MUNICIPAL REFORM PAMPHLETS. No. 20. COAL AND WINE DUES. THE HISTOEY OF THE LONDON COAL TAX, AND THE YRGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST ITS RENEWAL, J. F. B. FIRTH, ESQ. Re-printed (with references) from the " Times," of December Tth, 1886 ; TO WHICH ARE ADDED THE NS\VER OF THE LIBERAL ADMINISTRATION, 1883, AND THE YNSWER OF THE CONSERVATIVE ADMINISTRATION, 1886, TO THE CLAIM OF RENEWAL. \NSWER TO THE LETTER OF THE CORPORATION AND THE BOARD. HE MEMORIAL OF LONDON SUGAR REFINERS TO MR. GOSCHEN. KFFEUT OF THE TAX ON LONDON INDUSTRIES. MEMORIAL OF POTTERY PROPRIETORS. LIOW WILL THE ABOLITION AFFECT THE RATES ? KSOI.UT10NS OF THE ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE. TENTH THOUSAND. LONDON : THE ANTI-COAL TAX COMMITTEE, MUNICIPAL REFORM LEAGUE, 4, LANCASTER HOUSE, SAVOY, STRAND, W.C. 1887. PRICE TWOPENCE. MUNICIPAL REFORM PAMPHLETS. No. 20. COAL AND WINE DUES. THE HISTORY OF THE LONDON COAL TAX, AND THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST ITS RENEWAL, BY J. F. B. FIRTH, ESQ., Re-printed (with references) from the " Times," of December jth, 1886 ; TO WHICH ARE ADDED THE ANSWER OF THE LIBERAL ADMINISTRATION, 1883, AND THE ANSWER OF THE CONSERVATIVE ADMINISTRATION, 1886, TO THE CLAIM OF RENEWAL. ANSWER TO THE LETTER OF THE CORPORATION AND THE BOARD. THE MEMORIAL OF LONDON SUGAR REFINERS TO MR. GOSCHEN. EFFECT OF THE TAX ON LONDON INDUSTRIES. MEMORIAL OF POTTERY PROPRIETORS. HOW WILL THE ABOLITION AFFECT THE RATES? RESOLUTIONS OF THE ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE. TENTH THOUSAND. LONDON : THE ANTI-COAL TAX COMMITTEE, LONDON MUNICIPAL REFORM LEAGUE, 4, LANCASTER HOUSE, SAVOY, STBAND, W.C. 1887. PRICE TWOPENCE. LONDON : SIMPKINS, PRINTEK, 8, SAVOY STREET, STIUND, W.C. Stack Annex 5" THE COAL AND WINE DUES To the Editor of "TiiE TIMES." SIR, PROPOSED EENEWAL OF THE DUES. The Corporation of the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works have now officially notified their intention to apply to Parliament next session for an Act to re-impose, for a series of years, a tax upon all coal consumed within the London Police Area.* Under existing Statutes the Coal Tax will expire in 1889, but these two quasi-public bodies ask that it should be extended for the rest of the century, and that the expenditure of the Tax should be entrusted to them. PRODUCE OF THE DUES. According to the accounts of the City Chamberlain, the produce of the Coal Dues in 1885, after deducting drawback and cost of collection, was 449,343.f There are also Wine Dues expiring at the same time and collected by the Corporation. These dues amount to 4s. 9|d. for every tun of 252 gallons. They produced in 1885 8,488 net,J and undoubtedly the tax acts prejudicially to the trade affected by it. It will be sufficient for the present purpose, however, to deal with the Coal Dues and the 450,000 a year now paid by consumers to authorities in which they have no representation, and over whose expenditure they have no sort of control. PtENEWAL OPPOSED BY ALL GOVERNMENTS. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reply on November 18th to the deputation from the City and the Metropolitan Board, marshalled, with singular ability, the arguments which have been * Notice, dated Nov. 11 ; quoted " Times," Nov. 28. t City Cnb, p. 181, et seq. J Ibid., p. 180. 20O0486 officially urged by past Governments against tho renewal of this tax, and strengthened them with some new ones of his own, characterized by an enchanting terseness and vigour. It has been suggested that the opposition to these dues is a new departure on the part of a Conservative Government. This, however, is not the fact. Ever since the passing of the Act of 1868 (31 Viet., c. 17), which extended the tax to 1889, the Corporation and the Board have been fervently anxious to have it still further extended. The handling of so vast an income, with practically no control by the persons from whom it is raised, is too pleasant a position to be lightly abandoned. So we find that an application for the exten- sion was made in 1873, to Mr. Gladstone, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who replied in a letter (April 24th, 1873), that there were " grave objections " to the tax, and that the Government " could not be parties to the proposal." Two years later an appli- cation was made to a Conservative Government to sanction the tax for fifteen years, by renewing the dues from 1889 to 1904. Sir Stafford Northcote, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, by letter dated January 16th, 1875, stated, on behalf of the Govern- ment, that they were " unable to comply with the request," and further pointed out the unrepresented condition of a large portion of the taxed area. A second application to the Conservative Administration was made in 1879, and again by letter, under date March 5th, Sir Stafford Northcote, after consulting his colleagues, declined to accede to the request. In 1883 the City and the Board urged their request upon the Liberal Administration, and received in reply a letter from Mr. Courtney, the Secretary of the Treasury, written on their behalf, and dated August 30th, 1883, in which the economical and con- stitutional objections to the extension of the Dues were urged with singular force and cogency. Despairing of success with a Liberal Administration, the City and the Board prepared a careful state- ment of their case, and for a third time applied to a Conservative Administration, in November, 1886, receiving from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a reply which, so far as the Government is concerned, may be, I hope, regarded as final. The answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is consistent with the answers and the policy of preceding Conservative and Liberal Administrations, and with the understanding arrived at when the Dues were last extended in 1868. It does not, therefore, constitute any new departure. But none the less the gratitude of Londoners is due to a Minister who, in what may be termed the critical fate-hour of an oppressive tax, declined to assent to its continuance, except upon evidence of clear consent from the taxpayer. Under these circum- stances it is to be expected that the City and the Board will make some effort to enlist public support for the tax. It may be well, therefore, to examine into the full bearing of the question, and before discussing the arguments advanced on either side, I will endeavour to disentangle its somewhat complicated history. ANTIQUITY OF THE TAX. In the written " Statement " submitted by the City and the Board to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the "antiquity" of the Coal Tax, and the habit of the people to pay it, are pleaded in favour of its continuance. There can be no doubt that in some form a Coal Tax has been paid in London for many centuries. The present duty of thirteen-pence per ton is made up of three separate duties of 8d., 4d., and Id. ; each of which was imposed at a different time, and for different reasons. THE FOURPENNY DUTY. The Fourpenny Duty is the most ancient. It is the present equivalent of a metage charge of 4d. a chaldron, which was formerly levied by the Corporation of London in their capacity of Conservators of the Thames. The right of the Corporation of London to measure all coal coming into the Port of London may be regarded as established in 1591, when such right was disputed by the Lord High Admiral, but the end of the controversy was, as Maitland tells us,* " The citizens had this right confirmed by the " Queen, at the intercession of their fast friend the Lord Treasurer " Burleigh." Probably the decision was a just one, as traces of the existence of Coal Meters as far back as the reign of Henry V., (1444) may be found in the City records.f The actual measuring of the coal was deputed to Coal Meters, and from the accounts of the City Corporation, laid before the House of Commons in 1692, $ it appears that this prescriptive right of coal metage brought in 1,120 a year. This sum was paid by fourteen coal meters at 80 each, and 320, part of it, was paid into the City revenues, and 800 was paid to the Lord Mayor, " for the maintenance of several tables for about thirty ' : officers bound to constant attendance at the Lord Mayor's house." * History of London, folio ed., 1739, p. 166. See alto Letter of Lord Mayor, 1690 Remenibrancia 78. t Evidence before Committee on Metropolitan Local Taxation, 1861 ; Q. 1,333. J Journals of the House of Commons, vol.x., 796, 800. The City stated in their return that the 800 was not " esteemed " part of the public revenue " of the City. Many years later the City took the metage into their own hands, and when in 1831 the system of weighing was substituted for measuring, the gross income exceeded 26,000 a year. The effect of Acts of Parliament passed in 1831 and 1845 was to change the metage duty of 4cL per chaldron of 25 cwt. to a simple duty of 4d. a ton weight, and to extend it from all coal coming into the Port of London, to all coal brought both by land or sea within twenty miles of London. Prior to 1831 the charge of 4d. per chaldron was for measuring actually done, but the duty after that date was received by the Corporation without in the words of the Metropolis Taxation Committee of 1861 their "rendering in return any service what- " ever in relation to the trade in coal."* The change thus made was most important. The Fourpenny Duty produced last year nearly 140,000. When originally imposed it was only for sea-borne coal, and represented measuring actually done. It now represents nothing done whatever ; and of more than 11,000,000 tons of coal coming into the London coal tax area yearly, nearly 7,000,000 come by railway, whereas forty years ago the proportion of inland to sea-borne coal coming to London was less than one-fiftieth. The Fourpenny Duty still remains in the hands of the Corporation. It has been continued from time to time, but has been allocated by Parliament towards the carrying out of various works of improvement, beginning with the making of Cannon Street, and ending with the Holborn Valley Improvement. The money borrowed by the City for this latter work has far exceeded the amount estimated when the duty was allocated by Parliament to this improvement ; but that is not a matter affecting the area over which the tax is levied, and this part of the duty, like the rest, ends in 1889. PRESCRIPTIVE CLAIM BY THE CITY. It is not needful here to discuss a claim which has sometimes been put forward by the City Corporation, to the effect that even if the Dues were abolished, they are entitled by prescription to fourpence a ton on London coal. The prescription, as originally claimed in the time of Queen Elizabeth, was to a fee for measuring coal coming into the Port of London, and was incident to the position of the City as Conservators of the Thames, and as the governing body of the metropolis. Every condition has now changed. The City do not govern the one-hundredth part of the Taxation Committee, 1864, Third Report, p. 14. metropolis ; the measuring of coal is abolished ; and the Conser- vancy of the Thames was taken from the Corporation in 1857. THE DUTY OF ONE PENNY. The Duty of One Penny per ton was first imposed in 1807 (47 Geo. III., c. 68), for the purpose of building the Coal Exchange. In 1845 (8 and 9 Viet., c. 101), after the charges for this purpose had been liquidated, it was added to the Eightpenny Duty, to be applied for certain public purposes. THE EIGHTPENNY DUTY. The Eightpenny Duty is the present equivalent of two duties of sixpence and fourpence a chaldron, which were first imposed by an Act of Parliament passed in 1694 (5 and 6 Wm. and Mary, c. 10). The measure was promoted by the Corporation of London because of their financial bankruptcy, and in order to get it through the House of Commons the City bribed several of the members of the House, including Sir John Trevor, the Speaker of the House, and Mr. Hungerford, the Chairman of the Committee, to whom the Bill was referred. A statement of the debts of the Corporation had been laid before the House, showing its liabilities at 747,472. This sum was mainly due from the City Chamber to orphans or their representatives. Under a City custom the custody and guardian- ship of orphan children and the management of the estates of deceased freemen were in the hands of the Corporation. In this way large sums came into their possession. It has been the habit of the City recently to state that the 747,000 was lent to the Crown, and that its loss was due to the closing of the Exchequer by King Charles II. in 1672. This allegation is repeated in the " Statement " recently presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is not, however, a shred of evidence to support such a con- tention. It was fully examined into and discarded by the Taxation Committee of 1861. The contemporary Parliamentary history attributes the loss to mismanagement by the City : the preamble to the Bill of 1694 attributes the loss to ''sundry accidents and " public calamities," and Maitland, the historian of London, gives the same reason.* All the contemporary evidence is in the same direction. A com- plete statement of the balances in the Exchequer at the time it was closed in 1672 is extant, and contains no reference to the City.f Acknowledgments were issued by the Crown for such balances, but the City received, none. Finally, in their own petition to the * History of London : 315. I Committee, 1861, Q. 487. 8 House of Commons, on November 30th, 1694, they give various reasons, such as the "payment of interest;" "the Great Fire;" the " illegal Quo Warranto ;" " general and national troubles;" but make no suggestion of their confessed insolvency being due to any action on the part of the Crown. THE CITY BKIBE THE HOUSE or COMMONS. Finding they could not pay their debts, " the Chamber of London "was shut up, and bankruptcy pleaded to the demand of the " distressed orphans."* Bills were then brought into the House of Commons to relieve them from their debts, but for three years unsuccessfully. Then the City I quote the " Parliamentary History" of the time (p. 907) thought the most effectual way would be " to give some men of interest what they should require, " and engage them to do for profit what they would not do for "justice." The Bill by which this part of the Coal Duty was first imposed was thus passed through the House of Commons. But the House appointed a Committee to inquire into the way its passing was procured. This Committee inspected the City Cham- berlain's books, and examined separately each member of the Special Committee of the Corporation who had handled the matter. From the report of the House of Commons Committee, it appeared that the Chamberlain of London had, on the authority of the Com- mittee of the Corporation, handed a bill for one thousand guineas (equal to 1,100) to Sir John Trevor, the Speaker of the House, and other sums to other members. When the Speaker was required to answer this, he absented himself, alleging in a letter to the Clerk of the House that he was " taken suddenly ill with a " violent colick," but on March IGth, 1695, the House resolved " That Sir John Trevor, late Speaker of this House, being guilty " of a high crime and misdemeanour, by receiving a gratuity of a " thousand guineas from the City of London, after passing the " Orphans' Bill, be expelled this House."t The House afterwards also expelled Mr. Hungerford, the Chairman of the Committee to whom the Bill was referred, for accepting a bribe from the City of London. * Parliamentary History of England, p. 907. t Autobiography of Sir John Bramston. Camden Society. Vol. 82, p. 886. Lives of the Judges of England. Foss, 674. Parliamentary History, p. 908, et. seq. History of the House of Commons. Vol. 2, p. 454. NOTE. The Enquiry of the Committee of the House of Commons led to the discovery of extensive bribing of members to support this Bill. At the present day this is impossible ; but whilst the House of Commons has improved, the same cannot be said of the Corporation of the City. If, and when, a Parliamentary Committee enquires into the proceedings of the Special Committee of the Corporation appointed to watch the recent London Government Bill, it will find the expenditure of thousands of pounds of public money authorized by it to oppose this Bill, and they are now prepared to spend a large sum of money to secure, for their own advantage, a renewal of the tax on London Coal. SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE TAX. The Special Committee of 1694 were successful in procuring the passing of the Orphans' Bill and the imposition of the Coal Tax. By the provisions of this Bill, the City debt was turned into a perpetual annuity, towards which it was estimated the duty of tenpence per chaldron would produce 4,656 per annum. Part of this duty was only imposed till 1750, but upon representations made in 1748 that the Corporation was still unable to meet its obligations, the tax was re-imposed for thirty-five years longer, the surplus income to be devoted to the redemption of the principal debt.* In 1767f it was further extended to 1831, and charged with 300,000 for Blackfriars Bridge and other improvements. In 1829 the tax was continued to 1852, and charged with the cost of making the approaches to London Bridge. In 1831 J the tenpence per chaldron by measure was changed to the present duty of eight- pence per ton by weight. Shortly after this date all the principal debt which the Eightpenny Coal Tax had been imposed to liquidate was paid off, and for the last fifty years the proceeds of all the thirteenpence Coal Duty has been allocated to various metropolitan improvements. The Dues have been extended six times since 1831, and the last of such extensions was made in 1868 when the Dues were extended to July 5th, 1889. Since the year 1861 the produce of the Eightpenny and Penny Duty has been paid into the Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement Fund, and has been expended by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The net produce of the Ninepenny Duty was, in 1885, nearly 310,000. ALLOCATION OF THE DUES. But it is important to notice that Parliament, in consenting to extend the Dues, has always done so only for certain specific purposes, and for the carrying out of what were regarded as schemes of improvement of the utmost urgency. It has never contemplated the produce of the tax being appropriated to the general purposes either of the Corporation or the Board. Even in the presence of schemes of the utmost urgency, statesmen of both sides have hesitated long before consenting to the renewal of the tax. Speaking on the London Government Bill in 1884,|j Mr. Gladstone said that the imposition of such a tax was " totally alien to the " spirit of our local government." He went on to recite his expe- riences as a Cabinet Minister in the Government of Sir Robert Peel, and said : " During that time the noble scheme of the * 21 Geo II., c. 29. t 7 Geo. III., c. 37. ; 1 and 2 Wm. IV., c. 76. 1 and 2 Viet., c. 101 ; Sand 4 Viet., c. 131 ; Sand 9 Viet., c. 101 ; 24 and 25 Viet., c. 42 26 and 27 Viet., c. 46 ; 31 and 32 Viet., c. 17. I, July 9th, 1884. 10 "Embankment was projected, and the Government desired its " execution, but they saw no means of providing the funds except by " the prolongation of the Wine and Coal Dues, and they would not " take up the scheme because, in the opinion of that Conservative " Government, the operation of these Dues was intolerable." The Embankment has now been made, and the specified objects for which this tax was extended have therefore been carried out. Indeed, it appears from a return, for which I moved last year,* that the Dues have so increased in amount that the Board have already carried out and paid for all the improvements in respect of which the duty was extended to them. OBJECTS OF THE EXPENDITURE. In replying on behalf of the Administration in 1883, Mr. Courtney pointed out that the Treasury did not consider the necessity of further expenditure to be proved, even if the tax were justifiable, which they thought it was not. In the notice which the Board has given of the Bill for 1887, they state the objects of the expenditure to be " such public " improvements, open spaces, and works within the metropolis as " may be prescribed by Parliament." As to public improvements and works within the Metropolis, I venture to say that the proper people to settle upon these are the people who bear the cost, and it is contrary to every fair principle for Parliament not merely to settle what improvements Londoners should have, but- also to tax us to carry them out. If the tax were renewed, it could only be for specified purposes, and as to these, Londoners themselves, and not Parliament, are the best judges. As to open spaces, one year's income of the Dues would buy up every open space within the Metropolitan police area, the purchase of which has been suggested. ALLEGED NECESSITY FOR FURTHER TAXATION. It is suggested in the statement on behalf of the City and the Board that unless the tax is renewed there must be put a rate in the place of it. If vast new improvements are to be under- taken, this, of course, would be so, but if no such improvements are undertaken the need for the tax is gone, and I think Londoners can wait for the improvements until they can themselves, through .some representative body, judge of their necessity. The Corpora- tion and the Board say that unless the tax is renewed they " will hesitate to incur additional heavy liabilities for public * Parliamentary Papers, 1885, 812. 11 " improvements." Exactly so. We are very anxious for them to hesitate to charge us with enormous liabilities without our consent. The prospect of their hesitation to do so is novel and refreshing. If a rate or tax instead of the Coal Tax were really necessary, a much less objectionable one might be found. No PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL. It is suggested that the Metropolitan Board is so completely controlled in its action by the judgment of Parliament that it can- not well go astray. This is a pure illusion. During five years in Parliament, I attended the second reading of the Board of Works Money Bill, through which this control is supposed to be exercised. It generally came on at two or three o'clock in the morning, and the power to borrow millions of money was given almost without discussion, and with very few members present. Londoners are in the unique position of providing millions of money without having any controlling judgment over its expenditure. EFFECT OF DUES ON ARTIZANS. The City and the Board further contend that the "London Artizan" will be benefited by the labour which the new public works to be undertaken will employ ; so to a certain extent some of them would be, but th.e advantage to the London artizan and the London poor is far greater without the tax. As to the artizan, the tax operates very hardly upon manufacturers who employ and who would employ him. Its effect in crippling manufactures was forcibly pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to the deputation. Its disastrous effect on London shipbuilding was shown by Mr. SAMUDA and Mr. LOCKE in the debate on the last Act. The London Pottery firms showed it in their memorial to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1883. The London Sugar Eefiners' Association point out that they have to compete not only with other refiners in England free from the tax, but also with sugar refiners abroad. They say that the tax heavily handicaps them, and is most unjust in its incidence. They add, " the tendency of "such a tax as this is to drive the manufacturing industries from " London, and thus deprive its working classes of one of the main " sources of their employment." Many industries have thus been driven from London. It is more important for the general welfare of the community that there should be every facility for free manufacture, than that there should be spasmodic employment for one section of the community only, in constructing public works. 12 EFFECT OF DUES ON THE POOR. As to the poor, it is strongly contended that if this tax were removed, they would get no benefit, and that coal would be no cheaper. This proposition is a most extraordinary one. All experience shows that a tax of this kind on an article of first necessity acts upon the price to an extent far beyond the amount of the tax. If coal were not cheaper for its removal, then the amount consumed in London would not increase ; but the Northern coal owners anticipate an enormous increase of consumption, and complain bitterly of the effect of the tax upon one of the great industries of the North. Mr. BURT, M.P., who may be taken to represent the Northern coal workers, speaking at the National Conference of Miners' Delegates, at Manchester, on November 23rd, 1886, pointed out its effect upon miners, and spoke of it as a " terrible " embargo on a prime necessity of life to the London poor. The coal producers and the coal merchants all anticipate a large increase of consumption from the removal of the tax, and beyond doubt the fierce competition in the coal trade will soon give the consumer the full benefit. If there is any increase of consumption, it must be in one of two ways, and it will probably be in both. First, to the poor, who will get it at reduced cost ; and secondly, to manufacturers, who will use more and so employ more labour. Where the coal owner sends coal to London, he has to pay the tax before selling the article. It therefore amounts to a charge of 30 per cent, on the cost at the pit's mouth of the steam coal which manufacturers use, and of 10 per cent, on the cost of the best coal. The effect is to have less coal produced, fewer workmen employed in mining, and fewer comforts for the London poor. In 1595, the Lord Mayor of London requested the Lords of the Treasury to use their authority to compel the coal owners of Newcastle to keep pits at work, so that there might be more quantity and better quality imported for the London poor.* In 1886 the Lord Mayor wishes the Lords of the Treasury to keep up a tax which keeps pits unworked and lessens quantity to the London poor. COST OF COLLECTION. The only remaining suggestion of importance in the " statement " of the City and the Board is that the tax is easily and economically collected. This is true, but it has no bearing on the question, unless some more difficult tax were suggested in its place. Among the costs charged to the Dues in 1884 is 616 for the Committee "visiting the boundaries" and 573 in relation to the steam * See Letter " Remembrancia," p. 79. 13 launch. The boundaries are fixed by Act of Parliament, and therefore the visitation is quite unnecessary ; but the Coal, Corn and Finance Committee of the Corporation spend these sums in having a light journey to, and a heavy dinner at, some place where the boundary is marked by good hotel accommodation. AREA OF TAXATION. The area over which the tax Avas leviable was fixed in 1831* at 25 miles from the General Post Office. In 1845f this was altered to an area of 20 miles from the General Post Office, and in 1861| the area is fixed as the Metropolitan Police District. This district is settled by the Police Act as including Westminster and parts of the Counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Hertford and Kent, not exceeding 15 miles in a straight line from Charing Cross. Outside the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board it includes such places as West Ham, Croydon, Bromley, Chislehurst, Tottenham, Barnet, Hendon, Harrow, Uxbridge, EaUng, Brentford, Hounslow, Staines, Kingston, Epsom, Richmond, Wimbledon, &c. It was with reference to these places that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that they were not represented either directly or indirectly. As to representation, four-thirteenths of the tax have been expended by the City Corporation, and it now asks to have the right to continue to receive 140,000 a year from the London Police Area, and to expend it on the square mile over which it rules. Those who pay the money have no shadow of either direct or indirect representation on the City Corporation. It is said the Metropolitan Board is an indirectly representative body. It may be sufficient to say that not one person in a thousand in London ever had any chance, either by vote or in any other way, of con- trolling either the action or election of any member of the Board ; and not one in a hundred of the London people even know the name of the man who is supposed to represent the district in which they live. No REPRESENTATIVE CONTROL. The language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point was all that could be desired. As he pointed out, there is " an "absence of Representative Municipal Government in London," and that if such government were established, London might be permitted to deal with its own taxation, and we might " assume that " a representative municipality was the best judge of what was "for the interests of the metropolis." The course before the * 1 and 2 Wm. IV., c. 76. f 8 and 9 Viet., c. 101. : 24 and 25 Viet., c. 42 2 and S Viet., c. 47, and 10 Geo. IV., c. 44. 14 Corporation and the Board, if they wish to renew the Dues, is then perfectly clear. They must ascertain the views and wishes of the London people through representative municipal institutions. No other method is either satisfactory or advisable, where the question is the imposition of a tax of 450,000 a year. THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE. Nor is the matter difficult either for the City or the Board, if only the will be present. If, for example, the City take to heart the advice of the Lord Chief Justice on November 9th, and initiate a reform, giving these municipal institutions to London, and extending over the Metropolis the corporate life and system under which they have nourished for hundreds of years, we shall all help them to pass their Bill, if it is an honest attempt to establish what the Chancellor calls a " representative municipality." In default of the City, the task of the Metropolitan Board would be still easier. Let them introduce next Session a Bill to increase their own numbers, and to make their members directly elected. Such new body might be elected next year, and although it would require fuller equipment for the work of governing London, yet it might deliberate upon this Coal Tax Question, and any Bill that it presented to Parliament in 1888 would, at any rate, be worthy of respectful attention. *i But the City and the Board may rest assured that, unless they adopt this reforming policy and place the Municipal Government of London on a representative basis, they cannot be permitted to go on imposing new and heavy taxation iipon us. It is the duty of every patriotic Londoner to resist the imposition of a Coal Tax under existing conditions, and to give his utmost support to the wise action which has been taken by the leaders of both political parties, and of which the last illustration has been given in the admirable reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yours faithfully, J. F. B. FIETH. New Court, Temple. 15 THE ANSWER OF THE LIBERAL ADMINISTRATION, OCTOBER 30iH, 1883. The Treasury being applied to for support to the renewal of the Dues, replied through the Secretary of the Treasury as follows : Sir, I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to acquaint you that the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have had communicated to them the conversation which took place, when the Lord Mayor, you, and other gentlemen connected with the Corporation of the City of London, and with the Metropolitan Board of Works, had an inter- view with them in May last. On behalf of the deputation you asked Her Majesty's Govern- ment to assent to the extension of the existing Coal and Wine Duties from July, 1889, when they expire, to January, 1900, in order to provide a loan security for the execution of works of improvement in the metropolis which, in the opinion of the Metropolitan Board of Works, are urgent. I am to say that my lords have given the application the consideration due to it as emanating from the Corporation of the City of London, and from that body intrusted with the execution of those great works, which have within the last few years conduced so much to the health and convenience of the metropolis. You will have learned, from the result of representations to previous Boards of Treasury, that Governments of different political views agree, in their reluctance, to continue the Dues in question beyond July, 1889, and my lords feel sure that you will have readily apprehended their reasons for such reluct;) nee. The duty on coal (for the duty on wine is comparatively of so small amount that it may for the moment be put aside) is a tax on an article of first necessity to all classes, the cheapness of which conduces greatly to the health and comfort of the poor. Such a tax, except it be a matter of absolute necessity, finds no favour with men of any party ; nor is it insignificant in its amount. The rate may be stated as probably more than 10 per cent, on the value of the coal, free oil board at Newcastle, and probably 7 per cent, or more on its price in the London market. My lords admit that the duty is convenient to the authority which levies it, that it is easily collected, and that the consumer does not readily distinguish the relative proportions of the various charges which enhance the price of an article of consumption. 16 But this argument applies equally to a variety of duties which were once levied for the Exchequer, which were easily collected, were not resigned without regret, but which would now be generally condemned as more prejudicial to the consumer than beneficial to the levenue. These considerations make my lords as averse as were their predecessors to a continuance of the Coal and Wine Duties ; but even if it were shewn that the necessities of the metropolis make it desirable to re-grant them for a period, Her Majesty's Government, before making themselves parties to the re-grant, would hold it their duty to examine both the charges to which coal is subjected after arrival in the metropolis and the area within which the duty, if re-granted, should be levied ; for it is an insuperable objection to the duty as now levied that it is imposed on the inhabitants of towns and country not included in the area of the Metropolitan Board of Works, or within the limits of the City, and therefore not represented upon the bodies which practically tax them. So far my lords desire me to state their general objection to the tax, and to its area of incidence, because it is important that the Metropolitan Board of Works should fully understand that Her Majesty's Government are not favourable to the tax itself, apart from any question of the urgent necessity of the expenditure for which it would provide. The necessity of the expenditure, however, forms an important part of the case which you submit, and my lords must state that they do not consider that necessity at present proved. The great works, which were in arrear, and which were urgently demanded at the time when the Metropolitan Board of Works was created, have been in the main successfully executed at a considerable, though my lords are far from saying excessive, cost to the ratepayers. The debt of the Board, including the sums lent to subordinate authorities, is stated in your estimates of this year at over 19,000,000. My lords include the amount ]ent to such subordinate authorities because it constitutes part of the metropolitan indebtedness ; the charge of this debt on the ratepayer directly or indirectly i.e., in the shape of rate or of coal and wine duty is nearly 1,000,000. From a statement which you gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it appears that in the last five years your capital outlay and your advances to other metropolitan bodies amounted to 10,193,000, and deductingthe amount repaid during the same period,2,168,000, there remains an excess of indebtedness on the five years of 8,000,000. Yet the rate of the amount has not risen in proportion during that period ; so that the increase in the value of rateable property within the metropolitan area would seem to leave you a large margin on which to obtain money for improvements urgently demanded. But if 17 further borrowing facilities to the amount of 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 are required, my lords cannot view without alarm the probable amount of metropolitan debt, and of the consequent charge on the ratepayer at the close of a period of eight or ten years hence. Before then they could admit the plea of the necessity of further borrowing facilities for urgent improvements, they must have before them a scheme of your future financial policy. They will ask you to state the amount which you think it permissible on financial grounds to add yearly to your debt, the proportion which you think the debt should bear to the property charged with it, and the margin you would leave for unforseen demands. The estimate of probable future expenditure on capital account, which you sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 8th of May, reaches the formidable total of 13,000,000, of which the communication below bridge will take 5,200,000. The deputation dwelt upon the urgency of this communication, but it was not shown either that there was a necessity for the immediate execution of a work involving such a vast outlay, or indeed that there was practical agreement in respect to any specific proposal. A body like the Metropolitan Board of Works may almost be held to justify its existence by the amount of its expenditure on public works, and while money is forthcoming improvements will be pro- nounced urgent ; nor does the difficulty lie in procuring the money, for expenditure is always popular at the moment, especially if it be out of borrowed money. Unpopularity ensues, but at some interval, and as taxation increases to meet the charge of the debt which has been incurred. My lords cannot overlook the growing impatience of the public under the increase of rates, and they must therefore ask to be convinced of the urgency of heavy expenditure before they ask Parliament to sanction the increase of local taxation. The Metropolitan Board of Works is in the happy position of having inherited no debt. It should, on that account, use its unimpaired borrowing power with discretion, and with some consideration to the next generation, which will have its own works of urgency to meet. If, on consideration of the reasons which prevent my lords from acceding to the request of the deputation, you think it expedient to put before them a scheme such as they have sketched out, I am to assure you that it shall have their best attention, and that they restrict their requirements merely to such general provisions as are essential to sound finance. I have, etc., LE02STAKD COUKTKEY. 18 THE ANSWER OF THE CONSERVATIVE ADMINISTRATION, NOVEMBER 18ra, 188G. DEPUTATION TO THE GOVERNMENT. On Thursday afternoon, November 18th, an important deputation representing the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Coal, Corn, and Finance Committee of the City of London, waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purpose of asking the Government to support the renewal of the Coal and Wine Dues. The deputation included Sir James M'Garel-Hogg, Mr. Stoneham, the Chairman of the Coal, Corn, and Finance Committee, the City Chamberlain, and the City Remembrancer. OPINION or THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER AND COLLEAGUES. Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, in reply, said : As you were kind enough to give me notice that you wished to wait upon me with regard to this very important question, I lost no time in studying all the information which you laid before me ; not only that, but I felt it to be my duty to ascertain the views of Her Majesty's Government as a whole. I am sure you will believe that whatever difference of opinion it may be my duty to express to you, it is from no want of respect whatever to the representatives of two such important bodies as the Corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board bodies commanding an immense amount of public regard and public confidence. It is from no want of respect to them that I differ, but solely because, having examined the subject with the aid of my colleagues to the best of my ability, I feel it my duty to state to you frankly and faithfully, and without any concealment, the views of the Government on this question. The Chairman of the Coal and Corn Committee said that the desire of this deputation, and of those whom they represent, is that the Government shall assist the Metropolitan Board of Works in 19 carrying through the necessary stages in Parliament to a Parliamentary Committee the Bill for renewing these duties which you propose to introduce. DEMAND FOR HELP OF GOVERNMENT. That, of course, is a plausible demand, but I would point out to you that for the Government to take the action which you desire, makes the Government in actuality a party to the demand itself ; and I think it better, therefore, to treat this question as a demand on your part that you shall have the assistance of the Government in obtaining from Parliament a renewal of these duties ; that is a matter to which we have given our best consideration. Of course I have studied the information which you laid before me, and it will be within your knowledge that although all the arguments which you set forth in support of these duties are arguments of much weight and force, still there is nothing which you have laid before me up to the present moment which is in any way an addition to what has been laid before the Treasury in support of these duties on former occasions. You are, I suppose, acquainted with the views which have been urged on behalf of former Governments in opposition to the views which you entertain. A TAX ON A NECESSARY OF LIFE. Of course you cannot deny that there are objections to a tax of this kind of a very formidable nature. It is, in the first place, as has often been stated, a tax on a necessary of life ; and not only is it a tax on a necessary of life, thereby involving principles of taxation which we in this country have long sought to get rid of, but it is a very high tax. I find it is a tax which amounts to no less than 10 per cent, on the value of the article at the pit's mouth. It is a tax of Is. Id. a ton on coal of the value of 6s. to 8s. at the pit's mouth. That is, undoubtedly, you will admit, a high tax ; but on coal of the value of 3s. to 4s. at the pit's mouth it is an absolutely prohibitive tax that is to say, that the existence of this tax almost certainly prohibits the profitable importation into London of the cheaper kinds of coal, such as might be beneficially consumed by the less wealthy classes of the community. You will observe that this tax is a specific duty, it is not an ad valorem. ; and therefore it tends to press more hardly upon those portions of the population who would be anxious to consume cheaper kinds of coal. We may take it for granted that the abolition of the duty would tend to encourage the import into London of the cheaper sorts of coal, such 20 ag might be beneficially used by the masses of the people. I think you will agree with me that for a tax of that kind, before a respon- sible Government can make itself a party to asking Parliament to renew such a tax, it is necessary that you should place that Government in a position to show a case for expenditure which you mean to meet by the resources of this tax of overwhelming urgency, or you must show that the more legitimate resources of taxation are either not available or have been exhausted. Of course, you have not been in a position to show either of these two, as I regard them, indispensable conditions. LOSS TO THE POOR, IF RENEWED. Of course, I am told that if this tax on coal for I suppose it will be more convenient that I should omit all mention of the wine duties, as they are comparatively insignificant in amount (hear, hear) of course I shall be told that the abolition of this tax on coal will not in reality benefit those classes of the people who buy small quantities from retail dealers. With all respect to those who put forward an objection of that kind, I take leave to disbelieve the soundness of that objection. It is a very familiar objection to the removal of any tax on prime articles of necessity it is an objection which has always been tirged when any tax on prime articles of necessity has been proposed to be abolished. But the great fact remains that taxation on necessaries of life has been largely abolished all over the country by the Imperial Government ; and this much is certain, that that policy has enabled the great masses of our people to carry themselves through these long times of great depression far more easily than would have been the case if the necessaries of life had been dear and expensive to them. Therefore, nothing will induce me at present, from any information which I have in my possession, to believe that the abolition of this duty on coal would not sensibly and very rapidly decrease the price of coal to the masses of the people in the metropolis. But also I would point out to you this that without any doubt, the duty on coal, as it at present exists, operates hardly on manufacturers in London. Loss TO MANUFACTURERS. There can be little doubt that a manufacturer employing in his industry steam power is more unfavourably handicapped when he sets up or tries to develope a business in London, than when he tries to set up or develope a business in any other large town. Nothing, I should think, would be more to the interests of the metropolis than to encourage in every way the planting and the 21 development of manufactures in the metropolis ; nothing, surely, would be more likely to diminish the great mass of unemployed persons about whom we hear so much every day. But certainly a duty of this kind, so high, upon such an article as coal, cannot but have a most unfavourable effect upon either the starting or the development of manufactures in London. So much for the iirst objection which I have to take to this duty. I now pass to another, to which I do not attach quite so much importance, because undoubtedly it is an objection which can be met by legislation ; but I am bound to point out to you that it does not appear from the statement which you have laid before me that you contemplate at all meeting this objection. It is one which is well known to you. AREA OF TAXATION. It is that the area of taxation by no means corresponds with the area of representation, and that very large numbers of persons contribute to your resources by means of this tax who cannot in any way control the expenditure of the money which is raised, and who, moreover, cannot be said to be directly benetited by the expenditure which this taxation enables you to incur. That is a second objection of a serious character. INSIDIOUS NATURE OF TAX. But I come to a third objection, which is, to my mind, the most serious of all. I will point out to you and invite your earnest consideration of this point: the very insidious nature of this duty, of this method of raising money insidious, I mean to say, in respect to its deleterious effect upon the maintenance of any standard of financial economy. The existence of these duties has this effect that it enables expenditure to be incurred of the amount and actual incidence of which the great body of the ratepayers in the metropolis are not aware. You who represent those who advocate this duty, and who represent those bodies who are authorized to spend the moneys which this duty produces you are able, by means of these duties, to borrow money with a light heart, to undertake colossal enterprises, to pay the interest on the money which you borrow easily, but the capital which you borrow thus easily is charged upon the rates, and must ultimately fall upon the rates, both as regards capital and interest ; and in the meantime this is undoubtedly the effect, that all practical and effective appreciation of the indebtedness of the metropolis is concealed from the local ratepayers does not come sharply to their notice. 22 ECONOMY RESULTING PROM KEPEAL. This much, I take it, is certain, that the abolition of these duties will force the Corporation of the City and compel the Metropolitan Board of Works to examine and overhaul with the utmost care their financial position, and to establish some recognised and definite proportion between liabilities and resources. Certainly, if the abolition of these duties had that result, I cannot myself say that I think that result would be any other but a very admirable result. However, summarizing generally these various objections which I have wished to place before you, it appears to me that the general aspect of these duties, at any rate as they occur to the minds of the Government, is as follows : That this coal duty is a tax on a necessary of life imposed over a large area on a great number of persons not repre- sented directly or indirectly, and not directly benefited by the taxation. It is, moreover, a tax leading to and encouraging and facilitating very heavy and, indeed, one may almost say, boundless expenditure, the burden of which is really charged (though the public at the time do not perceive it), and must ultimately fall, upon property. Now, that is the general aspect of these duties as they appear to me and my colleagues when you do me the honour to come before me and ask that the Government should be a party to their renewal. No EEPRESENTATIVE MUNICIPALITY IN LONDON. I would remind you that in this matter the responsibility of the Government, you will admit, I think, is peculiar and grave, entirely on this account on account of the absence in London of repre- sentative Municipal Government such as exists in other towns in England. Of course if London were like other towns in England, with representative popular Municipal Government, it might well in such matters as this be allowed to go its own way, and we might perfectly well assume that a representative municipality was the best judge of what was for the interests of the metropolis, lint that is not the case. London is not in that position, and Her Majesty's Government have, at present at any rate, no means what- ever of knowing accurately or at all precisely what would be the views and wishes of a great majority of the London population with regard to the renewal of these dues. That being so, we are bound, I think you will admit, to exercise peculiar and even excessive caution with regard to proposals such as this : and I own that I think we are also bound to view with the utmost suspicion all great projects of expenditure put forward by bodies which, though bodies of great authority and high character and 23 respectability, are not representative in their nature, and in the sense which we generally consider representation ought to be established ; and we are bound not only to view such projects with great suspicion, but I think we are bound to refuse our assent to them as a Government, unless we can feel sure those projects .are based upon sound finance and upon indisputable necessity. OTHER OBJECTIONS. I wish, before concluding these remarks, to draw your attention to the concluding paragraph of the statement which you were kind enough to send me the other day a statement which embodies with great skill and conciseness all the views which you hold. The passage runs as follows : " The objections now raised to a " continuance of these duties for a further limited period, for effecting " indisputably beneficial public works, impose upon those who urge " them the onus of suggesting a rate or other duty as a substitute " which would be less objectionable, equally fair in its incidence, " cheaper in collection, and likely to be more generally approved." I will endeavour to meet you on that ground. I would point out that without any doubt whatever an equal rate upon property for public objects is far less objectionable for the purpose of raising money than a tax upon a necessary of life; so much less objectionable is it, that I know of no objection which can be brought .against an equal rate upon property for public objects, and I know of no objection which cannot be brought against a tax on a necessary of life. Then your second demand is that the substituted .tax should be equally fair in its incidence. I do not know any tax that can be fairer in its incidence than an equal rate upon property ; but it would be easy to prove, only I would not like to detain you, that nothing can less nearly approach the standard of fairness of incidence than this tax upon coal which you wish us to help you in renewing. Then you urge, as a third qualification, .that the substituted tax ought to be cheaper in collection. I know that the advocates of this duty are proud of the fact that it is cheaply collected. I think the collection is only estimated at about 1 per cent, on the amount collected. No doubt that is cheap, but I would point out to you that a rate upon property would be cheaper still. In fact, a rate upon property would cost nothing, because an addition of 2|d. or 4d. to the amount of the existing rate would not increase the cost of the collection of the original rate. The fourth qualification is that a substituted tax should be one which is likely to be more generally approved. Well, of course on that subject it is perfectly impossible for .me, and I think it would be difficult for you, to give any certain 24 opinion. There is an immense difference of opinion with regard to these taxes, and many persons of authority are to be found on either side. I admit that a substituted tax ought to be more generally approved, and undoubtedly if it should become evident that a very large majority of the people of the metropolis a large and predominant majority' were in favour of a renewal of these duties, then the present attitude of the Government towards that proposal, which I venture to define as an attitude of rigid financial precision, undoubtedly that present attitude might certainly be modified. The people of London, after all, if they can manage to express their views in a manner which all can understand, must be assumed to be the best judge of what they like and what they want, and I do not think if that view was expressed in a clear and definite manner in support of those views which you urge I do not think the Government would be bound to adhere obstinately or pedantically to the arguments which I have ventured to lay before you, but up to the present we have no evidence of any kind. Nothing of the sort is in our possession, and from what has been laid before me, though I cannot say that it is exactly evidence which I should like to found positive opinions upon, it rather leads my mind in a contrary direction to that which has been urged by Sir J. M'Garel-Hogg I have ventured to detain you at some length, and to go as fully as I could into these matters. I trust that although I have differed from you,. I have not spoken without moderation and fairness; but I also think it my duty frankly to state to you without concealment that my own personal opinion, whatever it is worth, at the present moment is this, that so far as my present information goes, public policy, financial wisdom, and last, but by no means least, Parliamentary opinion, will be found opposed to a renewal of these duties for a farther term of years. 23 ANSWER TO THE LETTEE OF 1HE METROPOLITAN BOAED OF WORKS AND THE CITY CORPORATION TO THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER. To the Editor of " THE DAILY NEWS," January 22nd, 1887. SIR, The letter of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the City Corporation, sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is scarcely likely to attain its end. On five occasions, after the fullest examination into the beariDgs of the question, the Administration of the day has refused to renew the tax on coal. It was refused by Mr. Gladstone in 1873, by Sir Stafford Northcote in 1875, and again in 1879, and by Mr. Gladstone again in 1883, and by Lord Randolph Churchill in 1886. The economic fallacies contained in the recent statements of the City and the Board have been often refuted ; but they are re-advanced with persistent regularity, and we are asked to believe that the poor prefer a tax of two shillings a head on a necessity of life, and that manufacturers flourish better with an octroi duty on coal than without it. It is difficult to restrain a meed of pity for these two non- representative London authorities struggling against their fate. They are indeed in extremis when they find it needful to appeal from Mr. Gladstone and Sir Stafford Northcote to the judgment ot Mr. Goschen and the authority of Mr. Ayrton. No severer criticism of the financial operations of the Metropolitan Board is to be found in the pages of " Hansard " than the speech delivered by Mr. Goschen on Local Taxation in 1868. As to the Coal Tax, it is an octroi duty of the worst kind, a class of tax which, as Mr. Goschen then pointed out, should be " utterly impossible in this country. 3 ' Mr. Ayrton, speaking in the same debate, said that " he quite concurred with his right hon. friend (Mr. Goschen) that it would be contrary to any recognised principle of taxation to continue a tax like the Coal Tax." (" Hansard," vol. 190. p. 1,033.) 26 In his speech on this occasion, Mr. Goschen dealt with the two- points now raised by the City and the Board as to the source out of which public improvements should be defrayed, and as to the unjust incidence of local rates. He proposed that the latter should be met by legislation, and suggested that the cost of improvements might be borne by a tax on the owners of property, and by means of what he termed a " Municipal Income Tax," which might be levied by the Government, who should give to the Local Authority the House Tax in exchange. If the City and the Board had taken the trouble to ascertain beforehand the published opinions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they would scarcely have expended so much time and labour in the development of fallacies already demolished by him. The attempt made by the City and the Board, both in the original " Statement " to Lord Eandolph Churchill and in their letter to Mr. Goschen, to invoke the authority of Mr. Ayrton and the Taxation Committee of 1866, is still more unfortunate. The recommendation of the Committee that the Dues should, for certain specified objects, be continued for a " further limited period," was carried out by the extension from 1882 to 1889 ; and Mr. Ayrton himself, the Chairman of the Committee, told me that it was then arranged and understood by all parties concerned that this obnoxious tax should end in 1889. He regarded the applica- tions for its renewal, which were made to Mr. Gladstone and Sir Stafford Northcote, as distinct breaches of that understanding. The Committee of 1866 recommended a rate on owners of property, to bear part of the charge of public improvements, and, as to the Metropolitan Board, they recommended an alteration in the method of its election and its re-constitution into a representative " Municipal Council of London." All these recommendations the Board of Works has persistently ignored. The criticism passed on the original " Statement " of the City and the Board has compelled them to state more definitely what are the purposes to which, as they say, the Dues should be applied. The Board of Works says that the inhabitants of the Metropolis consider two objects to be of overwhelming urgency, viz., the purification of the sewage and the provision of a tunnel between Blackwall and Greenwich ; whilst the City require the extension of the Dues because they are "continually called upon for expenditure in connection with street and other improvements, and for the preservation of open spaces." The inference which the public are likely to draw from such a statement is that these are the objects for which they wish the tax to be renewed ; whereas, they are merely stalking-horses put forward to cajole the public. 27 The City really wish for the renewal of the tax for the purpose of paying off debts already incurred, and charged upon the City Estate. They have never expended a penny of the Coal Tax on preserving any open space, and if Londoners wish to purchase for themselves the open spaces round the Metropolis, they would not entrust the operation to the Corporation of the City. As to the Board of Works, it is true that they propose to tunnel the estuary of the Thames at a cost of a million and a quarter. Londoners admit to the full the necessity of improved eastern communications ; but they ought to have an opportunity of deciding as to the best form which these should take before being called upon to pay for them. The same observation applies to the purification of the sewage; but the case is somewhat stronger,, because a good deal of the liability for this is already incurred, whilst the theory hitherto put forward has been that the tax would be used for further improvements. In the case of the Board, as in the case of the City, the statement of objects is misleading ; the fact being, as they naively admit in one part of the letter although they never honestly state it that they wish to apply the tax to their general purposes. The Corporation of the City and the Metropolitan Board of Works know very well that if the exact truth were stated with respect to the purposes to which they hope to be enabled to apply the Coal Tax, the proposition for its renewal could not live for a single week. In these, as in other matters, the City and the Board treat the people of London with the utmost contempt. They have even the hardihood to assert in their last letter that Londoners are anxious to have their coal taxed, and wish to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they are the embodiment of intelligent London, opinion. Not the least of the advantages of the repeal of the tax would be that it would finally dispel this interesting illusion. The governing authorities of London, like ostriches, bury their heads in the sand, and decline to see what is plain to everybody else. The time has now come to make those who spend taxes directly responsible to those who pay them, and to extinguish dues which, as Mr. Goschen said, " are contrary to any recognised principle of taxation." Yours faithfully, J. F. B. FIKTH. 28 THE SUGAR REFINERS AND THE LONDON COAL TAX. Correspondence ^vith the Rt. Hon. G. J. GOSCHEN, Chancellor of ihe Exchequer. [Copy.] The Eight. Hon. G. J. Goschen, Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir, As the question of the Metropolitan Coal Dues is still being agitated, in spite of the distinct refusal of the present and former Governments to agree to their renewal, I am desired by the London Sugar Refiners' Association to direct your attention to a letter which they addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 20th November, 1883, on this subject. The reply which they received was so conclusive and satisfactory that they did not anticipate the necessity of again troubling Her Majesty's Govern- ment in the matter ; but it now appears that a determined effort is to be made to obtain a reversal of the decision so definitely and repeatedly come to with reference to this question. I need not repeat at length the arguments used in our former letter. The Coal Dues are manifestly a gross injustice to the manufacturing industries of London. Every sugar refiner in the metropolis has contributed, for a long series of years, from 1,000 to 2,000 a year towards this fund for Metropolitan improvements, while merchants, bankers and others engaged in the business oi' this great commercial centre, together with the residents within the prescribed area, have paid no more than is represented by the coal consumed in their office and domestic fireplaces. This fact alone would be sufficient to condemn such unequal taxation as radically unsound ; but it has to be further considered that the sugar refiners have not only to struggle against severe foreign competition, greatly aggravated by the bounties on the exportation of foreign refined sugar, but also to face a keen competition with the Refiners of Liverpool, Greenock and Bristol. An extra cost of thirteenpence per ton on coal is no slight disadvantage under such circumstances. As we stated in our former letter, we are prepared, as ratepayers, to bear our fair share in defraying the cost of Metropolitan improvements, but we deny that the quantity of coal consumed by each ratepayer is the proper measure of his liability. 29 We beg again to express the hope that the manifest injustice of this tax, and the economical objections to it, will be sufficient to prevent any reconsideration of the question, and that Her Majesty's Government will remain firm in their determination not to consent to the renewal of the tax. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, GEORGE MARTINEAU, Hon. Sec. London Sugar Refiners' Association. 21, Mincing Lane, 21st January, 1887. [Copy.] TREASURY CHAMBERS, WHITEHALL, S.W., January 24th, 1887. SIR, Mr. Goschen desires me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 21st instant, urging on behalf of the London Sugar Refiners' Association the discontinuance of the Metropolitan Coal Dues. He fully appreciates the force of the arguments which you have brought before him. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, G. Martineau, Esq. (Signed,) G. GLEADOWE. EFFECT OF THE TAX ON LONDON INDUSTRIES. From the Draft Report presented to the Local Taxation Committee of 1866. If the metropolis were merely a place of residence, without productive industry or commerce, the Coal and Wine Dues might be regarded as an indirect house tax ; but as the metropolis is not only one of the largest seats of commerce, but is also one of the greatest places of productive industry in the country, the Coal Tax, which is not now applied to any purposes connected with the Port of London, presses with peculiar injustice upon many branches of industry, and more particularly on those which are referred to competition, both with the internal manufactures in the North of England, and the manufactures of the opposite shores of France and Belgium ; such, for example, as manufactures in iron and other metals, the refining of sugar, and the making of paper. An establishment for iron shipbuilding pays no less than 3,000 a-year, and another for making paper returns 500 or 600 30 a-year in coal duties. Other occupations, also, in which any process of boiling is carried on, such as brewers and distillers, or in which steam engines are used, such as printers, are no less heavily taxed on their industry, but all these persons not only pay the tax on coal consumed in their dwellings, if within the limits of charge, but also the same rates as other persons, both on their dwelling-houses and on the premises in which their business is carried on ; if, therefore, the taxation of the gross products of industry could be justified, there is no reason why it should be made to fall on certain classes only, but it should be imposed on all industry alike. Your Committee, however, considering that such a system of taxation is generally admitted to be altogether unjust and impolitic, and is entirely repugnant to the whole course of legislation for many years past, are of opinion that if the Coal Tax were to be regarded as a permanent source of revenue, it would be necessary to allow a drawback in favour of all coal used for the purposes of industry or trade, but they are informed by an officer of the Corporation of London, that a large body of evidence could be produced to show that such a system of drawbacks is impracticable, and that the tax must either be levied as at present or abolished. It further appears to your Committee that the practice of allowing the Metropolitan Board to embark in expenditure to be charged on indirect taxation tends to deprive the inhabitants of the metropolis of the chief security for the due administration of their affairs, by destroying the direct and immediate relation between the expen- diture of the Board and the rates which it would otherwise be compelled to impose, a responsibility which is now so deeply felt by the Board, that whilst it manifests great readiness to incur expenditure, it is equally unwilling to levy any rates for the purpose, and desires to impose upon the Government and Parliament the duty and odium of providing it with he requisite funds. It has been already shown with what little regard to accuracy works charged upon the Coal and Wine Duties have been proposed, but this would only be encouraged by a continuance of the system of withdrawing expenditure from observation, and the evil would be still further aggravated by the proposal of the Metropolitan Board to raise loans for works, and to defer any payment on account of them to a distant day. Your Committee therefore recommend that no further charges should be imposed on the Coal and Wine Duties, but that they should be permitted to expire as soon as the present charges on them have been satisfied. The best security for an economic and reasonable expenditure, which seems, indeed, to be the only limit which can be imposed on the desire to improve or adorn the metropolis, and to provide for the convenience or comfort of its inhabitants, is the charge which the inhabitants or owners of property are content to bear. 31 MEMORIAL FROM LONDON POTTERY PROPRIETORS, To Mr. CHILDERS, Chancellor of Exchequer, 1883. The memorial of the undersigned, being proprietors of potteries in London, showeth that your memorialists, understanding that the question of the continuation of the Coal Dues in London will shortly come forward in the House of Commons for decision, desire to place before you the following considerations : That your memorialists are employers of labour to a considerable extent .in the metropolis and its suburbs, their manufactories giving employment to several thousand persons within the limits to which the Coal Duties extend. That the Coal Dues, as at present existing, amounting as they do to a tax of about 15 per cent, on the first cost of a raw material used in the pottery trade, press heavily upon your memorialists as manufacturers in London, in addition to their already large expenditure for rental and local rates. Further, they desire to point out that the Coal Dues bear unequally upon your memorialists, as compared with manufacturers outside the limit of the operation of such Dues, who are exempt from such a tax, and whose competition your memorialists have to meet in their business transactions. The tendency of such an impost must therefore be to discourage manufactures in London, if not ultimately to destroy them altogether ; and experience shows that industries once removed from any locality are not easily restored. When the difficulty of providing full employment for the artisan and labouring classes of the metropolis is considered, your memorialists submit that this point is one to which great importance should be attached. Lastly, your memorialists submit that a direct tax for metropolitan improvements would be the fairest, the most economical, and the cheapest method of raising the requisite funds for such purposes. Your memorialists there- fore hope that in your capacity as Chancellor of the Exchequer you will exert your influence in the House of Commons against any continuance of the Coal Duties in London. Dated the 29th day of December, 1883. (Signed) Doulton and Co., Lambeth ; T. Smith and Co., Canal Road, Peckham ; J. Stiff and Sons, Lambeth ; Bailey and Co., Fulham ; H. Millichamp and Co., Bermondsey ; Mill wall Pottery (Limited), E. Wilcox (Director) ; W. Be van, Nunhead ; S. Marshall, Peckham ; T. G. Marshall, Norwood ; Benjamin Looker, Kingston- on-Thames ; T. Janeway, Lambeth ; Pascall and Sons, Norwood ; F. Brayne and Co., Bromley-by-Bow ; Down and Medlock, Wor- cester Park ; and W. Parry, Deptford. 32 HOW WILL THE ABOLITION AFFECT THE EATES ? It having been asserted by the Chairman of the meeting in St. Pancras, that the alternative to the Coal Dues was a rate of threepence in the pound, the following letter appeared in the Echo. No answer has been sent to it. But the question is important, as unless the Metropolitan Board are misleading the public, there can be no new rates except for fresh improvements. COAL AND WINE DUES. Sir, In your issue of this evening you insert a letter from Mr Westacott on this subject, in which he says that the alternative to the renewal of the Dues is an imposition of threepence in the pound on rates. I should be glad if he would explain to me how this comes about. The Dues are thirteenpence per ton, of which the City takes fourpence. Now, if the fourpence is not granted after 1889, there will be no increase of the Metropolitan rate at all. The City's fourpence has been applied, for many years past, in reducing the principal and paying the interest on the Holborn Valley debt. If any of this remains unpaid in 1889, the City Estates bear the cost. It does not affect Metropolitan rates at all, nor can it do so. There therefore only remains the ninepence which is taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works. But Parliament has always granted this for certain specified improvements, and the Board themselves claim the renewal, so as to expend it on open spaces and further public improvements. Nobody has yet suggested that the Dues should be levied for the general purposes of the Board, nor would Parliament for one moment entertain such an idea. If, then, the alternative to renewal is a rate of threepence in the pound, it would be a rate solely levied for further improve- ments and for open spaces. Is this what Mr. Westacott means ? If it is, then, as Mr. Goschen has suggested, the cost of these should be borne by owners of property, and not by rates, and an unjust octroi duty abolished. If it is not, will Mr. Westacott kindly explain ? Yours faithfully, A LONDON EATEPAYER. February 3rd, 1887. SPECIAL APPEAL. The Executive Committee of the London Municipal Reform League, having fully considered the question, have decided to oppose the renewal, after 1889, to the Corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works, of the Coal and Wine Dues. Although somewhat outside the principal objects of this League, yet the tax upon coal is so vexatious, and, when granted to practically unrepresentative and irresponsible bodies, so contrary to the great principle that taxation and representation should go together, that every means ought to be taken to relieve the consumers from this burden upon a necessary of life. The League has, therefore, decided upon raising a Special Fund, to be called the " Anti-Coal Tax Fund," to which all those who object to the renewal of the Dues to the City and the Board are invited to contribute. Your help, however small, to this Special Fund will be extremely valuable. On behalf of the Anti-Coal Tax Committee, JOHN LLOYD, 4, LANCASTER HOUSE, Hon. Secretary. SAVOY, STRAND, W.C. February, 1887. ASSOCIATED CHAMBEES OF COMMERCE. At the Annual Meeting, composed of delegates from all tl Chambers of Commerce in the United Kingdom, held in minster Palace Hotel, February 9, 1887, the following resolution were introduced : "That the levying of dues on coal and wine by the metropolis authorities for the purposes of public works is wrong in piincip and unequal in its incidence, and should any bill be into Parliament during the present session, having as an the prolongation of the time during which such dues may I collected, petitions be presented from this association to the Hou of Lords and Commons praying that they will not sanction tl same ; and that a deputation from this association, in conjunctioi with deputations from other associations, or otherwise, wait on tlu Chancellor of the Exchequer to represent the views of th- association." " That this association urges the Government to withhok sanction to the renewal of the City and Metropolitan Coal Dues on the grounds that, by the operation of these dues, a parricuLi; industry is being taxed ; that the produce " of these taxes i employed for the exclusive benefit of a section of the country that this benefit is not participated in by the public, and certainh not by the class whose industry is taxed." Both resolutions were vigorously supported on all sides, and wen unanimously adopted. Times, Feb. 10, 1887. A 000 020 443