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

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

MONDAY.
The House met at 4 o'clock.
A new writ was ordered for Rutland in the place of Sir
Gilbert Heathcote, called to the House of Lords.
Mr, ROEBUCK gave notice that on Friday he should move
a resolution affirming that the appointment of a commission
of general officers to report on the report of Sir John McNeill
and Colonel Tulloch was to substitute an inefficient for an
efficient tribunal, and to shelter the incompetence of certain
officers recently promoted.
Sir De LACY EVANS gave notice that to-morrow he would
inquire why the statistics as to the mortality in the army in
the Crimea had been withheld from the report.
In reply to Mr. T. Duncombe, Mr. LABOUCIIERE stated,
that, after a full investigation, the government had come to the
conclusion that Sir Henry Young had acted improperly in
abruptly proroguing the Legislative Assembly of Tasmania,
pending the sitting of a committee to inquire into the working
of the convict system in that colony.
The Report of Supply was brought up and received after
some observations from Sir H. Willoughby, to which Mr:
Monsell replied.
The Report of the Committee of Ways and Means respect-
ing the loan of £5,000,000, and funding of £3,000,000 ex-
chequer bills, was received.
Numerous petitions were presented for and against the
Local Dues on Shipping Bill.
LOCAL DUES ON SHIPPING BILL.

Mr. Lows having moved the second reading of the bill,
Sir F. TIIESIGER moved that the bill be read a second
time this day six months. He said he was justified in this
course by the positive refusal of government to make any con-
cessions, and from the wholesale attacks made by the bill on
corporate property. He condemned the measure as one of
confiscation, and said it struck him with alarm. It was the
clear intention of government to appropriate the local dues to
themselves, whilst the differential dues were to be abolished
altogether.

Dir. Lows denied that government intended to apropriate
local dues.

Sir F. TILESIGEB, said a power was taken iu the bill to re-
duce the tolls and raise them again He contended that there
was no difference in the rights of private property and cor-
porate property, and he quoted Hallam to show that our con•
stitution respected one as much as another. He then entered
into the history of the local dues of Liverpool to show that
tbPy belonged to the corporation by right of purchase, a right

subsequently established by a court of law. In the case of
the Hull Dock Company, a solemn agreement had been
entered into by government in 1842 to pay £6,832 per annum
as a compensation for abandonment of differential duties.
This agreement it was now proposed to violate. The
local dues belonging to the Corporation of Bristol, since
the time of Edward the Fourth, were in precisely the same
position as those of Liverpool. The house was here dealing
with the principle laid down by the Vice-President of the
Board of Trade, that corporations had no private property;
and he asked what private property could be safe, if the pro-
perty derived by these corporations, as he had described, was
to be appropriated by the government without compensation.
The measure was one of confiscation and spoil, and, with a
conviction of its most dangerbus tendency, he, in conclusion,
moved its rejection.
Sir F. BARING seconded the amendment. He opposed the
bill. First : because he recognised in it a determination
to interfere with that self-management which had proved so
advantageous to the country ; and next, because he recognised
throughout all its provisions carelessness of the rights of private
property, and a sacrifice of public and parliamentary faith.
Mr. LowE at great length defended the bill. He and the
President of the Board of Trade would look into and
do justice to any point to which their attention was called.
He thought they should get credit for a disposition to adopt
that course, and that violent attacks should not be made on
them. After defending the principle and provisions of the
measure, he concluded by urging the House to send all these
burdens upon shipping and commerce to that limbo to which
they already consigned rotten boroughs—rotten corporations
—and rotten commercial systems.
Mr. HORSPALL made a spirited defence of the Corporation
of Liverpool, and entered into a detailed statement of their
expenditure; showing that, out of means obtained from Local
Dues, they had made great public improvements, iu which
the shipping, as well as all other interests, participated.
Mr. RIDLEY opposed the bill.
Mr. TOLLEMICHE said there ought to be a commutation of
Local Dues, and an efficient conservancy of the Mersey, but
this bill provided for neither, therefore he opposed it.
Mr. COLLIER supported the second reading, arguing that
Looal Dues on shipping Must follow the fate of all protective
duties. He denied that vested interests in these dues should
receive compensation.
Mr. HILDYARD opposed the bill.
Mr. RICE said the bill contained a gross inconsistency. It
proposed to charge the debts upon passing tolls to the con-
solidated fund, but the debts upon Town Dues were to be
charged to the respective places.
Mr. DEEDZS considered the bill as a gross attack on the
right of property.

Mr. C. EWAIIT opposed the bill, and pointed out several
modes in which it attacked property for which the Corpora-
tion had given valuable consideration.
Mr. LIDDELL called on the house to reject the measure.
Mr. hiGlum supported the second reading.

Mr. CAIRNS, after hearing the statements of the Vice-
President of the Board of Trade, could not assent to the
second reading. If a measure were introduced with reference
to passing tolls he would support it, but he could not give his
sanction to that portion of the measure that proposed to deal.
with. Local Dues, because he considered that the proposition
was wholly unjust. Bristol and Hull were to receive com-
pensation, but no other ports ; and the rights of Edinburgh
were to be preserved, while the rights of Leith were to be
abolished. He also questioned whether the bill was intended
for the relief of shipping.
Mr. BAINES supported the second reading, and defended
the measure, which he argued would work with the greatest
benefit to shippers.
Sir FITZROY KELLY did not think government were really
aware of the principles of the bill or its consequences. Every
corporation in the kingdom possessed of property of the
description referred to in trust for the inhabitants, would be
deprived of that property without compensation.
At 6 minutes past twelve o'clock the debate was adjourned
till next evening.

The Joint-Stock Company's Bill passed through committee
pro forma'.
The Prisons (Ireland) Bill was read a second time.
The Delamere Forests Bill was read a third time and
passed.
Several bills, introduced by Mr. WHITESIDE, with re-
ference to the Irish Courts of Chancery, were read a second
time, and referred to a select committee.
The ATTORNEY-GENEILA.L obtained leave to bring in a bill
for the better Local Management of the Metropolis.
A bill to abolish the office of Secretary to the Poor-Law
Commissioners in Ireland was read the first time.
The house adjourned at 12.50 a.m.