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

Lord Molyneux—they were by him leased for a term of one
thousand years to the Corporation of Liverpool—held by the
Corporation, under that lease, for about a century—and even-
tually purchased in fee simple off Lord Molyneux's descendant,
Lord Sefton. The title of the Corporation to the property
thus purchased was never questioned until about a quarter
of a century ago, when it was deemed advisable to ascertain
whether those dues could be strictly and legally demanded.
The trial took place before the Lord Chief Justice; the most
eminent counsel of that day were employed; the case went
to the jury; a verdict, passed for the Corporation; mid al-
though, in the first instance, a bill of exceptions was ten-
dered to the ruling of the judge, the parties resisting the
dues found, upon consulting counsel, that they had not a leg
to stand upon, and they therefore said to the Corporation—
"We see you have a title, but we think there are some few
particulars in which the rates ought to be modified." They
were requested to point out the modifications which they
would suggest. They did point them out, and those modifi-
cations were made to the entire satisfaction of the trading
community of the town of Liverpool at that time. (Hear.)
Mr. JAMES SMITH also supported the resolution, and in
doing so, said the bill proposed by Mr. Lowe adopted this
principle—that the property of a corporation stood in a dif-
ferent position from that of a private individual, and that in
the case of the Corporation of Liverpool there should be no
compensation for its removal. With what did the corporation
pay for that property to the Earl of Sefton ? They paid for
that property out of money which they possessed and derived
from certain other property, and he defied any man tq show
that, under such circumstances, if Liverpool was to be deprived
of the dues, she ought not to be compensated as thoroughly
and completely as if they were the property of a private indi-
vidual. (Hear, hear.) He had carefully looked over the bill,
and he must confess that he could not properly ascertain the
drift of it. It might mean- one of two things ; either that the
town dues should be entirely, abolished, or after defraying any
existing charges upon them, it provided that the dues were to
be collected in future by the eustoms, and to pass into the
hands of the Board of Trade. If so, there was one of two ways
in which they might appropriate' them. They might appro-
priate them to harbour purposes. all over the country, and
deprive the port of Liverpool of almost any advantage
from them, or they might lay down as- a principle, that these
dues beingcollected in the port of Liverpool, should be appro-
priated, as they might imagine, for the' benefit of the shipping
property of Liverpool. But if these dues were abolished, so far
from having anything to hope for in the-way of relief, the ship-
owners must look forward to a very large-increase in taxation.
(Laughter.) go gentleman there, he was- care, could look at
their extended line of docks, now reaching almost five miles,
and not see that it was almost impossible to.chrry on the trade
of the port for want of a wide thoroughfare extending through
the whole line of docks. But deprive Liverpool, of the town
dues, and the burden of providing such improvements was
thrown undoubtedly-upon the Dock Estate, and. how could the
latter carry out such improvements without increasing their
rates ? He had said also,that the Board of Trade- might ap-
propriate these dues to,general purposes, and Liverpool receive
little or no benefit, though he could hardly believe' that any
government would commit so glaring an act of injustice as
this. But in case they were applied " for the benefit of the
commerce of Liverpool," who were to be the judges-?' The
Board of Trade. And was-it not extremely probable- that the
board would justify their appropriation of the Liverpool-town
dues. by pointing to the later sums of money which they had
expended upon Holyhead harbour—(hear, hear)—though-the
Holyhead harbour improvements would not afford the slightest
advantage to the interests of the commerce and shipping-, of
Liverpool. (Cheers.) In conclusion, Mr. Smith repeated that,.
as-a shipowner, he could see no advantage whatever to-the
shipping interest by depriving the• Corporation of Liverpool of
the dues, but every advantage, not only to the coinmerce.of
the port; but to the commerce of the whole country, by the
dues remaining as they were.
The resolution was unanimotialradopted.
Mr. Aaramosa LACE moved the next resolution, and,
dbing-so, contended that the title of the Corporation to levy
these dues , was clear and indefeasible, and, if so, Parliament
could 'not abrogate them without granting compensation. He
declared; that, upon the very principle laid down in the bill;
Government was not justified in taking the dues. Those who
looked at the bill would see that therwere very careful to de-
clare•that-all individual owners of tolls should be compensated,
and that only corporations should nor. - Well, then, if the Cor-
poration of Liverpool had possessed-. these- dues for so many
years; and -had applied them to purposes for which otherwise
they must have levied local rates, had they not, in point of
fact, got a title to% them by time ?—( Hear;.hear 0 Did not
any person, in, buybio- property, consider what the dues and
rates were to which that property was-suhject ? and would he
not crin a greater price for property—espom the north side of
Parliavaeut:stree—because he knew that, tothe extent of ten
per cent: upon his. rental, he would be -relieved from local
dues ? Whererwould be the difference, he asked, between
taking one-tenth of the dues of Covent,gardert market from
the Duke of Bedford,.and taking from the-people of Liverpool
one-tenth of their dues- ? (Hear, hear !)- It was precisely the
same thing.
Mr. Basal' ,Btoemanm_usic was very- happy to second the
resolution. On the introduction of the -measure, Mr. Lowe

'very disingenuously stated that it was intended to relieve the
shipping of the port firma some of its enormous-taxation ; but

the fact was, that it would relieve the sipping interest from

no charge w4laberer;—Hear, hear 0 —andiheProbability was
that, were- the townAtaes to be taken away froth. Liverpool—

which Godiforbidl,---the shipping interesfrCitould be more hea-
vily taxed.than hitherto,. As a shipowner and merchant, and
he believedi he spoke the sentiments of the other shipowners

and merchants of'. Liverpool upon this matter,. he would not
submit to• derive any advantage from a reduation in. tolls which
was obtained by meart,sou.njust and illegitimate (Cheers.)
Mr PICTDX, at great length, and in a speeoh cf considerable
jocularity,. supported the resolution. lie-reail. extracts from
the proposed bill, and.a.ued that if these-: ere carried out as

law, the Board .of Traci; would be empoweredto- reduce the
dues, to raise them again. if they thought at, and do with the
money as they-liked..
The resolution was carried unamimottsl7.;
Mr. R. A. IllAcina: moved the adoption otlie.n.ext resolu-
tion. Referring to the-remarks of the Mayor of &Alford, (at
the meetitigin .Manchester on the previor.a.day,): Mr. Macfie

quoted a paragraph,. to the effect " that. theie: was not a
person who walked.along the street who did-not contribute
in some degree to, these dues ; and especially there was no
female that passed along the street whoseditess-did not con-
tribute to them."-- liOw, sir, (said the speaker;) what if I
should say, that the-firm with which I am -,connected pay of
dues, or at all events-import goods liable to. these- dues, many
times more than the amount paid by the whole of the ladies
and females of Manchester. (Hear, hear).- Lam not aware
that any..bause in, Mfinchester, or the district,. consumes so
large an* amount of goods liable to these- dues- as we do, and
yet I do.not complain. (Rear, hear.) Healludecl to the bene-
ficial uses to the working classes, to which these dues had
been made.: applicable, along with the t- other sources of
income:. We have excellent public bathsi libraries, museums,
botania-gardens, parks, an observatory., _hospitals a costly
supply of water, an, efficient fire-police,.and: other advan-
tages but nothing. for the rich—we have- no colleges, no
academies, for the sons- of the better claseesras-tlieyare called—
no. The attention of the Liverpool Corporation, seems to have
been mainly .direeted: to benefit :the mass of the community.
(Hear; hear.) env Manchester frienda-may. say—" That is
not connected :with: trade ; you have- been, looking to your-
selves -after all." But it is the docks-.that bring to us this
great populatioa.„ for whom this provision,ia.made; and a very
great part of the-orime, and the casrmities, and the law cases
of Liverpool, are- in connexion with, these- docks, and that
trade, which' certainly passes through cur streets and docks, is
the. trade, at the- same time, of the whole nation, and of the
world.

Mr. CIIAR./EM, SAAMDERS briefly- seconded the resolution,.
which was unanimously adopted.
Mr. W. RAM,I3ONZ, in moving the next resolution, said he-
was rather surprised at the modesty,--not usual with members.
of his -professien—and still more ,she. morality, of the Vice-
President of Beard of Trade. (Hear, hear.) He shou/d-!
have thought that no lawyer woxllChave said that propertty.
belonginetto,corporations might ho, spoliated any more thusa
the .property of individuals. (Hear, hear) That was not
his morality;: and he should be giad to.kaow how the share-
holders in, those great corporations,. the London and Noah,
western, the Great Western, and: the. Great Northern
way Companies would like ta.ave• their property in those.
concerns-. tak-eia hold of by the. goverstnaent ; or what their'
friends ih. Manchester wouldisay if a hungry govertment
should seize upon their corporateinteirest in their gas works..
(Hear, bear.) He was called 3.,radical reformer, but ha. was
not au, unprincipled revolutitAtist. (Hear, hear, and ekeers4l
He was quite sure, if the people of England understood the
question, that government would: lose the bill ; and kaaioped,
Willey persevered with it, they would lose their places too.
M. HAMILTON (Brown, 'Shipley, and Co.), while, he pro-
tested earnestly against thia.bill, was not prepared to oppose
any reasonable plan for. the abolition of town dues.;: but he
thought, as the country would. hare the advantage •of the abo-
lition, the country should.bear the expense of it, and that it
should not fall on individual towns. (Hear, hear, This bill
bad no man's good wiahes. It neither abolished;tbe clues nor
did justice to the town. (Hear, hear.) It simply transferred
the dues to the government, taking them out of the hands of
the local authoritiss,,who were always ready to, do what they
were asked, to meet, the requirements of trade, He had him-
self had occasioa, to. represent to the Dock. Committee that
there were large.steamers enough, whilst there. was no accom-,
modation. What, answer had he received:k He had been
asked to state what he required, and was, assured that every-
thing should be.done to meet his 'wishes.. (Hear, hear.) The
result was That a. steamer of 75 feet, requiring gates of 80 feet
iii width, was,. on her arrival, immediately accommodated,
which, if he.had had to go to the government, might have been
in the river to this day.
Mr. CIIRISTGPIINE BUSHELL supported the resolution,
arguing that the measure of the Board of Trade was a direct
attempt tosubvert those municipallinstitutions which,througb,
their various ramifications, constituted the basis not only of
our liberties, but of our prosperity also; that no act of mat--
administration, on the part of the Liverpool corporation. could
be-proved to justify the powers which they at present pos-
sessed being removed • that a principle of right and justice
ought not to be violated, whether an individual or a number
of individuals were concerned ; and that, least of all, should
principles of right and justice be violated by a government.
The resolution was thee, put and carried unanimously.
Mr. DANSON moved the adoption of the petition, and repro-
bated, in severe terms, the spirit which Mr. Lowe manifested,
on the introduction of his bill, in placing Liverpool in the same
category with a number of places which had abused the public
funds with which they had been entrusted, thus placing Liver-
pool in a false position with the house and the country.
Ramsgate, Bridlington, and Whitby were empowered to levy
dues because they professed to be ports of. refuge for ships in
distress ; and the honourable member (Mr. Lowe) himself,
declared that not one of these places, which had for years past
been levying port dues, were enabled to discharge one single
public duty iu.return. This, however, was not at all the caso
with Liverpool, and it was mast unfair to class her with such
places. Mr. Danson complained also of the wrong impressions
which Mr. Lowe had conveyed by his ignorance of the subject
in connexion with Liverpool, and by his mixing up of dock and
town rates. Speaking for the shopkeepers, he said that they
were heartily in unison with the merchants upon the question
of the town dues. With regard to the case of the corporation,
when it was fairly known, he believed it to be so strong that
they could afford to drop their legal claim altogether, and rely
upon the fact that the prosperity, not only of Liverpool, but
of the whole country, depended upon the present relations of
the corporation to the trade of the port remaining intact.
(Cheers.) •
Mr. SYDNEY, in seconding the resolution, expressed his
regret that Lord Palmerston should have introduced such a
bill,—deprecated the attempted distinctions between corporate
and private property,—and refused to believe that so un-
righteous a measure would ever be sanctioned by a British
House of Commons.
The resolution was then put and carried unanimously.
Mr. DAVID HODGSON moved a vote of thanks to the chair-
man, which was seconded by Mr. J. Torte, and his Worship
having briefly replied, the proceedings terminated.