The Sun.
London, England, 1856-03-05 00:00:00

THE LOCAL DUES 0 SEIIPIIING BILL.

(Prom th,e Examiner.)

fn the heat of the battle raised upon this bill Mr.
Lowe has been deserted by his colleagues. Whether or
not this was treatinenthe was entitled to expect may in
some degree appear from what we have to say of the
measure proposed.
It was one of two introduced on the part of the Go-
vernment, both of them thoroughly just and sound in
principle, and both explained to the House by the Vice-
President of the Board of Trade with unusual spirit and
Ability. The resolute opposition at once provoked by
the particular bill now abandoned was not such as should
nave occasioned any surprise. So much the Ministry
gad every reason to expect. On behalf not merely of
shipowners, but of the whole public, against the system
of taxing entire classes and communities by single
towns, its provisions were framed. It was to take
Away from certain corporations powers over other
people than themselves and their own townsmen,
leaving them simply power to rule over and rate
heir own locality. In other words, it took away a
profitable privilege*, and who could doubt that it
would therefore be called an act of spoliation ? It took
away a power; and, though this was only a power over
strangers, it was mere matter of course to expect that
the old cry of rescue should be raised for "local self-
government." That every town council concerned
would set a member on his legs to speak against the
measure, and that all the machinery of resistance brought
up commonly to make a stand for any corrupt system,
would certainly be directed against the Shipping Bill, it
required no conjuror to foresee.
It consisted perfectly with those old notions of coro-

mercial policy which -Sir Robert Peel overthrew that
Seaport towns, or towns upon great rivers, should be
allowed, quite after the manner of the middle ages, to
exact a tax or toll on passing traffic. Time was when our
kings, for a little ready money, sold or made grants of
their own dues in certain ports ; and in this way a few
towns obtained some privileges that were imperial
and by ne means municipal. For imperial rights that
now produce to the corporation of Liverpool 125,0001.
a year the original price was not more than 700/.,
for which payment the Molyneux family counted at
that time upon a return of sane 141. a-year from the pri-
vileges it secured to them. But the thing thus bought
was not land, neither was it capital. •It was a delegated
right to impose taxes upon ♦essels and cargoes, paid
partly by shipowners, and falling partly on the gene-
ral consumers of the goods so taxed. It was the far-
:fling of a public trust, falling with unjust and partial
incidents on particular classes, and hurtful to the
people at large. Yet this is the public tax to which
the C9rporation of Liverpool, through its advocate
Sir Frederic Thesiger and his ally Sir Francis Baring,
lays claim, at this time of day, as its inalienable
privet,- property, to build town halls with, to dine or
revel upon—in fact to do what it pleases with. Why, the
bare notion of a private right in such taxation is mon-
strous ; and marvellous is the power of face which would
claim it as a part of local self-government, and raise the
silly outcry of centralisation against the desire to repeal
it. The Crown itself is iu receipt of no inalienable tax,
and what it has not it cannot bestow.

Corporations are not ends but means, as it was pro-
perly shimn in the debate. Can it be pretended that to
oven what they claimed in their old and rotten state,
before the Municipal Act, the new corporations now
reigning in their stead can lay equal claim ? Prece-
dents of compensation are urged with much vehe-
mence, and such may undoubtedly have been just, as for
example in the case of the differential dues, iu b 0 far as
bhey made amends for clear acts of departure from the
ordinary course of legislation. But to the present
case they in no respect apply. The purpose of the
Shipping Bill was to bring up to the level of existing
legislation fragments of usage that should have become
obsolete years ago. Now that the day of reckoning is
come, to have fattened on abuses so long uncorrected is
no ground for compensation, whatever of thankfulness
or remorse it may suggest for pars of overlooked and
unmeJested enjoyment.

' Nor had th; Government, acted in any baste in this
matter. The repudiated bill was founded upon recom-
mendations contained in the report of a commission which
inquired into the subject very carefully three years ago.
Many times also, before that date, the subject bad been
pressed upon the attention of the House ; and when Mr.
Labouchere several years ago proposed the repeal of the
navigation laws, it was objected against him that he did
not bring forward concurrently a measure of the very
character of this which Lord Palmerston has now aban-
doned. Already anticipating, moreover, the certainty
of such interference from the Legislature, the Liverpool
corporation has had the shrewdness to begin to borrow
money on these dues, instead of borrowing on other
available security ; and with great force and spirit Mr.
Lowe pointed to this fact as increasing the necessity for
immediate legislation. He warned the house that, if
they did not act at once, they would find themselves en-
tangled, when the inevitable time came, by charges
created expressly to embarrass the repeal. "We shall
find the question entangled in every possible way, and
its settlement must be postponed for an indefinite period.
I say the commission has done its duty in reporting
boldly and recommending what was good for the public.
I say the Government has done its duty in bringing in
this measure ;"—and we say that Lord Palmerston has
not done his duty in flinging such a measure aside after
a single night's experience of active opposition.
The plea is that there are emnplex interests to take
into consideration. But if these hat not already been
considered why propose to legislate at all ? The com-
mittee is a mere pretence, a limbo to which the House is
not sorry to dismiss au inconveniently just and righteous
bill. It anything useful or honest were intended by
such a step, we should be quite disposed to ask, with
Mr. Disraeli, what necessity there can be for the House
of Commons to undertake the duties of the Cabinet ?