of these duties for the sake of those who lent their money for the Holborn Valley improvements? On the face of the Holborn Valley debentures there is printed the title of the Act, by means of which the money was raised; and I do not think any one who bought those debentures knew anything about the ancient prescriptive rights of the City. The people who bought these bonds knew, probably, that the City had a right to levy a duty on coal at that time and for sometime afterwards, and they also knew that the money was borrowed with the sanction of Parliament; but I do not believe that they took any trouble to inform themselves when the statutory powers came to an end or what prospect there was of a renewal of them. I do not think that the ease of the bondholders is at all strong, but far stronger than it, and far stronger than the claim under the charters and under the prescriptive rights, is the fact that the debt was contracted for carrying out Metropolitan improvements, and therefore it would he most unfair and inequitable to throw the whole burden of those improvements on the shoulders of the Corporation of the City of London. There is a debt of £750,000 contracted for improvements such as the Holborn Valley Viaduct, and surely it would be unfair to make the City Corporation bear the whole of that. It is sometimes complained that more was spent on these works than was originally sanctioned; but those who have had to do with builders and architects know that estimates are always exceeded, and therefore I say that it would be monstrously unfair to call upon the Corporation to pay the whole of the debt, especially as the City has had to pay its share towards the liquidation of the debt of the Metropolitan Board of Works. I say that the City Corporation has an equitable claim on the rest of London to bear its share of the cost of these improvements. I say that as a Metropolitan Member, though, of course, if the Metropolis were to repudiate its liabilities it would be a pecuniary gainer. I have no interest in pressing the claims of the City. I have no connection with the City. It has been suggested in a Radical organ that I am under some mysterious obligation to the City. Sir, I owe nothing to the City except a sick-headache, after dining with the Lord Mayor some years ago. But I have a prejudice in favour of people paying their share of a Bill in incurring which they took a part. I protest against the way in which certain hon. Members of this House speak of the City Corporation as if it were a kind of "Long Firm." What has the Corporation of the City ever done that it should be treated like a delinquent in the dock—to be denied the ordinary amenities, the customary equities, of civilized life? I am quite sure that the ratepayers and artizans of London are willing to discharge their share of the liabilities which have been incurred for public improvements, by means of a fourpenny Coal Duty for one year. I believe that they would rather do that than pay an increased rate; and, for the reasons which I have given, I beg to support the Clause as it stands.

* MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

I think the situation is much more serious than either the Government or hon. Members who support this Bill seem at present to think, and if the Bill is passed in its present form, it will have far reaching effects in a direction which has not yet been thought of. We do not want this Bill. Let it be dropped, and if it is dropped, all question about repudiation of liability—and these are scarcely proper terms to use—will come to an end.

There is no repudiation of liability if we drop the Bill, and whatever liabilities may arise will, in that case—if they can—be enforced. Now, Sir, the situation may be understood by the simple statement that the House is, by passing this Bill, imposing a tax upon the ratepayers, which otherwise they would not be called upon to pay. There are equities on both sides, and the representative body of London, I am sure, would be both willing and anxious to do absolute justice in regard to this and any other matter arising between the Corporation of London and other public bodies or private individuals. They represent an enormous area of coal consumers, and it is their duty to see that no tax is imposed upon those consumers, and that no burden is placed upon their shoulders except that for which they are legally and equitably liable. But my contention is that in this case there is neither legal nor equitable liability. The claim put forward by the City is in a very shadowy form—a form which has exhausted all the eloquence of the hon. Members who have spoken in favour of it to support. The hon. Member who last spoke is now in favour of it, although on a previous occasion he was very strongly opposed to it. How long since is it that we have had the spectacle of the kind in this House? How long is it since a Member who strongly and vehemently opposed a Bill, shortly afterwards was transformed into one of its most urgent supporters. In whose interests is the Bill introduced? We know something about that now. It is introduced solely in the interests of the sea.borne coal-owners of the North of England. It was introduced in their interests simply because they feared that they would suffer—and only in a fragmentary degree—by the dues taking an ordinary course. And since then the City has put in a claim for £475,000 for the abolition of these shadowy rights. Now, the importation of coal into London from all sources last year was about 12,000,000 tons. Of that quantity, 7,400,000 tons, or more than one-half, came by the Midland and Great Nor- thern Railway Companies, whom, it is admitted, the City cannot tax. And, moreover, it cannot be denied that those companies would, if necessary, bring all the coal into London that is required, fur they tap the great Midland and Northern coal districts. Now, the claim of the City to tax the coal brought in by other companies is also a very shawdowy claim; and, therefore, my first point is this: we could absolutely have a full supply of untaxed coal brought into London by these lines on and after Friday next. And yet it is now proposed by this Bill to put a tax on this coal. You say you put it on because of the City debts, but why should you not equally well tax us one shilling in the £ in order to pay off those debts? I say that if coal can come into the Metropolis free of this duty by these railways, it is a very serious step which you are taking in proposing to sanction the continuance of these duties. It is suggested that if this arrangement is not accepted, it may lead to serious litigation; but are the people of London to be taxed on that account? If there is serious litigation, it will be between the Corporation and the railway companies, and that is a matter for them to decide between themselves, and not for the ratepayers of London generally to have to decide. The only liability for which the enormous compensation claimed by to have the chartered rights of 8d. and 4d. enforced against them. Now, I have taken the trouble to examine into this matter very carefully, and the first point which arises in my mind is, what are these prescriptive and chartered rights? There is the chartered right to weigh at 8d., and the prescriptive right to measure at 4d. The City cannot touch the 8d., because they cannot by any possibility weigh the coal which is brought into London. The 4d. depends upon old prescription, the existence of which I do not deny, and which goes back as far as the reign of Henry V., though the amount is not specified. The late Mr. Ayrton, who knew more about this question than almost anybody else, doubted the existence in these days of the prescriptive right of 4d. The right itself depended upon the measuring of the coal, which the City Chamberlain himself admits to be impracticable, and the claim has never been established in a Court of Law. Besides which the measuring of coal is illegal by statute, and even assuming the City to be right in its contention, what is the value of its right to this 4d. under the circumstances? That value can only be ascertained by calculating how much of the total amount of coal coming into the Metropolis comes by the railways. There is certainly no justification to pay a tax of £475,000 in compensation for a duty which in 1829 was worth only £15,096. The calculation would have to be made in assessing the amount of compensation, how much of the coal which now comes by sea could be brought by railway. And now comes the question of the City and Holborn Valley debt. Repudiation seems to be a word which comes readily to the lips of hon. Members opposite, but as I said before, if you drop the Bill, there is no necessity whatever for suggesting anything about repudiation. But with respect to the Holborn Valley debt, it is said that it was incurred by the City on the faith of this existing inherent right. Was it? I will give the Committee the facts. The first charge in connection with this Holborn Valley debt was upon the 4d. Statutory Duty which is gone. The second was upon the estates and revenues of the Corporation. It has been suggested that this included the four-penny duty, but that argument is absolutely inadmissible, and would apply equally to market bonds and Tower Bridge bonds. Then the question would have to be considered, how far the Holborn Valley, and other improvements, were Metropolitan improvements. No doubt some of the Holborn Valley improvements were Metropolitan, although for their own purposes the City kept them in their own hands. There can be no doubt that the Tower Bridge was a Metropolitan improvement, but the City took upon itself the cost of that bridge, because they wanted to have it under their own control. And surely they are not entitled to come now and ask us to to pay the cost. The next point which arises is in reference to the Kew Bridge Bill. According to this Bill, the Kew Bridge Committee are to pay over £100,000 to the City, which, it was fondly hoped, would have been distributed ratably among the London people. It was understood that the Coal Dues would absolutely expire in 1888. I have been so informed by Mr. Ayrton, and his view is confirmed by the fact that in 1869 an Act was passed extending them for one year, and that Act is important in corroborating Mr. Ayrton's statement. But now the City not only wish to take the £100,000 in respect of Kew Bridge, but they also want a share of the eightpenny and penny duties which were allocated to London generally, as well as the fourpenny duty. I venture to say there is neither law nor equity in the claim of the Corporation. I am dealing with the matter purely on its merits, and not from a political point of view. From a political point of view I could imagine nothing better but that this Bill should be forced through the House. I can only say that it looks very much like taxation at the point of the bayonet, and unless this clause is omitted, I think the Bill ought to be rejected altogether, and sent to that limbo from which, it is to be regretted, that it ever emerged.

* SIR LYON PLAYFAIR (Leeds, S.)

I wish to draw the attention of the House to the exact state of the case. The hon. Member says this Bill has been altered without warranty by the Hybrid Committee to which it was referred and of which I was Chairman. But that Committee was instructed to consider, first, the Corporation debts still due in respect of the Holborn Valley improvements; and, secondly, what provision should be made in the Bill in respect of such debts. What the Committee has done in altering the Bill was done under the latter instruction. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green spoke of me as the ornamental head of the Committee. I do not know exactly what he meant by that. I went into the Committee with a perfectly blank mind on the subject. I knew absolutely nothing about the Coal Duties, and I never had been interested in them, and I must say that every member of the Committee worked in the fairest and most assiduous manner; they worked hard, and they, with one dissentient only, came to the conclusion embodied in the Bill. With that one exception all the members of the Committee were in favour of the Bill as now presented to the House.

* MR. LAWSON

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse the interruption; but the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Temple), and the hon. Member for Peckham, proposed an alternative scheme which was not accepted.

* SIR LYON PLAYFAIR

Yes; the two hon. Members named wanted two years' compensation; but they entirely agreed with the Bill when the vote was taken, and it was decided that there should be a continuance of the dues for one year only. I do not now propose to go over the ground which has already been traversed. The Committee examined into the ancient prescriptive rights and saw the original charters, and came to the conclusion that so far as we could without the matter being decided by a Court of Law that there were ancient charter rights which might have survived, and which, indeed, the City claimed to be prepared to substantiate in a Court of Law, if the right were not, as proposed to be done by this Bill, swept away. One of those rights was the taxing of all coal coming into London, except by the Great Northern and Midland Railways. I do not intend to express any opinion as to the validity of those rights. I would prefer to leave that to a Court of Law; but I should like to explain in what position we are. The first statute that gave this right of taxation on coal was the Act of William and Mary, which provided that the produce of the tax should be applied to a specific purpose, and should be levied only for a specific time. Other Acts followed which continued the tax for other specific purposes and specific times, and then came the Holborn Valley Acts—three in number—which gave the Corporation power to borrow certain sums mentioned in the Act, and the Corporation, in virtue of such power, did borrow, but not to the full extent permitted. For instance, one of their Bills gave power to borrow £99,000, whereas the Corporation has, as a fact, only borrowed £15,000? Therefore they have not exceeded their statutory rights of borrowing for these Metropolitan improvements. The public lent the money upon three certain securities, and on one of a doubtful nature, to which probably they did not give much consideration. The first of these securities was the fourpenny rate up to the 5th of July in this year; the second was the general property of the City; and the third the charter or prescriptive rights of the Corporation to tax coal. The doubtful security was the hope that Parliament would continue the tax as it had done in many successive Acts since the first Act of William and Mary. Under these Acts the Corporation borrowed £1,715,000, and of this £744,000 is still owing; and the question submitted to the Hybrid Committee was whether there was any equitable claim for relief in respect of this large sum? The City made a proposal which the majority of the Committee considered a generous one. They said that as this was primarily a great City improvement they would not ask that the whole of this sum should be provided; but that Parliament, which encouraged them to enter upon this large expenditure, might well be asked for half this sum—namely, £372,000. The Committee did not see their way to accept this proposal, but they endeavoured to see whether there was any way of providing some assistance without imposing taxation; and they found that there was the sum of £100,000 under the Kew Bridge Act, which was claimed by the Corporation, but which was really at the disposal of Parliament as provided by the Act. The Corporation certainly claimed this £100,000 as their property; but, as a fact, neither the City nor the London County Council had any right to deal with it, because the Act specifically says that any surplus arising under the Kew Bridges Act shall be disposed of by Parliament as it chooses. We thought it only fair that this £100,000 should be utilised in the way proposed in the Bill. There was also £60,000 available in respect of the penny drawback. This undoubtedly belonged to the Corporation; but they were quite willing that it should be included in the arrangement. That makes altogether £160,000 obtainable without any taxation. How, then, was the remainder to be provided? The Committee decided to allow the continuance of the 4d. tax for one year, which was calculated to produce £143,000. I, however, estimate that in the current year it will produce between £150,000 and £160,000; at any rate, taking the City estimate of £143,000, we get £303,000 provided, and I must say I look upon the proposal embodied in the Bill as a very moderate one. I do not know of any case in which, on the compulsory abolition of rights and duties, compensation has been refused. When the church rates were abolished they were, in certain cases, allowed to be continued until debts and mortgages raised on the security of them had been paid off. I repeat, I look on this as a very moderate proposal. The Committee have taken advantage of a sum of £160,000 over which Parliament had control, and they only recommend that the duties should be continued for one year at 4d. We think that this is an equitable and fair arrangement, seeing that the City is quite willing, from its own resources, to discharge the remainder of the debts incurred for these public improvements. I therefore hope that the Committee will accept the recommendation embodied in the Bill.

MR. JAMES ROWLANDS (Finsbury, East)

I have listened with very great care to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, in order to see if he would lay before the Committee any proof that the City has made out something like an equitable claim. But instead of doing that, he very carefully told us the nature of the decision at which the Committee arrived, and he did not give us any evidence whatever of an equitable claim having been established by the City. I say that the right hon. Gentleman failed to traverse the able and learned speech delivered by the hon. Member for Dundee, who, as we know, is thoroughly conversant with this question. The statement of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee remains, in fact, unanswered, and nothing has been said which in any way controverts the strong and logical position which he has taken up in this House upon this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds said there were three claims put forward as to the security of the bondholders in relation to the Holborn Valley Improvement. But I venture to say that what he suggested was completely at variance with the provisions of the Holborn Valley Improvement Acts. Section 40 clearly explains what was the security given to the persons who lent money for the Holborn Valley Improvement, and that security was undoubtedly based on the credit of the fourpenny duty, which expires on the 5th of this month, and on the credit also of the revenues of the Mayor, Aldermen, Commonalty and the City of London. But as to any other security, it was never dreamt of. I think it was most unfortunate that the Committee should have been asked to do its work in a hurry, for no one who has yet spoken on this question has been able to show that the demands of the City are in any way legitimate. I think the best proof that the City Corporation has no case is to be found in the readiness which they have shown in accepting the reduced terms now proposed to be conceded to them by the Select Committee. If they had had a strong case they certainly would not have been prepared to accept such terms. We are told that we are fighting against an equitable compromise; but what was the action of the City? They wanted just double what they are going to get. And now I wish to say a word with regard to the surpluses. Surely the City has no claim whatever to have these surpluses handed over to them as proposed in the Bill. It has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds that Parliament alone has control over these surpluses; but the Committee has proposed to hand them over to the City, and I wish to know what special claim the inhabitants of the City have to this money as compared with the claim of Greater London? We strongly protest against the way in which this matter has been hurried through. We fear that some of our friends, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, who went into this case, have not had time to deliberately examine it; and we wish to know why the inhabitants of Greater London should be taxed in order to help the City pay its debts—debts which it could have paid long ago if it had chosen. Remember that Greater London is, at the present time, more heavily rated than the City. I will not take up much more of the time of the House; but I may say that I am fully prepared to go into the Lobby and let the people of London judge who are best looking after their interests. I hold no brief for the City of London. I have resisted their mild invitations, and I leave it to the people of London, when they are paying the tax, to judge who in this House have their interests at heart. There are some Members in this House who represent constituencies far from London; but there are others who represent places nearer home, and I hope that they will hear a good deal about this Coal Tax before the next General Election. I am prepared to say that no case has been made out for the City of London for a continuance for 12 months of this tax on coal, and neither has any claim been made out for handing over to them the surplus, which belongs legitimately to the people of the whole of London.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 82.—(Div. List, No. 173.)

Bill reported, without Amendment.

SIR J. PEASE

I think the House will consent to the Bill being now read a third time. [Cries of "No."]

MR. SPEAKER

It must be postponed till another day.

Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

It being after Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.

House adjourned at ten minutes after Seven o'clock.