The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-02-26 00:00:00

THE TO TFN DUES.

A SPECIAL MEETING of the Select Vestry was held on
Wednesday, for the purpose of considering the propriety of
petitioning parliament against the proposed abolition of the
Liverpool Town Dues. The Rev. Rector Campbell presided.
On the motion of Mr. Churchwarden WOODRUFF, seconded
by Mr. Sse.w, the following petition to parliament was
adopted :

To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, the
humble Petition of the Select Vestry of the Parish of Liver-
pool, who are the elected Representatives of a Population
numbering by the last census 265,000 souls,
Sheweth,—That a bill has been introduced into your honour-
able house by Mr. Lowe, intituled "a bill for the abolition of
passing tolls, and the regulation of local dues on shipping."
That the said bill proposes to deprive, without equivalent, the
Municipal Corporation of Liverpool of the dues upon goods
carried in ships, commonly called town dues, a property which,
originally created by the undoubted prerogative of the Crown,
was purchased from an ancestor of the present Earl of Sefton,
by the Mayor, Bailiffs, and Burgesses of Liverpool, and was
declared, in 1833, by the Court of King's Bench, to be, by the
said purchase, the undoubted property of the municipality.
That the said town dues so declared to be the legal right of
the Liverpool Corporation have not been restricted in their
outlay to local objects. On the contrary, vast sums have from
time to time been expended in works of a national character,
in the creation of customs and excise offices for the collection
of the revenue, in the erection of St. George's-hall for the
facility of public justice, as wall for Manchester and the
neighbourhood as for Liverpool ; in the conservancy of the
river and the port ; in contributing to the formation of ex-
tensive docks, which have ever been exempt from local rates ;
in large convenient landing stages, and in every way to- in-
crease to the utmost possible extent the commercial facilities
of the port.
That your petitioners submit that the right of the Corpora-
tion to the town dues in the present case, instead of havinW
been weakened by the Reform Act, as is argued, was only'
strengthened and confirmed thereby.
That your petitioners also submit, as the guardians not only
of the poor, but of the funds of the ratepayers, to whom as
burgesses the town dues belong, that the proposal to take
away the town dues without compensation under such cir-
cumstances is fatal to the title of all corporate property, and
dangerous also to the secure enjoyment of all other property
whatever. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly trust that for
the reasons herein assigned the said bill may not be permitted
by your honourable house to-pass into law.
And your petitioners will ever pray.

The CV:PERMAY, before putting the resolution, said
great objection to this bill is, that it is an act of confiscation ;
it takes away property, which I- maintain is the- property of
the burgesseekof Liverpool, without compeneation. This is an
act of confiscation which is not justifiable. In contradiction
to the specioca- casuistry of theorising= politicians, that cor-
porate property is public property, liable to confiscation at the
caprice of the legislature, without equivalent or compensation.
I believe that the property of the municipality of Liverpool
is the private property of the burgesses of Liverpool, that the
Town Council are. its trustees, elected by ourselves as its
guardians and conservators, and that to rob us of it without
compensation will be au act as unconstitutional as it would
be to rob the Earl of Derby of his estates; or the house of
Russell of its property at Woburn Abbey, Tavisteek, and
Covent-garden, granted, to it by the Crown..out of the-plunder
of the church; a corporation defined as a body politic
authorised by the King's charter to have-ncounon seal, com-
prised of members, able- by their common consent, to- grant
and receive in law anything within the- compass of their
charter. The town dues were bought for a price by the-bur-
gesses of Liverpool in- their corporate capatity, and are. now
the legal property of us,. the burgesses of Liverpool, in- our
corporate capacity, andleau only be taken from us; vithout
equivalent, by a violation of the law. I grant that corporate
property, like all other property, is the creation of the law,.
andtherefore subject to the rep-colatiou of the 'law ; and that
corporate property may be- taken from a corporation forthe
.public good in the same-way that a man's house or land may-
be.taken from him for the public good, as in the rase of rail.
,ways- or street improvements; but they are not taken away:
'without an equivalent. TO confiscate the property 'of, a corpo-
ration upon the pretence-that it is public property; is give-
a,handle to the dangerotis-errors of Socialists, who maintain'
that all. property is a theft.and.an usurpation ; that the great-
. and-crying evil of the time al-the usurpation of thaltmd;the gift'
of God,. from the people—that all the land, houses, and mines-
must be restored to the people--and that without-the restora-
tion of this property reforming is unavailing. If 'the pro•.
perty of the Corporation of- Liverpool is injurious-to the-
public interest, take it away ;: but first prove that it-is in-
jurious, and then give compensation. But what is-the injury
of the town dues ? The charge, lam told, upon a bale of cotton
and.l can hardly think that this will justify confiscation
Upon the pretence that it is restriction on the freedom of-trade.
The petition was unaninarAisly-agreed to, and the-chairman
was -authorised to proceed to -London to make the--necessary
arrangements for its preserAation-ta) the House of Ominous.
The Vestry then broke ups.

L.IKERPOOL CHANTER of COMMEaCR:

A. SPECIA/.. meeting of the-Liverpool Chamber of Commerce •
was hald.on. Saturday, at the- Offices, Exchange-buildings, to
take- into, consideration the government bill in avow of.
Limited .Liability in Partnership- The chair was occupied by
Charles. Holland, the president; and there wasan miu—
sudlyklarge- attendance of members, among whom .ere-Mr.
Torrithe-vice-president, Mesers,Christopher Bushell;. Alder--
man... Bennett, Sheil, Kelly, Lamont, llvhbaek, Gilli.Cookc,-
Bibby,-Macae, Jackson, Heath, .Janson, Lister, llohicruess,.
Forget; Dixon, Tomlinson, Frbwse„ Farnworth, Rea, Frost, .
Pickering.;. Walker, Lang, Lunlai Robertson, Beazlsy, Hey--
worthy.:Swinton Boult, Francic--dlinit, Fisher, Boyd, Andsrson,,
~. •
Nrc TOPAI affirmed that the- princiPle of limitect liability
was-fraught with mischief, and pointed, in proof this). to the--
fact that a. number of rotten auddei..-repid concerns werelook,
ing,zto theauticipated act of 2arliament to prop them up. The
mercantile-community could. not allow a measure of this kinds
to ;ass-without the strongest remonstrance against the want
of proteetibu of the public which. it displayed, ans'chepre--
mintuit-atrzost seemed to extr.;nd to- fraud. Under these,cir--I
cumstances, he moved, "'Tat the-bill introduced into ,parlia-
ment• entitled `A Bill to =new:tate Law of Partnership,' is.
fraught with evils of the greatest magnitude to the-true in-•
terests-oftbe commerce and credit of this country."'
M.- Clamsrorrrun Busicnnii, in a lengthy speech,.secondedi
the proposition, believing that: thebill recently intro dhced into-
the house- by Mr: Lowe was fraught with evils of thegteatest
magnitude to the commerce-of the country.
E3O:VARD HEATu, er.,president of the Chamber, had,
nolesitation in reiterating the-sentimeuts he had. on \former-
ccetisions.freely expressed on this- subject. Having urged that-.
it wasa, libel on all commercial and trading integrity to say,
that- partnerships under this- bill would not be-as honestly.
entered: into as those framod. under. the old law, he-:..'onelude&
by-moving, as an amendment, "That the principle-cfethebilli
is sound, and worthy or adoption, but that provision should',
be made for capital lent under the clauses of this bill remain,
lug liable to all debts contracted while in the hands of the-
borrower Ito connect responsibility strictly with extensibility],
..:And: to give facilities to the-public for ascertaining::ben loans
Are- w it hd raw n ."
Mr. JOHN DIXoN seconded: the amendment.

Mr. ROBERT LAM01.5.:r.,;. in snpporting the amendment, sug•
gested the insertion of aalaraoTaph, to the effect thut anlause
should be introduced into.tbelill, postponing the cluim.of the
lender of money until aU the creditors were satisfied.
After a discussion„4 which several members.took:part,.the
amendment was lost by. ahmt two to one. Siverat. other
amendments were suseessirely negatived, arA. the. original
motion was carried by: 25.. to 12.

Mr. MAcPIB then.,iioved " That the councilkthia:charober
Ibe instructed to tc.ke• immediate action upon, the foregoing
resolution, and by- orpatition embodying such,resolution, and
declaratory of the former decision of the chomber,.supported
by a deputation from the couueil, to prever.t, if possible, the
till to amend the-low of partnership passitolle legislature,
or any other inmeAre which seeks to introilAc.e.soina.terial an
innovation."

This gave rise to, another warm discussinth. and ultimately
it was carried by 20. to 9.
On the proposition of Mr. TommzisoN., seconded by Mr.
FISHER, the council were recommended., to. inquire vigilantly
into the prof4ious of the bill for the btaerporation and regu7
lation of joint-stock companies, and to amply teparliament for
a further at4suftleient extension of tiria.before it was sent to
the connittoe,in order that they mightf. beable to make them-
selves acquainted with its provisions.
This concluded the business • ant?;, after a sitting of four
hours, aowte of thanks to the chairman terminated the pro-
ceedings.,