The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-08-02 00:00:00

Mr. JaFFERY thought they should proceed to consider
the resolution respecting the new Public Offices.
The MAYOR asked if it was the pleasure of the
Council. (Cries of " No, no.")
Mr. HODSON—What has the first resolution to do
with this matter It has no more to do with it than my
hat has. (Laughter.)

Mr. CHAULES TURNER said he moved at the last meet-

ing that the two orders—the one respecting the Public-
offices, and the other in reference to general town
improvements—sbould stand over till the report of the
Finance Committee had been considered. He begged
to renew that motion.
Mr. Woodruff seconded it.
The MAYOR—Is it the pleasure of the Council.
(Cries of " Yes, yes," and " No, no.")
Mr. Alderman BENNETI said this question about the
Corporate property had been used long enough as a
lever for the purpose of postpontrig the other subjects.
Mr. Ilopsorq, who spoke with a warmth which pro-
voked some amusement, said it was a disgrace to the
Council that the question of erecting the New Public-
offices should have been postponed as it had been from
time to time for the last five years. The present was
simply a ruse to get rid of it. (Cries of " No, no," and
uproar.)
Mr. SHEIL also spoke energetically against the incon-
venience and loss occasioned by further delay. If the
questions were not decided soon, they should not be
able to go to Parliament this year.
Alderman PARKER saw no reason why they should not
go into the subject. One great object had been gained
by the former postponement—they had got rid of an
enormous and costly scheme.

Alderman GARDNER hoped they would proceed at
once with the discussion.

Mr. KITCHEN said they had remitted to the Finance
Committee a point upon which they might have to
reverse their whole management, and therefore, as busi-
ness men, they were bound to wait for their report.
Mr. AYISON expressed a similar opinion.
Mr. JEFFERY, contending that the Council were
about to ignore their own position, and the decisions
they bad already arrived at, moved, as an amendment,
that they proceed with the subject of town improve-
ments at once.
Mr. CRELLIN seconded the amendment.

Mr. HODSON said the Finance Committee bad nothing
to do with the Public Offices ; they would never be
called on for a shilling of the expenditure.
Mr. JOHNSON said they were to be erected out of the
rates collectable, and part of which had already been
collected. The only question was as to what amount
should be expended.
After a few words from Mr. Aspinall, Mr. Clint, and
Mr. Tyrer,

Mr. Monty said—Was the amount to be met by a
rate, or might they take from any surplus they had such
an amount as would pay for the building in question ?
If they could do the latter, then it was prudent to leave
the question in the hands of the Finance Committee.
Mr. Jos was opposed to delay.
Mr. CHARLES TURNER briefly replied, when, on a
division, Mr. Jeffery's amendment was lost by a majority
of 25 to 17.

The following is the division :
For—Councillors Sheil, Corhally, Ilydock, Estill,
Stcains, Job, Gladstone, Johnson, J. R. Jeffery, Hodson,
Nickson, Beckwith, Clint, and Cropper. Aldermen
Bennett, Parker, and Gardner.
Against—Councillors Crosthwaite, Clarke Aspinall,
Shimmin, Littledale, Tyrer, Charles Turner, Avisen,
Ridley, Jeffreys, Wagstaff, Wilson, Mozley, Tobin,
Kitchen, Aikin, Steel, Farnworth, Jas. Robertson, and
Livingston. Aldermen Cooper, J. H. Turner, Bramley-
Moore, Woodruff, Houghton, and the Mayor.
Mr. TURNER'S motion was 'then put and carried.
It was now past three o'clock ; and

Alderman TURNER. proposed, as it.was impossible-they
could get through the whole of the business that day,
an adjournment till that day week.
_ _

This was agreed to nem. dis., and the Council
adjourned.

RADICAL MEETING IN THE CONCERT

HALL.

Last night a meeting, convened by the Reform Asso-
ciation, wa.; got together at the Concert Hall, for the
purpose of protesting against the " Lords' aggression"
iq rejecting the Paper Duty Repeal Bill.
As announced, Mr. J. R. Jeffery occupied the chair;
and amongst those of any note on the platform, the only
gentlemen we observed were—Mr. C. E. Rawlins, R.
W. Roland. Mr. F. Boult, Mr. J. C. Corbally, Mr.
Owen Williams, Mr. Avison, and Mr. S. B. Jackson.
It was evident, from the complexion of the meeting,
that its promoters were not likely to. have it all their
own way.

Mr. J. R. JEFFERY took the chair, and said the meet-
ing bad been called by placard, to protest against the
recent aggression of the House of Lords on the rights
of the people to be taxed only by their representatives
in Parliament.. Two previous meetings bad been held
in this town on the subject,—one under the auspices of
the Financial Reform Association, in which the question
was considered purely in its financial aspect. It was
of a most enthusiastic character. The second had been
held by working men, and he rejoiced to find they were
alive to the great interest involved in the question at
issue, and at which 10,000 people were assembled.
(" Oh The present meeting had been called by the
Reform Association. It was not a hole-and-corner
meeting—it was not ari exclusive meeting—
on one side of the question,—it was a free and
open meeting, at which both sides were invited to be
present.; and, as chairman, he would promise any gentle-
man who might come on the platform to take the negative
so far as he could command it, a fair and • impartial
hearing. He trusted he might have no occasion
to call on any of them in support of order, whoever
might be speaking,--whatever might be said.
-He (the chairman) viewed an unconstitutional
act like an error in accounts : they did not know
to what a state of confusion it might possibly lead.
Now the lords, in his opinion, by rejecting the repeal of
the Paper Duty Bill, did perpetrate an unconstitutional
act, though not strictly an illegal one. The chairman
then proceeded to quote authorities, as we understood,
to show that what was legal might not be at all times
expedient, wise, or discreet. New elements . had been
introduced, and new issues raised. Now this
meeting had been called by their sanction upon a con-
stitutional question ; the repeal of the paper duty was
altogether a secondary, and, indeed, comparatively, an
insignificant one, when compared with the great con-
stitutional question involved in the proceeding. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had made known to the
House of Commons last night that he should bring
the question of the import duties before the House in
two forms. He felt satisfied that the House of Com-
mons would find themselves in a very difficult position
when they came to discuss the question. -We were
about to import paper manufactured abroad ; that
paper would he put into bonded warehouses, it
will have no label upon it, and would remain
there, no duty being paid. It must be furtheiremem-
bered that the bonded warehouses were al over the
country, and the importers would consequently be able
to transport their paper from one warehouse into
another. That would be the case with the importer of
paper, but how would the manufacturers be situated ?
They could not pass the paper within the precincts of
their mills. Looking again at the interference of the
excise in the manufacture of paper, he had no hesitation
in saying that the cost of that interference could not be
estimated. There was another question—that of main-
taining the good faith of the treaty into which we have
entered with France. That treaty had passed both
Houses, it had received the Royal assent, and both
Houses bad joined in sending up an address to the
Crown upon that very question. Now, were they to
break faith with a country like France, with which they
had just entered into a written arrangement ? Were
they to sanction an act by the legislature that would
damage their reputation as an honourable nation ? He
did not believe that even those who thought the paper
duty ought not to be repealed at this moment, would, in
a commercial country like this, where good faith was
certainly equal to a large amount of capital, justify the
breaking of faith. No ; he believed they were in favour
of its being kept at any cost. But there had been
another question raised out of this, which was whether
Parliament was to have any deliberate resolution set
aside at which it had arrived, and which had been sub-
mitted to it,•not by the side of the House with which he
agreed, but by Mr. Disraeli—(loud and prolonged
cheering)—when he occupied the front bench
on the ministerial side. Mr. Disraeli moved, after Lord
Derby had taken the sense of the country upon the
subject, that the policy of the country should be unre-
stricted competition. The question which was to be
moved upon on Monday next was a free-trade question
(Great interruption.) A differential duty'of one penny
meant a protective duty. He hoped, therefore, that no
minister or parliament would sanction either a breach of
faith -or a departure from their free-trade policy. (A
voice :1" Turn him out," and "The less we have of free
trade, • the better ; it's a curse to the working man.")
He believed that if Lord Palmerston had taken his stand
upon the question when it was rejected by the Lords,
the House of Commons and the people would have been
all saved much time and trouble. A sponge which took up
the popularity it, could imbibe—that was Lord Palmerston.
The speaker then went on to say that, had the country
' taken • a different position, Lord Palmerston's course
would also have been different. After some further
remarks to the same effect, the speaker compared the
House of Lords to a registering clerk in a large esta-
blishment. (Here there was great confusion, and cries
of " Leave the chair.") The people of this country
were always as well represented, as they deserved to be.
(Applause and hissing.) If the people wished that
Government should keep faith with the Emperor of the
French, if they insisted on their doing it, they would do
it. If it were their opinion-that they should have cheap
paper-- (A voice : " We want cheap beef !") --depend upon it
that would be done 'which they desired. Let the people do
• their duty, andiheir representatives must; they might
rest assured that, sooner or later, they would do theirs.