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

poses of shipping and the municipal corporation creditors,
and the surplus to go towards effecting their ultimate abo-
lition, and that was what the hon. and learned gentleman
had characterised as confiscation on the part of the Go-
vernment. (Hear.) • With regard to the passing tolls,
they unfortunately appeared to have no friends, but it was
only the municipal corporations affected by this bill that
had found a defender ; he considered the passing tolls
ought to be abolished, because it was an impost on ship-
ping from which that interest derived no corresponding
benefit. The hon. and learned gentleman, in his speech
on town dues, had spoken much of property, but he had
failed to give the house the slightest idea of what he con-
sidered property to consist in. The bill spoke only of
taxes, and not a word was mentioned in it of property.
The hon. and learned gentleman had not favoured the
house with his definition of what property was, whether it
was land or whether it was funds over which be bad a
control, or whether it was that for which a man could get
money, because es man might get money by saying to him
that, if he paid him a sum of money, he would tell him
where to find his stolen property, He could put a number
of similar cases, and surely the house nor the hon. and
learned gentleman would not consider that a property.
He understood property to be the possession of land or
capital over which a man had entire control, and not such
as that which this bill proposed to deal with, where-one
Irian had entire control and dominion over the property of
another, aid for which the latter received no considera-
tion. The lion, and learned gentleman had not said a word
for the charities with which this bill proposed to deal, but
he had for the ratepayers of Liverpool, now and for all
time to come, that they might continue to possess the right
to tax the whole of the rest of England, and also the ship-
ping which came to their port ; and thus the unborn chil-
dren of the rest of England were to become the serfs of
the unborn children of Liverpool—(hear)—and continue
to pay dues for which they would obtain no equivalent.
And that not only to the present amount which was levied
in Liverpool, but to any amount it rose commensurate with
the prosperity of the country. Many towns claimed to be
exempted from this tax, and Manchester amongst the rest,
and the people of Manchester justly said, that whilst they
contributed 80.0001. per annum fora borough fund, Liver-
pool ought not to be exempt from it, and Manchester be
called upon to contribute towards such a fund for Liver-
pool by the enforcement by the latter of local dues on ship-
ping. That he looked upon as a theft according to the sys-
tem of the Prud'hommes.-The hon. and learned gentleman
had referred to the peliod. when Liverpool obtained this
right of levying local dues on shipping, but he had omitted
to inform the house that the sum given for them was only
7001., and that they yielded but 141. odd, and that that was
the basis from which the princely revenues obtained by
Liverpool from these dues had sprung, and which it was
wished to continue in perpetuity anti to ages and genera-
tions yet unborn. There was a great distinction between
corporations and individuals. The latter had to work in
their respective spheres as free agents, acccrding to the
constitution of thet society by which they were surrounded.
Corporations neither existed by nor for themselves, but were
creatures of public utility, which were bound to act in ac-
e .rdance with the conscieccee of mankind, and in deference
in some degree to the honest prejudices of public justice.
They had been established as a means to an end, and as
soon as they failed to accomplish that end it was the duty
of the Legislature either to modify or abolish them. The
hon. gentleman then referred to the state of the municipal
corporations prior to 1835, when the members were either
self-elected or appointed by the mayors, aldermen, and core-
moo council, who formed a small portion of the inhabitants
of the respective boroughs. They possessed considerable real
and personal property, which they claimed to hold, and
which Lord Ellenborough and Lord Eldon had decided they
were empowered to hold independent of any trust what-
ever, and they used that property in the most scandalous
manner. (Hear, hear.) They ate, bought, feasted, and
jobbed till the day of reckoning came, which was that of
the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835,
after as desperate a fight in support of these class interests
as that made that night by the hon, and learned member
for these particular dues. The House of Commons of that
day heard plenty about confiscation, but they grappled
boldly with the question, and swept away the abuses, and
gave the administration of their local affairs to an elective
body. The Legislature then took from the corporate bo-
roughs all their corporate rights by a stretch of power
greater, perhaps, than had ever before been made by any
Legislature of a free country ; and by the 921 section of
that act they vested those rights in new bodies, vesting in
them these tolls and dues for the maintenance of police
and the administration of justice, and the surplus to be
applied for the gen -pal benefit of the inhabitants. That
was a precedent of what Parliament had done and could
do when the proper time arrived, and under that prece-
dent the dues purchased of the Molyneux family had been
vested in the present municipal corporation of the town of
Liverpool, and which tolls they were now misapplyiug ac-
cording to the provisions of the Municipal Corporations
Act, and from which the shipping interest derived little or
no interest. (Hear, hear.) The remark of Junius in the
reign of George M., that "a crown won by one revolu-
tion might be lost by another," was appliceole in this in-
stance, and it was for the house to consider whether it was
right or just that Liverpool should raise 125,00 J/. a-year
from shipping, and spend only 3,0001. for its benefit. Was
that a state of things that should 6o continued ? He
thought not, for it was equivalent to their, permitting a
man to take away the proceeds of the labour of another,
without giving him an equivalent for them. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. and learned gentleman had alluded to the cases
of Hull and Bristol, which, lie doubt, were exceptional
en ie s, and the Government had come to the determination
some days since- of meeting them with a special
clause to be inserted in the bill. In exceptional cases,
such as those alluded to, he and his noble friend the Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade were desirous of doing every
justice to the places concerned. 'With regard to th diffe-
rential dues it had hitherto been the pulley of the country
to impose higher ditties on foreign ships than on English
ships ; but by the theory of free trade, which was now
somewhat exploded, it was found necessary to enter into
reciprocity treaties with countries trading to this country,
and to compensate those who claimed the right to the dues
by paying them out of the consolidated fund. By this bill
it was proposed to abolish these duties, and it beeamea qua: -
Mon whether these ports that had been in the habit of levy-
ing them had a claim for compensation o'. the consolidated
mud for their abolition. Many hon, members appeared to
imagine that the public purse was inexhaustible, and in
the cases of corporations compensation was always claimed,
but had not that greatest corporation of all, the State, a
right to be considered in this matter ? (Hear.) If the
house were of opinion that compensation ought to be given
in this case, how would they propose to do it. If theyre-
lieved shipping of this unjustifiable tax, the only way they
could raise a sufficient sum to compensate that tax would I
be by levying this unjust taxid -another shape -(hear)—
and which he submitted no reasonable man would attempt
to do. Compensation iu individual cases were very avail-
able and desirable ; for if the public were desirous of be-
coming possessed of an individual's rights, compensation
should be rigorously enforced; but when the house took
away, not property, but the claim to the right and power
of extorting another man's money without giving him an
equivalent for it, it was not a subject for compensation. It
had been said that this bill had been framed with a great
deal of craft, but he begged to deny it. He had boon given
credit for many clever things lee had never thoughtof; and
as regarded the bill before the house, it was founded, as he
bad already stated, on the report of the Commissioners.
The Government brought this question before the house to
ask whether the system of local self-government should be
converted into a system of Imperial taxation. He thought
no one would say that the 9,2 d section of the Municipal.
Act was a just one ; that 175,0001. should be levied on ship-
ping, and that none of it should be spent for the benefit of
the interest's on whom it was levied. The injustice might bo
small, lent it was not the less injustice, which cannot be
lon tolerated in this country, whatever !night be the re-
sult of this night's debate. The Corporation of Liverpool
were the same gentlemen in two characters ; at one time
it is the dock fund, at another time it is the corporation.
They applied last session to Parliament to borrow
2,000,000/. ou the security of this tax, This did not cor-
respond with his (Mr. Lowe's) notion of fair dealing; it
was a practice which, if not prevented, would be caaried
on all over the kingdom. 110 thought the committee had
done its duty in its report on this matter, and had devised
a full and complete remedy. He thought, also, the Govern-
ment had done its duty in bringing it before the country,
and enabling it to judge whether reform was necessary.
It was a state of things which, like their rotten boroughs
and their rotten commercial system, would be numbered
with the thiage which were passed. (Cheers.)
Mr. ILORSFALL stated that the Liverpool revenue of
more than 100,0001. was not derived from shipping, as Mr.
Lowe had asserted. Only 1,0001, was derived from ship-
ping, the rest was levied on shipping. The solo charge on
shipping was ls., not per ton, but per vessel, upon all
coasters, and 3s. 3d, on ships coating from foreign ports.
This bill would in fact raise the 1,0001. now derived from
ships to 6,000/. or 7,000/. The Co, potation of Manchester,
which was the great advocate of this bill, did itself apply
the town dues of Manchester precisely as the Corporation
of Liverpool applied its town dues. He went into some
detail as to the manner in which the Corporation of Liver-
pool had spent the dues, to show that they wore all ex-
pended for the benefit of the shipping.
Mr. RIDLEY delivered his maiden speech in opposi-
tion to the bill. Ho stated that the duos levied by the
Newcastle corporation were not paid by the shipowners,
but by the coalowners, who had petitioned against this
bill. The property of the corporation in those dues was
founded at first on prescription, it was confirmed by charter,
and it had been further confirmed, and, as it was hoped,
finally settled by an act passed-so late as 1850, when the
corporation gave up 15,0001. a-year, and was exoneratei
from all further responsibility as to the conservancy of the
port. He objected, also, to the principle of centralisation
contained in this bill. He hinted that the definitions of
property which Mr. Lowe laid down in his speech might
pass muster in Australia, but he was quite sure that they
would not bo tolerated by public opinion in Great Britain,
Mr. TOLLE-MAC:HE thought that the local dues required
revision, anti should have been glad to support any mea-
sure based upon the report of the commissioners appointed
to inquire into the subject. But this bill far exceeded the
recommendations of those commissioners, and therefore he
could not support it.
Mr. COLLIER supported the bill, which was based
upon this principle, that ships should not be taxed for the
support of towus. As to the claim of vested rights, the
very same claim had been set up by the proprietors of rot-
ten boroughs, the West Indian slave owners, the self-
elected corporations, and the landouners of the country.
He voted for the second reading of the bill, on the ground
that these dues were not applied to shipping purposes, but
that the shipping interest were paying for the paving and
lighting of the streets, and for the building of town-halls,
Mr. HILDYARD reminded the House that as Parlia-
ment had sanctioned these does on, former occasions, they
could not now in good faith retract them. He severely
censured the arguments need by Mr. Lowe, and put it to
the Prime Minister whether it was creditable that a speech
which appeared to set at defiance all the principles on which
property was founded should have been delivered from the
Treasury bench.

Mr. RICE oppomd the bill, and explained the injustice
it would inflict upon Dover.
Mr. DEEDES defended the tolls levied at Ramsgato.
Mr. J. E WART hoped the house would reject this bill,
which he considered to be fraught with the grossest in-
justice.

- Mr. INGHAM supported the bill, which was opposed by
Mr. LIDDELL and Mr. CAIRNS.
Mr. BAINES would not have thought himself justified
in addressing the house upon the subject of the bill had he
not been pressed to support it byhis constituents, who had a
material interest in its success. Ho lad the honour to re-
present the metropolis of the great. woollen manufacture of
the north, and his constituents had stated to hies their views,
and he would briefly repeat them to the house. But before
he did so he might say that, having listened to the hon.and
learned gentleman the member for Stainfolci (Sir F. Thesi-
ger), and to the hon. baronet who seconded his amend-
ment, the objections that had been urged went more to
the various clauses than to the principle of the bill. The
hon. and learned gentleman the member for Belfast (Mr.
Cairns) had stated that, if there had been any intention to
do away with the town dues be would have supported the
bill. As far as he (Mr. Baines) understood the matter, that
'6'4s Priciiely the intention of the Government, (Clams')