The Press. — London, England, 1856-03-08 00:00:00

MARCH 8, 1856. What will those of our contemporaries who have extolled his Conservative tendencies say of his couduct ou this occasion—of his change, not of opinion, for it would be ridiculous to apply that word to him, but of action? We have heard him cried up as a Conservative by prints professnig to represent Conservative sentiments. What do those journals think of him now? With his facile politics descent is eas y. To keep on what he esteems to be the winning side is his sole aim. Any transition of what men esteem to be principle, opinion, sentiment, costs him no effort, while it keeps him in company with a majority of the House of Commons. MR. LOWE'S SHIPPING BILL. THE House of Commons will shortly have to decide on a principle of vital importance, unless indeed the Government should once more recede from the position it has taken up, and resolve on the complete abandonment of Mr. LOWE and his Shipping Bill. The principle at issue is, whether corporate property shall be entirely at the mercy of the State to confiscate as it pleases, or whether it shall substantially stand on the same footing as other kinds of property. We are sure Mr. LOWE will accept this as a fair statement of the point at issue. His argument is, that corporate property, more especially if derived from any kind of dues or taxes, may not only lawfully but ad vantageously be confiscated by the State for the benefit of the interests which are bur dened with such dues. On the other hand, it is contended that the property of corporate bodies is entitled to the same kind of respect in degree us other kinds of property, and that to sanction the principle for which Mr. LowE contends would unsettle the tenure of all legal right, and shake the institution of pro perty itself. Mr. LOWE must feel that he has one great difficulty to contend with. There is no pre cedent for the principle he would establish. The Legislature has never sanctioned his dot trine; it is unknown to the Constitution, it is repudiated b y the law. The case of Liverpool may be veryfairly , taken to test the question. Mr Lowe acknowledges that the dues he would confiscate are legal. If they were not legal, he says, no Act of Parliament would be required to abolish them. As to the facts, there is no dispute. The corporation of Liverpool bought these dues (first sold by the Crown for a sum of money) one hundred and eighty years ago. They have been in undis puted receipt of them ever since. In 1M33 their right was contested, and a trial took place before Lord DENMAN, when the title of the Corporation to them was clearly estab lished. When the Municipal Act of 1836 was passed, the property of corporations was scrupulously respected. It, was treated exactly as other kinds of trust property are commonly treated, both by the Legislature and the Court of Chancery. t was protected from abuse, and appropriated to the benefit of the parties who had an equitable title to it. This kind of interference must always be recognised. It is the inter ference which Mr. HALLAM allowed in the pas sage so singularly misrepresented by Mr. LOWE, and of which the exact words were, to the confusion of the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, quoted by Sir FREDERICK THEsIGER last week. It is the interference which daily takes place in the management of trust, estates of all kinds, and which has been sanctioned by Parliament in the case of Church property. But in all such in stances of interference the principle contended fur, and happily invariably acted on, is that the property shall be regulated for the benefit of the individuals, the bodies, or institutions who have a legal interest in it. While this principle is observed there need be no limit to the amount of interference allowed, as the property cannot be diverted from its equitable use. Mr. Lows has confounded this right of in terference for the better management of trust property with the right of contiecatiDg it. He THE PRESS. cannot understand the difference between the two principles. Because property may be protected by the Legislature, he insists that it may be seized by the Legislature ; because it may be guarded from abuse, he says it may he confiscated ; because its equitable owners may have their rights recognised and assured to them, he says that they may be despoiled of them. When he finds that in the Muni cipal Act of 183) corporate property was secured to the representatives of corporate towns, he argues that the provision was an oversight ; and he is not convinced of his gross error when it is shown hin► that the most powerful legal supporters of that Act, Lord BROUGHAM among the number, con tended that the object of the Act as regarded corporate property was not spoliation, but restoration. If it could be shown that the dues in ques tion were of so injurious a nature to the interests on which they were levied as impe ratively to call for their abolition, reasons of public policy might call on the Legislature to suppress them, on reasonable compensation being provided. But no plea of this kind can be urged. The commerce of Liverpool has grown up during their continuance ; and the very largeness of their amount, now alleged as a reason for their confiscation, is on the whole a proof of the wise liberality of the borough authorities, and of their capability to manage their own affairs. The 'lnes are sepa rately small, though large in the aggregate ; they are fixed in amount, and ctunot be increased. Mr. LOWE indeed consents to rest his case on the broad principle that for a corporate body to levy dues, as in the case of Liverpool, by legal right, is robbery. He can recognise property in lands and money in the funds, but he cannot recognise property in such dues as are levied in Liverpool. And this is the principle he calls on Parliament to affirm. It is argued with perfect truth that the revenue derived by individuals from any kind of tolls might be abolished on the same prin ciple, and evidently the range of spoliation might extend much wider. There is no mate rial distinction, for example, between lay tithes and corporate dues. They are equally a tax, the former being the more objection able of the two, as no xind of benefit is ren dered in return for it. If Mr. LOWE'S princi ple be affirmed, it is impossible to see what stand could be -made against the abolition of lay tithes and all kinds of prtiperty, as mano rial rights resting on the same footing. These kinds of property must stand or fall together. His principle would equally extend to public companies. Why should the inhabitants of London be taxed for the benefit of the New River Corporation? The property in their shares has risen in value proportionably as much as the property in the Liverpool dues. The railways have now a monopoly of the traffic of the country : what right have they to levy a tax on the whole community for the benefit of their corporations? Confiscate their property, and fares might be reduced to one-half of their present amount. Mr. LOWE'S Bill, in fact, opens a door for universal con fiscation. Carry out his argument fairly, and the conclusion would be inevitable, that all property in land must be confiscated. A plain decision on his principle has been challenged by Sir FREDERICK THESIGER. The Government have not abandoned the prin ciple—they retain it. The Report of the Com mission on Local Charges on Shipping, most injudiciously recommended the scheme which Mr. LOWE has taken up. The Government have proposed a committee to consider in what way the recommendation can be carried out. Sir FREDERICK THESIGER moves for committee to inquire into the whole subject referred to the Commission. The Govern ment would sanction the confiscating Report ; Sir FREEDERIK THESIGER would Set it aside. Thus the issue is raised whether corporate property shall be held sacred or deemed liable to confiscation, and whether the British Legis ture will maintain inviolate the principles on which it has heretofore acted in its dealings with propel ty, or will affirm the dangerous doctrine that it may be confiscated at the plea sure of the State. ESTIMATED SURPLUS IN OUDE. IVE were not a little astonished to read in the Times of Wednesday last the estimated surplus that we were to pocket by the annexa• tion of Oude. This, according to that paper, is to amount, after payment of all the costs of occupation, both civil and military, to no less a sum than two millions five hundred thou sand pounds. At first we began to rub our eyes and doubt our senses, but a moment's consideration showed us the true nature of the case. It was just the old story : a pro• spectus, such as is concocted by the promo ters of every scheme, whether sound or rotten, in this country, and which in India has been the general prelude to the annexation of every State. It helps to make the thing go down with the public; and that temporary end served, the advocate and his arguments are alike forgotten. We cannot, however, deem that morality sound which allows statements of this sort to be put forth at random, when a little inquiry would show the writer of them that there is not a particle of foundation for the assertions that he makes. In order to see at once that the whole state ment is fabulous, we would only ask our readers to turn to the pages of " Thornton's Gazeteer," an India-house authority, and whose testimony therefore is unimpeachable when it goes against the body under whose banners he serves. There it will be found that the whole population of Oude does not exceed two millions nine hundred and seventy thou sand souls, and that the British Resident had estimated one million one hundred and forty thousand pounds sterling as the amount of revenue that might bo derived from the country under a moderate assessment. The sum, there fore, estimated by the Times as surplus is a great deal more than double the whole sum that the revenue of the country, in fact, amounts to; while it cannot be supposed by any one who knows anything of the matter that the costs of our establishments will be less than the revenue which will be obtained. Indeed, as by the absorption of Oude we shall be brought into immediate contact with our old enemies the warlike Nepaulese, whose coun try borders on our proposed new frontier, there cannot be a doubt that our expenses will be much greater, as a powerful disposable force will always have to be kept ready for immediate service in that direction. We are not of those who think that the morality of an annexation depends in the least on the value or worthlessness of the country that is annexed ; but it is right to show that if gain be our object, we shall gain nothing whatever in a. pecuniary sense by the annexation of Oude. It is ever thus with sanguine people. Each new scheme of aggrandisement is expected to bring with it that wealth equally hoped for, but somehow or other missed, in all that have gone before. When the Punjaub was con quered the argument derived from right was but faintly dwelt on, while great stress was laid on the fact of its being certain to prove a sure and speedy source of riches to the State. Yet, what is the fact? Seventy-five thousand troops, regular and irregular, are required within its borders to maintain the peace, and they scarcely suffice for the task, while the whole revenue does not amount to fifteen hundred thousand pounds. This, of course, is insufficient to cover even the military charges of the occupation, and all the civil and miscellaneous expenses have to be paid out of the revenues of the other parts of our Eastern empire. It is said, to be sure, that a large portion of these troops would be required in any case to watch the Punjaub if it were still ruled by a native prince ; but, then, the great advantage to be gained by the extermination of such princes is always alleged to lie in the non-necessity of watching them any longer. But, setting aside this consideration, it is a fact that ten thousand troops sufficed to watch the Punjaub when it had a prince of its own to rule it, and twenty thousand sufficed to con quer it on its first invasion ; yet seventy-five thousand are required to hold it and keep its people from rebellion now that it is become A 219