The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-06 00:00:00

large fund which had accumulated, that a larger sum should
be expended for life boats.
Mr. D.:SEYMOUR concurred with Mr. Lindsay in think-
ing that the charges to which reference was made ought to
be taken off the shipping interest. The house would be sur-
prised to hear that since the repeal of the navigation laws,
foreign shipping trading to English ports had increased in
a quadruple ratio, whilst British shipping had comparatively
decreased. He did not call upon the house to alter the law,
but to give to our shipping the advantages of that free trade
from the result of which they were at present suffering.
There were in the Chinese waters in February last a fleet
of 230 vessels, of which 100 were owned in England, but a
much smaller number sailed under the British flag. The
shipping of the United States were much more favourably
circumstanced than ours in the definition of a coasting
trade. They could perform a voyage of ten thousand miles,
and still thiswas called a coasting trade, and British vessels
were excluded from it. He asked, was such a state of things
to be tolerated, or were Americans to retain those advantages
over the British shipowners ? He contended that onr Go-
vernment ought to call upon foreign Governments to reci-
procate, and then, if they neglected to do so, they would be
most shamefully deficient in their duty to the shipowners

of England.
Mr. M. GIBSON would not detain the house by replying
at length to the statements of the hon. member. He would
only say that Government would as far as possible, promote
a feeling of reciprocity in the Governments of foreign coun-
tries. Not that he wished to accept the doctrine that our
movements were to be regulated by those of foreign Govern-
ments, but merely to state that no opportunity should be lost
for procuring the relaxation of unequal restrictions. With
these few observations, he would now turn to what had been
said by the hon. members for Sunderland and London. With
regard to the select committee to which the hon. member for
Sunderland had referred, and which had been appointed, but
had not sat in consequenceof the dissolution of Parliament,
he had no doubt but that if the hon. member thought pro-
per to move for it again, he would not find any resistance on
the part of the Government, who would leave its appoint-
ment entirely in the hands of the house. There were three
questions respecting which the hon. member asked whether
any bills were to be introduced by the Government. Of these
light dues stood upon a different footing from passing tolls
and local charges. Whatever else might be said against light
dues it could not be denied that the money raised was ap-
plied to the benefit of shipping by the establishment of lights.
Formerly the dues were applied in payment of the debts
and pensions of the Trinity-house, but at this moment they
were applied exclusively to the erection and maintenance of
lighthouses, which mainly benefited the shipping of the
country. As to the principle of making them a charge upon
the consolidated fund, it was rather a Treasury than a Board
of Trade question, and he hardly thought the hon. member
would suceeed in persuading the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer to accept a charge of £300,000 a year. He was aware
that a committee had recommended such an arrangement ;
but he did not think that either the Government or the house
would ever consent to it. These dues had been reduced 50 per
cent. during the last six years, and all that had been received
had been expended in the erection of new lighthouses and in
other arrangements entirely for the benefit of the shipping
interest. With respect to passing tolls and local charges,
he supposed that what the hon. member meant was, that
nothing on account of these charges should be levied
on ships except for shipping purposes. (Hear, hear, from
Mr. *A.Aindsay. No doubt that seemed fair ; but there was
great difficulty in dealing with these local dues. For him-
self, he did not think they should be dealt with in a gene-
ral bill in an arbitrary manner, and for this reason, that in
various places they had been made subject to so many debts
and engagements that it would be difficult to deal with
them in a general measure without inflicting local injustice.
Then a private bill would be a most objectionable course,
because it would be submitting a great public question to
the contention of counsel in a committee-room. There
being thus difficulties in the way of a public and also of a
private bill, there was in his opinion one other course, and
that was to bring in a measure of aflexible character, which
should be capable of applying to particular cases, which,
while recognising the rightof shippingto pay shipping dues,
should still respect the claims of creditors. Such a measure
would settle the question and should pass the house, and it
was a measure which Government was ready to consider,
and would most probably introduce in the ensuing session.
As to the surplus of the mercantile marine fund, to which
the hon. member for London had called attention he (Mr.
Gibson) found that the annual income, after recent reduc-
tions which were now taking effect, and which had perhaps
escaped the hon. member, was £330,000. Of this sum there
was required for lighthouses, £230,000; ballasting, £40,000;
shipping offices, £40,000 ; lifeboats, rockets, &c., £3,200 ;
leaving a surplus of little more than £lO,OOO. The ex-
penses of lighthouses last year reached £235,000, and
£lO,OOO was not a very large surplus in such large trans-
actions. If, however, the produce of the fund should
increase, the shipping would derive the benefit from it,
as they had from the reductions which had been al-
] eady made. The present balance would be applied in
the erection of new lighthouses, of which 17 or 19
were now in course of construction, and he found that for
new works there was wanting £250,000, with £26,000 due to
Scotland and Ireland. There was not, therefore, at present
any opening for the reduction of the mercantile marine fund;
but if one should arise, it would at once, be taken advantage
of. He need hardly repeat, that in none of the three cases
was there any chance of transfer to the consolidated fund.
RIGHTS OF THE CROWN TO FORESHORES, &c.
Mr. A. SMITH resumed his observations on the subject
of foreshores which had been interrupted by the count out
of Tuesday evening. The hon. member complained of the
conduct of the Government in taking possession of the
various foreshores of the United Kingdom and disposing of
them in violation of local and individual interests. They
had, he said, sold and leased thosalands which bordered on
the sea in increased quantities every year, the total sums
they received for them having amounted to £140,000. To
such an extent had this encroachment of the crown now
reached that in a case at Dover a man had been refused
permission to protect his property against the encroach-
ments of the sea unless he admitted the crown's right, and
took a lease from the Woods and Forests. Ho wished to
know under what power or right these sales or leases of the
I land between the high and low water mark were made?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that the sum
of the charge brought against the Commissioners of Woods
and Forests by the hon. gentleman was that they had been
anxious to do their duty to the public. If the hon. gen-
tleman had complained of any irregularity or any neglect
in protecting, the land from the inroads of the sea, when
the commissioners had the control of the foreshores, it
would have been attended to, as had been done recently
the
Sussex, where a complaint was made of damage to the
land, and relief was immediately afforded without one
farthing of cost to the proprietors of the adjacent property.
By the law of the country the property in the whole of the
foreshores on the sea coast, and all navigable rivers and all
estuaries, was vested in the crown, and necessarily so. It
was vested in the crown in a double sense—first, in the right
of property ; and secondly, in the right of jurisdiction. But
the crown could appropriate no portion of the property to the
detriment of the public. In all cases the rights of the public
to land and embark—to fish and to use the shore for all ordi-
nary purposes, must be preserved, and the crown could not
appropriate or transfer any portion of the property unless it
could be done without prejudice to the public interest. Un-
fortunately in ancient times grants had been made of pro-
perty of this kind, and adjoining proprietors under such
grants had assumed rights over the shore which were
directly opposed to the interests of the public, and when for
the purposes of any important and necessary public work
the shore wag required large sums were claimed in the shape
of compensation. He quite concurred with the hon. gen-
tleman in the impropriety of placing such property in pri-
vate hands. In some instances leases had been granted, and
thousands of pounds were demanded by the grantees when
any change required the resumption of the grant, and in
other cases heavy tolls were levied upon any article landed,
or even pieces of wreck picked up. In ona instance referred
to by the hon and learned gentleman, the person who claimed
the right to the foreshore demanded 6d. or Is. when a bit of
wreck was found from the person who picked it up. For
landing a topgallant yard 4d. was charged as toll for the use
of the pier and foreshore.
Mr. A. SMITH—That was for the use of the pier, which
was private property.
The ATTORNEY • GENERAL—But the pier, though
private property, was erected upon the foreshore, which was
public property, but granted to private parties, and the de-
mand was made for the use of the shore as well as the pier.
For landing the stock of an anchor 2s. was charged, and for a
piece of timber of certain dimensions 7s. was levied in the
way of toll. He mentioned this to show how much grants
of this kind were to be deprecated, and how they were often
made a pretext for petty exactions. The Commissioners of
Woods and Forests were trustees for the pubiic, and were
bound to protect the public interest. As evidencing how
they had performed that duty, he referred to the returns of
the number of suits instituted by the Woods and Forests,
and the results. From 1830 to July, 1859, the total num-
ber of suits which had been commenced was 29, including
those directed to be brought in the county courts. Of these
22 had resulted in favour of the Crown, 3 were still pend-
ing, 2 had been discontinued, and 2 had resulted in adverse
decisions. The amount recovered to the country under
these suits was £185,000, at a cost of £15,000. The only
question was, were they prepared to take the property of
those foreshores out of the hands of the Crown, which exer-
cised it for the public benefit, preserving the navigation of
all navigable rivers, and protecting all public rights; or
were they prepared to hand it ever to the owners of adjoin -
fug lands, who, as he had shown, would exercise it for their
own private advantage and to the prejudice of the public?
He contended that the property could not be dealt with
more providently than it was dealt with by the Commis-
sioners of Woods and Forests : the public interests could
not be better protected, nor could a better security be found
for the exercise of the right for the public benefit.
Mr. DUNLOP expressed his satisfaction at the state-
ment•of the hon. gentleman.
THE NATIONAL DEFENCES—OUR TROOPS AT
HOME. _ _ .

Sir DE L. EVANS said that the purport of the motion
which stood in his name was--4" That, under the present
circumstances, it is not necessary or expedient to carry into
effect the recent order for despatching 6,700 men to India,
from the depots of regiments serving in India." The late
Government gave orders for the despatch of a considerable
force of artillery to India six or eight months ago. The
matter was brought before the house, and the Government
judiciously altered their determination, and did not send
the artillery out. The circumstances of the present case
were essentially the same-6,000 or 7,000 men were about
to be sent out, and he hoped the Secretary for India would
find on consideration pat they should not be sent out. It
was said by the Secretary for India that this was the usual
season for sending out recruits to India. That might be ;
but circumstances were not such that such a force should
be sent out of the country. Both on financial and general
grounds such a step would be unwise. The right hon.
gentleman, a night or two ago, said that the finances
of India were in an alarming state. The despatch of
troops would cost £300,000 at least, and it was neces-
sary to put this burden on the Indian Government. The
transmission of each soldier to India cost £l5, and you
had to add to that the same amount for each man coming
home, the plan being for the two forces to cross each other
on the sea, which was somewhat inconvenient. In a
more important point of view than the financial one he
thought he made no undue assertion when he said that
the force in this country was stnalland inadequate, and that
the sending away of these 7,000 men would cause a serious
diminution of that force. The Indian army was immense,
far beyond the requirements of that country. The rodent
despatches from India stated that everything was going on
satisfactorily. Oude was tranquil, a thousand forts had been
taken from the talookdars, and thousands of arms taken awap
from the natives, and yet you were sending out European
troops, while at the same time the Government of India pro-
posed to reduce the native army by one-fourth. If all this
was the case, it was not necessary to send reinforcements ouf
from this country. He might be told that he exaggerated
the requirements of this country for troops. He did not think
so. It was true that the French army was to be reduced,
and it was satisfactory to learn that such an order had been
issued by the French Government ; but it was a delusion
to suppose that such a disarmament afforded any analogy
to the English army, for the disarmament of the French
was only a furlough to the men, who were liable to return
within a mouth, while the officers and non-commissioned
officers remained on the establishment whether in peace or
war. It was said that the French disarmament extended