S. Laing, Esq. M. P. of bridges, and by better approaches to them, do not you think it is only just and fair that they should join in paying a rate for the purpose of providing that increased accommodation?-Hardly over so large an area; I see no prin14 March 1854. ciple, for instance, upon which such a town as Reigate, which is just within the limits of the 20 miles radius, should be taxed for metropolitan improvements, while such a town as Brighton, which is 50 miles distant, should escape untaxed. 49. Sir J. Shelley.] Does not it appear to you, as regards the coal-tax, that the pressure is more heavy upon the poorer classes of London than upon those of a higher grade; does not that strike you as being one great objection to the tax on coals?—Yes; no doubt all taxes upon articles of general consumption press more hardly in proportion upon the poorer than upon the richer classes of the community. 50. Mr. Blackett.] Do not you think that those coal duties have a particularly bad operation in excluding the cheap kind of small coal from London, which is so largely consumed in the North? I have no doubt the effect of the tax on coals is exceedingly bad; coals are an article of necessary consumption, and used as a raw material in most descriptions of trade and manufacture, and of course any import duty upon such an article, whether it is coals coming from one part of our own country, or an article like corn, coming in from abroad, the effect is exceedingly bad; for my own part, I should prefer direct taxation to indirect in that case. 51. Mr. Alderman Challis.] Do not you believe that London Bridge would be quite sufficient for the traffic over it, supposing the termini of the different railways which you have spoken of had not been brought into the immediat vicinity of London Bridge; would not the bridge have been large enough for the ordinary traffic of merchandise?—It would have been large enough for the ordinary foot-passenger traffic, but it would have been inconvenient probably for the heavy traffic of waggons, and so on, upon it. 52. Considering that this bridge was built at an enormous expense for the benefit of the public, does not it appear to you to be unjust to the parties who have largely contributed to the expense of building this bridge, that in consequence of the termini of the railways coming there, and affording a facility of travelling to all parts of the country, they should be taxed for the purpose of providing accommodation for the increased traffic so brought over the bridge?— No, it does not occur to me that it would be so, because these railways are amongst the greatest instruments of the prosperity of London. If you had no railways London would be a very different place from what it is. 53. Mr. Jackson.] Do not passengers coming by railways produce an increase of expenditure in every vicinity over the whole district to which their traffic goes, and thereby cause a benefit to the community, much greater than the injury which they would sustain by the imposition of a rate for the purpose of paying for this accommodation ?-I think so. 54. Lord J. Manners.] Do you think, for instance, that Spitalfields is greatly improved or benefited by the railway that goes through or over it?—Yes; I should say that that part of London was greatly benefited by the construction of the railways leading to London. There would be great difficulty in showing the connexion in many particular cases; but take, as an example, that article which has been referred to just now, viz., coals. There is no doubt that during this winter, when the prices were so exorbitant, the price of coals in London was materially checked by the possibility of bringing them by railway. That is a benefit in which Spitalfields participates. Again, the artisan of Spitalfields feels the benefit of being able to get down to the country on an excursion to get a little fresh air for his wife and children, with a convenient terminus immediately adjoining one of the bridges. 55. Mr. Jackson.] Assuming it to be the fact, as shown by the reports of the various railway companies, that 650,000 tons of coals were brought into London by the different railways for the consumption of the metropolis, what would have been the effect upon the price of coals if that quantity had not come?—I do not think the consumers of coal in London would have got through a portion of last winter without paying 10s. or 20s. a ton higher than they did. 56. Sir J. Shelley.] In order to relieve the enormous traffic over London Bridge, can you recommend to the Committee any particular position for a new bridge, supposing such a thing were to be contemplated, as regards the railways with with which you are connected?-As regards the railway traffic, I have already pointed out the measures that I think would afford the most effective relief, and I do not think any new bridge would materially relieve the railway traffic, unless it were connected with a new road, giving a very wide approach to London Bridge, on the Surrey side; if there were a wide carriage road along the Surrey side, close by the river, of course a second bridge, somewhat in a line with Southwark Bridge, would relieve it. 57. Mr. Jackson.] If the present foot-bridge at Hungerford Market were converted into a carriage-bridge, would not it relieve London Bridge from part of the traffic to the South Eastern and the Brighton and other railways connected with that station?-There is Waterloo Bridge in that neighbourhood also; I think that the best approach would be by Westminster and Waterloo Bridges; I think that the bulk of the traffic coming from the West-end to the terminus of the Brighton or South Eastern Railway would take either Westminster or Waterloo Bridge. 58. Would not Charing Cross be a very valuable place to have a bridge to start from?—Yes; but the question depends, not so much upon the position of the bridge itself as upon the approaches to it. At present, nothing can be better as a bridge than Waterloo Bridge; it being perfectly level, and very little crowded, 59. Chairman.] If Southwark Bridge were thrown open, would that facilitate the traffic much with regard to the railways?-Not unless it were accompanied by some measure for carrying a wide street on the Surrey side direct to the railway station. 60. Mr. Jackson.] Do not you think that, looking at the amount of traffic which converges from Charing Cross, that would be the more desirable part to cross the river at than to travel along a crowded street, like the Strand, to Waterloo Bridge, taking into account the peculiar bend which the river takes there?— Taking into account the peculiar bends which the river takes, I think the bulk of the West-end traffic would always come over Westminster Bridge; the river takes a bend to the north below Westminster Bridge, and if you go across Westminster Bridge you take the cord instead of going round the bow. 61. Considering the enormous amount of population which there is above and to the south-west of Charing Cross, would not the public be better accommodated by having a bridge there than they would be by travelling round to Westminster Bridge ?--If you had a good wide approach, and a bridge from Charing Cross, no doubt a considerable amount of traffic would come that way. 62. Assuming that good approaches could be got, would not Charing Cross be the best spot at which to place a bridge for the accommodation of the public generally?—Yes, if you had a good wide approach to it. 63. Chairman.] Are you acquainted with the Thames Tunnel?-Very little. 64. Have you at all turned your attention to the question whether the Thames Tunnel might be used as a means for facilitating the traffic, if carriage approaches were made to it at each end?-I am not sufficiently acquainted with it to justify me in expressing any positive opinion; but I think not. From the little I know of it, knowing some parties who reside in Rotherhithe, near the Tunnel, and who have large establishments there, I think the general opinion is rather against the Tunnel being much used in that way. 65. Are there not many heavy goods that go from the docks into the country, that might pass through the Tunnel if it were open for traffic?-They might; but the great difficulty is running your approaches a long way up in order to get an easy slope. I believe in the Tunnel you will have to carry them so far back as to be considerably out of the way from any of the leading thoroughfares along the river. 66. Mr. Wilkinson.] With respect to the West-end traffic, I suppose that except what goes by omnibuses, very little of that goes over London Bridge at present, but that almost all the West-end traffic goes the other way, somewhat in the direction of the road which you propose to have made ?--Yes, a great propor tion of it. 67. Then the line of road which you have proposed to make for the West-end traffic going to the railways, would not very much ease the traffic over London Bridge? Not very materially; but with respect to the traffic going to the northern parts of London, to the London and North Western and Great Northern stations, it probably would decide them to take the Surrey side if there were a S. Laing, Esq. M. P. 14 March 1854. S. Laing, Esq. M. P. road over Waterloo Bridge, in preference to the London Bridge route, so that to some extent it would relieve London Bridge, but not to a very great extent. 68. Sir J. Duke.] You were asked whether you did not consider the tax upon 14 March 1854. coal as bearing more hardly upon the poor than upon the rich; have you made any estimate of the quantity of coals which a poor person is supposed to consume in this metropolis in a year?--No; I merely said generally, that a tax which enhances the price of a necessary article like coals is more felt by the poor man than it is by the rich. 69. You have not made any estimate of the quantity of coals which a poor man consumes in a year?—No, 1 merely speak generally; just as I should say that a tax upon corn or sugar, or tea or coffee, is a tax that presses more hardly upon the poor man than upon the rich. 70. Lord J. Manners.] Have you read the evidence which was given a few years ago by some of the parties most largely interested in the consumption of coal before a commission upon the subject of the coal duty in the metropolis; if not, would you be surprised to hear that the opinion expressed by those large consumers of coal was diametrically opposed to what you have expressed; they saying that the coal duty bears far more heavily upon them than it does upon the humbler classes of the metropolis ?-That is a question which almost anybody may answer without any peculiar sources of information. It is obvious. that a man who is conducting a large manufactory, consuming a large quantity of coal, will have to pay a very large amount of tax; all that I say is, that generally anything that enhances the price of an article of consumption, a first necessary of life, does upon the whole press more heavily than direct taxation upon the poorer classes. 71. Mr. Wilkinson.] Even as regards the manufacturers, so far as it diminishes the power of a man to employ labour, it must fall heavily upon the poorer classes? Yes. 72. Mr. Jackson.] Is it not evident that if a man is taxed upon the raw material he uses before he begins to employ others, he must be disadvantageously situated; for if you impose a tax of 7 per cent. upon his raw material, he cannot work to the same advantage as another party that is not so taxed, and consequently the poor will feel the effect of this tax indirectly, by his not being able to employ them to the extent that he otherwise would-Yes. 73. Mr. Blackett.] Is it not the fact that the small coal in the North, which is sold there at such a trifling price per ton, and is capable of being extensively used by the poor, is absolutely excluded from London by the operation of this tax?-The coal duty being a fixed duty of 1 s. 2 d. a ton, it of course forms a very much heavier per centage upon the coals to which you allude than it does upon the more valuable household coals. 74. Is it not the fact that that coal is quite excluded from London by the operation of this tax?-I am not aware that it is entirely excluded; but the tax operates in the way alluded to, of preventing the establishment of manufactures here in competition with manufactures in other places. They depend much more upon the smithy coal or engine coal, cheap coal, than upon household coal. The tax, which is only 1 s. in 20 s. or 25 s. upon household coal, may be a tax of 10 per cent. upon the smithy coal, which may be one of the principal articles upon which they depend for conducting their manufacture. 75. Mr. Jackson.] If the price of slack in Manchester is 4s. a ton, and it cannot be used here in consequence of the duty of 1s. (that being equal to 20 per cent. upon its cost), does it not place the manufacturer in London at a disadvantage-Yes; that may be easily illustrated in many ways. For instance, as regards making coke for railways, one effect of the tax of 1 s. a ton upon small coals, the prime cost of which is about 5s. a ton, is to transfer the establishments for making coke as much as possible beyond the radius of 21 miles round London. 76. Sir J. Shelley.] Are you aware that the tax upon coals is mortgaged to its full extent for some years to come, and that, consequently, there is no pros-. pect, till that time has expired, of any funds being raised out of the coal-tax for the purpose of building bridges, or enlarging them ?-I am quite aware of the fact that it is mortgaged, and therefore I presume that you must either continue the coal-tax, or find some sufficient substitute for it. 77. Mr. Wilkinson.] With respect to the question of local taxation generally, does it occur to you that there is any difference as between the metropolis and. other S. Laing, Esq. M. P. other towns in the country, inasmuch as every man in the country is interested in the metropolis; whereas the metropolitan inhabitants have not the same interest in any town in the country?—No, I do not admit any distinction in that respect, except as regards public edifices. You may properly erect your palaces 14 March 1854. and courts of justice, and Parliament houses, out of public money, because they are things in which the whole nation is interested; but local improvements, such as bridges and sewers, and so forth, are, I think, in the same position in London as in other towns. 78. Is it not the fact that persons in the country have more use of London than the people of London have of any places in the country?—I do not admit any distinction in that respect. 79. Mr. Alderman Cubitt.] Would you not admit a distinction between drainage and other objects of a local nature and the making of a bridge across a great river like the Thames, which is the means of communication between one part of the country and another?-I think a bridge is merely a portion of a street, and I do not see why you should tax the people of the kingdom generally to make a new bridge, any more than you should tax them for the widening of Cannon-street. 80. Sir J. Shelley.] I presume the erection of a bridge immediately increases the value of the property on each side of the river near the spot where it is made? -Yes, it would naturally do so. ૐ 81. Sir J. Duke.] Do you know what the practice is in counties with respect to building bridges. If a bridge is built at one end of the county, do not those who live at the other end of the county have to pay their share of the expense è -It seems to me that the same principle applies to London and the whole kingdom which might apply to Manchester and Lancashire. I do not think that you could tax all Lancashire for the improvement of a street within Manchester, although every Lancashire man might be indirectly interested in the improvement. 82. Mr. Jackson.] Do you know a single case in which a county has been taxed for town improvements ?—No, I am not aware of any. 83. Mr. Alderman Challis.] Have the railway companies ever contemplated a small tax upon each passenger for the purpose of raising a sum to build a bridge, such as a halfpenny apiece?-No; the railway companies already pay to the public a tax of 5 per cent. upon their receipts for each passenger. They are also rated for local purposes, upon a very high scale, in a great many instances. I do not consider that they are called upon to contribute towards local improvements in a higher proportion than according to their local assess ments. 84. You have already told us that this large outlay which is required, in order to afford increased accommodation to the traffic, would have been unnecessary but for the bringing of the railway terminus close to London Bridge. Therefore, if the local public are taxed for this purpose, they are taxed to afford facilities for the railway?—I do not concur in that view. I think the railway is one of the great improvements which has grown up with the age, and it has not specially brought any burden into the City. I think you might as well say that if some building speculator built a large block of houses upon the Surrey side, and by so doing increased the population, and increased the traffic over London Bridge, he should pay some special tax towards the construction of a new bridge, beyond his equal share, according to his own rateable property within the district. 85. Do you see anything analogous between bringing 25,000 passengers in a day and building a block of houses?-The principle is just the same. Everybody who sets up a manufactory upon the Surrey side increases the traffic across London Bridge; and I think you might as well put a special tax upon him as upon the railways. 86. Mr. Wilkinson.] The bridge is built for the benefit of the public, and the public use the railway?—Yes. 87. Mr. Alderman Cubitt.] You were asked whether the London duty upon coal would not be likely to have the effect of prohibiting the slack used at Manchester from being brought into London. Can you state what is the price of slack at Manchester ?-Four shillings a ton. 88. Can you state what increase of cost would be put upon the slack if brought from Manchester by railway carriage. How much would that enhance M. P. 8. Laing, Esq. the cost?—It would depend entirely upon the policy of the railway company and the scale of charge which they chose to adopt. If their policy was to carry a very large quantity at a very trifling profit, I suppose they might bring it for 6s. or 8s. a ton very well. 14 March 1854. R. L. Jones, Esq. 89. Making it 10 s. or 12s. a ton in London without the duty, whereas at Manchester it is 4 s. a ton?—Yes; but that is a question which depends entirely upon the policy which the railway company might think proper to adopt. It will depend upon the amount of passenger traffic, and the extent to which the coal traffic might interfere with the more valuable passenger traffic. It is a very complex question, and the only way of solving the question is to see at what price the railway companies do bring it. 90. At any rate there are other causes why Manchester slack is not brought to London besides the London duty?—I think the operation of the London duty upon small coal is simply this: that upon this engine or smithy coal, which can be bought at Newcastle in the North for about 5s. a ton, it imposes a tax of 1 s. 91. But should not you rather reckon the per centage of the London tax upon the price that the coal would otherwise be in London, and not upon the price of the coal at the pit's mouth ?-Certainly. I can tell you the extent to which it operates; for my railway company buys those coals very largely indeed. Those coals cost 5s. a ton at the pit's mouth, and the price averages about 7s. a ton after paying freight and the expenses of bringing them here. So that the City tax is a tax of about one in twelve. 92. Sir J. Duke] When did you get ships at 7s. a ton freight?-Not just now; but that would be the average of the last four or five years for the freight, and expenses here. It is a tax of about one in twelve; not quite 10 per cent.; it is from 8 to 9 per cent. 93. It is cheaper to carry coke than to manufacture it in London ?-Yes. 94. You must have a particular kind of coal for your coke?—Yes; which coal is of a sort that is very available for engine purposes. A great deal of that coal at 5 s. a ton is the coal we use in the factories for the purposes of engines. The result is, that upon the coal used for manufacturing purposes the City dues impose a tax of about 8 or 10 per cent. Richard Lambert Jones, Esq., called in; and Examined. 95. Chairman.] YOU have had a good deal of experience with reference to the bridges of the metropolis ?-As respects London Bridge and its approaches, I have a great deal. 96. You were chairman of the committee under whose superintendence London Bridge was built ?—Yes; it was built by the Corporation, under my superintendence, as chairman of the committee. 97. Is it, in your opinion, at the present time in a very sound condition?-I never heard the contrary. 98. Are you aware whether it is equal to the traffic at the present day?I have heard many complaints that it is not. 99. Do you think that by any alteration in the construction, that would not interfere with its solidity, that might be remedied?-That is a question more for an engineer than for me; but whatever the advantage might be as to the traffic, I think the beauty of the bridge would be destroyed by such a measure. 100. You have heard the evidence of the preceding witness?—I have. 101, It would appear that the traffic over London Bridge is increasing so rapidly that some arrangements must be made to meet it. How would you suggest to provide for that increased traffic, if you did not adopt the suggestion of projecting the footways over the sides of the bridge?-The first step I would recommend before any new bridge was built would be to throw those bridges open which are now subject to a toll. I had some conversation with some of the largest proprietors, some years ago, the late Mr. Ward among others, whose family have a very large interest in the Southwark Bridge, and they complained that the proceeds of the toll were then so little; and I advised them to try the experiment of throwing it open for a year, because my opinion was that if it was thrown open for a year it would not only bring more traffic eventually, but it would divert a great deal of traffic from London Bridge. 102. That plan of throwing it open of course would not be desirable to the proprietors, |