The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-02-22 00:00:00

I

the corporation of Liverpool was dealing illegally and tin"
lawfully with what they called their town dues. Her
contended that if they had a title, there must be some duty
attached to it. No corporation, and no monarch, had ever,
earned the right to tax to any extent they or Ire
think fit, the whole commerce of a country without lacing
compelled to return one farthing of value
those those whom they taxed. (Hear hear.) He referred'
to the case of the Corporation of Exeter v. Warren, in.!
while Lord Denman said that for the validity of a royal.'
grant or franchise, with a right to collect port dues or petty
customs, a consideration was necessary, and Lord Denman
went on to say that although it might be a question whether
non-performance of that duty would be a defence for an
action for dues, the long enjoyment would warrant the,
presumption of the fact necessary to make them legal. Bn.c,
what did their friends of Liverpool say ? they now declared
—and by that declaration they would be bound before Par--
liament--that there was no legal obligation whatever-anon,
them to expend one farthing of their dues for the benefit of
commerce. He quoted a passage from Lord Hale in support
of his argument in reference to the duty attached to the
taking of dues and petty customs. He replied to leading'
articles in the Liverpool Mercury and Liverpool Timeif
advocating the right of the corporation, and added that ae
to the right of the freemen, no voice was raised, even ra
Liverpool, for them. The speaker then proceeded to
animadvert at considerable length upon the manner is
which, as he stated, the corporation of Liverpool transferre
the entire discharge of those duties which originally'
attached to the town dues over to the dock dues,
while they"
still retained possession of the former. He contended that
having admitted their full responsibility to spend the money.
thus raised for the benefit of commerce, they totally and
entirely failed to carry out what they themselves bad admitted
to be their duties. He contended that the trustees of the.
dock estate had made use of the power which they possessed
to increase the corporate property at the expense of the
trade and commerce of the port, and alluded to the fact that
when the Liverpool vestry sought to obtain power to rate'
the docks for the relief the poor, and a portion of the dock
trustees desired to oppose the bill, and petition against it,
the chairman refttsed to put the seal to the petition until the'
time for presenting it had passed over, and the council:
gave him their sanction in that course. He read an a:
tract from a speech of the former town clerk of Liverpool,
Mr. Foster, before the municipal commissioners sent dove
to inquire into the affairs of the municipal corporation in
.1833, in which that gentleman stated that, by far, the
greater portion of the dues was de!ived from persons not
residing in Liverpool; who were thus made to contributs
to the comforts of the people of Liverpool. He alsoread
the following passage from the evidence of Mr. Brainier
Moore, M.P., then chairman of the dock tinist, before
committee of the House of Commons in 1807
I total amount of town dues, after paying all exp,'nneis,
about £91,000. The council do nothing for the
or the dock estate with that money. All that C.
receive is appropriated entirely to the borough. Th'
dock estate pays a portion of the expense 0'
watching and lighting, about 16,000 a-year'
The dock estate repairs the streets along the'
quays, The expense of that is very considerable.
These streets are public thoroughfares, and not merely for
the use of the docks." Upon cross examination, .Mr•
Bramley-Moore thus re-iterated his statement • 4, I do not:
see that the town dues have been in any manner beneficial
to commerce. They have been expended in the improtie
went of the town, and in other things connected with tha
town, for the benefit of the town • but I am not aware of
any special application to the dock estate. The application
of the town dues in widening the thoroughfares of Liverpool
has been to the benefit of all the inhabitants." The towo
clerk read the following passage from the evidence of hfr,
Henry Cleaver Chapman : "The dock estate has been made:
subservient entirely to promoting the interests of the corps-i
ration estate, and the two have'been in a state of antagoniaa
for years. The dock estate has been plundered to an
' enormous extent, and it will be more so. It has been made
a sort of milch cow to aggrandise the great corporation
estate." (Cheers.) The town clerk read another passage
from the evidence of Mr; Bromley-Moore, to show the
amount of land to which, in the construction of the docket
the corporation became entitled, and stating that the profit
to the borough fund from the dock estate was about
£100,000; and passages from statement of Mr. Hartley,
to the effect, that the quantity of land given by the
corporation of Liverpool to the dock trust was about.
56 acres, and the land formed at the expense of the dock
trust, and now held by the corporation 47 acres. He also'
quoted from Mr. Hartley to show that the landing-stage
was constructed at the expense of the dock estat:R. was only
constructed for the advantage of ferry steamers, and was, if
anything, rather injurious to general navigation.
referring to the new landing stage about to be constructeu
for sea-going steamers, he contended that the money it
would coat would be worse than thrown away, and that it
would be far better to spend that money upon the other side'
of the water in making docks which could be entered at all
times of the tide. He asked it Liverpool had ever know"
the delights of a borough rate, for which Manchester, with
a smaller valuation, paid £BO,OOO per annum. Eve°
without the dues, however, he contended that Liverpool
with economical management, might never require such
rate. They had accurnruulated, partly out of the industry
of Manchester, such a property as carefully managed would',
prevent the necessity of it. What was their property
Heaven only knew—he did not believe any of themselves
knew. Mr. Robertson Gladstone had repeatedly
applied
to the corporation to have a statement of their,
property prepared that every gentleman might
see what a magnificent landowner he really Ives'
He was unsuccessful two or three times, but at I.:qt hr
succeeded. What were the grounds of objection to that
return ? That it would take a large and expensive staff of
clerks a period of something like three years to make out it
schedule of the property possessed by the corporation 0'
Liverpool. But he thought, however, they would have t°
a
make out that return in shorter time. (Hear, hear.) Ile'
thought they would asked be by the House of Commons to
what extent they had accumulated corporate estate at the
expense of the trade and commerce of the country.
hear.) There was not much encouragement for prophet°
now-a-days, or he would be disposed to ask, with an hon-
ourable friend of theirs, " what next—and next ?'
(Laughter.) He thought, however, he might venture to se/
that the ':next" would be the extinction of a most in'
iquitous and unjust tax, and no compensation given for
those who had been inflicting upon that district, for so molt
years that they might be almost calculated by centuriegi
something like black mail. (Cheers.) The town clerk,
after some closing observations, resumed his seat, having,
delivered a speech of an hour-and-a-half's duration, o'
which the above is, necessarily, only the merest outline.
The resolution was then put to the meeting, and carried
unanimously.
Mr. Arrowsmith, ex-mayor of Bolton, proposed a second
resolution, expressing the warmest approval of Mr. Lolwe !
bill, and pledging the meeting to use every possible effort
to support it.
Mr. Turner seconded the 'resolution, which was also
carried unanimously, amid loud applause.
Mr. Ashurst proposed that a petition in favour of the
bill be entrusted to Mr. Lowe for presentation, and that the
support of the city members be requested. In proposing
the motion, Mr. Ashurst addressed the meeting at consider-
able length. In the course of his remarks, he compared
the claim of Liverpool to town dues to the exactions of a
self-styled Sheik of an Eastern village from defencelesa
European travellers. Alluding to the uses to which the'
dues were devoted, he satirised the construction of Saint'
Hall, for the purposes of public justice, and public
amusement combined, the seat of criminal justice and the
orchestra of a ball-room, being placed nearly side by side.
The Mayor of Stockport seconded the resolution, which
was carried by acclamation.
The petition, which was not read, merely embodied the
effect of the resolutions.

On the motion of the Mayor of Ashton, seconded by gri
Alderman Nicholle, a ,committee was formed to carry 00
the views of the meeting, and it was agreed that the resole'
tions be published in the London and Manchester neics"
papers.

A vote of thanks to the Mayor, which was carried by
acclamation, closed the proceedings.

CHESTER TOWN COUNCIL,

THE COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS' POLICE BILL,
AND THE SHIPPING DUES BILL.

A special meeting of the Chester town council was held
yesterday (Thursday), for the purpose of taking into C°°/
sideration these two bills. There was a large attendance °
members, and the mayor (Major French) presided. Pea;
tions to the House of Commons against the passing 0'
either of the bills, were unanimously adopted, and a con:
mittee was appointed to watch their progress, and, if
necessary to proceed to London to act i°
concert' with the deputations from other boroughs
and places in opposing their passing. The Pl,,
tion respecting the "Local Dues on Shipping lbr3 ,
was to the effect that,if the bill passed, municipal corpo,
tions would be deprived (without receiving any COMW)TISa
tion or equivalent advantage) of property to which tu, y ec,
were legally entitled, and that such a measure was contraia
to all the principles which had hitherto been followed in
legislating with respect to property, and 'would tend af
weaken the security of all property, especiallYujoa
property belonging to corporations. The petition
with
with respect to the police bill, stated of
the proposed alteration in the regulation co
the police force was an unconstitutional interfereco
with the rights and privileges of boroughs• that it weti
to
unjustly deprive municipal corporations of their righi.oe,
control over the organisation and expenditure of the P('''
in direct violation of the principle of local self-aovernme,n_,,
recognised and established by the Municipal Corporati..7l
Act ; that so great an interference with the managentent_r,
the police was uncalled for ; and that it was an unnecessarily
inroad upon their independence, which they valued) %P r,
also upon the privileges. they would never willingly
render.