The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-04-21 00:00:00

Thp J. NODDER,

HATTER,

81, CHURCH-STREET,

Begs respectfully to inform the Nobility and Gentry of Liver-
pool that his NEW STYLES for the Season are NOW READY
for Inspection.

Eiy,e 1304trn 4rittieo

MONDAY, APRIL 21, 1856

IF any special argument in favour of an imme-
diate and sweeping Parliamentary Reform is
wanted, it may be found in the fact, that there is
a select Municipal Spoliation Committee sitting at
this moment under the same roof with the
representatives of the property—vested and con-
stitutional rights of the subject. When the rights
of property are aisailed by the legislature, the
reform of that body becomes a simple matter of
justice—the urgency of the case demanding prompt
and vigorous action. The port and town of Liver-
pool have been pitched upon by" particular desire,"
to illustrate the social anomalies and abomina-
tion of a system just as we ,said they would be.
The Committee commenced, their enquiry by calling
on Manchester as an approver, who will continue
to blast the fair fame of the Mersey, as a matter
of course, and will end with inflicting on Liverpool
a heavy blow and great discouragement, as a
natural sequence. We have, however, lost nothing
by the honour conferred upon us by being made to
take precedence of all the rotten and intolerable
municipalities of Great Britain. There are some
sights too revolting for our public executioner,
and by some singular contrariety in the weakness
of corrupt nature ; there are false witnesses who
cannot smother truthrand prevent its escaping their
lips, even when they know it must demolish the
fabric of their evidence, and secure to their victim
a restoration to freedom and civil rights.
Such metaphors, when sustained by analogous
circumstances, assume a complexion of reality,
which robs satire of its bitterness ; and to give our ,

simile all, the gravity of truth, we will take Mr.
HERON'S testimony before the Common's Com-
mittee on Town's Dues. That gentleman was sent
to London' to bind and scourge Liverpool. ' The
Committee did not want him to disclose facts which
would, in these enlightened times, render any

further enquiry into the -riaatter under discussion
a solemn mockery and a public outrage. Yet Mr.
HERON, after years of practice in legally burking
Liverpool, could not for the life of him silence or
put truth to death. The recollection of the but-
cheries of fact in which he had 'played the
leading part overpowered his love of perversion,
and he was obliged, on the scaffold raised for the
extermination of public morality, to confess
that, " there is a return, which was made in 1854,
that will show that the dues are claimed, first by
prescription ; secondly, by royal charter ; anti,
" thirdly, by purchase from the crown. In 1628,
" Charles I. conveyed the manor of Liverpool to the
" corporation of London for a sum of about 7001. ;
`` the property was afterwards conveyed from the
" corporation of London to that of Liverpool,

through a lease from the Molyneux family, an- ces-

" tors:Jo the present Earl of Sefton. In 1833 it was
" decided in the case of the Mayor and Corporation
i` of Liverpool v. Bowden, which was an
.` action brought to try the rights of the

' corporation, that the title of the corporation
of Liverpool was good in law and equity,
" and since then their right had not been disputed."
Here the Committee ought to have decided that
and that they

Manchester had no

'us stand;

themselves have no such unconstitutional power
vested in them as to deprive the subject of those
rights of property which one of the superior
courts of law had declared " was good in law and
" equity:7

Parliament does not respect such titles, what
becomes of the stability and value of property
within its jurisdiction? Who will venture to pur-
chase lands with no better title than prescription,
royal charter, or purchase from the Crown ?
According to the Manchester doctrine, the greater
the income derived through time from such rights
the stronger the plea for their demolition ! It was
not until they became worth having, in our case,
that our neighbours thought it advisable to get
them taken away, and they commence by recount-
ing the growth of our trade as if it were a disgrace
to be industrious, and measure the expansions of our
commerce as if to make a Committee of the House of
Commons believe it is a crime to be thrifty and
rich. Mr. HERON told the Committee that, "in
" 1700 the population of Liverpool was 5,714 ; in
" 1831, it was 165,000; and was now very little
" short of 350,000. In 1753, the Dock Dues of
" Liverpool were 2,0341. 16s. 2d., in 1803 they
" were 28,0271. l 35. 4cl. ; in 1833 they were 182,9801.
" 16s. 4d. ; in 1851 they were 235,527/. 2s. 6d.
" The Parliamentary Committee that sat on the
" Dock Dues last year, proved that the Dock
" Dues were nearly 380,0001. In 1731, the Town
" Dues were 6481. 116 s. 3d. ; in 1801 they were
19,728/. 3s. sd. ; in 1833 they were 47,007/. 14s
" 2d. ; in 1847 they were nearly 100,0001. ; in
" 1855 they were nearly 150,0001.; of which sum,
" 125,000/. found its way into the coffers of the
" Corporation of Liverpool." This statement
of the nation's • progress ought to have called
forth from the tribunal to which it was ad-
dressed three hearty cheers for Liverpool, and
" one cheer more" for the Mersey.
A parental Government can never hear too much
of the-growth of those who intrust them with' the
management of their temporal affairs. We will
therefore supply what Mr. HERON has intentionally
withheld from Parliament and the Cabinet. Mr.
HERON has shown our progression in Dock
Dues from 1753 to 1851, and in Town Dues
from 1731 to 1855. The figures are almost too
disheartening for a Town Clerk to contemplate
while his hands are kept within his own
breeches pockets. Still he must hear us talk
of gorgeous revenues which he can never
finger. ; and as he is the author of his own torments,
we will ask him to reflect, for one moment, on
the startling fact, that as the Town Dues
increased from 6481. to 19,7281., between the years
1731 and 1831, the tonnage of the port of Liverpool
also increased from 45,073 to 459,720 tons, and
from 1833, when the Dues amounted to 47,0071.,
to 1847, when they. were "nearly" 100,0001., our,
shipping had increased from 1,609,020 to about
3,300,000 tons, which in 1855, when the Dues
reached 125,0001., had grown to upwards of
4,000,000 tons ! It is not Mr. HERON'S business to
make out a case for Liverpool, if he can help it,
but we simply ask him to prove that our Town
and Dock Dues have kept pace with the ratio
of increase which has taken place in the tonnage
of this port, and the commercial prosperity of the
northern counties? Taking that gentleman's own
figures, it will be seen that for our Town and Dock
income, amounting to 505,0001., we can show over
4,000,000 tons of shipping annually. To endanger
any portion of this vast amount of trade, by tampering
with its foundation, would be one of the most
impolitic and iniquitous acts ever attempted by
any legislative body.
All the money we have received from Town Dues
has been applied to legitimate purposes. Even
Mr. HERON admits that " shipping could be
" benefitted but to a very limited extent by those
" Dues." And yet Manchester complains that these
Dues are not applied to shipping purposes, and
asks to have them transfered to the Board of
Trade, that they may be applied, with the exception
of a promised saving of 50,0001. per annum, to ship-
ping uses. Manchester men also talk largely
about the hardship of paying ordinary borough
expenses out of this source of income. But have
we not as much right to employ money derived
from a world-wide commerce to corporate purposes,
as the council of Manchester has to charge the
poor working artizan one shilling per thousand
feet more for his gas than the wealthy manu-
facturer pays, and apply the proceeds to making
parks, gardens, and wide streets for the rich ?
Turn, again, to the Corporation of London,
with its "population of 128,000 !persons,"
and princely revenue of 1,000,0001. per annum,
which includes town dues and shipping tolls, as
well as those of corn, cattle, meat and fish markets,
which are not only applied to the support of
prisons, police, repairing streets, and other strictly
corporate purposes, but " from which," we are told,
" Metropolitan improvements in Coventry street,
" Longaere, New Oxford-street, Southwark, Spital-
" fields, —and ,Clerkenwell, have been effected,"
Has Manchester no trade with London and the
Thames, which is unmercifully taxed to create a
corporate revenue ? Has Mr. HERON no statistics
to bring against Metropolitan Town Dues col-
lectors. Dock-joh.bers,*nd Corporate prodigality ?
ABroerotuheghriognhltys,
tohfaptr
mopaenrethye
itote.
rlo,se ve violated
mi n a
y thisb be,
gratified ? Manchester shares largely in the benefit
of every improvement made in Liverpool ; and if
her agitators are not satisfied With .their bargain,
it would be better for the House of Commons to
recommend them to take their trade-Where they
can obtain better accommodation for less money,
than to encourage a spirit of spoliation in the
country, of which no man living can see the end._