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

THE PRESS.

cannot understand the difference between the
two principles. Because property may be
protected by the Legislature, he insists that it
may be seized by the Legislature ; because it
may be guarded from abuse, he says it may he
confiscated ; because its equitable owners may
have their rights recognised and assured to
them, he says that they may be despoiled of
them. When he finds that in the Muni-
cipal Act of 183) corporate property was
secured to the representatives of corporate
towns, he argues that the provision was an
oversight ; and he is not convinced of his
gross error when it is shown hin► that the
most powerful legal supporters of that Act,
Lord BROUGHAM among the number, con-
tended that the object of the Act as regarded
corporate property was not spoliation, but
restoration.

If it could be shown that the dues in ques-
tion were of so injurious a nature to the
interests on which they were levied as impe-
ratively to call for their abolition, reasons of
public policy might call on the Legislature to
suppress them, on reasonable compensation
being provided. But no plea of this kind
can be urged. The commerce of Liverpool
has grown up during their continuance ; and
the very largeness of their amount, now alleged
as a reason for their confiscation, is on the
whole a proof of the wise liberality of the
borough authorities, and of their capability to
manage their own affairs. The 'lnes are sepa-
rately small, though large in the aggregate ;
they are fixed in amount, and ctunot be
increased.
Mr. LOWE indeed consents to rest his case
on the broad principle that for a corporate
body to levy dues, as in the case of Liverpool,
by legal right, is robbery. He can recognise
property in lands and money in the funds, but
he cannot recognise property in such dues as
are levied in Liverpool. And this is the
principle he calls on Parliament to affirm.
It is argued with perfect truth that the
revenue derived by individuals from any kind
of tolls might be abolished on the same prin-
ciple, and evidently the range of spoliation
might extend much wider. There is no mate-
rial distinction, for example, between lay
tithes and corporate dues. They are equally
a tax, the former being the more objection
able of the two, as no xind of benefit is ren-
dered in return for it. If Mr. LOWE'S princi-
ple be affirmed, it is impossible to see what
stand could be -made against the abolition of
lay tithes and all kinds of prtiperty, as mano-
rial rights resting on the same footing. These
kinds of property must stand or fall together.
His principle would equally extend to public
companies. Why should the inhabitants of
London be taxed for the benefit of the New
River Corporation? The property in their
shares has risen in value proportionably as
much as the property in the Liverpool dues.
The railways have now a monopoly of the
traffic of the country : what right have they
to levy a tax on the whole community for the
benefit of their corporations? Confiscate
their property, and fares might be reduced to
one-half of their present amount. Mr. LOWE'S
Bill, in fact, opens a door for universal con-
fiscation. Carry out his argument fairly,
and the conclusion would be inevitable, that
all property in land must be confiscated.
A plain decision on his principle has been
challenged by Sir FREDERICK THESIGER. The
Government have not abandoned the prin-
ciple—they retain it. The Report of the Com-
mission on Local Charges on Shipping, most
injudiciously recommended the scheme which
Mr. LOWE has taken up. The Government
have proposed a committee to consider in
what way the recommendation can be carried
out. Sir FREDERICK THESIGER moves for
committee to inquire into the whole subject
referred to the Commission. The Govern-
ment would sanction the confiscating Report ;
Sir FREEDERIK THESIGER would Set it aside.
Thus the issue is raised whether corporate
property shall be held sacred or deemed liable
to confiscation, and whether the British Legis-
ture will maintain inviolate the principles on
which it has heretofore acted in its dealings
with propel ty, or will affirm the dangerous
doctrine that it may be confiscated at the plea-
sure of the State.