The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-07-25 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL REFORM ASSOCIATION.

The adjourned meeting of this association was held
yesterday afternoon, at the committee-rooms, Cable-
street, Mr. Jeffery presiding. About 500 invitations
had been issued, and twenty gentlemen attended the
meeting.

The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings,, said
they had met, as they were aware, for the purpose of
considering the propriety of calling a public meeting to
consider the present position of the disputed question
regarding the privileges of the House of Commons,
which had been so grossly infringed by the House of
Lords, in rejecting the bill for the repeal of the paper
duty. It was perfectly clear that the Government
could not impose additional duty upon spirits until the
Lords had given their sanction, as it could never be held
in any court that for the purpose of repeal the Lords may
have power, but for the purpose of imposition they
are to be nugatory. (Hear, hear). If the dealers
in spirits were to clear all the spirits in bond in this
country, and if the executive of the Government refused
to release the spirits without the payment of the increased
duties, whoever paid the duty under protest and took
the necessary legal proceedings the Government would
have to refund. It appeared to him to be great impolicy
for gentlemen to interfere with that of which they know
nothing, and which they professed not to understand;
and were the Lords, who knew nothing of financial
matters, to sit in judgment upon the financial proceed-
ings of the House of Commons, nothing could lead to
greater financial confusion. He presumed that that
meeting had been called to consider the present
position of the question. It had become more and
more complicated as time passed, and he regretted
that there were so few members present. The only
conclusion he could come to was either that- the
members of that association were relaxing them-
selves on the northern hills or upon the southern
coast, or that they were so busy making money
for themselves, and everything was so smooth
.and
prosperous, and so individually advantageous, that they
cared nothing for the position either of their fellow
citizens or those who may succeed them in future
generations. Bat if those present would take a proper
view of the question, and would feel that there was an
amount of responsibility resting upon their shoulders, as
indeed there was upon the shoulders of every one, they
would speak out upon that occasion, and not allow it to
be said that the only association in this town calling
itself the Reform Association had neglected so important
a question, and had allowed the House of Lords to
impose taxation upon the industry of the people, regard-
less of the consequences, and nnassociated as it was
with representation. He trusted that the meeting
would be called, and when called would be responded to
far more numerously than any meeting hitherto called
by that association.

Mr. C. E. RAWLINS, having mentioned that Messrs.
R. Gladstone, Jackson, and Urquhart had sent apologies
for their absence, proceeded to move that a meeting be
called, at which a motion should be submitted to the
effect that the people of this country had enjoyed the
immemorial right to tax themselves only by their repre-
sentatives; that the refusal by the Lords to pass the
bill for the repeal of the paper duties was a flagrant
violation of that right ; that it was the sacred duty of
the House of Commons, as the guardians of the rights
of the people, to exercise their power ; and that if they
refused to do so, their character as public men must
be seriously compromised in the people's estimation.
The object of that meeting was, Mr. Rawlins said, a
far more important one- than to discuss the question of
the repeal of the paper duty—namely, the violation by
the House of Lords of the privileges of the souse of
Commons. The paper question sank into utter insigni-
ficance before that concerning the right of the Commons
to tax the people without any interference. Having
gone through all the precedents which they had named
in their report, the committee had not been able to
adduce one -single precedent which meets the case.
Thirty-four cases were named where the Lords 444 inter-
fered in money bills ; but Mr. Collier, with the ingenuity
and keen-sightedness of a lawyer and the honesty of a
public man, had gone through every one of those cases,
and shewn that they were either rejected or inter-
fered with by the Lords on other grounds, and that
though they were called money bills, it was simply
because they contained a fine or penalty; but they were
not bills of supply. The report having been submitted,
the Hoase of Commons had passed three resolutions, to
the first and third of which he thought no defender of
the Constitution could object. The .second resolution
was more dubious, but taken with the other two he
interpreted it to allude to the jealousy with which the
House of Commons had always looked upon bills which
lay upon the border-land of supply. It was said there
was a great apathy existing with regard to this question,
and this he thought existed most of all among the mem-
bers of the Reform Association. If that had been simply
a question of reform, he would not at all have wondered
at it, because they had sever been in the habit of
attending to questions of reform.--,(oh I oh and hear,
hear.) But being a question affecting the constitutional
liberties of the country, he must confess that he was
surprised that they did not make an effort to defend the
past, if they did not go for progress in future. • (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. CAMPIIRLL seconded the resolution, and said it
seemed to him that the question was underrated by the
Liberals of this and other parts of the country. If the
Liberal party saw the consequences which mast ulti-
mately flow from the establishment of a precedent by
the House of Lords, they would see that that was a
most serious question. (near, hear.) He acknow-
ledged that the House of Lords had a legal right, but it
was one of those legal rights which were considered
anomalies, and held only on the understanding that it
should never be exercised. Such were the legal right,
of the House of Commons to reject a divorce bill, and
the legal right of the lay Peers to vote in cases of
appeal—rights which, if they had ever been asserted,
would immediately have been taken away. He thought
the necessities of the country might have been met in a
more legitimate way, for if the Lords were entitled to
interfere with the case in question, they were entitled to
interfere in any case where they thought her Majesty's
ministers had not made sufficient provision for the neces-
sities of the country. This would be repeated year after
year, and then the Liberals of Liverpool and elsewhere
would regret the apathy they had first shewn with
regard to the question.
Mr. 0. WILLIAMS, in supporting the motion., con-
tended that the real question was, " direct or indirect
taxation,"

Mr. JEVoNs had nothing to sly against the resolution,
but thought the better plan would be to go to the root
of the evil at once. He believed they would do no good
at all with the present state of representation. Parties
were so equally divided that it was vain to expect any-
thing more from the House of Commons than they had
already got. The question could not be altered, and he
did not think there was any good it interfering in a
matter which was settled. They should change the
state of the House of Commons, and return men with
more spirit, with more courage, and more decided prin-
ciples.

Mr. P. H. ItkrunoNE thought that, as the meetinc,
seemed so small, it would not be wise for them to proceed
unless they saw [acme of calling together one of those great
meetings which had been brought together by that associa-
tion. A meeting like that would coet from £5O to £6O ; and
as he believed the funds of the association were so low
that there would have to be an extra subscription at the
end of the year to meet the liabilities of the association.
If there was to be a meeting, he thought it desirable
that there pbuuld be a separate subscription ; and if that
were the case, it could scarcely be called a meeting of
the association. He was very sorry, indeed, to see ho
few there. He thought it was a great mistake for
gentlemen not to come, when, as he believed, their
absence was not merely apathy, but for some difference
of opinion on the subject. Ir was a most unfortunate
way of showing difference of opinion, and it was very
much to be regretted that gentlemen did not come for-
ward and openly state that they differed. (Hear, hear.)
He thought that association should be unanimous in
any step which it tcok, for the time must come vnien
they would want the association, and when theie would
be no fear of any apparent want of unanimity in its
decisions. He thought the main struggle would come
next session, and it would be well to postpone the meet-
ing until that period.

Mr. JEFFERY believed that his friend, Mr. Philip
Rathbone, was a fair sample of those absent friends who
had neither read nor ascertained from enquiry, what is
the present position and the probable prospects of the
question. It was deplorable that those gentlemen who
had spent £6,000 in our parliamentary contests, and
£B,OOO to unseat those who had improperly obtained
their election, should be said to allow a paltry £5O to
stand in their way, because that society was in a state of
bankruptcy, and not for the first time ; although the
means had always been found by which to liquidate
their liabilities at the close of each year. If they had
lived on faith in the past, why should they not live on
faith for the future. He was astonished at Mr. Rath-
bone lending his name to such a statement. Never till
then had the name of Rathbone been herded on the side
of despotism and obstructiveness. It was the first time,
and he hoped it would be the last.
Mr. JEVONS thought Mr. Jeffery Was too hard upon
their friend Mr. Rathbone.
Mr. RITHSONE said he saw he was in error in men-
tioning funds. He thought, in fact, that the meeting
was not desirable at present, and he ought to have
stated it right out. He trusted,that if ever the occa-
sion arose when the liberties of the country were
in danger, he should not spare—he would not say
money, for that was a paltry consideration—but he
hoped he would not spare either life or anything
else in its defence. He should feel exceedingly sorry
and unhappy if it was thought that either his personal
inconvenience or his personal safety should lead him to
disgiace the name which he bore. (Applause.) He
concluded by moving an amendment to the effect that
as the apathy on the subject was so mat, the meeting
should be adjourned till that objection could be obviated,