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

ger),not recollecting en y such opinion to be therein expressed,
and fearing that the right hon. gentleman might inadver-
tently have referred to seine " Board of Trade" copy not
accessible to the general public—(laughter)---he had, there-
fore, referred to the work itself, and the passage which he
found there, ran thus :—" In estates held, as we call it, in
mortmain there is no intercommunity, no natural privity
of interest between the present possessor and those who
may succeed him ; and as the former cannot have any pre-
text for complaint if, his own right being preserved, the
legislature should alter the course of transmission after his
decease, so neither is any hardship sustained by others un-
less their succession has been already designated or ren-
dered probable. Corporate property, therefore, appears
to stand on a very different footing from that of private
individuals ; and while all infringements of the established
privileges of the latter are to be .sedulously avoided, and
held justifiable only by the strongest motives of public ex-
pediency, we cannot but admit the full right of the legis-
lature to now mould and regulate the former in all that
does not involve existing contracts upon far slighter rea-
sons of convenience.
Mr. LO WE explained that he had not professed to quote
the words of Mr. Hallam, but had only stated their effect,
Sir F. THESIGER would proceed to illustrate what he
had been saying with regard to corporations, by referring
to particular cases. He would, in the first place, take the
case of Liverpool, because that was a ease to whistle the
right hon. gentleman himself had referred. The right hon.
gentleman said that the corporation of Liverpool received
125,0001. a-year, of which sum they spent only 4,000/, upon
matters connected with shipping. The right hen. gentle-
man was not correct when he said that this sum was raised
entirely by shipping dues ; in fact, it was raised to a great
extent by an export and import duty. These local dues of
Liverpool had most probably arisen from the petty ens-
toms, which in former times were levied by the King's
prerogative. These dues were frequently granted to indi-
viduals and to corporations, and one of the subjects of such
a grant was the corporation of Liverpool. In 1628 the cor-
poration purchased these dues for the very large sum of
374,9891. In 1635 they sold their rights to Lord Molyneux,
the ancestor of the Earls of Sefton, who shortly afterwards
purchased a fee farm rent which _had been reserved out of
the does. In 1764 the then Lord Molynenx made a lease
of the dues to the corporation of Liverpool for 1,000 years,
and in 1777 the corporation purchased from Lord Moly-
neux the reversionary interest in fee, and they became the
absolute owners of the dues. In 1136, their title being
then questioned, an action was brought to try the right,
and a decision was given in their favour. Since then the
title had been unquestioned.. Now if a corporation could
possess private property at all, he (Sir F. Thesiger) would
like to know how a stronger title &add be made out. Let
the house suppose that those dues had remained the pri-
vete property of Lord Molyneux, and had descended to
the Earl of Sefton ; would the right hon. gentleman say
that the right to them ought not to have been preserved
inviolable ? Would any one say that there was any dis-
tinction between the right of the Earl of Sefton and that
of the corporation which purchased it from hie ancestor
for a valuable consideration? (Hear, hear.) What right
had any one to say that they were not to continue in
possession of their property ? It was paid for with the
funds of the corporation, and for the benefit of the corpo-
ration. Bat the right hon. gentleman might say perhaps
those dues were given originally as a sort of trust for local
purposes, such as maintenance of harbours ; but he (Sir F.
Thesiger) would venture to assert that not one of the char-
ters had been granted with that condition. He had lea
many, and could not remember one in which any such con-
dition was inserted. Oa the other hand, the right hon.
gentleman assumed that such conditions existed, and that
they had been violated. He passed now from Liverpool to
another case that exhibited the injustice of this measure.
In 1771 the Hull Dock Company obtained an act for making
their docks, with a power which was usual in those times,
of charging a double amount of dock dues on foreign vessels.
In 1842 they were about to celarge their docks, but were
afraid to incur the expense without previously making a
permanent arrangement with the Government respecting
their double dues. They put themselves in communication
with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of
the Board of Trade (Messrs. Goulburn and Gladstone), and
an arrangement was ultiinately come to by which the Go-
vernment redeemed the toll On foreign vessels by a pay-
ment out of the consolidated fund equal to the average of
five years' previous collection, which accounted to 6,3331.
He would ask the right hon. member for Oxford Univer-
sity, whether that transaction was not an arrangement
deliberately entered into with the. Government, and one by
which the Government was a considerable gainer, seeing
that the difference for the last fourteen years as against the
corporation was 54,0001. ? The hon. and learned member
having quoted the Treasury minute referring to this trans-
action continued :—But the right hon. gentleman would
probably say that Hull was a case for which he had pro-
vided, by permitting the levy of a toll wherever a pay-
ment had been made out of the consolidated fund, and
was withdrawn by the bill. Now, in the first place, he
had to reply, that this offer was not likely to be available
to the Hull Dock Company, because they had been
great sufferers lately by competition, and if they raised
the toll they would infallibly drive away the ships. The
amount payable last year was 11,0001. and odd pounls, and
if the 6,0001. odd from the Treasury were taken away, the
company would be deprived of snore than half its not in-
come. The last illustration, stud perhaps not the weakest
case he should give, was the ease of Bristol. " The electors
there had dues to which they were entitled nuder a charter
from Edward IV., iu the year 1462, mind to be levied on
goods exported and imported. There were also one or two
fee farms which the Crown reserved, and which were after-
wards purchased by the corporation. In the year 1825
the corporation, at their own expense, obtained an act of
Parliament enabling them to alter and reduce the tell ;
and they reduced them accordingly from 5,0001. to 2,0001.;
and they continued in that position until the passing of
the Municipal Reform Act. Their harbour was formed by
a company in 1805, and to provide the necessary funds
the inhabitants of Bristol agreed to assess themselves in a
permanent rate to the annual amount of 2,4001. 111
181 S, the shipping interest being dissatisfied with the
management of the harbour and the docks, they requested
the corporation to purchase the rights and interests of the
company. The corporation agreed, and the arrangement
was carried out in the Dock Act of 1848, by which the
ratepayers were bound to make up any deficiency that
might occur in satisfying the claim of this company. The
inhabitants agreed to an assessment of 1,4031. in order to
supply the deficiency. Subsequently 70,0001. was spent
in the repairs of the docks, and it was all guaranteed-oat
of the borough fund. Now here was one of the cases in
which her Majesty's Government would strip the corpora-
tion of all local dues derived either under charter or by
voluntary assessment of the inhabitants. The right hon.
gentleman might say that this was an exceptional onse end
would be provided fur, but they &sputa not have excep-
tional cases. The question was one of principle, and on
principle it ought to, be decided. The case of Bristol was
identical with that of Liverpool, only that there was a
trivial difference in the mode in which the right to levy
was derive 1. He was ;dealing with the principle which
the right honourable gentleman had boldly put forward,
namely, that a corporation, because it was a corporation,
could hold no private property. He would now return to
the right hon. gentleman's precedents. The right hon. gen-
tleman had quoted the case of the corporation of the Tri-
nity House, but that was a corporation of exclusively a
public character. It had been incorporated by Henry
and received its present charter in thoreign of :Ames 11. It.
was composed of 31 elder brethren and an indefinite num-
ber of younger brethren, the latter to be composed of per-
sons who had been commanders of merchant ships. But no
individual member had any right in the funds, which
were strictly for public objects. In 1853, an application was
made from the Board of Trade that the Trinity House
should cease to collect for charitable objects. It appeared
that the corporation hail applied some of their surplus funds
to the relief of decayed mariners and their families, but
the Treasury decided that these charities communicated no
vested rights. He had been surprised to hear the right hon.
gentleman quoting the case of the Trinity House in sup-
port of his view. He (Sir F. Thesiger), en the other hand,
held it to be.a case going entirely for the view which he sup-
ported ; for in it was marked most broadly the distinction
between vested rights and powers conferred merely for
public objects. Another argument put forward by the
right hon. gentleman was, that all the vested rights of the
corporations were destroyed by the passing of the Munici-
pal Reform Act in 1835, by which the property was taken
front the corporation and given to others. The right hon.
gentleman was unhappy in his selection of arguments. He
(Sir F. Thesiger) would venture tosubnsit to the considera-
tion of the house, that the 5 and 6 of Win. IV. was one of
the strongest grounds for insisting on the finality of all ar-
rangements respecting corporate property. (Hear.) They
knew that corporations had originally had certain privi-
leges and franchises, anti that by degrees their privileges
were monopolised by close bodies. Such a state of things
was remedied by the Corporation Reform Bill, which took
the revenues from these close bodies and placed them under
the control of the burgesses at large. That was the view
of Lord Brougham, who called the measure restitution,
not spoliation, and by the noble lord the member for Lon-
don, who said that municipal funds should be appropriated
to public municipal purposes. It was se provided ex-
pressly in the 92d section of the act, which declared that
all tolls and dues should become part of the borough fund.
Should there be any surplus after the specific object for
which the rate was levied had been carried out, the surplus
was to be applied for the general benefit of the inhabitawnerets
and the improvement of the borough. So that the tolls
itw
(Hear.) The right hen. gentle-
manby the Corporation Reform Bill conferred onthe leoroughs
as part of their property.
admittedwas
athat
into the bill by an oversight, but trate,
.was
most might probably urge that thishporfo,vcitsiownows
1 inserted 10, clause
most carefully discussed and dal.
hen gentleman the right of
92 of the bill. How then, in the face
maintainoYf such precedents,
could the right •
•
the Government to confiscate the property of corporate
bodies ?
He (Sir F.
Thesiger) defied any one to make a
distinction between the private property of at individual
which was, for the present at least—(hear, hear)—invie-
lable and tint which having been the private property of
an individual had subsequently become the private pro-
perty of a corporation. But the right hon. gentleman had
exhibited considerable ingenuity in his mode of intro-
ducing the question, having prefaced the objectionable
principle with two short clauses, on which, as he doubted
not, there would be very little difference of opinion, thus
as it were, making a covert from which he might dart out
upon his prey. The right hon. gentleman hoped in that way
to obtain the second reading of the bill, and then turn
round to the house and say, " You have already acknow-
ledged the principle of confiscation." Had the right hon.
gentleman confined his legislation to passing tolls he would
have met with little opposition, but he used these in his bill
to mask his real object. Bat let no hon. member be deceived
by this contrivance ; th&object of the Government was, by
introducing these comparatittely unobjectionable clauses,
the better to mask the principle eiX confiscation and spoof
He knew he addressed honouralslb members,
oms
whom had been instructed by their constituentes
these Liverpool local duties ; but let them net z o
flatter'y
wan
tnir
them-
selves that if the Government measure were eclantthe
constituents would be relieved. The object
to remind the
na -
abolish ish
Trade,t h .the
n thatrate,but f
theto right transfer
hothh. the g conk
_ thiwann t
no tr r e dohids
the slightest degree benefited. bill the constituents of the _dho.n.Htneem
beneggrsedwould not be in
interfere with their property,
attempt was made now to
representatives of inland corporations that, although no
tt dto b t hed
rotect them from
would Ys:possible to p confieca-
still if this precedent were once permi e ees a e
it be hardl
tion. They
would Lind out, probably, that all the favour
they had obtained by their devotion to the Government
was the melanchtsehoy
lypsrl privilege
had read,vilegee that of b
once awitrdedteeintghedeGvrnenrcianed
chief, of whoto
last. (A laugh.) He therefore most earnestiv'entreated
them to stop at its commencement a ceeiree which, in the
and, might be fatal to themselves. (Hear, hear.) He had
thus endeavoured to place before the house all the circum-
stances under which it appeared to him impossible, to
maintain the principle upon which the bill was based; and
he confessed that he was at a loss to know whether he was
snore astonished at the measure itself than at the argument s
which had been brought forward in its support. The mea-
sure was
intended to take away from these corporation
property to which they were entitled by charter, by Act
of Parliament, by public agreement, and by irnmeinoria
Peifiellgiolls and that upon arguments which Appeared t