The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-02-26 00:00:00

TIM TASMANTAN LEGISLATURE

In reply to Mr. T. DIINCOMBE,
Mr. LABOUCEIEUE said that government considered that
Sir John Young had acted improperly in proroguing the
legislative assembly of Tasmania, pending the appoint-
ment of a committee to inquire into the convict system of
that colony.

-----, -
The report of the committee of supply and the com-
mittee of ways and means were brought up aril agreed
to.

• SMITHFIELD MARET.
Mr. KER SEYMER asked whether K
it was the intention of
the Government to sanction the establishment of a dead-
market on the site of the late Smithfield market.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Govern-
ment had left the matter in the hands of three members
of the Government, who would make a report.

THE CRIMEA COMMISSION.
Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice 1 N hat to-morrow he would ask
the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would have
any objection to give the names of the commissioners on
the Crimean army report, and whether he would object
to produce the commission itself.

LOCAL DUES ON SHIPPTNG BILL

On the motion for the second reading of the local dues
on shipping bill,

Sir. F. THESIGER moved that it be read a second time
that day six months. The objects of the bill, were, he
said, to take local dues on shipping from the corporations,
to devote them to the purposes of the government, and to
abolish altogether deferential dues. He contested the
right of the ministry to take away the property of the
corporations, and disputed the statement of the vice-
president of the Board of Trade that they were justified
in
.dealing differently with corporations and private
individuals when the interest of the public was con-
cerned. In many cases, and amongst them Liverpool,
the local dues belong to the corporations
by purchase from the crown, and that, he contended,
gave them as much title to the property as could be pos-
sessed by an individual. He wished to ask by what right
then, the public was entitled to rob corporations of
property bought with the funds of the corporation for
the benefit of members of the corporation. He also
referred to the cases of Hull and Bristol, as instances
where this bill would act with injustice, the dues being, in
the first case, secured by an arrangement with the govern
ment, by which the Hull dock company lost about
£50,000 a year, and in the second, given by charter from
Edward IV., of which £6,000 a year was applied to
maritime purposes. The Vice-president of the Board of
Trade had quoted, in favour of his bill, the Municipal
Reform Act, but he (Sir F. Thesiger) relied upon the same
act for support against the bill, and showed from words
in the Municipal Reform Act, that its object was to 'take
from individuals, privileges they had unfairly obtained, and
to place them in the hands of the whole community, for
whom they were originally intended.
Sir F. BARING seconded the amendment upon similar
grounds to those given by Sir F. Thesiger.

Mr. Lows defended the measure, and observed that it
was founded upon the report of a committee that had sat
on the subject. The object of the bill was to abolish
" Passing Tolls," the expediency of which no one denied,
because the loss fell upon corporations not rich enough
to obtain the assistance of such learned advocates, as the
hon. and learned gentleman opposite (Sir F. Thesiger.)
It also provided for the abolition of local dues on ship-
ping. He observed that the term property ought not to
be applied in reference to local dues, which were paid to
corporations without any equivalent being given to the
contributors, and showed the inequality with which they
were levied in Manchester, which contributed 480,000 a
year to the borough fund while Liverpool claimed to be ex-
empt. With regard tothe difference between individuals and
corporations he held that corporations were the creatures
of public utility, and the distinction—which was not of
his drawing—had always been acknowledged by the laws
of this country. He had no doubt as to the power of
Parliament in that case to remove by one act what it had
granted by an act, and the only question, therefore, was
as to the expediency of the step. He urged the injustice
of allowing Liverpool to collect £105,000 a year from
shipping, of which sum only f.. 3,000 a-year was spent for
maritime purposes, and that in violation of the act by
which the grant was made. This he considered was
sufficient to prove the expediency of making an alteration
with regard to the local dues. In reference to the cases
of Hull and Bristol, cited by Sir F. Thesiger, he said that
the honourable and learned gentleman had selected two
cases in which, from very special circumstances, the
operations of the act did not apply, and it was the inten-
tion of the Government to introduce a special clause in
reference to them. He maintained that the committee
had done its duty in boldly reporting upon the question of
these dues, and that the Government had done its duty in
bringing: the bill before Parliament, and in meeting the
storm of local interest and party opposition, which it was
sure to give rise to

Mr. HortsrALL supported the amendment, and in refer.
ence to the borough of Liverpool, observed that only
£lOOO of the local dues were levied on shipping, and
£104,000 ©n goods, adding that Manchester had adopted,
in 1845, the very principle laid down by Liverpool in
1777, and was now employing the surplus of its dues to
the reduction of its borough rates. He referred to a
meeting at the St. George's Hall, at which the very persons
who had contested the local dues with the Corporation of
Liverpool in 1833, when he said it was clearly proved that
the corporation was entitled to the dues, and the mer-
chants assembled merely suggested modifications which
the members of the corporations expressed their readiness
to consider. In conclusion, the hon. member expressed a
hope that the House would reject the measure, and there-
by secure to themselves, what he believed they then
possessed, the respect and confidence of the country.
Mr. RIDLEY, in a maiden speech, opposed the motion,