The Press. — London, England, 1856-03-01 00:00:00

MARCH 1, 1856. rattbings in arliamtnt. LOCAL DUES ON SHIPPING BILL. -- - On Monday, on the motion that this bill be read a second time, Sir F. THEsIGER moved to defer the reading for six months. He felt justified in proposing such an amendment by the absolute refusal of the Govern ment to listen to the just claims of those whose interests were affected by it. It was a bill which shook to its foundation the security of corporate property : He was perfectly astonished at the infatuation which seemed to possess the Government in their dealing with some of the most important interests of the country. We had seen them reviving an obsolete and questionable pre rogative for the purpose of assailing the hereditary cha racter and privile.tes of the House of Peers—( Hear, hear) —and now we found them arming tne Vice-President of the Board of Trade with maxims and principles of which the most arbitrary periods of our history afforded no example—( Hear, hear)--and sending him forth ar their champion to spoil the corporations of the country of all their property which it was found convenient to assail. Heldid not oppose the first portion of the bill, rela ting to passing tolls, which were not private property, nor to the fourth part, which concerned charities. The second part proposed to transfer all rates, dues, duties, and imposts upon ships and goods from cor porate towns to the Customs, to be applied as directed by the Board of Trade, and the third proposed en tirely to abolish the differential dues, on the plea that corporate property was public property. Sir Frederic Thesiger then at great length and with careful precision explained how Liverpool and other marine corporations were affected by the bill, which he followed up by an examination of the precedents adduced by Mr. Lowe, observing that the case of the Trinity house, which was strictly a public corporation (no member having any interest in the funds), and that of the Municipal Reform Act—both of which had been cited in favour of this bill—were strong cases in support of his argument against it : How was it possible for the right hon. gentleman, in the face of the facts he had stated, to maintain the principle of confiscation for which he had on a former occasion so boldy contended, and to assert that corporations possessed no right whatever to private property, and that the Govern ment were at liberty to appropriate that property as they pleased? He saw no sound rational distinction between property belonging to individuals, and property derived from individuals belonging to corporations. The measure was one intended to take away from the corporations pr.)- pertv established by charters, acts of Parliament, public agreements, and im memorable possession, and it was based vu arguments which seemed to him to strike at private property itself. ( Hear, hear.) At all events he was en titled to say this, that the principles on which the measure was based threatened to undermine the security of all cor porate property throughout the kingdom. (Cheers.) Sir F. BARING seconded the amendment, and ob served that any one who looked at the provisions of the bill must hesitate at voting for its principle. He objected to the second reading upon two grounds— first, because he recognised in the bill a determina. tiou to interfere with self-management in affairs which he thought should be left to the local govern remits ; and secondly, because he recognised through out the bill a carelessness of private rights, and a sacrifice of public and parliamentary faith. Mr. LOWE defended his measure from the charge of being an act of spoliation, and explained its in tended effects as to many particulars, whiel he de clared had been misrepresented or exaggerated by its opponents. No legitimate objects, either as regarded the preservation of the harbour, the rights of corpo rations, or the interests of their creditors, had, as he believed, been neglected in drawing up the bill. What was claimed as the property of corporations consisted only of a power of levying taxes on the rest of the community to which they possessed no real title,inasmuch as they rendered for it no correspond ing service. Sir F. Thesiger had dwelt, he said, much upon the term "property." What was pro perty ? He could understand property in land and property in capital ; but property in other men's property he could not understand, and it was the claim to this spurious kind of property which the bill sought to transfer to the Crown—a proceeding supposed to endanger not only all corporate pro perty, but all private property. In their zeal for property the opponents of the bill, Mr. Lowe ob served, would destroy the right of property. This was not a mere question of corporation property—it involved the Interests of those who paid the dues ; and be maintained that he it was who stood up for the principle of property, and that the opponents of the bill were really advocating spoliation. If the existence of public bodies which were created for the public good was not compatible with the public interests, it was not only the right, but the duty of Parliament to abolish them. They were means for the attainment of ends, and when they ceased to answer those end, they ought to give place to some thing that would answer them. After a brief examination of the cases referred to by Sir F. THE PRESS Thesiger, Mr. Lowe adverted to the doctrine of compensation, contending that this was no case for compensation, or for throwing the dues upon the community. _ _ _ Mr. HOIISVALL strenuously opposed the bill. He contended that the town dues paid at Liverpool in flicted no hardship upon shipping, and enumerated the large sums which had been expended by the cor poration of that port for the benefit of the general commerce of the country. In defending the corpo ration of Liverpool against certain allegations of Mr. Lowe, he passed some severe strictures upon that gentleman's published speech, insisting that his statements, as regarded Liverpool, were not founded on fact. Mr. Ridley, Mr. Tollemache, Mr. Hildyard, Mr. J. C. Ewart, and Mr. Liddell, severally disputed the principle of the bill, and opposed it. Mr. COLLIER supported the second reading. The bill was based upon the only sound theory of taxation. It would at once sweep away a mass of iniquitous taxes. The only argument against it was founded on vested rights; but he regarded municipal corporations as essentially public institutions, and hence liable to be dealt with by the Legislature. Mr. CAIRNS said he had at first intended to vote for the second reading of the bill ; but when he heard the explanation of its details, he determined to oppose it. He disputed the doctrine of Mr. Lowe, that a tax was not property, and that it was robbery to take a tax without rendering an equivalent, con tending that it was inconsistent with his own bill. If this doctrine were true, and the Liverpool Corp ration had, had, as alleged, improperly spent the money so raised, the Government would be entitled to take possession of the buildings and other property into which the corporation had converted the town dues. He insisted that, although the bill was said to be for the relief of shipping, the local dues did not fall upon ships, nor did the differential dues, while new imposts were to be levied upon shipping. Mr. BAINES pointed out that the arguments against the bill were more against the details than the principle. Sir F. KELLY reiterated the objection that the principle of the bill was to take from corporations property which was theirs by law, and was held in trust for the inhabitants. He insisted not only upon the injustice of the measure, but upon the serious effect which it would have upon the vast amount of property purchased by these corpora tions, and upon the claims of the creditors of those bodies. Upon Mr. LINDSAY moving that the house ad journ, the SPEAKER put the question, when Lord PALMERSTON interfered and proposed that the debate be adjourned till Friday. Mr. DISRAELI objected to so long a delay in a debate of such deep interest to the country. If the debate were adjourned till Friday, it would be most unsatisfactory, as on that day came on the hon. member for Sheffield's motion with respect to the appointment of the late military court of inquiry. He could see no reason why the debate should not be continued on Tuesday night. Lard PALMERSTON acceded to this proposition. WITHDRAWAL OF THE LOCAL DUES ON SHIPPING BILL. On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill, on Tuesday, Lord PALMERSTON stated the course her Majesty's Government intended to pursue with regard to this measure. The bill had only been proposed to Par liament after full consideration, yet in the debate, although nothing had been said by the opponents of the bill to shake the confidence of the Government in the justice and policy of the course they had pursued, there was a greater complication of interests involved than the Government was aware of. These matters could only be imperfectly dealt with by a committee of the whole house ; and, from the position in which the subject now was, the Government proposed to with draw the present bill, with the view of framing another bill for the simple abolition of passing tolls and of referring to a select committee the compli cated question of the differential and town dues. Mr. DISRAELI heard that declaration with satis faction. When the house first understood the alarming character of the bill and heard its proposi tions supported by a speech more calculated than any other he had ever listened to in that house to disturb and alarm the public mind and unsettle all confidence in prescription. he had felt it his duty to impress upon the house the necessity of coming to a speedy decision upon the question. Lord Palmerston had spoken of the consideration bestowed by the Government upon the subject. As to that portion of the bill relating to the abolition of the passing tolls, for three years past, when he (Mr. Disraeli) proposed a measure on the question, the house had been fully prepared to deal with the subject., And as to the other portion, relating to the lucal and differential dues, what became of that deep, that profound and ample consideration to which the Government so triumphantly referred, when the noble lord himself admitted that on the very eve 197 of the debate the Government were only then first informed of the position of two of the most impor • tent cities and ports in the kingdom with reference to the effect of those dues? But what was now the proposition by which the Government designed to cover their retreat, and induce the country to believe that they had only committed the mistake of adopting the least expe dient of the alternatives which it was their duty to accept?— We are now informed that Government are of opinion that a select committee of this house should thoroughly investigate the subject. But if the subject has been already thoroughly investigated—(Hear)—as we are as- sured it has been, by the Ministers, what necessity can there be for the House of Commons to undertake the duties of the Cabinet., and to do that which we had a right to expect would have been performed by the respon sible Administration of the country? (Cheers.) What is the use of the Cabinet—what advantage results to the Sovereign or the nation from having Minister., if tines Ministers, plunging with rash precipitancy into a subject they have not cared to master, first bring forward a crude and immature measure, and then, recoiling from the con sequences of a public debate—(cheers)--admit that they are not able to deal with the question, and call on the House of Commons, in the shape of &select committee, to fulfil the duties of the responsible advisers of the Crown? (Renewed cheering.) And yet it was no light or trivial proposition they ventured to recommend for the adoption of the house : They have brought forwards measure which has alarmed every possessor of property in the country. (Hear, hear.) Was that a light proposition ? Ought such a proposition to have been made without grave deliberation ; or, having been made, is it to be endured that the Government should not be prepared to accept the responsibility of their ill advice in a matter of such moment? They have recom mended the house to deal in a most summary manner with the Municipal Reform Act—a measure of compara tively recent enactment, and one which has received the support and sympathy of great masses of the population. The appointment of a select committee was as ob jectionable as the essay at direct legislation ; for, as the Government had attempted to deal with property they had no right to touch, a committee clearly could have no right to summon the holders of such pro perty to give evidence. In conclusion, he could not believe that, after mature deliberation, the Govern ment would propose a reference of the question to a select committee. Upon the general conduct of public affairs by the Government, Mr. Disraeli wished to offer • few remarks. When Parliament first met there was • highly creditable anxiety in the house to secure for the Government, consistent with public duty, so much parliamentary tranquillity as might enable them to concentrate their attention upon the great European questions of the time. For himself he was most anxious to abstain from any course which could damage the reputation of the Ministry and afford to Europe the unhappy spectacle of • weak Government destitute of resources on which it might permanently rely Such was the hope I fondly cherished, but never sine* Parliament first assembled have there been six weeks more marked by blunders, mistakes, defeats, and discomfiture. of Ministers. (Cheers) And who has defeated and dis comfited them ? Who has reduced them to this state of perplexity and humiliation? Not the Opposition, nor yet their own supporters. Themselves alone are the authors of their misfortunes—( Hear, hear)—themselves alone have brought about a state of affairs which at the present moment is most deplorable and most earnestly to be deptv cated. (Hear, bear.) It is not in this house only that we mark the results of their infatuated policy. In another place what scenes have we witnessed ? At a moment when the utmost forbearance was evinced towards them from both sides of the house, they must needs enter on a cru sade against all the legal authorities of the land—(" Hear. hear, and laughter I—and, taking advantage of the indul gence of their adversaries and the tranquillity of the political world, nothing would content them but wantonly and most unnecessarily to open a qnestion which, had theyibeen gifted with the most ordinary sagacity, they must have foreseen would lead to protracted controversy and profound excitement. What he charged against them was that, in the face of the most forbearing Parliament, the Ministry bad passed their time and exerted their ingenuity to start questions which could not fail to agitate the public mind and end in their own embarrassment and discomfiture : What I charge against them is,"that, having a forbearing Parliament—( derisive cheers from the Ministerial benches )—yes, I repeat it, a forbearing Parliament, which would not even step out of its way to expose the blunders of the First Lord of the Admiralty--(laughter)—the Ministers would seem to have passed their time and exerted their counsels in devising among themselves questions which could not fail to agitate and distract the public mind, and which they should have known could only end in their own embarrassment said discomfiture. (Hear, hear.) It is not merely that most wantonly—as it appears to me—they created lile peerages. I complain of the conduct of the Government in the matter of the re port of the Crimean Commissioners—a document thrown upon the table of the house without consulting the Tropes official authorities, and in a manner which does not effort the slightest evidence of that forethought, caution, and prudence which we hare a right to expect from men who