The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-06-20 00:00:00

MEETING OF THE LIBERALS, LAST
NIGHT, AT THE CONCERT-HALL.

A numerously-attended meeting of the Liberals of
this town was held last night, in the Concert-hall, Lord
Nelson-street. The meeting was convened by the Liver-
pool Financial Reform Association, " to protest against
the usurpation of taxing powers by the Lords, and to
exhort the Commons to stand true to their own privileges
and the constitutional rights of the people." Charles
Holland, Esq., presided ; and among the other gentle-
men on the platform, were Messrs. J. R. Jeffery, C. E.
Rawlins, jun., Lawrence Hey worth, R. W. Ronald,
A. C. Stuart, Alderman Rylands, of Warrington, F.
Boult, Thomas Urquhart, S. B. Jackson, the Rev. Mr.
Dillon, J. T. Foard, C. J. Corbally, E. K. Muspratt,
&e., &c.
The hall was completely crowded.
The CHAIR:IIIN rose amidst loud cheers, and some
uproar, and said he stood in a peculiar position. It was
intended that the chair should be taken by Mr. Robert-
son Gladstone, but that gentleman had some feeling in
the matter, considering that his own brother was the
party who introduced the proposition which was negatived
by the House of Lords ; and he did not wish that any
personal feelings should interest him in this great con -
stitutional question. (Cheers.) He would, however,
endeavour to discharge the duties as faithfully as he
could. (Cheers.)
Letters of apology were then read by the Secretary
from Mr. Ewart, M.P., Mr. Horsfall, M.P., Mr. George
Wilson, of Manchester, and Mr. James Molleneux. The
following is Mr. Horsfall's letter :

June 15, 1860.
DEAR SIR,---I beg to thank you for the invitation to be pre-
sent at the meeting proposed to be held in the Concert Hall,
Liverpool, on Tuesday next.
It is always a matter of regret to me when I unfortunately
differ from any of my constituents, and as the object of the
meeting appears to be to affirm a principle in which Ido not
concur, it is, perhaps, better that I should not be present,
even had it been in my power. On Tuesday, however, I am
engaged in the Committee of Merchant Shipping, and could
not with propriety be absent.---I am, dear sir, yours faithfully,
George Wilson, Esq., Tuos. B. HORSFALL.
Chairman of the Anti-Corn Law League.

The CHAIRMA.II then made a speech of considerable
length. He said that no doubt all present would con-
cur with him in saying that a momentous question was
now before them, and he considered they would agree
with rum in tniulang that they should only be taxed
through their representatives. (Loud cheers and
applause.) The attitude of the Constitutional Asso-
ciation was perfectly intelligible to him, both from
its antecedents, and from the position it had taken on the
present question, and its principles had uniformly been
directed against the progress of the people. The
Financial Reform Association, as they knew, took entirely
a different course. (Hear, hear.) The people of the
country were, in the muss, satisfied with the glorious
budget submitted by Mr. Gladstone. (Cheers.) Had
it not been settled for the last two hundred years that
the House of Commons had invariably passed money
bills, and he would ask Lord Lyndhurst to put his
finger on any one occasion in which the House of
Lords had ventured to come to any resolution which
affected the budget as a whole. The whole matter lay
in this compass—Was the people to be taxed through their
representatives in the House of Commons? (Cheers, and
a voice, "You are getting out of your time, I think.")
The chairman then referred at some length to the fact that
the taxation of the people of the country was made only

through the House of Commons, and contended that if
once the Lords were allowed to put in an interference in
financial matters, there was no saying where it might
end. The mask wascertainly thrown off in therecent case
_ _ _ _

in the House of Lords by Lord Derby and that wiseling
Lord Monteagle. He then proceeded to point out the vast

amount of property in the country, and the vast outlay
necessary for keeping up its public establishments, and

maintained that the enormous indirect taxation which
was imposed on the people was only the result of Conser-
_.

vative interference. The chairman then entered at some
length into the obtrusiveness of the House of Lords, and
concluded by introducing
Mr. JEFFERY, who proposed the following resolution :

That it is the established and indefeasible constitutional

right of the people of this country to be taxed only with their
own consent, by their own freely-elected representatives in the
Commons House of Parliament; that, the House of Lords
being an hereditary body, not subject to election, the members
thereof are not representatives of the people; and, conse-
quently, that any interference of the Lords in the imposition
or repeal of taxes, or the prevention of their repeal, is an
infraction of the exclusive privileges of the House of Commons,
and an encroachment on the rights and liberties of the people.

During the delivery of this speech, the hall at various

times reverberated with cat-calls and other unintelligible
sounds, which were duly appreciated by the audience,
and heartily responded to.

Mr. FRANCIS BOULT seconded the resolution ; and,
in doing so, he said that if the House of Lords had the
power of putting a veto upon the taxes proposed by the
House of Commons, or upon those repealed by the
House of Commons, that body had virtually the power
of taxation in their own hands. He thought it was an
innovation of the most dangerous character, and one
which ought not to be passed by without notice. The
question was, who had th 6 right to tax the people ? It
was most strange and wonderful to see by whom this
attack upon the Constitution had been made. It had
been made by what is generally called the '• great Tory
party ;" he considered that this:showed that this party
would sell the liberties of the people for even less than
a mess of pottage. This attack had been made under
the leadership of Lord Derby. (Cries of " Three cheers
for Lord Derby.") The noble lord alleged as his reason for
so doing, that the Commons had not provided sufficient
for the expenditure of the ensuing year. But he would
ask them whether they ever found the Commons slow
at taxing them ? He believed that the expenditure had
been amply provided for, and he had no doubt they
would bear him out in this opinion. If trade and corn
merce, hampered as they have been by customs duties,
had done so much to increase the wealth and resources
of the nation, was it not likely that a further develop-
ment of the same things would produce still greater
results ? There was not a merchant or a tradesman in
this town that had not been labouring to put money into
the pockets of the Derby family. (Loud cries of " No,
no," and " Don't tell lies.") He should most heartily
second the motion which had been read.

The resolution was then put and carried, amidst
cheers and groans.

Mr. C. E. RAWLINS moved the next resolution, which
was as follows :

That whether there be, or be not what are termed " pre-
cedents " for the obstructive course taken by the House of
Lords, with respect to the Paper Duty Abolition Bill, the
refusal of the Lords to permit the repeal of a tax which had
been withdrawn by the Commons, on the proposition of the
Ministers of the Crown, and for which a full equivalent had
been provided in the shape of an addition to the Income-tax,
constitutes such invasion of the privileges of the Commons
and the rights of the people.

He said the cry of the Lords had been " light weights"
for the horses; "give the Jockey Club all its privileges,
but take the privileges from the House of Commons."
(Another confusion was here created, some of the "Free
and Independents" indulging in running comments on
the speaker's remarks, amidst cries of " Kick them
out," "Put them through the window," &c.)
Silence having been restored, the speaker said
the great constitutional principle of the people's
right to tax themselves was now sought to be
taken from them. Taxation and representation had
always been bound together, and they were there to-night
to say that neither peers nor prelates should separate
what the constitution had bound together. He referred
to the time when Charles I. applied to the House of
Commons for supplies, and read an extract from Mr.
Pyra's speech at a conference which took place in con-
sequence. A little later, in the year 1671, the Com-
mons granted some taxes upon foreign commodities ; the
bill was sent up to the Lords, and slightly altered by
by them. The Commons would not brook' this, and
passed a resolution to the effect that the Lords had no
right to alter the rate or tax embodied in such a bill.
A conference was called upon this occasion also, and the
Commons completely overwhelmed the Peers with pre-
cedents. He also read what he said was one of the last
entries on the books of the House of Commons with
reference to this subject. A money bill had been sent
up, which was altered (in regard to the mode in which
the money should be raised) by the House of Lords.
The Commons then passed a resolution ignoring the
right of the House of Lords to pursue such a course.
There were a few instances of a money bill being
rejected before and since the Revolution, hut he could
find no example of a bill for supplies being rejected.
The Commons still retain the full power of arranging
the taxation of the country. The amount which the
Crown required was the only money bill (if there was
really any), upon which the Lords had the least right
to pass a vote. The Commons had now appointed a
committee to search for precedents, and a dreary search
it must be. But whatever might be the result of that
inquiry, he trusted that the people of this country would
consider the question for themselves, and put it upon a
firm and stable basis. The House of Lords was not now
in a more critical position than in 1836, when it out-
raged public opinion by rejecting the bill for the repeal
of the corn laws. Public opinion now governed the
world. That very moment the despot of Naples was
cowering within the recesses of his dominions because
of that opinion. He recollected that, when Garibaldi
had power in Italy, the first thing that he did was to
abolish the tax on food ; and he would ask them who
should be their Garibaldi in the House of Commons ?
of "John Bright," hisses.)
and
(Cries Whoever they
might choose, it would be their duty to stand firmly by
him, and to support him in the endeavour to pursue a
legitimate and constitutional course. Whether they
earned their bread by intellectual or by manual labour,
they earned it with the sweat of their brow ; and he
trusted and believed that they would never allow their
for
the to be fettered by a body entirely irresponsible
the result. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. R. W. RONALD seconded the resolution, which
was put and carried.
LAWRENCE HEYWORTR, Esq., then addressed the
meeting. He referred to various precedents which the
The
Commons had set with regard to this question.
had more than once stood forward and boldly
asserted their exclusive right to tax the people, He