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

him to etrike at the root almost of private property itself ;
because if any public advantage could be shown to arise
h
from taking away private property, he could
that ground should not be equally applica not see why
in that case
as it was attempted to make it in the case of the property
of corporate bodies. (Hear.) At all events,
he was
was
sen-
titled to say that the principle upon which
based would, if admitted, undermine all corporate
property
throughout the kingdom ; and under the conviction that
such a measure was most dangerous and most mischievous,
he moved as an amendment that it be read a second time
that day six months. (Hear.)
Sir F. BARING had been requested to second the
amendthent, and he hesitated not to do so in order to show
that the opposition to the principle of the bill was not con-
lined to the other side of the house. He objected to the
second, reading on two grounds. First, he recognised insthlfe.
bill a determination to interfere with the principle of e
management in local affairs—(hear)—and, secondly, he re-
cognised in it what was more important, a carelessness of
private
rights, and a sacrifice of public and Parliamentary
faith. (Hear, hear.) If hon. members would examine the
bill they would find that it proceeded upon the principle
of intermoddling by the Government with local affairs.
(Hear.) It proposed to hand the collection of these dues
over to the Commissioners of Customs with no other check
than that of the Government, the money to be paid over
to the Payma;ster-General, to be expended at the discretion
of the Board of Trade. (Hear, hear.) He understood
that the expenditure necessary for the benefit of the
shipping interest, that was, the expenditure requisite for
keeping the harbours in. proper order, was still to be paid.
But who was t be thejudge of what ought to be expended
or that purposo
e? It appeared that an estimate was to be
f given ire to the Board of Trade, and if they were satisfied.
then, and then only, the Paymaster-General would be
us
.) • tified in making the necessary payments to the corpora-
tions. Their sanction must, in fact, be obtained before any
improvement or repair could take place in any harbour.
Then the Board of Trade would' have the power to abolish
or retain any tax upon any class of vessels within certain
limits, without reference to the local authorities. There was
another clause he looked upon with considerable jealousy.
He was aware that there was andmpression in some quarter
that the Government ought to have the management of all the
mercantile harbours in the country, than which anything
asoreridiculous or more mischievous he could scarcely ima-
gine. He knewnot whether theßeardof Trade, as at present
constituted, was in favour of that view ; but the knowledge
that it obtained led him to regard with doubt the clause
which enacted that any tolls now levied by any of the ex-
isting harbour authorities might be transferred to any
other harbours. Under that clause it appeared to him,
though he was not sure that he understood it correctly,
that the Board of Trade might advise an order in council
by which the tolls collected at one harbour might be trans-
ferred to the improvement of another; so that the clause
might be worked with a view to the concentration of all
the different arrangements and management of all the
harbours into the Board of Trade. It was also proposed to
enable the board to grant superannuation allowances. That,
within due limits, might be fair enough ; but what he
would suggest was this, as to the principle of the bill.
There were two modes of conducting local business ; one
by local authority—which was the principle of the consti-
tution of England ; the other by centralisation. In both
there were advantages ; but in his opinion the balance of
advantage was largely in favour of the local authority
central authority, uncontrolled and unchecked by
local interference, being, in his opinion, wholly unfitted
for this country. (Hear.) Bat there was a third course,
which, without any of the advantages of the other two,
was decidedly the most mischievous that the human ima-
gination could devise ; that was a mixed authority, nei-
ther central nor local, but partaking of the two—neither
being responsible to the other—neither knowing which was
master, but both always contending for the supremacy.
The collection of the dues being transferred to the hands
of the Customs, under the control of the Board of Trade,
the local authorities would consider their rights infringed,
said that they had been treated with injustice. Yet they
would have to act with that very" central authority by
whom in their opinion the injustice had been perpetrated.
This would occasion constant differences and constant ro
monstrances, and the result would be that before long a bill
would come down to the house declaring the impossibility of
continuing this system of divided authority, and proposing
to place the whole of the management in the hands of the
Board of Trade. He objected to the principle of the bill,
therefore, in so far as it interfered with local self-manage-
ment. He objected also to the manner in which it was
proposed to deal with the corporate property and with the
pledged faith of Parliament. (Hear.) After the speech of
the hon. and learned gentleman he would not go into the
vexed question of how far legislative authority could go
in dealing with private property. No doubt Parliament
had the power to deal with private property. They might
by act of Parliament take away the property of any man,
and of course they could do the same with the property of
corporations. But nothing could be more unwise or dan-
gerous than to interfere with such property except upon
the gravest grounds, or to treat lightly the pledged faith
of Parliament. (Cheers.) Take the strongest case in
favour of the bill—that of the harbours of refuge. Rams-
gate was a harbour of refuge for ships in the Downs, but
it was found so difficult to levy the dues that the commis-
sioners recommended, and ho concurred with them, that
they should no longer attempt it. Bat how were they to
deal with the people of Ramsgate ? It was not for the peo-
ple of Ramsgate, or at their instigation, that the harbour
had been constructed. In consequence of losses occasioned
by a severe storm, the shipping interest of London prayed
that there might be a harbour of refuge at Ramsgate for
their benefit, and at their request it was constructed ; but
now they were told that the expense of maintaining it
could not properly or conveniently be levied on those for
whose benefit the expenditure was incurred. He admitted
that they ought to take off the passing tolls ; but why
make the unfortunate people of Ramsgate make good the
deficiency ? For all the purposes of their trade the plan
which they proposed before the harbour of refuge was formed
was sufficient, and if a job had been perpetrated it was not
theirs, but the Government's, and the Government was
bound to take the burden upon itself. Then with regard to
the reciprocity payments. These were made, not for the ad-
vantage of the corporations, but for the benefit of trade and
commerce; and the question was now, not whether the
money should go into the pockets of the shipping interest,
hut whether it shoult be paid over to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. On what right did these reciprocity payments
rest? On eld charters—on constant payment—on the deci-
sions of courts of law, and on the authority of repeated acts
of Parliametit. (Hear.) The acts of Parliament by which
these payments were sanctioned were not old and obsolete ;
their dates were 1818, 1838, 1812, and 1852. Nor were they
passed by light or trifling men. The first was passed by
Mr. Hnskisson, and the latter ones by Sir R. Peel—both
men who cared for the public interest, and who would not
have allowed the claim unless they had believed it to be
just. Was it fair or just, when these public bodies had given
up certain rights on the faith of acts of Parliament, that
they should now be met with some such argument as that
" the river can't flow higher than its source, and that these
reciprocity cases are waste paper?" He was told that if the
question were now to be argued, no compensation would be
granted- Upon that point he thought he might leave it
to the noble lord (Palmerston) to defend Mr. Huskisson,
whose follower to a certain extent he was. Mr. Huskis-
soh effected great reforms, hut in doing so he never inter-
fered with the property of others. But in dealing with
these reciprocity payments they had not even the excuse
that they were relieving the shipping interest. They took
away from the corporations the money which they were
entitled by act of Parliament to receive, and put it into
their (the Government's) own pockets. This was endan-
gering the confidence of the public in the good faith of the
Legislature and the Government. It had been suggested
that the matter might be settled by a compromise. But
how could any reliance be placed by such a compromise,
when the faith of Parliament could not be trusted—when
that which the Legislature guaranteed in 1852 was reversed
in 1856? (Hear.) He would not enter upon the question of
compensation. He believed they coul 1 not do justice with-
out going into every case separately. The principle of the
bill was wrong, and it could not be carried out without
injustice. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Lowe) bad
them that the ehippine interest would be relieved by this
bill to the extent of 200,000 re a year; but he (Sir F. Baring)
would like to know on what prinoiple of political economy
he made that out? (Hear.) Were they to he now told by
those who, when the question was the repeal of the corn
lows, contended that the taxi ell upon the public, that this
harden was borne by the sh'epping interest ? (Cheers.) He
would like to know whetyr the right hon. gentleman the
member for Manchester endorsed that doctrine. The case
of the Manchester consumer was that he paid what ho had
ro right to pay, not, that the shipping interest paid it and
it was to relieve the commerce that, as he understood, the
change was demanded. (Hear.) Then the shipping interest
was in no very great distress. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer stated on Friday that the general reduction in the
customs and excise was about two millions, and he gave
reasons for the statement, showing that certain interests
were net going on altogether favourably ; but when he came
to the shipping interest his countenance brightened, and
he declared that more shipping had gone out of British
ports, and more ships had been built during the last year,
than for many previous years. That interest, therefore,
they might presume had gone on very well of late, notwith-
standing their heavy burdens of local dues. Not that if
the tax were unjust that would he any reason for retaining
it. But what he wanted to know was, whether they were
to again proceed upon the principle introduced last year at
the instigation of the Manchester school, wken the only in-
terest relieved from taxation during the war was the news-
paper interest, which was doing very well? (Hear.) It
might possibly hive been as well to allow the bill to be
rend a second time, and take the division in the commit-
tee; but looking at the measure as one striking at the
very root of local government, he should give his cordial
support to the amendment. (Cheers.)
The question and amendment having been pat,
Mr. LOWE said there was one point which the hon.
member for Portsmouth had omitted in his speech against
the principles of this bill, viz., that the borough of Ports-
mouth received in local dues 3,8001. on goods shipped at
that port, which he supposed had some effect on the hon.
gentleman, and is some measure accounted for a gentle-
man sitting en that side of the house voting against the
bill. (Hear, hear, frona.Sir F. Baring.) The right hon.
gentleman (Mr. Lowe) complained that Fir F. Thesiger had
put statements into his mouth which he night look in
vain for through his speech, viz., that he maintained the
absolute right of the Government to take corporate pro'
perty and apply it to its own ine ; and, further, that the
object of the bill was to take away these dues from the
corporations, and not to abolish them, but to confiscate
the money of these corporations, and never restore it. If
the hon. and learned gentleman had referred to his (Mr.
Lowe's) speech, he would have found, though possibly not so
fully explanatory as it might have been, what really Was the
object of this bill. The object of this bill was there stated to
be to prevent the harbours from being in danger hereafter of
being starved, so to speak, by the sudden withdrawal of
funds, and also with a due regard to the interests of the
creditors of the corporation. The bill was founded on the
recommendations of a commission, on which the honour-
able and learned gentleman had not said one word. That
commission recommended the abolition of these dues, and
the question the Government had to consider in carrying
out the recommendations of the commissioners was how
that could best be accomplished. (Hear.) The question
was one of a peculiar nature- -(hear)—surrounded with
difficulties, and having to deal with a vast number of un-
successful corporations, for whom it would be necessary to
jay down certain regulations. In doing that it was impos-
sible for the Government to foresee all that might be
brought forward with reference to the working of the mea-
sure, and the only rule they could lay down in reference to
this measure was, that whilst they (lid good, to take care
they did not commit an injustice to either interest con-
cerned, and it was on that principle that the powers coin-
plained of with reference to the creditors of municipal cor-
porations were adopted. He should be most happy to
abolish these dues at once, but it was not considered fair,
sierd hence it was that the dues with reference to these cote
porsta tovcas were to be dovetail Mader this hill to the per;