The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-02-05 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-MONDAY,

Their lordships sat for a few minutes, but no business of
public interest was transacted.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-AiONDAY.

The SPEAxxit took the chair at six o'clock,

Mr. AI AcEvoY took tho oaths and his seat for Meath county

Lord PALMERSTON gave notice that to.morrow he should
move a vote of thanks to Mr. William Ley, late clerk of that
House.

PASSING TOLLS ON SHIPPING.

The House having resolved itself into a committee, to Con-
sider the subject of local and poising tolls on shipping,
Lobs Mr. Lou robe to move
resolution, on which
_to introduce
a bill for their abolition. He stated that, in 18521 the total
amount of shipping dues was no less than £1,095,3A Or 011ie!)
£820,000 was applied to maritime purposes, leaving £275,296.
Tlio passing tolls, in 1852 amounted to £12,000 at Dover,
£14,000 at Ramsgate, £2,835 at Burlington, and L-111
at Whitby. The town dues levied by municipal
corporations aniotinted in 1852, in England, Scotland, and
Ireland, to £182,058, which was expended for local purposes,
and tti 'Which Liverpool contributed the enormous sum of
£105,000. Then there was a eonipany called- the Russian
Cpmpany, which was
.established in the time of Philip and
Mary, for the ditieovery of unknown lands, and it had the
power of levying toIIS for that purpose at Cronstadt. The
annual sums collected in that wrist reached £12,000, of which
£1,400 went to the Russian custom-house. The stina paid by
England to the Russian Company amounted to an annual
sum of £2,100, which was expended in plate for the governor,
in pciitraits, and ether similar Ways. Ile could not understand
the principle by which tolls collected from Shipping were
applied not to maritime purposes, but for the benefit
Of the ratepayers. (Hear, hear.) The legislature
coull be doing no wrong in putting an end
to such unjust taxation, btit the means

were not as

simple as might be supposedi tor th6se Shipping dues were,
many of them, charged with debt. Ito Vroposed in this mea-
sure tQ respect Lie claims of the creditors, and td tiiake such
an arrangetnent as the following—Tl 0 debt chargeable on town
dues amounted to X2;578,378; The dues on shipping to
£182,058, and the municipal dues to £i46,600, and in pro-
porsion as the municipal dues were to the dries eo shipping; so
should the amount applied to the liquidation of the debt
by the town and by the shipping he. According to such an
average

nount,, shipping would have to contribute annually
£786,272, and thus the whole sun] would be paid off in
about three and a half years. With regard.to the tolls levied
by the Russian Company, these levied in England
would be done away with b

the provisions of

this bill, and ho hoped that at the restoration4:A peace care
would be taken to prevent the tax of £2,000 bein

paid by

. , . .
tnglish shipping for Russian purposes. In conclusion, the
right hon. gentleman etpresded a hopo that the house would
accept the bill, and do an act of justice L 1 the maritime
interests of this country.

Mr. HEADLAM saiethe bill inflicted an unlooked for injury
on the rights of property; and he would give it his most de-
termined opposition.
Mr. HousFALL made some observations in reference to the
Sanitary condition, and Municipal regulations of the town of
Liverpool, which Mr. Lowe had declared to be notoriously
bad. The hon. member (Ur. Horsefall) denied that that Was
the case, and added that he could not imagine what the
sanitary condition of the Corporation had to do with the
amount of the Town dues.

After a few words from Mr. RICE,
Mr. M. Giasow said that, from communications he had
received from several of his constituents, lie felt sure
that they would hear, with the greatest satisfaction, that the
government had resolved to deal with this important question,
and no longer to allow the trade of Manchester to be taxed for
the benefit of the corporation of Liverpool.
Mr. IL LIDDELL generally approved of the measure, but, at
the same time, disapproved of the principle of treating private
and corporate bodies differently.
Mr. W. S. LINDSAY accorded his warmest and best thanks
to the introducer of the measure.

Mr. WATSON approved of the principles laid down by Mr.
Lowe, but reserved to himself the right of opposing it in
detail.

Mr. LOWE having replied, the resolution was agreed to, and
leave given to bring in the bill. The house having resumed,

THE POLICE ACTS,

Sir H. GREY moved for leave to introduce a bill to amend
the Metropolitan Police Ac's. The object of the measure
was to place the control of the metropolitan police under one
commissioner instead of two. A vacancy having occurred by
the death of one of the commissioners, he proposed that the
vacancy should not be filled up. This arrangement would
place the metropolitan police in the same position as the
police force of Ireland. The control being under one Inspector
General, with two assistants in the commission of the peace.
With regard to salarieQ, he proposed that the Inspector
General should receive £1 500, and the assistants £BOO each.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

THE QUEEN'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS

Lord DRUMLANRIGG then appeared at the bar with her
ilf,jcsty's reply to the address of the House of Commons,
thanking the cominissioners, and expressing her Majesty's
confidence in their support.

BURIAL GROUNDS (IRELAND.)

Mr. HORSEMAN obtained leave to bring in a bill on the sub-
ject of burial grounds in Ireland ; and also a bill applying the
English act in reference to the case of youthful offenders in
Iceland.

The Marquis of BLANDFOILD moved for leave to re-introduco
his bill of last session, for the better management of episcopal
and capitular estates.

Mr. HADFIELD objected to the introduction of the measure.
He thought that a matter of such importance (right to have
been brought before the house by her Majesty's government.
Lard PALMERSTON said there was an engagement entered
into with the noble lord last session that he should re-introduce
it this session.

Mr. WILLIAMS depreciated the principle of allowing mea-
sures to be introduced when there was no chance of them
being carried.

Leave was then given

Leave was also given to bring in a bill for facilitating the
formation and endowment of separate distinct parishes. The
bill differed will the measure of last session. It did not repeal
the Church Building Act, but gave increased powers to
Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS BILL

Mr. CRAWFORD moved for leave to bring in a bill, to enable
execution to issue in any part of the United Kingdom under
judgments or decreets obtained in certain Courts of Record in
England, Scotland, and Ireland.
Lord NAAS observed that the bill was objected to last session
as unjust to Ireland.
In reply to Sir F. KELLY,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, the bill of last session was
no doubt objectionable, but the question was one of great
importance.
Leavo was then given to bring in the bill.

COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL,

Mr. WHITESIDE obtained leave to re-introduce his measures
of last session, with regard to the Irish Court of Chancery.
ENCUMBERED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. JOHN FITZGERALD asked leave to bring in a bill to
abolish the Encumbered Estates Courts in Ireland, and to
amend the Court of Chancery. At present the Encumbered
Estates Court cost the country £15,529 163 10d per annum ;
and he proposed also to abolish four masterships in Chancery,
and other offices, by which £14,900 per annum would he
saved. There had to be set off against this, however, £16,760
for new offices, and £13,383 compensation to officers who
would lose their appointments by this bill. Thus so far from
the cost of his measure being £40,000 more than those of Mr.
Whiteside's plan, it would cost the country nothing, and
ultimately, after the life compensations were at an end, a
permanen tsaving of £14,000 per year would be effected. Tho
lion, gentleman introduced the history of the Encumbered
Estates Court, which had been of great advantage in develop-
ing the resources of Ireland, to a much greater
extent than could have been anticipated. It had
sold property to the value of £17,000,000, and
had only once committed an error. Under these circum-
stances it had been thought advisable to transfer from some
fixed day the powers of the Encumbered Estates Court to the
Court of Chancery in Ireland. I❑ place of the four abolished
masterships, he proposed to create two Vice-Chancellors, at
salaries of £3,500 a year. The hors, member then, at con-
siderable length, detailed a number of other charges, which
he proposed to make in the arrangements of the Irish Court
of Chancery, of which the most important was a proposition
for abolishing or gradually absorbing fees and stamps. The
loss occasioned by the removal of certain fees which would be
abolished immediately on the passing of the bill, being made
up by a poundage not exceeding two per cent, on estates sold,
and he believed it would not be necessary to take more than
three pence in the pound for that purpose,

Mr. WHITESIDE spoke in condemnation of the Encum
bered Estates Courts, arguing that it was more expensive to
sell an estate through its means than privately. To the
abolition of stamps and fees he contended, that if they were
abolished in the Irish Court of Chancery, they should also be
abolished in the English Court of. Chancery ; and if they were
abolished in the superior courts, they should also be abolished in
the inferior courts. Ile condemned the removal and pen-
sioning off of four men of ability, who were only 40 years of
age. lie viewed the proposition for the transfer of the
Encumbered Estates Court to the Court of Chancery with
alarm, when lie recollected the amount of business now in the
Encumbered Estates Court, and the confusion which existed
in all its papers. The effect of the measure would be to make
the Irish Court of Chancery an immense conveyancing engine,
and to put all Ireland into Chancery. If the principles laid
down by the hon. and learned Solicitor• General for Ireland
(Mr. Fitzgerald), were to be established with regard to Ire-
land, he should move that they be extended to England.
Mr. CAIRNS defended the proposed measure, and replied
to some of the remarks of Mr. Whiteside.
Mr. MA:LiNs criticised the measure, and stated as his
opinion, that the proposal to transfer the duties of the