METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS—THE COAL-DUTIES.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.
Sunderland, 19th October 1847.
SIR—In last week's Spectator, under the head of "Metropolitan Improvements s--Plan of the Record Office," I read that a Mr. It. L. Jones, speaking of the for- mation of a new street between the Eastern and Western divisions of the Metro- polis, says, that "he thought if the appropriation of coal-duties to Metropolitan improvements could be placed upon an amended footing, the City authorities, out of funds arising therefrom, would at once undertake to form the portion within their own boundary." What right, Sir, can the City authorities have to derive a revenue applicable to such purposes from such a source? Though the tax is paid in the first instance by the consumer, it must prejudice the producer by diminish- ing the consumption. If the City of London may tax the produce of Durham and Northumberland to make Metropolitan improvements, could Londoners com- plain if Sunderland or Newcastle, armed with an act of Parliament, levied a duty for similar purposes on tea, coffee, or silks, brought from London? And if the City of London may pave and light her streets at the expense of Sunderland and Newcastle, surely Liverpool might as fairly do so at the expense of Manchester, or Hull at that of Leeds; and so on until every town should more or less be com- mercially isolated, and the United Kingdom put in the condition of the smaller states of Germany before the Zollverein. Only fancy a country market-town, instead of supporting its poor by rating its property, maintaining them by a toll on agricultural produce exposed for sale. Are we in these days of free trade to have a civic customhouse, and imitate the municipal duties of the Continent?
Coals being a necessary of life, a tax on them must be paid mainly by the poorest classes; who are thus indirectly made to bear burdens which could not direotly be thrown upon them. Moreover, the tax being paid on all coals brought into the port of London, whether consumed in the city or not, it follows that the inhabi- tants of surrounding towns—Oxford for instance—who get this commodity through London are taxed for the local objects of the latter place. I write in no petty spirit of provincial jealousy; but should the wealthiest city in the world be exempted from doing what the poorest manufacturing town has to do for itself? or, if the improvement of the Metropolis be of national concern, would it not be WM* fairer if the nation and not a particular district provided the means?
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, W. W. R.
Previous page
