STATE OF " THE PEAR," LAST AUTUMN.
" Last autumn we reminded the Spectator of its assertion that the countty was ripe for Peerage Reform, and that it was the duty of Ministers to lead the people in that direction ; and asked how it was to be reconciled with the subse- quent and more reasonable doctrine that a neutrality on the Peerage question was the proper pan of Ministers ; and then, as mow, we were charged with gatbling, and an explanatory context was talked of; but the explanatory con. text was never shown, fur the profound reason assigned in the travestie, that what's impom.ible can't be, and never, never, never comes to pass.' "—E.t.a • miner, 17th September 1837.
The readers of the Spectator have bad sufficient recent speci- mens of the Examiner's " garbling" tricks. There was little need to return to contexts, seeing that we effectually settled the charge with much less waste of space : so at least we were told at the time. On the evening of Saturday the 12th November last, we saw in the Examiner dated Sunday the 13th, the article which appears below in small type, in the favourite form of parallel columns end with the severe heading " Consistency." We answered it on the instant ; and published both the attack and the defence that same even- ing, in our second edition, as follows-
CONSISTENCY.
2-ta C.. wary ripe f r Peerage Norm us The Country not yet ripe for Peerage XI In tl.e 3d Sept. 1!,31i. on the 29th Oct. 1936.
• uth,t leaders. The Lords ate ripe validity to the laws of Englund."
liii 6,11,4! reformed ; the country is ripe for [dunning them • and the only fries. him it, when will qiiiisters he ripe eti Inc fir l..ading the country in that direction. ni for beau; east off as incapatile to mi- di:et a Reforming Government ? lli questiou noist Le settled before next ties. son or P ..1.a went ; and will probably be settlid be.ure Christmas, if Lord Durham six'Al appear in England dialog tbe antumn." l*Friarn the S, ceetor e.t. Sept. 3,1.19361 [From the Spe,tatur or Oct. `Ithla, 136
The present situation of the Reform- .• But will the obstacles to Peerage liv-
ing masses is very like that in which they form be removed, or will a power sufficient %,;,e pieced shortly before Lord 'Smog. to remove them be called into action, by h. m' famous. speivlies in Scotland. For next Easter ? Assuredly nut, if in the wliat :ire they to agitate? For Peet age mean %chile nothing be done to satisfy Reform, which, as Mr. Ilutt says to his those who are disgusted with the Malta. censt it [lents id. II till. is row the o..ly goes. thing policy of NI Misters ; and not impro- I:on. Itu it la w hat leaders? Is ache • bably, even supposing that Ministers i. hOl: fie Peerage Iteit'ffil to befin• or ajlingt tisty the Radicals, Peerage Reform may he th, :■1cItionfile Ministly ? ti his 1;14 in a ;Nast potted foe an indefinite period. The which nmst l,e determiotai benno Lords, if pressed hard eitongli, may give tie Pelle %ill sigitate for Peerage Re. way, as in 1932 — though only to put off num. Though, if a c may judge by the the evil hour ; and then the t int ul, s kir resold tow or some Treasury papers, reforming davit House will lose ils sharp. Ministers have no objection to a little tress. Who can insure us that they will gentle a4itation for l'e,rawe Reform. lilt not again prove craven. illotult they hOW Le so com'atetcil as ii i. ill the leait to coin, talk big.iiial swear, with Lord NVItitrucliff.., promise thee., still they slatii befere the to rall with it eir principles? The Goo. collar:: as bring of opioLni that the two t,i1 come for Peerage Reform—though nut lloist•s are • coequal and road in to.' and Si, soon as Easter. It mill corbe when the as being opposed to all fat [her organic measure of patience in the putaie. a,:d the change. Are we to take the trouble of submission to inselt in the tamest i ala- • iii. a NI a risk, or rather a high try, can endure no more. It will route, probability, that 'Ministers weuld tarn most likely, alien discussion has been ix• u1,1111*, i'Y awl LY. sa hue, ' You are all leilisted and given up in despair, and with. in the wring ; we never intended to lead out regard either to the small conceits of in that direction !' It is not as the mere Gotland House t waddlers, or the broad r.,:ii.aes or the Ministry are fund if al. plans of philosophical I: Then - tegiug, because the contitry doubts about but certainly not in see may expect the incompatibility of au Unireformed to read, some fine March niornine, that the Milne of Lords a ith a Refotmed noose 'loose of Commons, sluing in the backing of Commons, that the massess do not igi- ''I an almost unanimous people, and inilig- ta:e ter Peerage Reform; but it is because mint at the conduct of the incorrigible /ill:.isters do not see that incotnpatibility. L 1114. has passed a vote that the assent of • ta.sause, at present, the masses have the House of Peers is net necessary to give
[From Me .Examincr, Sunday 13th Norembee 1836.]
Well, we see nothing so remarkable in the " consistency" of this twofold enunciat:on of one and the same doctrine, as the " delicate coinpliment" of the Exandner—generously forgetful of his own superiority—would wish to convey. Any regular leader of the Spectator for a sear past, will say that he is familiar with it. Those who peruse the topic mi Election Preparations and Plans for Reforming the Peers, in the present number, (pp. 1085-10860 will find the substance of the doctrine of both columns restated there, not sentence for sen- tence, but thought for thought : and if in any thing the latter paper should seem, by reason of omission, to fall short of the explicitness of the two former, we done to be understood as now adhering to and affirming every proposition quoted by the E.raminer, first, from the Spectator of the tld September 1836, second, from the Spectator of the 29th October 1836. "lit every work regard the author's end ." The end of our paper published on the 3d of September, was to answer the taunt, " Why do not the masses agitate for Peerage Reform?" The brief answer was, that the People had no immediate practical object to gain by agitation; fur the Whig Ministers being still their leaders, and standing before the country as " opposed to all further organic changes," those who should take the trouble to agitate for Peerage Re. form, would be liable to be turned upon and reproved by their leaders for an untimely officiousness. Thus, the question of agitation was merged in the fur- ther question, " With what leaders? ' "The Lords are ripe for being reformed."—We think so. They have done those acts, and manifested those dispositions, which leave no doubt of the ne- sessity of a reforming discipline. " The country is ripe for reforming them."—Thia also is our opinion : the Country, we think, would gladly receive and support a proposition for reforming the Lords, if it came from .the Government. There is no near prospect of this at present. "When will Ministers he ripe for leading the country ix THAT mane- Von ? "—le the nextsessian, providcd they adopt the policy of" opera questions," and work the great practical nieasures of the session with sincerity and holdnese. Whether they are to do this, or to brave the risk el being "cast off as ince- liable to conduct a Reforming Government," must of course "be settled be- fore the next session of Parliament;" and if, happily, "Lord Durham should appear in England during the autunin"—it would not be too late even atthis eleventh hour—we have great confidence that the probabilities of a decision honourable to the Goverment and gratifying to the People would be increased to rertaioty.
After all chi., through the Ministers would be leading "IN TM! DIRECTION% of Peerage Reform, we are supposing that the Government produces no plea; and that, therefore, there would be no effectual egitstion in the country for an immediate settlement of the question, such as tusk place in 1631 and 1832 for the carrying of Earl Grey's Reform of the Commons—" the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." We have never on any occasion proposed that the present Ministers should make Peerage Reform a Cabinet question. We have never on any occasion spoken of it otherwise than as a distant event. We still view it in the same light—not uncertain, but not immediately at hand. The sooner or later—the extent—the manner—will depend on contingencies which man cannot calculate. The catastrophe imagined in the extract is not impossible . " the thing that bath been," &c. But we certainly look for no such or for any settlement of the Peerage question in 1637. Good night to the Examiner. We mutt leave his other ingenseities for another opportunity. We are in no fear that the conduct or the motives of either paper will be misunderstood by those who care to scan edem. [From the Spectator, 12th November 1835 ; S iturdy Night edition.] The allusion to Easter 1837, relates to LI sort of promise by the Exa- miner, that "the pear" of Peerage Reform would be " ripe " about that time. Alas !
There is an allusion to Lord Durham : even now, we cannot wish it unmade. Nay, if Lord Durham had returned in the nutumn of last year, we have reason to think that matters would have taken a very different turn during the session—sure we are that the letter of the 8th July 1837 would not have been written.
Previous page
