* LORD BALFOURMy Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I may say that the measure is extremely simple. There is a somewhat longer preamble than usual, but that preamble consists simply of the recital of various Charters which have been granted from time to time, and Acts of Parliament which have been passed with regard to the Coal Duties leviable within the Port of London. Upon page 7, a recital is given of the terms of their extension from 1872 down to 1882, and then down to the present year. Then comes a statement in the Preamble that it is expedient those duties should cease. In the next paragraph there is a recital of the terms of the Acts of Parliament of 1869 and 1874 which give power to the Corporation to pledge the proceeds of these dues for the purpose of raising money for the freeing of Kew Bridge and other bridges over the Thames. The next paragraph recites that Parliament reserves to itself the power to deal with the surplus arising from that fund. The enacting part of the Bill consists of two clauses. The first clause enacts a general repeal of those duties, but there is added to that a proviso that to the extent of 4d. the duties are to continue in force for one year from the present date. I need hardly tell your Lordships that this matter has been the subject of controversy in another place. Two Bills were introduced in the other House, one for the continuance and the other for the abolition of these duties. They were introduced early in the Session, and the First Reading of the Bill which has now come up to this House was taken as long ago as the 22nd February. The Second Reading was taken on the 22nd May, and on the 27th of that month it was referred to a very strong Committee. That Committee was what is known as a hybrid Committee, two Members being chosen from 1570 each side of the House by the House itself, and three added by the Committee of Selection. That Committee carefully considered this Bill and the other Bill, and the proposals made with regard to them. They took evidence at some length upon them, and on the 3rd July they made a Report to the other House of Parliament the purport of which has been embodied in the Bill. A clause which they drew up was added to the Bill and received the sanction of the other House of Parliament. Under these circumstances, I think I am entitled to say that the matter has been very fully and carefully considered, and that I may now ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time. I will only make this further remark in explanation—that the effect of the proviso which has received the approval of the other House will be that a very large amount of debt for the Holborn Valley Improvement, which it may fairly be said is really a Metropolitan and not a City improvement, will have to be discharged by the City of London. There is a considerable sum remaining under the Bridge Acts, and that sum has been devoted under the arrangement which has been made to payments in respect of the debt due for the Holborn Valley Improvement. If, as some contend, a large portion of that money belongs to the City, the City agrees to dealing with it in this way. If, on the other hand, it is to be dealt with by Parliament, then the Committee, the history of which I have given to your Lordships, has resolved that it can fairly be applied to that purpose. The balance of the debt for the Holborn Valley Improvement, is considerable, and in order to discharge that debt the duty of 4d., with the surplus remaining from Kew Bridge, is to be applied. Under those circumstances, I now move the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not desire unduly to take up your Lordships' time, though if any further information is desired I shall be glad to give it to the best of my ability.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Balfour.)
§ LORD LINGENMy Lords, as Chairman of the Finance Committee of the London County Council, I naturally take a very great interest in this Bill. It is entitled a Bill for the abolition of the Coal Duties leviable in London, 1571 subject to their renewal for one year. But that is not an entire representation of the present state of the case, as shown by the debates referred to which have taken place in the House of Commons. The really serious question involved in the Bill is the beginning of the adjustment of charges between the City of London and the new County Council. I think I ought to state to your Lordships that the County Council do regard the course taken upon this Bill, and the history of its introduction, with considerable dissatisfaction. Be they right or be they wrong in that view, their feeling upon the matter as that of a new representative body will, I have no doubt, receive consideration from your Lordships. They are inclined to think that this Bill in the Committee stage, being an extremely complicated Bill, as the recitals are sufficient to show, and involving considerations of very great difficulty, has received very short, and, as yet, insufficient attention. It has this peculiarity about it—that the Committee has reported no evidence, and that the City Authorities have produced no accounts upon which this Bill has been founded. Under those circumstances, the County Council do regard it with dissatisfaction. I think that is an important consideration for your Lordships to bear in mind, and for this reason:—There is no doubt that at some distant day very delicate questions will have to be adjusted between the Corporation of the City and the County Council; and it is surely of great importance that that settlement should be approached in a spirit of moderation and conciliation, not in a spirit of attack and defence, and not in a spirit of vindictiveness. The consideration which this Bill may receive in your Lordships' House, and the language which may be used about it, may have a considerable effect upon the issue. I have had no opportunity of ascertaining the bearing of this Bill, otherwise than has appeared in the public papers. The most important part of it, I think, is really the last section (Section 2) which appropriates certain surpluses; but looking to the speech and the figures quoted by Sir Lyon Playfair and some other Members of the other House, the object of this Bill would appear to be the beginning of a settlement of Metropolitan debts, taking the Holborn Valley 1572 Improvements as the first to be dealt with. I need not say that the question of the Holborn Valley Improvements is only one of the matters which will arise. As far as I can make out from the figures given in the public papers, there is a debt upon the City funds for the Holborn Valley Improvements at present undischarged of £744,000, and the proposal is to begin by dividing this debt of £744,000 into halves, each of which will amount to £372,000, and it is proposed that one of these moieties shall fall to the City and the other to the County Council. By the last section of this Bill is dealt with a surplus over certain funds which were applied to the freeing of the London bridges. I estimate that amount at £100,000, which is set aside by the City, and a further sum of £160,000, representing what is called a drawback for the purpose of discharging its liabilities. Then the Quarterly Dues are received for one year; it is estimated that they will produce about £142,000. Of that, one-half is to be given to the City, and one-half is to be given to the County Council for London. That is not in the Bill, but it appears from the speeches of those who support the Bill, and therefore I think it is absolutely necessary that this proposal should be considered along with the Bill. The result of those figures is that in discharging those two moieties of £372,000 each, the City will have to pay £141,000; and when everything has been taken into account the county will have to find £320,000 as its share. Thus, it is evident that this is the beginning of very serious considerations between the City and the County Council. My Lords, I have only risen for the purpose of bringing to the notice of the House this part of the case—how far this Bill involves the beginning of a settlement of Metropolitan debt; and also for the purpose of bringing before your Lordships the state of feeling in the County Council, which is certainly one of considerable irritation.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNMy Lords, I happen for once to be in entire unison with the London County Council, though not for the same reasons, in objecting to this Bill. It appears to me to be a tax the remission of which will be absolutely thrown away. Can your Lordships imagine for one moment that 1573 a single citizen of London will get his coal one penny the cheaper as the result of throwing away these Dues?
§ THE EARL OF LEITRIMI think the noble Lord is not in order.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNThe noble Earl does not say why I am not in order. I say, my Lords, that the inevitable result of this will be that we shall have to face an additional taxation of at least 4d. in the £1.
§ THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTHMy Lords, I wish to point out to the House that any doubt cast on the passing of this Bill would tend to dislocate the enormous interests represented by the coal trade of London. On the faith of previous Acts of Parliament, which have been renewed from time to time, the City has expended for the benefit of the whole Metropolis a vast sum representing a debt of £750,000 upon the Holborn Valley Improvements. It is now asked that the Coal Dues shall be renewed for one year to the extent of 4d. in the £1, the proceeds to be used for paying off that debt. It is very important to bear in mind that the continuing Act expires this day, and any doubt as to the passing of this Bill will seriously affect the London coal trade, and the enormous interests affected by it. I will endeavour to give the House an idea of their magnitude. I say, my Lords, that the tendency of throwing any doubt upon the passing of this Bill, which has received the strong sanction of the other House of Paaliament, would be to dislocate the coal trade to an extent that can hardly be estimated. I know, indeed, that at present many ships are lying in the Port of London, and will not discharge their cargoes in consequence of the uncertainty which overlies this question. The coal imports amount to 12,000,000 tons a year in round numbers, about 7,000,000 coming by railway, and 5,000,000 by sea. Another effect of suspending for any length of time the settlement of this matter would be to upset certain arrangements which some noble Lords are aware of as existing with regard to some of the principal lines. Those arrangements are of a complicated character, and at least five of the principal lines are under the liability of paying those dues. I only allude to these matters to show the House the extraordinary laxity with which this question 1574 has been dealt with by some, the danger of allowing it to remain unsettled, and how mischievous it would be. The injury done would vastly exceed the sum represented by a tax of 4d. per ton on the coal. I trust your Lordships will not reject a Bill of this kind which has been passed by an overwhelming majority in the other House of Parliament, and which, if passed now, will effect, at any rate, something like a temporary settlement of this matter.
* LORD BALFOURMy Lords, I will first answer the point in reference to the apportionment of the debt between the City and the County Council. The noble Lord who referred to it had the courtesy to inform mo that he was going to raise that question, and I have taken the opportunity to look at the speeches he has mentioned. I did not think it right to raise the question myself; but I confess I have not been able to gather from those speeches the same construction which the noble Lord has done. I think if that construction is drawn from either the speeches of Sir Lyon Playfair or of the other Members it is erroneous. The reports are, on the face of them, extremely condensed, and on that account, being also complicated with so many figures, and dealing with such large sums of money, a mere abstract is very likely to be (quite innocently) entirely erroneous and misleading, and it is to be regretted if they have conveyed that construction to the mind of the noble Lord. I will state the exact position of the matter. There is a debt on the Holborn Valley Improvements of £744,000. Against that has to be put £160,000 from the savings referred to, and other sources. There are also the Dues at 4d. per ton, which may be estimated at about £140,000. This estimate does not materially differ from that of the noble Lord. Those sums together amount to £300,000. There is nothing in the Bill whatever regarding the debt of £744,000. I wish to state distinctly that the City of London will remain responsible for the whole balance of that debt of £744,000. I hope I have made that quite distinct. As regards the other point, that this Bill has not been adequately discussed. If that be the case I regret that it should be so; but I do not think that those who have brought 1575 in the Bill are in any way responsible for it. There was a block upon it in the other House of Parliament for three months, and the proposal to refer it to a Committee could not be carried out. If that had not been the case it would have been possible to discuss it with much greater deliberation than is now possible. This is the day on which the dues expire; and it is of the utmost importance, if trade is not to be dislocated, as the noble Lord (Lord Ravens-worth) has said, that this Bill should be passed into law with the utmost possible speed. I entirely reciprocate the expression of hope, which the noble Lord opposite expressed at the beginning of his speech, that nothing will be said in this House which will tend in any way to embitter the relations between the Corporation of the City and the London County Council, One can easily understand that there are many delicate financial matters to be discussed between those two Bodies, and it is certainly not my intention to say anything which could complicate their position. I am quite sure that it is the wish of your Lordships that those discussions should be carried on as comfortably as possible.
Motion agreed to.
§ Bill read 2a accordingly.
* LORD BALFOURI have to ask your Lordships to remit this Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, and I further give notice that I shall ask for a suspension on Monday of the Standing Order, with a view to the remaining stages of the measure being taken on that day. I think I am justified in doing so, as this Bill partakes so much of the nature of a Money Bill.
§ Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.