HC Deb 19 June 1889 vol 337 cc268-88

Committee to consist of seven Members; four to be appointed by the House, and three by the Committee of Selection:—Sir Richard Temple, Sir Bernhard Samuelson, Mr. Lawson, and Mr. Baumann nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and in their discretion to hear Counsel on behalf of such persons or Corportions as they decide should appear before them.

Ordered, That three be the quorum of the Committee.

* SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

In the course of the discussion which took place upon my right hon. Friend's Motion for the suspension of the Standing Order, the hon. and learned Member for Bethnal Green thought that I had not thoroughly fulfilled the pledge I gave to the House on the occasion when the Coal Duties Abolition Bill was read the second time on the 22nd May. Let me call the attention of the House to what actually took place on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of Ways and Means, suggested to the House that instead of refusing the Bill a Second Reading, we should agree to the Second Reading, and then refer the Bill to a Committee which should have "full power to hear what the Corporation has to say, to examine into the debt, and see how far the debt is connected with this particular revenue, and what kind of treatment of the debt is necessary, in honour and good faith, in order to satisfy the first claims of the City of London in respect of the revenue." The right hon. Gentleman suggested that "this course could be followed with perfect justice to all parties, and without raising the questions which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary." At the close of the debate the Leader of the House appealed to me to accept a Committee on the terms laid down, and after I had taken counsel with the right hon. Gentlemen on the Bench in front of me, and my hon. Friends around who supported the Second Reading, I accepted the suggestion, and subsequently drew up the reference to the Committee, carefully adhering, as much as was possible, to the language of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The ques- tions embraced in the Resolution are really, what will be the powers of the City of London in the event of the Coal Duties statutory ceasing, as the\ will by the expiration of the public statute on July 5th? It would be the duty of the Committee to consider the manner in which money has been expended, what money has been borrowed for the Holborn Valley Improvements; and what amount still remains unpaid; and the last point is whether any and what provision should be made in respect to the balance of this debt. I know there is a controversy between hon. Members who represent the outskirts of the City and the representatives of the City itself, as to whether the Corporation are really entitled to anything of the kind, but this is the very question I undertook to refer to the Committee, and upon which undertaking the Second Reading of the Bill was granted. Now the hon. Member for Bethnal Green proposes to limit the Reference to the Committee to the first point of inquiry. I am, as I have said before, most anxious that the Bill should pass into law with the least possible delay, for the present position of things is highly detrimental to the coal trade of the Metropolis. [Cries of "Agreed."] I do not wish to detain the House a single moment longer than necessary. I am advised that the rights that will accrue to the Corporation include 8d. per ton on all coal coming into the Metropolis by the river, and 1s. 3d. per ton upon a great proportion of that coming by rail. So the question we have to decide now is whether these claims of the Corporation should be decided in the House and at once, that, in fact, we should pass the Bill, as suggested by my right hon. Friend behind me, without reference of this subject to the Committee, or whether it should be submitted to the Committee for investigation. I have the honour to move at once the Resolution, the terms of which I have placed on the Paper.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to inquire into the amount and character of any Duties in respect of coals which would accrue to the Corporation of the City of London, on the expiration of the Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Act, 1868,' under the provisions contained in 1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 76, and any subsequent Acts of Parliament; the manner in which the 4d. per ton allocated to the Corporation of the City of London by Statute for the Holborn Valley Improvements has been expended; how far any sums of money that were borrowed for the Holborn Valley Improvements still remain unpaid; and whether, in consequence of the abolition of the said Duties, there should be any, and, if so, what, provision made in the Bill in respect of such debt, if any existing, on the primary security of such Duties."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)

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

The Bill to which the Resolution just read refers consists mainly of recitals, the operative part is exceedingly brief. On and from the 5th July next it takes away all rights which the Corporation of the City of London claim to have to tax coal brought into the Metropolis. It has always been the practice when rights are about to be taken away by legislation that there should be an inquiry, by Committee or otherwise, into the nature and extent of those rights; that is a practice founded on reason and equity, and I have no desire to run counter to it. The hon. Baronet and myself are agreed that the Bill may properly and in accordance with precedent be referred to a Committee, but then, obviously, there arises the question, what shall be the Reference? That is an essential matter, although earlier in the day I thought the hon. Baronet endeavoured, rather improperly, to minimise the importance of the difference between us. Obviously the terms of the Reference are important, because you may have a tribunal admirably adapted to decide one question, yet totally unfit to decide another. On one point you may have implicit confidence in that tribunal, and on another point you may have no confidence at all. If there is any objection to be raised it is essential to raise it at the outset, because if persons submit without protest to the arbitrament of a particular tribunal they cannot, when the award has been given, with any decency express their dissent from it. Now, what are the instructions I would propose to give to the Committee? That the Committee have power to inquire into the amount and character of any Duties in respect of Coals which would accrue to the Corporation of the City of London on the expiration of The Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Act, 1868,' under the provisions contained in 1 and 2 Will. 4. c. 76, and any subsequent Acts of Parliament. Now, can anything be more in accord- ance with the previous practice of the House or more fair to the claims put forth on behalf of the Corporation? A little while ago it was vouched for upon legal opinion that on the 5th July the Corporation would be entitled to levy a tax of eightpence per ton upon half of all coal brought into the metropolis by railway. Well, that is a very large order. But what I want to point out is that my Reference will not preclude the Corporation, through their counsel, from putting forward that claim and having it considered by the Committee, or any claim of a similar description. It would be the duty of the Committee to investigate all such claims and make their Report to the House thereon. My proposal is, I believe, strictly in accordance with precedent and equity, and if it errs at all it is on the side of being rather too indulgent towards the Corporation. But the hon. Baronet proposes to empower the Committee to inquire into the manner in which the fourpence per ton allocated to the Corporation for the Holborn Valley Improvement has been expended. Now, I object altogether to the introduction of that topic as being entirely irrelevant to the present question. It is very likely that an inquiry into the expenditure of any department of the Corporation would be interesting and, perhaps, not unfruitful. Through the intervention of my hon. Colleague in the representation of Bethnal Green such an inquiry was made a little while ago; and of the Report that resulted, I will simply say this—that it would be exceedingly amusing if it were not for the discreditable state of affairs disclosed. At the proper time a proposal to inquire into the expenditure of any funds at the disposal of the Corporation would have my warm approval. I daresay there would be some extraordinary revelations even under this head of expenditure. It would be shown, at all events, in connection with the Holborn Valley Improvement, that the Corporation cleared large sites of poor populations then occupying them, and that they allowed these sites to grow green before any use whatever was made of them. Indeed, I do not know whether or not some portions of the lands are even yet unused. But such an inquiry is not relevant to our present purpose. Then the hon. Baronet proposes that the Committee should be empowered to consider whether there is any debt now remaining due on account of the Holborn Valley Improvement. Now, I say that we have nothing to do with that debt. The understanding was perfectly clear when provision was made in 1868 that the Coal Duties would absolutely cease and determine this year. It was most distinctly understood that such security as was given by the London Coal Duties would cease on the 5th July next. During the interval the Corporation have enjoyed the honour and glory of having carried out a great undertaking. They have also had what I daresay the Corporation prizes more highly than honour and glory, the management of the funds. If the Corporation have exceeded the amount which was at their disposal, and which they knew to be at their disposal, then the responsibility rests with the Corporation, and the debt resulting must be a charge on the estate of the Corporation; we have nothing to do with it on the present occasion. And now I come to the last part of the Resolution, to which I object even more than to anything that goes before. This part of the Instruction should be read in the light of the Resolution as it originally stood, when the hon. Baronet proposed that inquiry should be directed as to whether the fourpence per ton should be continued for the purpose of the reduction of the debt, and, if so, for what period. These last words were altered by the hon. Baronet with a view to arriving at a compromise of the difference between us, but I think the House will see that substantially the Instruction remains the same as before. What is the vice of these Instructions looked at from the point of view of those who represent the Metropolis in this part of the House? The vice is this—We are asked to refer to a Committee of seven Members of this House the question whether or not the coal of the Metropolis should continue to be taxed by the Corporation. I protest altogether against the re-opening of that question. It has already been decided by the people of the Metropolis through their accredited representatives, the London County Council. If hon. Members opposite will only carry their minds back a few weeks, they will re- member that the hon. Baronet, in speaking in support of his Bill, put in the forefront of his speech the fact that the County Council for London had decided against the continuance of the Coal Dues by a majority of 74 to 34. Well, that is a very substantial majority, and a perfectly satisfactory majority, to my mind, and I say this—that this question has been decided by a proper tribunal. I call it a proper tribunal, and I have a warrant for insisting on the word proper for this reason. The question of the taxation of Metropolitan coal, as the House well knows, has been raised repeatedly during the last four, five, or six years, and various Governments—not one Government in particular, not a Conservative Government, or a Liberal Government, but Governments of both complexions of politics—have been urged to pronounce a decided opinion on the question one way or the other. And what has been the invariable reply, both of Liberal and of Conservative Governments? Their reply has been this:—"It is not for us to decide this question. We are bound to wait before doing so, for at present the metropolis has not a representative body through which it can speak. We will not decide the question, but we will wait until Local Government has been given to London, and when Local Government has given to the Metropolis a voice, then we will attend to what that voice says and will act upon it." Is not that substantially the position which has been taken up by successive Governments? Well, Mr. Speaker, we are now in the happy position which that statement looked forward to. We have got a representative body in the metropolis. That representative body has been consulted on this very question, and by a majority of 74 to 34 has decided upon it. I rest upon that decision, and I object entirely to the re-opening of the question. I have something more to add. This proposition of the hon. Baronet not only re-opens the question which has been decided, but besides doing that it refers it to a tribunal, which is, perhaps, of all tribunals the most unsuited to decide the question. I have every respect, and I have no doubt every Member of this House has, for Select Committees for suitable purposes. You cannot have a better tribunal in order to investigate legal claims. I doubt whether you can have a fairer or more intelligent tribunal than a Committee of this House; therefore, so far as legal claims of the Corporation are concerned, they might perfectly well be submitted to a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard goes beyond that, and talks about the moral claims of the City, and he wishes to submit to a Hybrid Committee of seven persons, not only the legal, but also the moral claims of the Corporation. Well, Sir, perhaps the term "moral claims of the Corporation of the City of London" is a rather contradictory term. At all events, I do protest against the idea that a Hybrid Committee of this House is the proper tribunal to which to submit the moral claims (so called) of the Corporation of the City of London. I said a few months ago it was extremely important if a protest of this kind is to be made that it should be made at the outset, and therefore I make it before this Committee is set up, in order that it may not be said afterwards—"You were willing to take the chance of a favourable decision from this Committee; but now that the Tribunal to which you appealed has given a decision unfavourable to you, you turn upon it, and revile it." I say then, I object altogether in this matter—and I speak with the authority of my hon. Friends, the Representatives for London who sit on this side of the House—we object altogether to what is proposed to be done, and we protest against referring this matter to a tribunal composed of a Select Committee of this House. May I read a line or two on this subject from a letter written by my hon. Friend below me, and published in the Daily News a little while ago, in which he stated the case for the Bill. The passage to which I refer is as follows:— If anything is due to the City, surely it would be wise on the part of those who, like myself, strongly object to the Coal and Wine Dues to secure through the action of a Committee, if not the immediate, at any rate the early termination of these obnoxious duties. The very Reference to the Committee confines its consideration to the sum of fourpence per ton to be charged in lieu of the thirteenpence now levied… Should the Committee recom- mend any alteration of my Bill which is in favour of a total and immediate repeal, the hon. Member would be at liberty to defend the Bill as altered, or he could move its rejection on the Third Reading. Certainly it would be open to himself or any of his Colleagues to move such an Amendment, or to propose the rejection of the Bill. Quite so. But, Sir, how should we be met? We should be met with the authority of the recommendation of the Select Committee. If you refer this matter to a Select Committee it necessarily follows almost invariably that you mean to be bound by the decision of the Committee. As a rule, of course that is a proper and a reasonable thing; and I say that when we propose this Amendment we shall be met with all the weight and authority of the recommendation made by the Select Committee, and even I, an inexperienced Member of this House, have observed what great authority the House always attaches to the recommendation of such Committees. I can remember within my experience very few occasions—indeed, I do not know whether there have been more than one or two—upon which the House has refused to be guided by the recommendations of a Select Committee. Very well then. I say I meet the hon. Baronet's suggestion by the remark that if we do not make our protest now we shall lose our opportunity, because when we propose to insert any alteration such as the hon. Baronet suggests we might be able to do, we shall be met by the authority of the Select Committee; and I venture to say that the Government, of which Lord Salisbury is the head, would be only too glad to do a good turn for the Corporation of the City of London, under the cover and under the recommendation of a Select Committee of this House. Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to call attention for a minute or two to another remark by the hon. Baronet and to what he has said as to the Holborn Valley Improvement. He stated in the debate on the Bill, "I personally have rather a warm side towards the City of London." We can perfectly understand the position of the hon. Baronet; we can perfectly understand he has a somewhat warm side towards the Corporation of the City of London; and it is because we feel that he must have a warm side that we are now somewhat suspicious of the course which he is taking. We may be misjudging his action in this matter; but some people think that the hon. Baronet has acted as a sort of bonnet for the Corporation. I personally do not make that charge; but I remember that when this Bill was before the House for the Second Reading my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee, who is a high authority on this subject, said he was sorry that this Bill had been brought forward at all. There was really no necessity for it, and it would have been far better to have let sleeping dogs lie. At the time I somewhat dissented from that opinion, and accordingly I voted in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill. But if we are to have this Bill referred to the Committee with the Instruction to which I am objecting, then I say it would have been infinitely better if this Bill had not been brought forward at all. The hon. Baronet—and this is the last point I shall touch upon.—frightens us, or endeavours to do so, with the legal rights to tax coal of the Corporation, which will accrue after the 5th July. Well, now, Sir, what are those legal rights? On the showing of the hon. Baronet himself they are these:—That the Corporation of the City of London has a right to levy a duty of 15d. per ton on coal which is brought into London by some railways; whereas there is no right at all to levy a tax upon coal which is brought into London by other railways. Mr. Speaker, I think the absurdity of such a position is obvious the moment it is stated, and I should like to see the Corporation of the City of London trying to put a tax upon coal which is brought in—say, for example —by the Midland Company, while they have no power to tax coal brought in by, say, the Great Northern or the North-Western Companies. I think, Mr. Speaker, it is only necessary to state the legal position of the Corporation as it is put before us by the hon. Baronet to show that it would be absolutely impossible for the Corporation of the City of London to act upon those rights which are stated to belong to it. If it attempted to do so, whatever the fate of the duty might be in such a case, I have no doubt whatever as to what the fate of the Corporation itself would be. Fifty years ago [Cries of "Oh!"]—I think hon. Members opposite might hear the conclusion of my sentence. Fifty years ago the Corporation of the City of London might have played such pranks as this; but the Corporation of the City of London, if a giant at all, is at present only a toothless giant, and I think I might say it is a moribund giant. I am sorry that this discussion has to take place under circumstances of difficulty which are obviously unsuited for the discussion of the issue, which, to my mind, and to the minds of many of my Colleagues, is so important, but we in this quarter of the House are not responsible for that. The responsibility rests on the Government of the day, and is the result of the Motion which they made at an earlier period in the afternoon. I will not say that they have been guilty of sharp practice, because perhaps sharp practice is not a Parliamentary expression; but I may be permitted to say that the action which they have taken this afternoon is not calculated to promote courteous relations between themselves and hon. Members who sit in this quarter of the House. At all events, I, for one—and I am authorised to speak on behalf of London Members who sit here—I, for one, protest against submitting this question in the form proposed by the hon. Baronet to a Select Committee of this House, on the ground that the question has been already settled by a tribunal to which, by the common consent of Liberal and Conservative Governments, it was to be referred—namely, by a representative body of the whole Metropolis. I protest, therefore, in the first place, against reopening the question at all; and, in the second place, I protest against referring it for decision to a tribunal which has not a single qualification which is proper for the determination of it. Now, owing to the circumstances to which I have referred, I am afraid we shall be beaten to-night, but we shall, at all events, have the satisfaction of feeling that we have made our protest; while the division which will be taken will have this effect—satisfactory, I venture to think, to us who sit in this quarter of the House, both now and hereafter—that it will show who of the Metropolitan Members are on the side of the old and effete Corporation of the City of London, and who are on the side of the body of coal consumers of the Metro- polis. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "Parliament," in line 5, to the end of the Question.—(Mr. Pickersgill.)

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

* MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

I think the position in which the House is placed by this instruction, is one somewhat difficult to understand, and I have been trying to arrive at a conclusion as to where we now are. Remember that during the debate on the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill the measure met with severe, incisive, vigorous, and determined opposition on the part of the City of London, and on the part of some Gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the House. Since then there has come over the scene a complete transformation. They might very easily have stopped the Bill to which they were so bitterly opposed, but, curiously enough, I find that there is no effort whatever to block it on the part either of the City of hon. Gentlemen opposite who opposed it so strongly during the Second Reading debate. In that state of things we are led of necessity to look somewhat closely into what can possibly be the cause of this complete change of front, and I think the cause is to be found in this instruction. I do not absolutely suggest that the hon. Baronet has gone into the camp, of what I may, without offence, call the enemy, for his instruction; but, looking at the language, I certainly should not be astonished to find that it was drafted in a City office.

* SIR J. PEASE

No, no. I drafted it myself.

* MR. FIRTH

Of course I accept the hon. Baronet's disclaimer, but there are peculiarities about the instruction which are very remarkable. My hon. Friend who last spoke has pointed out that the latter part of the instruction has no reference to the Bill at all, but is quite irrelevant to it. What is the object of the Bill? It is to abolish the rights given by two charters — the second charter is not mentioned—the rights given by the first and third charters, of James I., and any prescriptive rights upon which those charters were based. Now, this fourpence per ton, allocated to the City by statute, has nothing whatever to do with that, because the Act of 1868—or the Act which gave power to continue the fourpenny dues for twenty years—for the Holborn Valley Improvement, said nothing about the prescriptive duties, and it does not deal with them. And I do not see how that question can now be brought into the discussion unless, indeed, there is a hidden idea that out of the action of this Committee the Statutory Coal Dues, which have been condemned by every Government for the last 15 years, will once again for some reason be reenacted, and perhaps in that is to be found the reason for this remarkable abstention from opposition on the part of those who recently so vigorously opposed it. I am endeavouring to ascertain what the situation is in order to decide what course should be taken. I venture to say that the question of how far any sums borrowed for the purposes of the Holborn Valley Improvement still remain unpaid, has nothing whatever to do with the Bill, unless indeed the money was borrowed on the strength of the dues enforced by the Bill. Does anybody believe—is there the slightest evidence to show—and since my hon. Friend's Bill was introduced we have had an opportunity of going into the matter—that anybody advanced money in connection with the Holborn Valley Improvement on the strength of the charter rights exercised before the Statutory Coal Dues were imposed. Now this Instruction may refer either to the prescriptive or charter duties, or it may mean the statutory duties, but we have no evidence at any rate that any money was borrowed on the primary security of those duties which the Bill deals with. I should, therefore, think that the correct Instruction in connection with the Bill would have been with respect to the dues which the Bill proposes to abolish. It is quite true that I said on a former occasion, I thought it would have been better if my hon. Friend had let sleeping dogs lie. It could not be expected that the House would abolish any really valuable existing right without dealing with the question of compensation, and if this Instruction had simply been to refer the matter to a Committee to consider whether any and what compensation should be given for the abolition of the duties, this difficulty would not have arisen. But at the same time, we should have had the other difficulty to which my hon. Friend draws attention—namely, this tribunal is not one which, with all respect for it, may be properly considered as able to deal with an extremely difficult and intricate question of law, such as arises under it. I should be perfectly content if we had left the City to have exercised whatever rights they thought fit on the 5th July next, and I will just point out before sitting down what the position of the London Council will be with respect to it. I think the Reference to the Committee says that the Committee may give consent to persons to appear by counsel, but I apprehend that the London County Council will have no right to appear. We should not be appearing to oppose the Bill, and whether we could appear to support it, having regard to this Instruction, is a very doubtful question. If you refer to this Committee what is practically a power of inserting in the Bill a clause renewing the coal tax, you would do so without allowing us to appear, or enabling us to appear on behalf of those people who may have to pay the tax. I submit that that is not a position in which you ought to place a responsible body, and, above all, it is not a position in which you ought to place this body which represents the whole of the London area. Supposing that it is inserted in your Bill, and supposing that it is decided that the coal tax shall be renewed, and that a Bill brought in to abolish the Charter Dues should renew the statutory tax, the question which you have before you as to the Coal Dues, does not arise, and the people will simply have to pay and pay without being heard. I should have thought that the matter might have been left where it was, and it might have been left with the tribunal best fitted to decide it—namely, a Court of Law, and if it were necessary to refer it to a Committee, I certainly think that the deliberations of that Committee ought to have been confined to matters directly germane to the scope of the inquiry, leaving a Court of Law to decide all legal points. Under these circumstances I think that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green should receive support.

* MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

The main point for us to consider at this moment is that the City of London is going by this Special or Select Committee to have the power given to it to tax the whole Metropolis for the sake of one square mile, and to raise money on a necessary of life used in an area of 700 square miles. I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green, and I believe many hon. Members would not have voted for the Second Reading had they known what were to be the terms of the Reference. I feel confident that if this Bill does not pass now it will pass before very long, and I do not think it right to interfere between the realization of the clearly expressed desire of the body representing London by a Select Committee most irregularly thrust upon us.

MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury)

I desire strongly to support the position taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green. I think we have a just right to complain of the very peculiar position in which the Members for London have been placed this afternoon by the action of the Government. But they know they have a case which will not bear discussing, and that the more publicity that is given to it the weaker will it appear to be before the people of London. At any rate we are waiting anxiously to see how hon. Members for London sitting on the Government side of the House intend to vote. If the Committee report favourably on this proposal it means that the people of Greater London will have to contribute a large sum of money which will be utilized by the people of only one square mile in the City of London. It may be asserted that the improvement which the City made was not a City improvement pure and simple, but was made on behalf of the whole of London. It is, however, in the recollection of those who have gone into the question that the City chose to take that improvement as one for itself. It was not asked to do so, and it was very jealous that anyone should interfere in that improvement. Having taken it over under the conditions under which they did, I say the Corporation ought not to have any further moneys out of the people at large outside their own area. With regard to whether the charters of James or William and Mary could be utilized, and 1s. 3d. per ton levied on coal borne by the London and North Western or the Great Western Railway Company or sea borne to the City of London, those of us who know London best smile at such a suggestion. I should only like to see the City of London attempt to carry out a charter of the kind after an expression of opinion from the people of London. I should pity all those connected with the City of London who after that cared to solicit the confidence of the people of London or any part of it. They no more dare to revive these obsolete rights than they dare to revive any more charters they may have stored away in some of the obsolete pigeon-holes of the Guildhall. What is the feeling in London with regard to the City? Is the City the most popular institution? Is it so popular that the people of London will let it put 1s. 3d. per ton on their coal under some old charter which is simply revived because there could not be found a Government of either Party in the country that would enable the City to get its Coal Dues by statute, and because the representatives of the City of London itself have expressed a decided opinion against the Coal Dues? I think that our friends in the North of England have raised for themselves a difficulty which they will undoubtedly suffer under. If this reference is carried and the Committee report favourably on the portion of the Reference that we disagree with, what will be the result? Instead of the whole of the Coal Dues ceasing in London on and after the 5th of July, as we thought would have been the case, you will have a Report from the Committee that the Bill of the hon. Member shall be amended, or some other Bill passed for the purpose of giving the City power to levy these Coal Dues in order that they may pay certain debts they may have. Instead of having the Coal Dues abolished at once in London we shall have them reenacted for a purpose which will not be for the benefit of the masses of the people. To attempt to say anything in favour of the Coal Dues seems to me absurd when you look through the Parliamentary proceedings in connection with them. Fifty odd years ago a Committee of this House reported against them, and it has only been through the occult influences which the City exercises in the Lobby by means of its paid official that they have been able to get these Bills continually passed. We had all hoped that on the 5th of next month the whole of these Coal Dues would have ceased to be, instead of which we are confronted with this reference part of which, as has just been pointed out by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth), has no reference whatever to the Bill of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pease). We cannot help seeing that the hon. Baronet has unknowingly allowed himself to be used by the City. It is no wonder that the friends of the City were so ready to get the Government to suspend the Standing Orders of the House under peculiar circumstances, the reason being that the City Corporation are going to get more power to wring more money from the people, that they may have the opportunity of spending it as they want. If they are hard up for cash let them suspend their dining operations for twelve months. They would not be able to entertain so many of my hon. Friends as formerly, but some of us who do not go to the City dinners would not mind that much. We have had the opportunity of going. To attempt by this sidewind to again burden the people of London with these Coal Dues is a thing we must protest against most strongly. We have the satisfaction of knowing that our action in this House will be endorsed by the constituencies outside. We know what a strong feel- ing there is outside; we know that the people of London are dead against a tax of this description on one of what may be called the necessaries of life. I should like to have heard some attempt to justify the latter part of this reference from hon. Members of the House who believe in it. Instead of any such justification, however, we have had three speeches from hon. Members in this quarter of the House all unanswered. I must say I think it shows a great amount of wisdom on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are going to support this reference to remain silent, because they would have found it rather difficult to say anything in justification of their vote. Perhaps a silent vote is the best thing they can give under the circumstances, but we on our part are determined not only to press the Amendment now, but if the Committee reports as we think it may, we will fight the Bill when it again comes before us, because we are convinced that it is impossible to-day for the City to interfere, as it desires to do, with the industries of the Metropolis and with the great industries of the North of England. Discussing the question with a Member of this House to-day I said, "You have the Midland and the Great Northern Railways capable of pouring into London as much coal as they like entirely free of this tax, and do you think the City, under these circumstances, would dare to put this tax on the coal of other companies?" And the reply was, "That is our weakness they might do so, and we shall be handicapped against them." But the City is not omnipotent. True, you have the collieries that can send coal by the Midland and Great Northern Companies, but you have to consider the influence of the coal owners who could send by other companies, and whom the City of London, it is said, would handicap. What is the position of those who support the latter part of this Reference? Why, they have to face the fact that if the City took the course they suggest they would raise up against themselves an enormously powerful interest—that of the coal owners and the working classes. Those people who would be handicapped in the struggle would necessarily speak out—the coal owners and the artizans of London. Suppose the artizan classes did find themselves handicapped, and that it was impossible for the Midland and Great Northern companies to send enough coal into London to keep up the supply to meet the demand, necessarily the prices would go up. What would be the position of the City of London then, with a rise in the price of coal? Ask yourselves for one moment what would be the position of the City? Why there is nothing which would enable it to face the storm of wrath and indignation which would arise, and I do not think that even the hon. Baronet who represents the occult influence of the City Remembrancer would be able to suggest a means of successfully resisting the tempest. The City would have to be backed by the Government itself. If this Bill ever becomes an Act that is the position you will be in—that the City may, if it likes, revise some old charters to enable them to charge 8d. or 1s. 3d. a ton on certain railway and certain water-borne coal. We are not afraid of the prospect in London. We know the City dare not do it, and I tell the friends of the City on this side of the House that those who are interested in the industries of the North of England and of the Metropolis are not afraid of the revival of these old charters. The City of London has not the moral power to do what it did years ago. It is crippled to-day; it is only a portion of London. It no longer has the power to stop Acts of Parliament from being passed. It has tried to do it, and we all know in what a glaring light its conduct was exhibited by a Committee upstairs. I do not think it is necessary for me to take up the time of the House any longer. Hon. Gentlemen seem anxious to come to a division. This is a question of the most important description to the people of London. I can understand hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have followed their whip, being impatient for a division and anxious to have their legitimate time on a Wednesday, but they must remember that we are fighting for something and are prepared to make any sacrifice of our time and comfort in order, if possible, to check this obnoxious Reference and prevent it from passing. As I have said, I do not wish to take up the time of the House any longer. I do intend to give my strongest opposition to this Reference. I wish to put on record my opinion as to the effect I believe that the passing of this Reference will have in the future upon the abolition of the Coal Dues in London, unless we are fortunate enough by this discussion to have shown so strong an opposition on the floor of this House on the part of one portion of the representatives of London that when the Reference gets upstairs it will to a large extent be killed by this debate. I cannot help feeling that this discussion will have a good effect on the Committee upstairs. I beg to support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green, and though we may not be successful on this occasion I do not think it will be long before we shall be successful, and I hope that this Reference and this debate will only be another nail in the Conservative coffin of the City of London.

* MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)

Another reason why we should not force on a division on this question is the conspiracy of silence maintained by the other side. We have to complain of this debate being forced on us at this hour by a combination of forces on this side and the other side of the House. We feel very strongly in the matter, and I can only reiterate what has been said by those who have preceded me, that we have no fear of the City attempting to revive these old charters. It would be a great sight to see the Midland and Great Northern companies with their directors and shareholders fighting with the London and North Western and Great Western Companies. The companies would settle the matter amongst themselves. The people of London would get their coals cheaper than they would do or can do if these duties are revived, as they would be revived, after the Reference of this Bill in the terms proposed to the Select Committee. We shall be in a worse position by the revival of these duties, after the Bill has been referred to a Select Committee, than we should be under the existing charters. If these charters are worth anything at all, which I very much doubt, the fact that the Bill will give to the City certain statutory rights—and the position mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee strongly accentuates this—the Corporation representing a small area will be able to he represented before the Committee, while the large body of the ratepayers will not be able to be represented. It appears—and we have it on the authority of one who is perhaps the most capable of speaking on the subject—namely, the hon. Member for Dundee—that the London County Council would not be able to appear by counsel before the Committee. Well, having regard to the formation of the Committee itself and having a vivid remembrance of the powerful advocates that the City is always well able to call to its aid upstairs, one can understand that the eloquence of the learned counsel may be able to influence the Committee in their recommendation, so that quite apart from the evidence itself the Report may bear a complexion not very desirable to those of us who sit on this side of the House. I have some kind of remembrance of what has been done in this way by a Reference upstairs to which my hon. Colleague has already referred. I venture to say that in that particular instance the Report of the Committee did not bear out the evidence. No fact stated in this House in reference to that matter was called in question, every fact was borne out before the Committee, but the Report did not go the length we had a right to expect. In regard to this Reference, if it ends where it is proposed by my hon. Colleague that it should end the City will have no right to complain. They will have every opportunity of bringing before the Committee any rightful dues that may belong to them, and I can well understand that the Committee itself would not be likely to recommend any course of conduct which would be disadvantageous to the City. Quite apart altogether from the recommendations of the Committee I think hon. Members will agree that it has always been the practice in this House, not only with regard to a body like the London Corporation, but with regard to much smaller bodies—with regard to individuals in fact—whenever they have been touched in any of their privileges, to afford compensation. Surely the Corporation of the City of London, and the friends of the Corporation might well leave that matter to the Committee upstairs, and to this House when the Report of the Committee appears. There would be no fear whatever of any injustice being done to the Corporation. The greatest fear of all will be that injustice will be done to the great mass of the ratepayers of London. Therefore I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Instruction."

The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 46.—(Div. List, No. 147.)

Main Question put.

Ordered— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to inquire into the amount and character of any duties in respect of coals which would accrue to the Corporation of the City of London on the expiration of 'The Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Act, 1868,' under the provisions contained in 1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 76, and any subsequent Acts of Parliament; the manner in which the 4d. per ton allocated to the Corporation of the City of London by statute for the Holborn Valley Improvements has been expended; how far any sums of money that were borrowed for the Holborn Valley Improvements still remain unpaid; and whether, in consequence of the abolition of the said duties, there should be any, and, if so, what, provision made in the Bill in respect of such debt, if any existing, on the primary security of such duties.