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

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.