PEERAGE REFORM—MR. O'CONNELL'S PLAN.

FROM the Revolution in 1688 to the present time, there has been but one serious struggle between the two Houses of Parliament. The national movement in 1831 against the Boroughtnongers gave the People the majority in " their own House ;" and not merely a nominal or professed majority, but one which dared not dispute the will, or misrepresent the opinions, or swerve from exe- cuting the mandates, of those who directly or who indirectly— the latter perhaps being the most formidable—had sent them to Parliament in order to carry " the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." The Peers, accustomed to rule, joined issue with their excited antagonists ; and, after a brief but earnest strife, retired from the field—defeated—humbled—dis- gusted. In the passing ef the Reform Bill the House of Lords perf emed a effete re` v but exercised no power : it wae. a mere nullity : King and People had combined to prove it useless in the Constitution. Being useless, it would have been good policy to have shown itself harmless. Had the Peers done what some (Jr the hely threatened at that time, withdrawn permanently from the vain show of pretend;ng to legislation, or decorously fallen inte the new system and rile of government which the passing of " the Bill " proclaimel te the whole war1.1, the subject of Peerage Reform woull heve slumbered for years in the heads ot speculatists : it would net have had, as it now has, a practical existence and a rimier interest. The good-natured Pe ole were rw,tlurato in their victory : and their chosen leaders, in the first Ref creed House of Cummens, were reluctant to follow up the advantages they had gained. It was a very general opinion even art :,ng hearty and clear-sighted Reformers, tEet the discomfiture f the lIeroughm 'tigers had have so severe, and the victory of the Compions so decisive, that in future little serious opposition te measures of natienal ter:fit was to be apprehended from the House of beds.

We have lived tc ke ee that this was a mistake. The triumph of Ref -rin was net so complete as was hoped and imagined. The Li run are roe-iced te retain as much as possible of that illicit influence which the Reform Act was intended to destroy. They have not dared to reject all the measures of Reform sent up to them by the House -of Commons: but it will be difficult to Feint out more than one (the Scotch Burgh Bill, avowedly passed through inadvertence) which they have not damaged. They form the Tarty of resistance to the improvement of our laws awl institutiens; and the men who lead the majority of their House are not ashamed to own, that the me ..e of any bill are secendary in importance to the fact of whether Mr. teComeisee is or is not in favcur of it. They legislate on the principle of Ovine annoyance to me man, not with reference to the advan- tage or necessities of the Edll empire. Thus they stand self- condemned. Nothim; more is requisite to justify the growing demand for v. change in the c .estitution of the House of Peers. But is there no prospect of an alteration in the policy of the Lords? It was supposed at the time when the Reform Act was passed, that they would have learned wisdom from that lesson ; that having tried their strength, and found it but weakness, they would have prudently and decently abstained from provoking future contests. Such expectations have been disappointed ; yet reliance is placed by seine on their disposition "to take a thought and mend." By acting wisely and ceasing to oppose the national wishes, unquestionably the Peers would postpone for a leng period the organic change of their House; but we ask any person to point out a single symptom of such a disposition. Read the speeches of the Tory orators, and the trusted news- papers and magazines of their party, and say whether the indications are not of a very opposite character? It seems to U3 that there is a fixed determination in the Tory majority to per- severe in the conduct which has forced this question of Peerage Reform upon the country. So far from intending to give way, they are eagerly looking out for an opportunity to enforce their anti-national policy by means of a High Church and King Ministry. It is true, the mere astute and better-informed among them are not sanguine of success in such another experiment as failed last year : but the majority- of the Peers refuse to be guided by WELLINGTCN end TELL; and they are urged onby the ignorant and selfish, that is to say, the most active, section of their party. They may act he n'le to fora a Ministry without PEEL; but they can throw cut the best measures el the Commons in spite of his advice. This, for instance, is the counsel of Mr. GEORGE SINCLAIR, the renegale Mem' ar fer Caithness; whose individual opinion is indeed not of the slightest weight, hut who may be suriesed to give utterance to that of his new political allies. Mr. SINCLAIR is satisfied, that " no measure will ever beceme the law of the land, which does not in all its principles, mid dl its details, receive the sanction and approval of Lon' STANLEY and Sir ROBERT Past." He says—" The House of Lords have learnt the secret of their own strength, and the utter hni knee of their enemies to control or overrule them:' Arain—" The Iltuse of Lords; by a system of concessi,n, only lowered themselves in public estimation, ql encouraged the eio • site faction temore daring and more extensive encroachinents. But Ey setting at nought the reiterated bravadoes which were interele-1 te ai pal them from the discharge 0f their duty, they have regained dolt WI position from which I trust they never will descend."

This is sufficiently intelligil lo. Mr. SINCLAIR sreaks what the WiCKLOWS, NEwCASTLES, W INCH! LSE AS, and the set who overruled the Duke of WEL7.INGTON last sessii n, theueht then and think now. Nay, we suspet—considering the kind of com- pany that Mr. SINCLAIR keel s, as an avowed fellewer of PEEL and STANLEY—that the more mohrate Tories are teeinning to delude themselves with the netien, that the way fir the Peers to preserve their " high Tesition," is not, as Lord EHRINGTON and some simple writers in the journals suig yse, to adopt a system of concessicn, hut the reverse: they regard their former concessions, on the faith of which we are told to expect more, as impolitic, and

provocative of attack from the Popular party, which they have discovered to be utterly impotent to control them. The argu- ment, then, against Peerage Reform—that any alteration in the eonstitution of the Upper House will be rendered unnecessary, by the yielding of the Peers—seems to be baseless. It is not our present purpose to repeat any of the reasons already advanced in this journal in proof of the need of Peerage Reform : but supposing the necessity to be allowed,—as it is, we believe, the firm conviction of a vast majority of the sincere Reformers, —the question is, in what way can the required change be best made? Of course there will be a great variety of plans.

Mr. O'CONNELL has given his to the public,—not dogmatically; for, provided that the elective principle is retained, he does not

object to the details being altered. We last week quoted copious

extracts from Mr. O'Cosisieees Letter to the Leeds Times, in which his" project of law" was published. Our readers would see

that he proposes to augment the Peerage by 180 new creations ; which, with the Irish and Scotch Peers, would raise the total numbers to 800. Out of these 800, he would direct the house-

holders of the United Kingdom, divided into 150 distinct con- stituencies, to elect by ballot 150 Peers, of which number the House would be composed ; the period of service to be five years, one-fifth of the whole body 1.30) to go out annually, but to be im- mediately reeligible.

Mr. O'Coesreee deems it a principal recommendation of this scheme, that it would effect no violent change, and introduce no new principle; as in the choice of the Irish and Scotch Represen-

tative Peers, some are selected and others excluded, though all are eligible. The innovation, however, we agree with the Ex- aminer, is not so trifling as Mr. O'Cosnseee's rhetoric would make it. If there were "no material change," we could hardly look for any material improvement. Popular election is a great change in principle, leading to the other great change of responsi- bility as a result. But Mr. O'CONNELL is especially anxious not to alter, or seem to alter, more than is absolutely necessary ; and in the consideration of his plan it is but fair to keep this in view. He fancies himself in the place of an architect who is not allowed carte blanche for the erection of a new edifice, but who has under- taken to modernize and render comfortable and convenient an ancient and dilapidated building, which the associations and pre- judices of the owner will not suffer him entirely to remove. This necessity of consulting prejudices, however, is the source of a capital defect in the scheme. Instead of giving the people "ample room and verge enough," the framer grievously restricts their sphere of choice. One hundred and fifty of the most discreet, best-instructed, enlightened, and liberal politicians, are required to form a National Senate. With the whole country to pick and choose from, we should not be embarrassed by the multitude of highly-qualified candidates ; but Mr. O'CONNELL gives only 800, from among whom the 150 are to be taken. We may safely say, that of the 800, more than half would be utterly unknown to the constituencies. Of professed politicians, how very few know any thing of one quarter of those who compose the present House of Peers? Suppose that the public were to extend their acquaintance with the noble body from which their Repre- sentatises in the Upper Chamber were to be elected, we question much whether the Peers would rise in their estimation. The limitation of the choice to the remnant, who are, or would be, neither minors, paupers, profligates, nor fools, would almost nul- lify the advantage derivable from the elective principle. The basis of Mr. O'CONNELL'S proposed constituency is broad and popular; but we are bound to admit that the Leeds Mercury has urged a practical objection to it which is not easily refuted. According to the objector's calculation, household suffrage would enable England to return 84, Scotland 16, and Ireland 50 of the new House of Peers. Now it is not the fault of the Irish— it is owing to the criminal misgovernment of which the Peers of England have been the constant props and advocates—that it is quite impossible to think of giving Ireland upwards of three times as many Representatives as Scotland, and considerably more than half as many as England. Were the qualification of the voter raised, this part of the scheme might meet with more favour out of Ireland.

These are our principal objections to Mr. O'Cosrsieee's projet ; which proceeds on the supposition that the People are not to be allowed to go beyond the Peerage for members of the newly-con- stituted Upper Chamber. The Leeds Mercury has brought forward several others, which, if room permitted, we could easily prove to be either frivolous or untenable. For instance, the writer suggests that the King might turn out the Liberal Ministers and "make every one of the new Peers Tories ! " Why, the whole scheme is founded on the supposition of the Liberal party having gained so decided a superiority, that neither King nor Peers would be able to displace them. Were the Tories sufficiently strong to turn out the Liberals, there would be no use in the new creation, for as- suredly there would be no Peerage Reform. The main object, in the first instance, of creating any new Peers, is to " swamp " the Tory majority : the Tories would have no occasion to resort to such a method of securing themselves in the House of Lords.

Mr. O'CONNELL'S reason for preferring two Legislative Cham- bers to one, does not quite satisfy us—

"Upon the fullest consideration, I declare my conviction of the utility of two Chambers for legislation. A second Chamber diminishes exceedingly, if it do not altogether take away, the danger of legislating from impulse, passion, or rty. Even a second House of Commons would afford this advantage—a

Reformed House of Lords may, I think, be so arranged as to be preferable." The danger of "legislating from impulse, passion, or party," might be in a great measure obviated, by judicious regulations, in one Chamber. It might, for instance, be a rule, that no great

changes should be carried into a law till after the deliberation of two or more sessions. Almost every measure might be referred to two well-selected Committees, and other precautions taken to prevent hasty legislation. The principal use of an Upper Chamber

is to secure revision ; an object which never has been attained through our irresponsible and hereditary House of Peers—see all the Acts of Parliament. This might be attained by submitting every bill to two distinct bodies of responsible Representatives,

though belonging to the same Chamber : there would be no need of a second House of Commons.

It would occupy much time and space to point out every ad- vantage of a single legislative Chamber : but we may mention, that

all danger of collision would be done away with, and the expense

and uncertainty of legislation would be diminished : it now hap- pens every session, in a multitude of cases, that bills are car- ried through the House of Commons at an immense cost, which the Lords unceremoniously reject, almost as a matter of course, the first time they are presented for their approval. It would be

no slight advantage to have all the best men in the same House —the Hite of the country, Peers as well as Commoners, bringing their collective experience and sagacity to bear upon every dis- cussion. In order to prevent sudden and unforeseen changes, the duration of Parliaments might be three years, neither more nor less.

But the prejudices of the country run in favour of two Chambers ; and, moreover, the same fashion prevails in other countries. This, we suspect, is the best that can be said for two Houses, under a real Representation, well-regulated in its details. It is enough, indeed, for the present purpose: we live but in a transition state, and must often accept of compromises because all are not ready for that which is scientifically the best. We fully believe, however, that the time is not very far distant when even an elective House of Peers will be voted useless, though not a nuisance.

In the mean while, we hope that Mr. O'CONNELL will persevere in his endeavours to attract more and more of public attention to this subject. The best if not the oily mode of preventing violent change, is to prepare men's minds by discussion. The truth never lost by argumentation. It is evidence at least of' Mr. O'CONNELL'S honesty, that instead of dealing in generalities and fine phrases—like Buenerr, for instance—be has come forward with details, and evinced a desire to deal practically with this great question. It is nothing against a scheme that on its first appearance it is ridiculed. Evety specific plan for a political change is greeted with a laugh, or with abuse, from the ignorant and the interested. What shouts of derision met Lord JOHN RUSSELL on the memorable night when he proposed the first Reform Bill ! Few hours elapsed before the laughers found that the People took that in earnest which they thought such a capital joke. It soon became no laughing matter. So it was with the Reform of the House of Commons ; so it will be with the Reform of the House of Lords. Already the question has made astonishing progress. Two or three years ago, Peerage Reform was only hinted at vaguely : now it is a prominent subject of discussion at public meetings, and in reviews, magazines, and newspapers. Let the jokers beware, and recollect the spring of 1830, when, with WELLINGTON in Downing Street, they little dreamed of GREY and Reform in the same place the succeeding autumn.

The Times yesterday inserted a letter headed" O'CONNELL.. WHIG TRICKERY," and signed" MEL&NensoN," whose object is to prove that the Liberal Ministers intended by their Irish Tithe Bill to cheat the Clergy out of 251., and reduce their income from 75/. to 50/. The writer asks- " 1. Out of the alleged 751., were there not 25/. to be given from the Conso- lidated Fund ? And did not the Irish Representative Bishops ask some secu- rity that this 25/. thus proposed to be given from the Consolidated Fund should be made in sonic way permanent? Did they not (and with manifestly just reason) apprehend this 23/. to be according to the greatest probability, but a present bonus for obtaining consent to the bill, the payment of which could not be reckoned on beyond that then present year?"

The answer to this is, that the bill of last session contained no clause for the payment of 25/. out of the Consolidated Fund. MELANCTHON is dreaming of the Tithe Bill of 1834. The Times must know how the fact stands; but what of that ? its readers may be duped and misled. The security for the payment of the 251., however, would have been as ample as that by which the Clergy hold any of their property : it would have been far better; for the law which entitled them to the payment out of the Conso- lidated Fund would have been obeyed ; whereas their tithes, though lawfully due, cannot be collected by the whole power of the Government.