The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-10-01 00:00:00

OCTOBER 1, 1833.

As the goods or produce of the seller, and the inclina--
ti,ons of the buyer, are respected in our public markets, so
also, until recent times, were the rights of property re-
spected in England. The "owner of land or houses, the
."ler_of a ship, a cotton mill, or a cow-shed, could not
liave his rights-challenged except in due form of law, and
upon the presumption that another claimant could establish
1.1 better right. In this consisted the security of
.property
la England. The law threw its shield over the party in
Possession—humanely leaned to the side of prescriptive
right—justly presumed that an unchallenged title during
series of years was a gotod title, and that all tenures and
rights were beyond the reach or the adjudication of the
legislature.

We have now, however, commenced a new system, and
it is already ruled, not that the parliament shall deal with
the rights of property as in its wisdom it shall deem fit,
but that the King's commissioners, appointed by the King's
ministers, shall have the power of examining the title
deeds of every species of property in the kingdom—of
examining all contracts and leases, all covenants and
mortgages, all purchases and transfers, at their sovereign
will and pleasure. A more monstrous system never was de-
'vise(' by designing men. If it be persisted in we venture
t° saY that it will ere long destroy all security, all safety,
all vested interests, all ancient rights, all those bonds
which hold society together, and which have hitherto been
'considered the barriers between the public robber and the
Private proprietor. It is in vain to conceal that the great
straggle 14as begun between the men of property and the
tnen of no property—between the honest and the dishonest
and that the door is opened wide in order that the spo-
liator may enter in and appropriate to himself that which
hitherto the law has recognised as belonging to another.
It is for those who have anything to lose to consider, and
that forthwith, how the door may again be closed before
it he too late. Gentlemen landowners, fundholders,
canal proprietors, Exchequer bill holders, heirs of entail,
annuitants, and tenants of valuable leases, look to your-
selves ! Rang out your banners on the outward walls,
for the ministry and the rabble are at your threshold
The reader -will easily-perceive that we are alluding to
the roving commissions appointed by the government to
inquire into, and therefore to unsettle the rights of pro-
perty, under the shallow pretext of inquiring into the
abuses of corporations. We affirm that the nominal ob-
ject of these commissions is a mere pretext. The pro-
ceedings at Leicester 'show that something much more
serious is intended. If municipal reform only were in-
tended—if an extension of municipal privileges on*W,
:;ere intended—if nothing more were in contemplation
'dap an enlargement of the constituency of borough towns,
Wintt necessity would there be for investigating old con-
`
,Facts, unveiling past transactions, intruding upon private
property, and compelling in4viduals to produce the title
deeds under which they and their ancestors hold or have
held certain lands or houses ? If this right of inquiry be
44/I)itted, then, we contend, that no man, no property, no
tease, no mortgage, is safe or secure in England.—
-Let us put a case—suppose that A B holds land in the
4licinity of Liverpool,, Leicester, London, or any other
inwn. Which land had been purchased fifty, seventy, or
one hundred years ago, from one or other of these corpo-
rations by the father, grandfather, or great-grandfather
ofA 13. What does the present holder, or any living
know concerning the motives which induced his an-
infor to buy, or the corporation in question to sell? He is,
most cases, as ignorant of the motives or the necessities
rl'dle respective parties, as the child unborn. He inhe-
thiatved. the property from his father. His father and himself
e spent thousands of pounds in improving it. When
it crone into the possession of the family it was the edge
"1 a sterile common, perhaps, barren, sedgy, bare, wild,
ni l c comparatively of no value. The fortune of the fa-
Wag liberally expended in draining, manuring, fenc •
ins, and in giving to a naturally bad soil all the aids and
a'°rnments of art and industry. Commerce gave it an
accidental value. Manufactures attracted to its location
a numerous population. Where the stunted grass reluc-
tantly
grew the cotton factory was built, and the isolated
cop,.
--",•field, in the process of time, became sophisticated
With the dross of a coal mine. Human habitations started
111) Where the wild pony roamed in summer, and the cur-
lew
screamed in winter. In this way a value was given
`° the land which its purchaser never dreamt of, and which
its former owner would have believed to be beyond the
compass of mortal auencv•
But such changes have occurred even within the last
thirty or forty years, and are we to be told that such pro-
prietor of this once hopeless property, is bound to pro-
'ill"
his title, or what is the same thing, that the corpo-
ration of whom the land was bought are bound to exhibit
li_cl this roving commission the articles of sale, the contract
;between the parties, the title of the holder, and all the
cireumstances which led to the disposition .and the trans-
fer What !is it come to this ? Must the holder of
landed or other property be dragged before two pert and
Obscure barristers, names almost unknown, who never
have,. had any practice in the courts, the mere toadeaters
°.l' a jobbing administration, needy and servile, ready and
'Obsequious ignorant and presuming, in order to explain
t° then' Why he holds lands which formerly belonged to
the,r,, corporation of Leicester, or any other borough ?
This may be Whig policy, but it is policy nevertheless
which is based upon injustice. Ministers might as well
,
under the pretext of reform, where a man buys his
nff' who makes his shoes, where he procured the money
Whichl3 he has at his banker's, who gave Mr. FowELL
110's his original property, who travelled in Italy with
1.• JoSEPIi HUME, who bribed the Times newspaper, and
tile London Courier (Arcades ambo) in 1817 —wl,o
,made JAMES BROUGHAM a tithe-proctor—who wrote the
who
article against taxes M the Edinburgh Review, and
o assisted our honourable representative, Mr. Wm.
Rh
Iv-inT, in composing his inimitablepoem against reform?
These are personal questions, we admit; but every
thing is personal now. The property held in trust by
corporations is protected by the law, and, like every other
ttescription of property, is placed under the protection .of
the law, in order that it should not be under the mercy
of the KING on the one hand, or the Parliament on
the other: If any malversation or breach of trust takes
place, the courts of law are open, the injured party has
his remedy, and impartial justice is administered and its
decrees enforced. It is true that the Legislature, the
Kings, Lords and Commons, may pass an act of robbery.
Under such an act the lands of JAMES GREEN may be
,given to JOHN GREY. It is only necessary to state in
the preamble of such an act that certain reasons of state
,:policy render it expedient that GREEN should be plum-
tiered, and then the plunder will commence in due form.
' On this ground of expediency the lands of Protestant
bishops may be given to Popish priests. On this ground
the West India planter is compelled to accept two-and-
' sixpence in the pound. On this ground one man or one
. • branch of trade is sacrificed to another.
But the present administration are not content with
the omnipotence of the legislature. They have resolved
to govern the country by commissions; and in doing so
they have usurped the power of the supreme courts, and
stepped beyond the law. In fact they are acting with-
• out authority, as an irresponsible body, and summoning
personstl:ta before these commissions who are not bound to
t which summonses are not worth a piece of waste
Paller. ,• and they are asking questions which no man is
dto answer. The proceedings at Leiceiter will
410 w the extent to which this folly is carried. The
.com-
missioners are two stuff-gowned barristers of the names
RITCOMBE and COCKBURN. They summoned be-
!ore titel the
open court examined him upon the affairs of the borough.
ere is corneal'
town-olee- •s log exceedingly invidious in this. The
in that the legal adviser of the corporation, and
capacity is under the shield of the law, and can-
dinarnot be required to give evidence. What would any or-
y client say if his
•
against • .attorney were made a witness
him in a court of justice ? The town-clerk, how-
' ever, waived his privilege and answered all questions
put to him without reservation. What next took place
is thus described :
" That on the following Thursday, Friday and Monday he again attended the commissioners, who required further returns
from him in addition to those
alreadyth furnished by him, and also
demanded to be delivered u p to
• poration for the last twenty ye ern the hall books of the cor-
ars, the chamberlain's accounts
teethe last ten years, and risany ether .d oc•
uments embracing the