1869, of £315,000, being a gain to the Revenue over the amount received for these duties in 1868 of £21,000. In addition to this, there would be the saving in the cost of the collection for the last six months of the year. He would not give the House the trouble of dividing; but would move that the House do resolve itself into Committee to consider the taxes on locomotion, with a view to their being revised, reduced, and equalized. Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee to consider the said Acts."-(Mr. Alderman Lawrence.) postmasters' and jobmasters' £140,000 ; drivers, £3,000. The change he suggested would cause a loss to the Revenue of about £120,000 or £125,000; but from this must be deducted the saving that would result from the reduction of the staff kept at Somerset House and throughout the country in consequence of the existing system, and also the saving arising from the abolition of the ten or fifteen stations in the metropolis for checking the omnibus duties. He was afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while not disputing his facts or denying that a change. would be desirable, might plead the Abyssinian War, and the fact that other taxes were falling in amount. Now, he could not agree in the doctrine which had been laid down this evening-namely, that no re-adjustment of taxation should take place except when there was a surplus; because if that proposition were true, no burdens ought to be lightened till we had paid off the National Debt. Then, as to Abyssinia, since our expenditure, there was by millions and additional taxation had to be imposed, whether an additional sum of £100,000 had to be raised or not, could make no appreciable difference. But he (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) was able to suggest a plan by which, if the trade were thrown open, the Revenue for the year ending the 31st of March, 1869, would gain instead of lose by the change. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to fix the alteration to take place on the 1st of October next (the time when the present stage coach and omnibus licences are renewable), and that the proposed annual licence duties of £1 per horse and £2 per vehicle should then become payable, he would receive before the 31st of March, 1869, the following sums:-namely, six months' duty on hackney carriages to the 1st of October, 1868, £50,000, and arrears, £4,000; six months' stage coach duty, £18,000, and arrears, £6,000; supple-plying themselves to their total remission. mentary and occasional duties, £2,000; postmasters and jobmasters, £70,000, and arrears, £1,000; making a total of £151,000. The new duties payable on the 1st of October, 1868, may be estimated as follows: Hackney carriages (say 7,000), amount of duty, £31,500; stage coaches and omnibuses, £22,500; postmasters and jobmasters, £110,000; total amount of new duties, £164,000; making, with the six months' old duties of £151,000, a total amount receivable before the 31st of March, VOL. CXCI. [THIRD SERIES.] MR. AYRTON said, that, in 1861, he presided over a Committee which investigated the subject of hackney carriages. The tax on these was originally a local tax, for the repair of roads in the metropolis ; but it was found so profitable that it was transferred into the national Exchequer. There it had ever since remained. After the Committee reported deputations waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire), who intimated that it was desirable to re-consider the whole of the taxes on locomotion. The present Prime Minister, when addressing the House on the question of finance, recognized that principle, and stated that as soon as the state of the finances of the country permitted, he would consider the matter with a view to the abrogation of the present system. He was sorry that his hon. Friend had not contented himself with urging these general views; and that he should, instead of insisting upon the total remission of these taxes, have anticipated the functions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and proposed a sort of equinal Budget. It would be a great misfortune if the Government should undertake to re-adjust these taxes on the scheme which had been suggested, instead of ap Instead of being able to repeal taxes on horses and carriages in this country, we were driving mules and carriages in Abyssinia. He was afraid it was hopeless to ask the Government to pursue the settled policy of the House, and to re-consider the whole of the taxes on locomotion. However, at present he should oppose going into Committee on the subject. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER had already touched upon this question, and had said he thought it would H Motion, by leave, withdrawn. BOROUGHS AND DIVISIONS OF COUN TIES BILL.-LEAVE. MR. GATHORNE HARDY moved for leave to introduce a Bill to settle and describe the Limits of certain Boroughs and the Divisions of certain Counties in England and Wales, in so far as respects the Election of Members to serve in Parliament. He said it was not necessary for him to make any statement, as there had been a Parliamentary Commission, and the Bill would be introduced in the shape in which the Commission had reported to the House; and he therefore simply moved for leave to bring in the Bill. be highly desirable, when a convenient the matter in the hands of the Governopportunity arose, to consider the whole ment, and withdraw his Motion. question of taxes on locomotion, and he Baw no reason to change this opinion. Against one remark made by the hon. Member he must enter his protest. The hon. Member said that, at a time when we were spending millions, the spending of another £100,000 did not much matter. He would rather insist that when they were compelled to spend such large sums in one direction they were all the more bound to practise economy in another. The hon. Member estimated the financial loss in this instance at only £120,000. The loss estimated by that Department was £137,000; but it was also calculated that his proposals, though in effect a relief taken broadly, would in certain cases involve a considerable additional charge. For example, in one case, the average charge for a one-horse omnibus was now £2 108. 7d.; but it would be £3 under the plan suggested; so that the hon. Member would impose there an additional charge of 9s. 5d. The House would hardly expect him on that occasion to enter into a question which ought to be considered in all its bearings. Even if the Government were prepared to make the sacrifice recommended, they would not be able to adopt the hon. Member's scheme in its entirety. He hoped that the Motion would be withdrawn, and that the question of the alteration of the duties on locomotion would be left to the proper occasion. MR. ALDERMAN LUSK said, that if relief from these taxes were delayed until our finances were in the favourable condition desired we might wait a long time. He thought the thanks of the House were due to his hon. Friend for having called attention to this question, which pressed very unequally and unjustly upon cabmen and omnibus keepers. MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE said. he was not surprised at the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets dissenting from any scheme he had not himself proposed. If the country was to wait for the time when the Government was prepared to remit the whole tax, he believed they would have to wait a very long time indeed. The Home Secretary was preparing a Bill to regulate the hackney carriages of the metropolis, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that it would be impossible to impose further restrictions upon the proprietors unless this enormous taxation were reduced. He would leave Motion agreed to. Bill to settle and describe the Limits of certain Boroughs and the Divisions of certain Counties in England and Wales, in so far as respects the Election of Members to serve in Parliament, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Sir JAMES FERGUSSON. LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL. (Mr. Dodson, Lord John Manners, Mr. Hunt.) [BILL 43.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." MR. CANDLISH moved that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day six months: firstly, in deference to a sense of duty to his constituents; and secondly, because he regarded the Bill as essentially bad in itself. The Bill did not propose to impose a duty upon coals brought into London; that existed already; but it proposed to hypothecate the coal duties for seven years, from 1882 to 1889, and so withdraw them from the control of Parliament for twenty-one years. The duties were obstructive to trade, and particularly to the coal trade of the Newcastle district. He was surprised that the Bill was not opposed by metropolitan Members; for the coal duties were a tax upon one of the first necessities of human life to the amount of 18. 7d. per head per annum for each man, woman, and child in the London district. Coal, too, was one of the raw materials entering into nearly all our manufacturing operations, and hence these dues were a tax upon all our manufacturing processes. London ought to provide for its municipal necessities by local taxation, and not by octroi duties. MR. SAMUDA seconded the Motion. He believed the tax was much more injurious now than when it was first proposed. At first, London was the only district for manufactured goods; but now they met with competition all over the Continent. In France, for instance, all the materials for shipbuilding were free; and coals were actually cheaper in France than in London, though this country supplied coal to all parts of the world. At this moment, the French manufacturers were paying 18. 1d. per ton less for coal than the manufacturers of London. The Bill was also objectionable because it proposed to deal with a tax which was not available at the present time; but which had been forestalled for the next twelve or fourteen years. That was a process which could only be likened to an extravagant youth selling a post obit. Among the many resources from which money might be obtained for metropolitan improvement none was so unjust as that proposed in the Bill. He should certainly follow his hon. Friend into the Lobby if the Motion were pressed to a division. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee," (Mr. Candlish,) -instead thereof. MR. PEASE declared that the tax was opposed to the interests of the coal-producing districts, because the increase of price was a great bar to their industry. The collieries in the North were working four or five days a week, and were they to be exposed to a further detriment by means of this tax? It was a tax of 8 or 9 per cent on the shipbuilding in the River Thames, and when the industry of the Thames was crippled it was a fit time to call the attention of the House to this tax. It was a grievous tax on the poor of the metropolis, and injuriously affected the districts around the metropolis which derived no benefit from the City improvements. He opposed the Bill. MR. LABOUCHERE, while regarding this as an excessively bad mode of raising money, thought it better that the funds should be raised even from this source than that the improvements now in pro gress should be stopped. The noble Lord (Lord John Manners), he understood, proposed that a portion of the money should be expended out of the metropolitan police area in freeing the bridges over the Thames, and therefore it was not his intention to continue to oppose the Bill, in accordance with the Notice which he had placed upon the Paper. He should, however, move an Amendment when the Bill went into Committee. LORD JOHN MANNERS remarked, that the opposition to the measure did not proceed from the representatives of the constituencies who would have to pay the duty; but from Gentlemen who represented constituencies in a remote part of the kingdom. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) had clearly explained the object of his opposition, when he stated that he spoke in the interests of his constituents; but in reality the hon. Gentleman was not correct in saying that the interests of his constituents would be in any way prejudiced by the Bill, for the coal duty, as it now existed, did not operate as a bar to the export of coal from Newcastle and Sunderland. The quantity of coal exported thence into the metropolis was annually on the increase. In 1863, the imports into London amounted to 5,127,000 tons; in 1864, to 5,476,000 tons; in 1865, to 5,909,000 tons; and in 1866, to 6,029,000 tons. The hon. Gentleman wondered that the metropolis did not find some local object of taxation in order to carry out local improvements as other towns did; but surely the hon. Gentleman could not be ignorant of the fact that a number of other large towns-such as Dublin and Brighton-had recourse to this very mode of levying funds for local purposes. When the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pease) objected to the tax as interfering with, the consumption of coals, he ought not to overlook the fact that Newcastle itself placed an export duty of 2d. a chaldron on coal sent to the metropolis; and, until the hon. Member induced the municipal authorities of Newcastle to abolish that duty, it was hardly consistent in him to endeavour to withstand the wishes of the inhabitants of the metropolis and to oppose the present measure. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Samuda) had suggested that the Government might propose some substitute but surely it was the duty of the opponents of the Bill to make a suggestion on that point. The House would remember that two years ago the Metropolitan Board of Works proposed to make three most necessary improvements in the metropolis, stating at the same time that they had not the requisite funds to carry them out. These three measures were submitted to the Committee over which the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets presided, and the Committee, after taking evidence, came to the determination by a majority of votes that these public improvements should be carried out by a continuation of the Coal and Wine Duties. That determination was sanctioned by the Government, the City of London, who had in hand the Holborn Valley Improvement, and the Metropolitan Board of Works. Last year fifty-nine Petitions were presented from different bodies who would come under this taxation, praying that the Bill might be passed into law. Under these circumstances without saying that this was the best system of taxation, or that some better system might not in course of time be devised-he was confident that if the House wished the immense public improvements of the Thames Embankment, the widening of Park Lane, and the viaduct over the Holborn Valley to be carried out, it would reject the Amendment which had been moved. MR. WATKIN trusted the House was not to be considered as a mere vestry meeting in the City of London; for the question affected not merely the metropolis, but the production of minerals all over the country, and also manufactures within the district of the metropolis itself. The tax was not going to expire until 1882. Surely, under the circumstances, this measure might be left for the consideration of a Parliament elected by household suffrage. Had the small consumers who suffered most from the existence of the tax met together to say that this was a desirable form of taxation? In the country the people said that in consequence of this tax, which they called a tax upon production, trade was being abolished. He thought the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) might very well postpone this Bill, as there were several years to consider it. He hoped the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) would not be intimidated, but go to a division upon his Amendment. MR. GOSCHEN said, what the House really had to consider was this-the House having sanctioned certain Bills for certain improvements, how were those improvements to be paid for? He was not going to say that the coal tax was the best tax; but what he asked was, from what source of revenue were the improvements to be carried out? That was a question which might be fairly put before the House. When the Acts sanctioning the improvements had once passed, it seemed to him a somewhat illogical proceeding for hon. Gentlemen to oppose the only mode of carrying them out. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) said that, in the country, people did not like this matter to be looked upon from a metropolitan point of view; but he would remind the hon. Gentleman that what the people of the metropolis had to look to was, whether they preferred an increase in their rates, or the passing of the noble Lord's Bill. If hon. Members would propose some means by which the funds could be got without increasing the taxation of the metropolis, they would perform a considerable service to the metropolis; but he had not heard of any counter proposal. Surely the people of the metropolis were the best judges of what taxes they ought to bear, and he might say that the working classes of the metropolis strongly protested against any increase of taxation. He did not say the measure of the noble Lord was the best measure that could be produced; but, seeing that there was no alternative proposal before the House, he had no option but to vote with the noble Lord. The House had sanctioned all the works for which this tax was to providefor instance, the Holborn Valley improvements. For these, a 6d. improvement rate had been proposed, but it had been rejected by the efforts of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), and now no resource was left except the coal tax. COLONEL HOGG, as a member of the Metropolitan Board of Works, could tell the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) that, unless this Bill was passed, it would be impossible, from want of funds, to make the approaches to the Thames Embankment. It would also be impossible to complete the improvements in Park Lane, or to finish the Chelsea Embankment; and he might add that the latter work was necessary for the completion of the low level sewer. MR. AYRTON said, that in the Select Committee which had been referred to, he made a proposal against the continuance of this tax; but the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works proposed an Amendment, and that Amendment was I MR. AYRTON said, the chief objection to the insertion of the words was that the Mayor and Corporation of London had no power whatever over these duties, which were paid into the Treasury. The last time the House passed this Bill the town of Hertford, which was under the patronage of the then Prime Minister, was ex know whether the county of Bucks was under the patronage of the present Prime Minister. Perhaps it would be better to exempt from the operation of the Act the coal used in all manufactories. carried, because the hon. Member for South Northumberland, who was appointed on the Committee to protect the interests of the coalowners, voted with the noble Lord. Therefore, if the coal-owners suffered they ought to know whom to blame. The right hon. Gentleman the Mem. ber for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) approved his scheme. The present Go-empted from its operation. He did not vernment also adopted it, and the noble Lord introduced his Bill continuing the Coal duties while he was requested to bring in his Bill; both were to proceed pari passú. It was found to be impossible to pass his Bill last Session, and the noble Lord withdrew his. In the present Session, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen), the Member for the City of London, brought forward the subject of metropolitan finance, and the Government thought it their duty to consider the question, and accept the responsibility of proposing a scheme to carry out metropolitan improvements. This Bill was accordingly introduced. The responsibility rested entirely with the Government, and the metropolitan Members had no option but to accept it, although they considered it a very bad Bill. COLONEL W. STUART complained of the injustice of taxing rural districts for metropolitan improvements, simply because the coals they consumed passed through London. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided:-Ayes 147; Noes 33: Majority 114. Main Question, “That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Coal Duty of Fourpence to be applied by Corporation of London for Improvements). MR. LABOUCHERE moved, to add words to allow the Corporation of London to give a drawback for the coal duty to certain manufacturers carrying on business within half a mile of the county of Bucks. He explained that it was intended that this power should have reference to certain papermakers, whose places of business were just within the line of taxation, and who had to compete with other papermakers whose places were just on the other side of the line. MR. COWPER denied that the town of Hertford was mentioned in any Acts of Parliament relating to this subject. COLONEL HOGG opposed the Amendment. MR. LOCKE observed, that although the name of Hertford was not expressly mentioned in any of these Acts, alterations had been made in the boundaries of the district affected by the Act, which had had the effect of excluding Hertford from its operation. LORD JOHN MANNERS said, it would be very difficult to adopt the proposition of the hon. Member for Middlesex, as it would interfere with the boundaries which had been fixed by competent authority. MR. LABOUCHERE said, he would withdraw his Amendment. MR. AYRTON said, as the Amendment had been withdrawn, he should move the addition to Clause 2 of the following words: : "For every ton of Coals consumed for any purpose of manufacture in any factory separate from any dwelling house, there shall be allowed to the consumer of such Coals a drawback of one shilling a ton, provided such consumer shall comply with such regulations and conditions as may be prescribed by the said mayor, aldermen, and commons, and approved by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State, to ascertain the amount of such drawback, and to prevent any abuse therein." There were other industries besides those which had been mentioned; he referred especially to the case of the iron shipbuilders, upon whom the tax of 1s. 1d. per ton was peculiarly oppressive. Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words |