The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-26 00:00:00

gerhnot recollecting anysuch opinion to betherein expressed, him to strike at the root almost of private property itself ;
and fearing that the right hon. gentleman might inadver- because if any public. advantage could be shown to arise
tently have referred to some " Board of Trade" copy not from taking away private property, he could not see why
accessible to the general public--(laughter)—he had, there- that ground should not be equally applicable in that case
fore, referred to the work itself, and the passage which he as it was attempted to make it in the case of the property-
found there, ran thus :—" In estates held, as we call it, iu of corporate bodies. (Hear.) At all events, he was en-
mortmain there is no intercommunity, no natural privity ' titled to say that the principle upon which this bill was
of interest between the present possessor and those who bases would, if admitted, undermine all corporate property
may enceeed him ; and as the former cannot have any pre- throughout the kingdom ; and under the conviction that
text for complaint if, his own right being preserved, the such a measure was most dangerous and most mischievous,
legislature should alter the course of transmission after his he moved as an amendment that it be read a second time
decease, so neither is any hardship sustained by others un- that day six months. (Hear.)
lees their succession hes been already designated or ran- Sir F. BARING had been requested to second the
dered probable." Corporate property, therefore, appears amendment, and he hesitated not to do so in order to show
to stand on a very different footing from that of private
that the opposition to the principle of the bill was not con-
indiriduals and while all infriagements of the established
fined to the other side of the house. He objected to the
privileges of the latter are to be sedulously avoided, and
held justifiable only by the strongest motives of public ex- second reading on two grounds. First, he recognised in the
pediency, we cannot but admit the full right of the legis- bill a determination to interfere with the principle of self-
lature to new mould and regulate the former in all that management in local affairs—(hear)—and, secondly, he re-
does not involve existing contracts upon far slighter rea-
cognised in it what was more important, a carelessness of
sons of convenience."
private rights, a sacrifice of public and Parliamentary
Mr. LOWE explained that he had not professed to quote
the words of Mr. Hallam, but had only stated their effect. faith. (Hear, hear.) If hon. members would examine the
Sir F. THESIGEII would proceed to illustrate what he bill they would find that it proceeded upon the principle
had been saying with regard to corporations, by referring of intermeddling by the Government with local affairs.
to particular cased. He would, in the first place, take the (Hear.) It proposed to hand the collection of these dues
C4BO of Liverpool, because that was a case to which the
over to the Commissioners of Customs with no other check
right hon. gentleman himself had referred. The right hon.
gentleman said that the corporation of Liverpool received than that of the Government, the money to be paid over
125,0001. a-yeagehf, which sum they spent only 4,0001. upon to the Paymaster-General, to be expended at the discretion
matters connected with shipping. The right hon. gentle- of the Board of Trade. (Hear, hear.) He understood
man was not correct when he said that this sum was raised that the expenditure necessary for the benefit of the
entirely by shipping dues ; in fact, it was raised to a great shipping interest, that was, the expenditure requisite for
extent by an export and import duty. These local dues of keeping the harbours in proper order, was still to be paid.
Liverpool had most probably arisen from the petty cud- But who was to be the judge of what ought to be expended
tome, which in former times were levied by the King's for that purpose? It appeared that an estimate was to be
prerogative. These dues were frequently granted to indi- given in to the Board of Trade, and if they were satisfied,
viduals and to corporations, and one of the subjects of such then, and then only, the Paymaster. General would he
a grant was the corporation of Liverpool. In 1628 the cor- justified in making the necessary payments to the corpora-
poration purchased these dues for the very large sum of tions. Their sanction must, in fact, be obtained before any
374,989/. In 1635 they sold their rights to Lord elolyneux, improvement or repair could take place in any harbour.
the ancestor of the Earls of Sefton, who shortly afterwards Then the Board of Trade would have the power to abolish
purchased a fee farm rent which had been reserved out of or retain any tax upon any class of vessels within certain
the dues. In 1764 the then Lord Molyneux made a lease limits, without reference to the local authorities. There was
of the dues to the corporation of Liverpool for 1,000 years, another clause he looked upon with considerable jealousy.
and in 1777 the corporation purchased from Lord Moly • He was aware that there was an impression in some quartet s
neux the reversionary interest in fee, and they became the that the Government ought to havethemanagement of all the
absolute owners of the dues. In 1336, their title being mercantile harbours in the country, than which anything
then questioned, an action was brought to try the right, more ridiculous or more mischievoushe could scarcely inea-
and a decision was given in their favour. Since then the gine. Ho knewnot whethertheßoardof Trade, as at present
title had been unquestioned. Now if a corporation could constituted, was in fevers'. of that view ; but the knowledge
possess private property at all, he (Sir F. Thesiger) would that it obtained led him to regard with doubt the clause
like to know how a stronger title could be made out. Let which enacted that any tolls now levied by any of the ex-
the house suppose that those dues bad remained the pri- isting harbour authorities might be transferred to any
vate property of Lord Molyneux, and had descended to other harbours. Under that clause it appeared to him,
the Earl of Sefton ; would the right hon. gentleman say though he was not sure that he understood it correctly,
that the right to them ought not to have been preserved that the Board of Trade might advise an order in council
inviolable ? Would any one say that there was any dis- by which the tolls collected at one harbour might be trans-
tiaction between the right of the Earl of Sefton and that ferred to the improvement of another; so that the clause
of the corporation which purchased it from his ancestor might be worked with a view to the concentration of all
for a valuable consideration ? (Hear, hear.) What right the different arrangements and management of all the
had any one to say that they were not to continue in harbours into the Board of Trade. It was also proposed to
possession of their property ? It was paid for with the enable the board to grant superannuation allowances. That,
funds of the corporation, and for the benefit of the cerpo- within due limits, might be fair enough ; but whet he
ration. Bat the right bon. gentleman might say perhaps would suggest was this, as to the principle of the bill.
those.dues were given originally as a sort of trust for local There were two modes of conducting local business; one
purposes, such as maintenance of harbours ; but he (Sir F. by local authority—which was the principle of the consti-
Thesiger) would venture to assert that not one of the char- tntion of England ; the other by centralisation. In both
tars had been granted with that condition. He had seen there were advantages ; but in his opinion the balance of
many, and could not remember one in which any such con- advantage was largely in favour of the local authority
dition was inserted. On the other hand, the right hon. central authority, uncontrolled and unchecked by
gentleman assumed that such conditions existed, and that local interference, being, in his opinion, wholly unfitted
they had been violated. Ho passed new from Liverpool to for this country. (Hear.) But there was a third course,
another case that exhibited the injustice of this measure. which, without any of the advantages of the other two,
In 1774 the Hull Deck Company obtained an act for making was decidedly the most mischievous that the human ima-
their docks, with a power which was usual in those times, gination could devise ; that was a Mixed authority, nei-
of charging a double amount of dock dnee on foreign vessels. ther central nor local, but partaking of the two—neither
In 1842 they were about to enlarge their docks, but were being responsible to the other—neither knowing which was
afraid to incur the expense without previously making a muster, but both always contending for the supremacy.
permanent arrangement with the Government respecting The collection of the dues being transferred to the hands
their double dues. They put themselves iu communication of the Customs, under the control of the Board of Trade,
with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the local authorities would consider their rights infringed,
the Board of Ti ade (Messrs. Goulhurn and Gladstone), and and that they had been treated with injustice. Yet they
an arrangement was ultimately come to by which the Go- would have to act with that very central authority by
vernment redeemed the toll on foreign vessels by a pay- whom in their opinion the injustice had been perpetrated.
ment out of the consolidated fund equal to the average of This would occasion constant differences and constant re
five years' previous collection, which amounted to 6,3331. monstrances, and the result would be that before long a bill
- lie would ask the right hon. member for Oxford Univer- would come down to the house declaring the impoesibility of
city, whether that transaction was note an arrangement continuing this system pf divided authority, and proposing
deliberately entered into with the Government, and one by to place the whole of the management in the hands of the
which the Government wus a considerable gainer, seeing Board of Trade. He objected to the principle of the bill,
that the difference for the last fourteen years as against the therefore, in so far as it interfered with local self-manage-
corporation was 54,000/. ? Tho hon. and learned member ment. He objected also to the manner in which it was
having emoted the Treasury minute referring to this tram- proposed to deal with the corporate property and with the
action continued :—But the right hon. gentleman would pledged faith of Parliament. (Hear.) After the speech of
probably say that Hull was a case for which he had pro- the hon. and learned gentleman he would not go into the
vided, by permitting the levy of a toll wherever a pay- vexed question of how far legislative authority could go
ment had been made out of the consolidated fund, and in dealing with private property. No doubt Parliament
was withdrawn by the bill. Now, in the first place, he had the power to deal with private property. They might
had to reply, that this offer was not likely to be available by act of Parliament take away the property of any man,
to the Hull Dock Company, because they had been and of course they could do the same with the property of
great sufferers lately by competition, and if they raised corporations. But nothing could be more unwise or clan-
the toll they would infallibly drive away the ships. The gerous than to interfere with such property except upon
amount payable last year was 11,0001. and odd pounis, and the gravest grounds, or to. treat lightly the pledged faith
if the 6,0001. odd from the Treasury were taken away, the of Parliament. (Cheers.) Take the strongest cage in
company would be deprived of snore than half its net in- favour of the bill—that of the harbours of refuge. Rams-
come. The last illustration, and perhaps not the weakest gate was a harbour of refuge for ships in the Downs, but
case he should give, was the case of Bristol. The electors it was found so difficult to levy the dues that the commis-
there had dues to which they were entitled under a charter sioners recommended, and he concurred with them, that
from Edward IV., in the year 1412, and to be levied on they should no longer attempt it. But how were they to
goods exported and imported: There were also one or two deal with the people of Ramsgate ?It was not for tho pen-
fee farms which the Crown reserved, and which were after- ple of Ramsgate, or at their instigation, that the harbour
wards purchased by the" corporation. In the year 'Seri had been constructed. In consequence of: losses occasioned
the corporation, at fceir own expense, obtained an act of by a severe storm, the shipping interest of London prayed
Parliament enoteling them to alter and reduce the toll ; that there might be a harbour of refuge at Itaanseate for
and they reduced them accordingly from 5,0001. to 2,0001.; their benefit, and at their request it was constructed ; but
and they continued in that position until the passing of now they were told that the expense of maintaining it
the Municipal Reform Act. Their harbour was formed by could not properly or conveniently be levied on those for
a company in 1805. and to provide the necessary funds whose benefit the expeaditure was incurred. He admitted
the inhabitants of Bristol agreed to assess themselves in a that they ought to take off the passing tolls • but why
permanent rate to the annual amount of 2,4001. In make the unfortunate people of Ramsgate make good the
1818, the shipping interest being dissatisfied with the deficiency ? For all the purposes of their -trade the plan
management of the harbour and the docks, they requested which they propoeed before the harbour of ref age was formed
the corporation to purchase tee rights and interests of the was sufficient, and if a job had been perpetrated it was not
cenapany. The corporrt;jon-agreed, and the arrangement theirs, but the Government's, and the Government was
' was carried out in ,the Dock Act of 1848, by which the bound to take the burden upon itself. Then with regard to
ratepayers wereeletund to makeup any deficiency that the reciprocity payments. These were made, not for the ad-
might occur in satisfying the claim of the company. The vantage of the corporations, but for the benefit of trade and
inhabitants seeped to an assessment of 1,4001. in order to commerce; and the question was now, not whether the
supply the deficiency. Subsequently 70,0001. was spent money should go into the pockets of the shipping interest,
in the repairs of the docks, and it was all gnaranteed out but whether it should be paid over to the Chancellor of the
of the borough fund. Now here was one of the cases in Exchequer. On what right did these reciprocity payments
which her Majesty's Government would strip the corpora- rest? On eld charters—on constant payment—on the deci-
tiou of all local dues derived either under charter or by sions of courts cf law, and on the authority of repeated acts
voluntary assessment of the inhabitants. The right hon. of Parliament. (Hear.) The acts of Parliament by which
gentleman might say that this was an exceptional case and these payments were sanctioned wet-u not old and obsolete
would be provided for, but they should not have excep- their dates were 1818, 1838, 1842 L and 1852. Nor were they
tional cases. The question was one of principle, and on passed by light or trifling men. The tint was passed by
principle it ought to be decided. The case of Bristol was Mr. Huskisson, and the latter ones by Sir R. Peel—both
identical with that of
,Liverpool, only that there was a men wile cared for the public interest, and who would not
trivial difference in the mode in which the right to levy have allowed the claim unless they had believed it to he
was derived. Ho was ;dealing with the principle which just. Was it fair or just, when these public bodies had given
the right honourable gentleman had boldly put forward, up certain rights on the faith of acts of Parliament, that
namely, that a corporation, because it was a corporation, they should now he met with some such argument as that
could hold no private property. He would now return to " the river can't flow higher than its source, and that these
the right hon. gentleman's precedents. The light hon. gen- reciprocity cases are waste paper ?" He was told that if the
tlernan had quoted the case of the corporation of the Tri- question wore how to be argued, no compensation would bo
pity Bosse, but that was a corporation of exclusively a granted: Upon that point he thought he might leave it
public character.-- It had been incorporated by Henry VIII., to the noble lord (Palmerston) to defend Mr. Huskisson,
and received its present charter in thoreign of James 11. It whose follower to a certain extent he was. Sir. Huskis-
was composed of 31 elder brethren and an indefinite num- son effected great reforms, but in doing so he never inter-
ber of younger brethren, the latter to be composed of per- fared with the property of others. But in dealing with
eons who had been commanders of merchant ships. But no these reciprocity payments they had not even the excuse
individual member had any right in the funds, which that they were relieving the shipping interest. They took
were etrictly for public objects. In 1853, an application was away from the corporations the nweey which they were
made from the Board of Trade that the Trinity House entitled by act of Parliament to receive, and put it into
should cease to collect for charitable objects. It appeared their (the Government's) own pockets. This was endan-
that the corporation had applied some of their surplus funds gering the confidence of the public in the good faith of the
to the relief of decayed mariners and their families, but Legislature and the Government. It had been suggested
the Treasury decided Viet these charities communicated no that the matter might be settled by a compromise. But
vested rights. He had been surprised to hear the right hon. how could any reliance be placed by such a compromise,
gentleman quoting the Case of the Trinity House in sup- when the faith of Parliament could not be trusted—when
port of his view. He (Sir F. Thesiger), en-the other head, that which the Legislature guaranteed iu 1852 was reversed
held it to be a case going entirely for the view which he sup- in 1556 ? (Hear.) He would not enter upon the qnestion of
ported ; for in it was marked most broadly the distinction compensation. He believed they cool I not do justice with-
between vestal rights and powers conferred merely for out going into every case separately. The principle of the
public objects. Another argument put forward by the bill was wrong, and it could scot be carried out without
right hon. gentleman was, that all the vested rights of the injustice. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Lowe) has told
corporations were destroyed by the passing of the Munici- them that the shipping interest would be relieved by this
pal Reform Act he 1835, by which the property was taken bill to the extent of 200,0001. a year; but he (Sir F. Baring)
. from the corporation and given to others. The right hon. would like to know on what principle of political economy
gentleman was unhappy in his selection of arguments. Ea he made that out? (Hear.) Were they to be now told by
(Sir F. Thesiger) would venture tombnsit to the considers- those who, when the question was the repeal of the corn
Con of the house, that the 5 and 6of Wm. IV. was one of laws, contended that the tax fell upon the public, that this
the strongest grounds for insisting on the finality of all ar- burden was borne by the shipping interest ? (Cheers.) He
. rangements respecting corporate property. (Hear.) They would like to know whether the right hon. gentlemaa the
knew that corporations had originally had certain privf- member for Manchester eudoised that doctrine. The case
, loges and franchises, and that by degrees their privileges of the Manchester consumer was that he paid what he had
, were monopolised by close bodies. Such a state of things no right to pay, not that the shipping interest paid it ; and
*as remedied by-the Corporation Reform Bill which tool it was to relieve the commerce that, as he understood, the
the revenues from these close bodies and placed them under change was demanded. (Hear.) Then the shipping interest
the control of the burgesses at large. That was the view was in no very great distress. The Chancellor of the Ex-
of Lord Brougham, who called the measure restitution, chequer elated on Friday that the general reduction in the
not spoliation, andby the noble lord the member for Lon- customs and excise was about two millions, and be gave
don, who said that municipal fundsshould be appropriated reasons for the statement, showing that certain interests
to public municipal purposes. It Was so provided ex- were not going on altogether favourably ; bat when he came
pressly in the 92d section of the act, which declared that to the shipping interest his countenance brightened, and
all tolls and dues should become part of the borough fund. he declared that more
shipping- had hone out of British
Should there be any surplus after the specific object for ports, and snore ships had been built during the last year,
which the rate was levied had been carried oat, the surplus than for many previous years. That interest, therefore,
was to be applied for the general benefit of the inhabitants they might presume had gone on very well of late, notwith-
and the improvement of the borough. So that the tolls were standing their heavy burdens of local dues. Not that if
by the Corporation Reform Bill conferred on the boroughs the tax were unjust that would be any reason for retaining
- as-part of their property. (Hear.) The right hon, gentle- it. But what he wanted to know was, whether they were
man might probably urge filet this provision was admitted to again proceed upon the principle introduced last year at
into the bill by an 'oeereiglrt, lent the fact was that it was the instigation of the Manchester school, when the only in-
most carefully discussed and deliberately inserted in clause terest relieved from taxation dining the war was the news-
-32 of the bill. How then, in the face of such precedents, paper interest, which was doing very well ? (Hear.) It
could the right hen. gentleman maintain the right of might possibly have been as well to allow the bill to be
the Government to confiscate the property of corporate read a second time, and take the division in the commit.
hodies ? lie (Sir F. Thesiger) defied any one to make a tee ; but looking at the measure as one striking at the
distinction between the private property of an individual very root of local government, he should give his cordial
which was, for the present at least—(hear, hear)—invio- support to the amendment. (Cheers.)
labia, and that which having been the private property of The question and amendment having been put,
an individual had hubsequently become the private pro- Mr. LOWE said there was one point which the hon.
party of a corporation. Brat the right hon. gentleman had
exhibited considerable ingenuity in his mode of intro-
member -for Portsmouth had omitted in his speech against
ducing the question, having prefaced the objectionable the principles of this bill, viz., that the borough of Ports-
principle with two short clauses, on which, as he doubted month received in local dues 3,8001. on goods shipped at
not, there would be very little difference of opinion, thus that port, which he supposed had some effect on the hon.
as it were, making a covert from which he might dart out
upon his prey. The right hon. gentleman hoped in that way gentleman and in some measure accounted for a ent
to obtain the second reading of the bill, and then turn man- sitting' on that side of the house voting against the
round to the house and say, " You have already acknow- bill. (Hear, hear, from Sir F. Baring.) The right hon.
' lodged the principle of confiscation." Had the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Lowe) complained that F. Thesiger had
"
gentlenaan confined his legislation to passing tolls he wolt put statements into his mouth which he might look in
have met with little opposition, but he used theeeintes. bill vain for through his speech, viz., that he maintained the
to mask his real object. But let 0 hon. member bedecetved absolute right of the Government to take corporate pro'
by this contrivance ; the object of the Government was, by
introducing these comparatively unobjectionable clause, party and apply it to its own use ; and, further, that the
, object of the bill was to take away these dries from the
the better to cask the principle of confiscation and spoil
He knew he addressesrhonourable members, some of teickhporations, and not to abolish them, but to confiscate
whom had been instiucted by their constituents' to oppose tijoheei:i of these corporations, anti never restore it. If
hon, and learned gentleman bed referred to his (Mr.
these Liverpool local (Intim ; but let them net flatter them- sreli, he would have found, though possibly not so
selves that if the Government measure were earned their fully ex as it might have been, What really was the
constituents would he relieved. The object was not to objector t11:17 Theobject of this bill was there stated to
abolish the rate, lene to transfer the collection to the Board be to prevent the harbourefrow being in danger hereafter of
of Trade, so that if the right hon. gentleman carried his being starved, so to speak, by the sudden withdrawal of
hill the constituents of the hon. members would not be in funds, and also withad reßredbtoll the interests of the
the slightest degree benefited. He begged to remind the creditors of the corporations.
representatives of. inland eorpora,tions. that, although nn recommendations of a commission, on Thfir the
dhen the
attempt was made now to interfere with their property, able and learned gentleman had Ini'otesne'wl ored. enle`lteltrt-
atill if this precedent wore once permitted to be established commission recommended the abolitionuofenthsewsh dues, and
it would be hardly possible to protect them from eonfisca- , the question the Government had to consider in carrying
h
lion. They would find out, probably, that all the favour out the recommendations o t coretrniesione
they had obtained by theihenhee„n to the Government that could best be accomplished. (Hear.) Trhgewiausiestcotwitil
was the melancholy privilege once awarded to the Greeian wee one of a peculiar nature o(hear)—surrou
chief, of whom they all bed reed, that of being devoured tlifficultiee, and having to deal with a vast numberl(a'ofw n
last. (A laugh.) He therefore most earnestly entreeted successful' corporations for whom it would bonecessaryilto-
them to stop at ifee commencerneut a course which, in the lay down certain regulations., In doing that it was impos_
cud, might be fatal to themselves. (Hear, hear.) Ho had sible for the Goverement to foresee all that might be
thus endeavoured to place before the house all the cirenm- brought forward with reference to the working
stances under under which it appeared to hire impossible to r
sure, and the only ale they could lay down in reference to
Maintain thq principle upon which the bill was based; and this measure was, that whilst they did good, to take care
ho confesseß that he wee at aloes to know whether he was they did not commit an injustice to either interest cons more astonished at the measure itself than at the arguments I cerned, and it was on that prineiple that the Powers corn-
which had been brought f9zward in its support, The plainest of with reference to the creditors of municipal cor-
sure was intended toOake away from these corporations'
porations were adopted. He should be most happy to
property to which they were entitled be, charter, by Acts aboliee these dues at once, but it was not considered fair,
pt padiara3nt, 157 public agreement, and by immemorial I and hence it was that the dues with reference to these cot.
ogisision, anti that upon argaminta which appmted to paste towns were to he devotett under this bill to the Pte;