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

What really was the principle of the bill ? That one part of
the community should not be at liberty to tax other parts
of the community for purposes peculiar to itself, or that it
should not tax other parts of the community for advantages
in which they did not share. His coustituents and the pub-
lic at large complained that in reference to shipping a cer-
tain duty was levied, and no consideration was received.
If that principle were a sound one, he was not prepared to
stand there and say thatthere might not be some exceptional
case, and he understood the right hon. gentleman the Vice-
President to admit that, and to say that Governrneat
would give the fullest consideration to them. Two or three
of them had been mentioned in the course of the debate—
the Trinity-house and Bristol for example—and others
might probably be cited. But these had nothing to do with
the principle of the bill. They should be considered in
committee, and every case should be considered upon its
own merits. For sown time he (Mr. Baines) represented
the town of Hull, and that day he had met some of his late
constituents, who stated to him that the bill was likely to
work the greatest possible benefit to the shipowner, and
put the matter in a light which was perfectly irresistible.
They said that Parliament had repealed the navigation-
laws, which laid upon them a heavier pressure than be-
fore. Acknowledging this to be right, they insisted upon
the other hand that they should not be compelled in the
great race of competition with other countries to bear un-
just burdens, so that if it could be proved that any unjust
burdens did rest upon them, they had a clear right to be
relieved from the tax. Besides pleading for the ship-
owner, he (Mr. Baines) stood before the house that even-
ing as the advocate of those who were interested in the
great woollen manufactures of the country. There was not
a single bale of goods which came to Leeds or the West
Riding of Yorkshire which did not come up the Humber on
the one side or the Mersey on the other. They said they
were willing to engage iu competition with the clothiers of
any other country, but they claimed to be exempted from
texes levied for another community, and from which they
derived no advantage. (Hear.) He respectfully asked the
house whether there could be a more reasonable claim than
this in support of the views now advocated by the Go-
vernment ?
Sir F. K ELLY could not allow this bill to pass its second
reading without calling the attention of the house to what
he considered its real principles, for he believed the Go-
virnment were not aware of what that principle was, or of
t lee consequences that must fellow if it passed into a law.
The principle of the bill was nothing more nor less than to
take away from corporations having property that which
they had in trust for the inhabitants, whom they repre-
sented, without any misdeeds on their part, and without
any compensation. He believed that the right hon. gentle-
man the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had, how-
ever unintentionally, misled the house as to the real cha-
racter of the bill. It was said to he " A Bill for the Aboli-
tion of PassingeTolls and the regulations of Local Dues on
Shipping." Upon the subject of passieg tolls they were all
agreed. The house was left in ignorance on many important
points. They had no return of the number and amounts of
town dues levied by corporations, but he calculated from
the speech of the right hon. gentleman that it was some-
where about 163,0001. a year. The deductions which the
right hen. gentleman had made, after hearing the speech
of the right hon. and learned gentleman the member for
Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger) reduced it to 149,0001. a year,
of which Liverpool had by far the largest proportion ; and
this it was said was a tax levied by Llverpool upon the
shipping interests of the country. Out of that 149,0001.
only I,oeo/. was levied on the shipping at all. He would
now come to the priucipli of the bill. It had been said
that this was not strictly pew ty, but was a tax that could
be dealt with by Parliament. That argument had been
already met by the right lion. gent!eman the member for
Belfast. It was a calumny to say that by an oversight such
as the Municipal Act this property was transferred to the
corporation of Liverpool. Why, it was the direct avowed
purpose of that act, with regard to corporations, that the
property of those corporations should become the property
of the inhabitants of the boroughs. That was specially pro-
vided for by the 92d section of the act. And yet that was
called an oversight, and it was that very provision which this
bill was intended to violate. It was directlyviolating the con-
stitution of the country,inthe case of the corporationof Liver-
pool. The dues in that case were the property of the people
of Liverpool, held by thine under the law, and purchased
aid paid for by them. These dues were the private property
f the town. That very property was sold a long time ago
by the Crown to the ancestors of the Earl of Sefton, and
by him conveyed to the corporation of Liverpool. Why,
suppose the present petitioner had been the Earl of Sefton,
instead of the people of Livirpool, would such an attempt
as was made by this bill be tolerated ? No; it would not.
They might as well bring in a similar bill to confiscate the
tolls of Covent-garden Market. The two cases were pre-
cisely similar. The corporation of Liverpool purchased this
property at a remote period, and enjoyed it down to the
year 1832, when these dues were resisted, but the claim of
the corporation wise then substantiated before a judge, who
was certainly not favourable to monopolies. Ho alluded to
the late Lord Denman. The title of the corporation was
then fully established. These duos had always been ap-
plied to the benefit of the town of Liverpool, and to no
other purpose, and they now amounted to a very lergesum.
Were this bill to pass into a law, the effect of it Oa the cor-
poration -of Liverpool—that corporation having borrowed
2,000,000/. on the security of those dues—would be to
take away all security for that money, while it would
also take away from the people of Liverpool 10,000/., by
which they paid the interest upon that money so borrowed.
It was true mortgagee creditors were to be protected by the
bill ; bat these dues were not mortgaged. The money had
been borrowed upon mere bonds, which they had done under
the sanction of an act of Parliament. This bill would de-
stroy the security of these bondholders. The money had
been borrowed by the corporation under the authority of
the Lords of the Treasury, and the result of this bill would
be that the security for that money would be transferred
to the borough fund. Such was the effect of the bill which
her Majesty's Government called upon the house to sanc-
tion. He earnestly called upon the house seriously to con-
sider it, for it was a bill which, neitber more nor less, was
intended to deprive corporations of property which legally
belonged to thorn.
Mr. LINDSAY moved the adjournment of the debate.
Lord PALMER'STON said that at that hour of the
evening it was diffieult to resist a motion for an adjourn-
ment. If the debate were adjourned, he would propose
that it be adjourned to Friday, and the Government would
take the army estimates on the Monday following.
gr. DISKAELI thought that as the labours of the ses-
sion had hitherto been light, they might finish the debate,
as it was then but comparatively an early hour. (The
clock was on the stroke of twelve.) If the debate, how-
ever, were to be adjou ned, he could not see why it should
be carried over to Friday. This was a most important
subject, and ought to be proceeded with to-morrow. He
did not see why the-country should be kept in suspense
upon a bill which certainly contained alarming princlales.
The country ought not to be kept in doubt as to what
he thought would be the unequivocal decision of the
House of Commons on the subject. Another reason against
the adjournment to Fridey was that on that day a motion
was on the paper to be brought forward by the honour-
able and learned member for Sheffield with reference to a
very strange act of the Government—namely, the proposi-
tion of a board of inquiry into the conduct and report of
their own commissioners. Not wishing to go into
a discussion on that subject then with reference to
agreeing with the honourable and learned gentleman or
not, he was bound to say that his opinion was that the
Government, iu proposing that court of inquiry, raised a
question of so momentous a character, that certainly if
the honourable and learned gentleman had not given that
notice, it was the intention of a right honourable friend
on that (the Opposition) side of the house, to have the
opinion of the House of Commons on the conduct of the
Government on that subject. Well, it was proposed to
adjourn this debate to Friday, on a subject scarcely se-
cond in interest to the other. He thought the noble
lord would do well to reconsider the plan of public busi-
ness which he had just pointed out. The hon. unit learned
member for Sheffield had given notice of an amendment to
the motion of the Government du going into supply, and
he (Mr. Disraeli) put it to the noble lord at the head of the
Government, and also to the hon. and learned gentleman,
whether it would n•,t be better for the Government to
bring forward a substantive motion on this important
question. The hon. Members on his side of the house might
not agree with the hon. and learned member for Sheffield,
a.ne they might wish to express their opinion on the ques-
tion, but, by the course about to be pursued, they would
be prevented from moving an amendment on an amend-
ment, so as to ask the sanction of the house to their
opinion. (gear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said that not gain; in the secret of
hoe. members on the other side of the house, it would, have
been unbecoming on his part to have assumed that they
meant to put their motions off to admit of the debate
being continued to-morrow. If, however, the right hon.
gentleman was authorieed to speak for gentlemen on that
side of the house, and they wore willing to agree to the
suggestion that had been made, the Government were
ready to accede to it. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. KELLY said ho would give way to allow the
question to come on again to-morrow for discussion.
Mr. ROEBUCK, in reply to Mr. DISRAELI, suet he had
no objection to make his amendment a substantive motion
if it met the views of the Governnteet.
The debate was them adjourned till to-day.
The Partnership Amendment Bill, and the Joint Stook
Companies went pro forma through committee.
The Prisons (Ireland) Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to bo committed on Monday, th 3 21st of March.

DELAMERE FOREST BILL.
Mr. WILSON moved the third reading of this bill.
Fkir. IL WILLOUGHBY. asked if it was the intention of
the Government to take -powers by this bill to sell this
forest? because, if so, it was contrary to the preamble.
.Mr. WILSON said that this was the only forest that did
not come under the inelosure acts relative to Royal forests.
The intention of the act was to put this forest in the same
position as the other Crown land, which give a right of
HA% under the usual circumstances relating to Crown
lands.

The bill was then read a third time.
The Court of Chancery (Ireland) Jurisdiction Bill ; the
Court of Chancery (Ireland) Piocodure Bill; the Court of
Chancery (Ireland) Receivers Bill; the Court of Chancery
(Ireland) Appeals Bill ; and the Court of Chancery (Ire-
land) Sale of Estates Bill, were, on the motion of Mr.
WHITESIDE, referred to the select committee to which
the Government Court of Chancery (Ireland) Bill was re-
ferred.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL moved for leave to bring
is a bill to amend the act of last session. In committee on
that bill certain alterations were made in it, that the law
was now in such a state that no one could safely say whether
tho new or old vestries had the power of raisieg the rates
for the relief of the poor, and the management of the poor
also. It was to remedy these defects that the present bill
was to be introduced.
Leave was given, and the bill was accordiney brought
in.