The Press.
London, England, 1856-03-08 00:00:00

MR. LOWE'S SHIPPING BILL.

THE House of Commons will shortly have to
decide on a principle of vital importance,
unless indeed the Government should once
more recede from the position it has taken up,
and resolve on the complete abandonment of
Mr. LOWE and his Shipping Bill.

The principle at issue is, whether corporate
property shall be entirely at the mercy of the
State to confiscate as it pleases, or whether it
shall substantially stand on the same footing
as other kinds of property. We are sure
Mr. LOWE will accept this as a fair statement
of the point at issue.
His argument is, that corporate property,
more especially if derived from any kind of
dues or taxes, may not only lawfully but ad-
vantageously be confiscated by the State for
the benefit of the interests which are bur-
dened with such dues. On the other hand,
it is contended that the property of corporate
bodies is entitled to the same kind of respect
in degree us other kinds of property, and that
to sanction the principle for which Mr. LowE
contends would unsettle the tenure of all
legal right, and shake the institution of pro-
perty itself.
Mr. LOWE must feel that he has one great
difficulty to contend with. There is no pre-
cedent for the principle he would establish.
The Legislature has never sanctioned his dot
trine; it is unknown to the Constitution, it is
repudiated by the law. The case of Liverpool
may be veryfairly, taken to test the question.
Mr Lowe acknowledges that the dues he
would confiscate are legal. If they were not
legal, he says, no Act of Parliament would be
required to abolish them. As to the facts,
there is no dispute. The corporation of
Liverpool bought these dues (first sold by the
Crown for a sum of money) one hundred and
eighty years ago. They have been in undis-
puted receipt of them ever since. In 1M33
their right was contested, and a trial took
place before Lord DENMAN, when the title of
the Corporation to them was clearly estab-
lished.

When the Municipal Act of 1836 was passed,
the property of corporations was scrupulously
respected. It, was treated exactly as other kinds
of trust property are commonly treated, both
by the Legislature and the Court of Chancery.
t was protected from abuse, and appropriated
to the benefit of the parties who had an
equitable title to it. This kind of interference
must always be recognised. It is the inter-
ference which Mr. HALLAM allowed in the pas-
sage so singularly misrepresented by Mr.
LOWE, and of which the exact words were,
to the confusion of the Vice-President
of the Board of Trade, quoted by Sir
FREDERICK THEsIGER last week. It is the
interference which daily takes place in the
management of trust, estates of all kinds, and
which has been sanctioned by Parliament in
the case of Church property. But in all such in-
stances of interference the principle contended
fur, and happily invariably acted on, is that
the property shall be regulated for the benefit
of the individuals, the bodies, or institutions
who have a legal interest in it. While this
principle is observed there need be no limit
to the amount of interference allowed, as the
property cannot be diverted from its equitable
use.

Mr. Lows has confounded this right of in-
terference for the better management of trust
property with the right of contiecatiDg it. He