The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-02-27 00:00:00

probably, will
lie evid

opinion they had formed of him as a leg

islator

Apart from all selfisliconsiderations, they could not
be induced to look upcn him as the " right man in
the right place." The Vice-President of the Board
of Trade avered that we have no general policy in
this country, and Mr. HILDYARD told us that Mr,
LowE scarcely condescended to notice the
way in which the corporations had acquired
their property, and he added—

" What were the
"rights of that vast mass of property with which

they had to deal ?

Why, those rights were

based upon four distinct tenures—on prescription,

"on grants and charters, on purchase for money
" consideration, and on the good faith of Par-
" liament itself. There was no analogy between
" this case and that of the corn laws, because
" Parliament had never guaranteed that the price
"of corn should be kept up to a certain
The right honourable gentleman
said, that Parliament, which passed laws, had
" the right to repeal laws ; but he (Mr. Hildyard)
" contended that it was a doctrine which must be
" received with limitation, and that whenever an
" Act of Parliament amounted to a contract,
" Parliament could not without flagrant dishonesty
" repeal that Act. What was the 800,000,0001.
" debt of this country, but property held by taxa-
" tion alone? And if the doctrine were maintained
" that Parliament was at liberty to withdraw its
" guarantee to the fundholder, what would be the
" consequence to this mighty empire ?" Mr
LOWE need not now answer these queries, and
since the Government with which he is connected
are alive to the full magnitude of the danger into
which he would have plunged them, we shall have
nothing to fear from that barefaced spoliation
which none but Parliamentary maniacs would
have attempted, or infuriated statesmen have

" amount

thought of tolerating.

Tint centralisation of the police management of

counties and municipalities is encountering a
most strenuous opposition. The question is one
involving a principle we have been called upon

to discuss repeatedly within the last fortnight,
namely, self-government. It is a question of
taxation for purely local purposes. Each shire,
city, and borough, is required to protect the lives
and property of its own inhabitants ; and right
well the work is done at present, if we may judge
from the criminal returns published throughout
the country. The public feel no uneasiness
whatever as to the means we possess of bringing
offenders to justice. The paramount question of
the day is—how are we to dispose of the thousands
of criminals already in custody? The London
Times, which seems determined to make itself the
organ of centralisation, would have it appear that
there was no spirit of co-operation, or, much less,
a possibility of getting the local police forces
throughout the country to unite, for the detection
of offenders. Our c3temporary would have the
public believe, that a felon
or an who escapes from
y TO to rehedrtaoa of
wnofbLeiang
n-
Yapoprkresillted,
edneiendthbise,
cashire !
Such statements are palpibly untrue, and y
very little for their author's love of veracity.
Thesa-
local police forces are always ready to obey the