MR. O'CONNELL ON PEERAGE REFORM.

Mr. O'Connell has taken the field as advocate of the Reform of the House of Lords, in a series of letters, addressed to the Leeds Times;

in which journal the first letter of the series appeared on Saturday the

5th current. In the choice of a channel of communication, O'Coinall seems to have been guided partly by the politics of the journal he ad- dresses, which (judging from the few numbers we have seen occasion- ally) is conducted with much spirit and zeal for Reform, and has produced some very strong and able arguments on this question,—partly by a wi,11 to meet in the most direct manner, in its own locality, the elaborate Conservative manifesto in favour of the Lords, put forth in Mr. Baines's paper, the Leeds Mercury, which had also taken considerable liberties with O'Connell himself.

Mr. O'Connell sets out with proving the necessity of reforming tke House of Peers, and the danger of postponing a remedy to the " cer-

tain, practical, active " evil arising out of its present constitution. tie

maintains that the current of public opinion has set in strongly and steadily, though not vehemently, in favour of effecting a reform of the House of Peers by the same means as obtained Emancipation and the Reform of the House of Commons. He enforces the necessity of union among the Liberals; and charges Mr. Baines with fomenting d6sen. sions, and allying himself with the Tories, with the view to preserve irresponsible privileges of the Peers. He then proceeds to reply to " the manifesto of Baines "—paragraph by paragraph.

"The first paragraph or exordium contains twenty-one lines, and ends up• proptiately with the word' folly.' In this his exordium, Baines denounce, division amongst Reformers ; but this, as I will soon show, is mere hypocrisy on his part. I, however, readily admit that division is a bad, a very bad thing; but a violation of principle is worse ; and we Radicals will, I our quite sue, avoid division from the Whigs, unless the unhappy case should occur of a attempt to violate principle, or unfairly to prevent the working out of the principle. There is but one magic in politics, and that is always to be rigid, and I do think that there exists at the present moment the strongest disposition in the great body of the Radical Reformers to be right upon every political question of importance, without being swayed by passion, disgust, or prtje- dice. The sound and rational Radicals are destined to be the political saviours of Britain. " Baines illustrates the evils of division in public parties by a short but n accurate sketch of recent Tory history. He totally forgets that the divi.ien among the Tories was created by the more intelligent and generous portion of that body perceiving that it was impossible much longer to resist the general impulse towards Reform. It was the more manly and forward part of the Tories that separated from the dull and the sluggish, who foolishly believA and still believe, that the cause of rational improvement could be tottliy stayed. Whereas, on the contrary, those who would create division amongst t Reformers, are the laggards and the supine, who will not go on wish the rational movement, and yet know not when or where to stop. These are the men who endeavour to show dissension amongst Reformers. " The second paragraph purports to commeoce the discussion ; and prore.s beyond controversy that Baines is a hypocrite when he preaches against diyi- aien. Mark what his first argument is. He states that it was I who brought forward the measure of ' Refurm of the Lords,' and that my bringing it tor- word was a proof of its being the reverse of wise. Now, this very 111311 is one of those who cant against the use of personalities ; and yet his first argu- ment, on a most grave and important question, is a pure and simple persosality, in accusing an individual of habitual folly. This, to be sure, may be true ; but it is certainly personal. 'Mr. O'Connell is the apostle of this measure, therefore it is unwise.' Suck is his conciliatory logic ! I content myself fur the present with denying his inference. I admit it is not the better nimixtire,

because of my advocacy ; but I utterly deny that it is the worse; and this at least is certain, that commencing with a personal attack is not the way to pre- vent that division which Baines affects to deprecate.

" But he does not rest here. He goes on to say that my proposition for a Reform of the Lords must be unwise ; because I brought forward the Repeal of the Union, which he is pleased, in his own conciliatory way, to a pre- posterous blunder.' The wanton and most unnecessary introduction of "the Repeal' in this manner, is not merely insulting to me alone, it is an insult to *at Minutia body of Irish Members who, with me, voted for the Iteetal, we are forty-three, including Tellers. Now this class of Members has, Baines must admit, given considerable and liberal support to the party to which he belongs; a support which was so little expected—I will say nothing of how it was formerly deserved—that Peel speculated on its being witheld as one of his inducements to accept office, and frankly said so at his great Tamworth dinner. Baines, however, insults us all : he declaims against division, and then be turns round upon upwards of forty Alembeis of Parliament and says—' Gentle- men, no division amongst us ! be unanimous with us. But, between ourselves be it said, you are a pack of blunderers!—preposterous blunderers ! !—nay, worse than all, litisn blunderers N ! who disgust England and Scotland,"and whose proposal of any messure is a presumption that it is the reverse of wise. But come, shake hands—let us be friends still—no division, good gentlemen, for heaven's sake!'

" Such, literally, is the meaning of his second paragraph. It demonstates hnw hypocritical his pretences of avoiding division amongst the Reform party were, or how wretchedly silly he himself can be, though generally, he is a shrewd, sensible fellow. But I do believe he is devoured by vanity, and that, after all, he lecollects with some mortificatioa that once I had the misfortune to bibig down peals of laughter from the entire House upon a pompous and pro. Sail, declamation of his, full of churchwardening piety on the enforcing, by new laws, the observance of the Sabbath : I cannot uthewise account for his folly.

For my part, I readily forgive him ; and I abstain from noticing the con- cluding part of his second paragraph, in which he borrows some worn-out Tory ribaldry on the subject of the ' Tail '—another insult, to be sure; but I forgive him that as well as his calumny on the ' just approaching' comet,

which he has the cruelty to treat by comparing it to me and to the Re- peelers."

The Repeal of the Union having been introduced into the contro- versy by the Leeds Mercury, Mr. O'Connell takes the opportunity of restating his policy with regard to that question, and to point out its connexion with Peerage Reform- " 1 deem it but candid to inform the British Reformers, that I have not abandoned the pursuit of the Repeal of the Union. It is, on the contrary, true, and let Baines make the most of it, that I am as thoroughly convinced as ever I was, that Ireland will never be well or honestly governed until she has a do- mestic legislation of her own. I, therefore, have not abandoned, 1 have only postponed the agitation of that measure ; and I have postponed it for two rea- sons—first, to give, in the full spirit of candour and perfect fair play, room for the entire working out of an experiment whether I reland can have a just and beneficial government without the Repeal of the Union. I enter into that ex- peiiment fully, heartily, actively, energetically. Should the experiment suc- ceed,—and Lord Mulgrave and Lord Morpeth are as vet doing all they possibly can to make it succeed,—if it succeed, then my judgment will prove to be wrong ; but my heart will be consoled by the prosperity of the loved land of my birth. If it fail,—as fail I think it must,---I will then turn round on the honest Peformets of Great Britain ; I will point out the sincerity with which I have made out the experiment of an Imperial legislation ; I will point out the natural and impassable obstacles to its success. I will then be right in the judgment of my conscience and of all the impartial men of the British Isles; and, with right millions at my back, and justice in my cause, it would indeed be preposterous to doubt of success.

" The second reason why I postpone 'the Repeal' is, that Ireland is not as yet ripe for a siinultaneotte effort. The Orange faction is as yet frantic, fanati- cal, and above all, selfish. It is re:uly to sacrifice country and liberty to the base and factious interests of a sanguinary party. " But I thank you, Baines, for introducing the ' Repeal,' because it enables me to ask you, whether the House of Lords be not now the most prominent and unmanageable obstacle to the good government of Ireland ? The 170 despots have treated England and Scotland badly in the last session. They have treated them unjustly—they have thrown out, or retarded, or mutilated, at their caprice, many measures of vital utility to Great Britain. But Ireland they have treated insdently—contemptuously. They scorned to argue. They actually kicked out every measure to ameliorate the institutions of Ireland. It is therefore part of my great experiment upon the Union—it is an essential part of that experi- ment, which drove me through the North of England and through Scotland to rouse public opinion, in order to control, if possible, the Lords, and to procure that salutary Reform in their Homo, without which Ireland must continue miserable and enslaved—the pitiful, pelting form. of every abuse—the source of expense and insecurity, and weakness, to the whole British empire. I tun in any conscience convinced, that there is no mode of ultimately preventing the Repeal of the Union—nay, the separation of these countries—but by procuring that justice for Ireland which the House of Lords contemptuously refuse her. You must have a reform in the Lords—or, mark my words, ' Repeal of the Union.' "

Mr. O'Connell exposes the misrepresentation of the Leeds Mercury, that an abolition of the Peerage, not the substitution of an elective for an irresponsible body of legislators, is the change aimed at ; and ridicules the idea of submitting to the insolent misrule of the " Barons," because it has subsisted for a thousand years.

"'Baines is shocked at the thought of compelling the Peers to do right- insisr ing with all his lungs, on their right divine to govern wrong.' It is a sacred right ! says he oh ! they have had it one thousand years!—Ire exclaims, it is rank blasphemy to endeavour to deprive them of it !! ! " About a century ago, an English traveller chanced to be at the fair of Millstreet, in the county of Cork. To his surprise, as he gazed at the multi- tude, a well-dressed, well-mounted man, armed with a large shillelagh, dashed amongst the people, knocked down men, women, and children, overset the stalls of gingerbread, crushed the crockery-ware, and did all imaginable mis- chief without resistance, and with impunity. Who,' said the astonished Englishman to a peasant who was bleeding profusely from a blow of the shil- lelagh, who is that man that does all this mischief with impunity?' Who !' replied the peasant, with surprise, 'do von not know? that is the great O'Leary, the chieftan of Toneir, who his the hereditary privilege for ONE THOUSAND YEARS of ruling the fair of Millstreet, by knocking clown all parties.' ' But, replied the Englishman, ' would it not be fit that O'Leary 8hculd exercise his privilege with common sense?' ' Common sense! com- mon sense!' cried the indignant vassal ; Saxon, know !'—and he knocked him down—' know that O'Leary scorns to have common sense."

Mr. O'Connell then explains his plun for Reforming the House of Lords- " First, I take the English Peerage, and I find they amount altogether to 421; there are 12 Peeresses whose eons will be Peers—total 433. The Irish Peers, the greater part of whom never saw Ireland,are202 ! of these no less than 72 are included in the English Peerage, leaving 130 Irish Peers to be added to the 433 English—total 563; add for Scotland 57, not being English Peers; he total of the existing Peers will thus amount to C20 persons. I reckon the rich and Scotch Peers as well as the English, for they certainly should be put oil a footing of perfect equality, else the Union is a mockery to them. • e Pitiful, pelting form "—sic in Lear Times, Ltd the phrase is not intelligible to ns; there is probably a misprint.

" Inn rder to carry the Bill for the Reform of the House of Lords, it would be necessary to create a new batch of Peers; mid it would be wise in that ewe

to create a large number, suppose 180, so as to render the success of the IOW quite certain ; it would be useful in another point of view to have a great ad-

dition to the Peerage, because there would be this important advautage, that the number of persons eligible to sit in the Upper House of Parliament being so much greater, the people would have a large range for selection. " Taking then the present Peers at 620, and adding 180, you would have 800 Peers altogether. " I propose that the House of Lords should in future consist of 150 only-- that these 150 should be elected by the People, out of the 800. " The 800 Peers would be the sole persons eligible. The electors I propose to be the People at large.

" For that purpose I propose that Great Britain and Ireland should be divided into 150 districts, as nearly equal in point of population as possible. Each district to elect one Peer. Every householder to be an elector ; and for my

part I should most anxiously desire that the electors should have the protection of voting by ballot. It is included in my plan. " It seems to me, that as the number of the eligible would be limited, the electors ought to be as numerous as possible. " I propose that the number of Peers should never be less than 500. I de not propose in any way to restrict the Royal prerogative of creating peers. The more Peers the King may create, the greater would be the opportunity af- forded fur the people of making a good choice. " I propose that the legislative body of the Peers should be elected for five years ; one-fifth to go out annually, with the full capacity of being reelected.

This plan would leave the prerogative of the Crown untouched. The Kittg would have the power to create as many Peers as he pleased. The only limi- tation would be in the opposite sense. There should be always 500 Peers—there are now 620.

" This, then, is the summary of my plan. Let the House of Lords for le- gislation be reduced to 150—there seldom attend so many, except for bad pur-

poses. Let the selection of 150 be given in districts, which may, with the ut- most facility, be framed for that purpose. My plan would include household suffrage and vote by ballot.

" I look forward to the enactment of triennial election for the Members of the House of Commons. The simultaneous election of that House no person proposes to disturb ; but the situation of the legislators in the Lords should, d think. be for fours years—removed annually in the proportion of one-fifth. " Thus, therefore, Mr. Baines must in spite of himself see, that I propose e House of Lords—and a house of nothing but Lords; an assembly of Barons, and nothing but Barons. I do not alter the Constitution, as it is called, one

particle. The only change I propose is within the principle and the practice of the Constitution—a principle twice sanctimed by legislative enactment— consecrated by two of the most important Acts of Parliament in the Statute- book, and made the bond of union between the three separate kingdoms of which the empire is composed.

" That principle, worked out into practice, is the selection of a portion of the Peerage, and their separation from the rest, for the purpose of legislation.

" Thus, by the Act of Union with Scotland, the tight of legislation was taken away from the Scotch Peers generally ; and out of about 154 Peers— which composed, as I recollect, the Scotch Peerage at the Union—ouly 16 were to he selected, ail the right of legislation pres,:rveil to the selected 16. The rest of the Scotch Peers were placed in the self same predicament in which my plan would place the English Peers beyond'the 150 who are to have the power to legislate.

" Thus, again, by the Act of Union with Ireland, the right of legislation was taken away from the Irish Peers generally ; and art of about 150 Peers only 28 were to be selected, and the right of legislation resetved to the selected 28.

" In each law of Union, the principle of exclusion of the many and of selec- tion of a few of the Peers of each country, was established and worked out; but, in point ofpractice, was worked out with a strong and striking difference. The 16 Scotch Peers were and are selected for each Parliament only—each of the Sti Irish Peers is selected for his life. The principle of exclusion and selection was the same in both cases—the mode of working out that principle was essentially different.

" Now that is precisely what is proposed—to adopt the principle of ea-elution of the many and of the selection of a chosen few—r lie mode of that selection t• be different. Experience has shown that the mode of selection by the Peers themselves is the very worst imaginable. Let us adopt the principle, but work it out with the implored machinery of popular suffiage, protected from intimi- dation, coercion, and corruption, by the ballot. " Shall it be said that the exclusion of several of the Peers from the right to legislate is a robbery, a spoliation of their vested rights, their existing privi-

leges ? To which I reply, the Union with Seo:land, and above all the Union with Ireland ; and I take leave humbly to ask Mr. Baines, is the latter founded on spoliation and robbery ? Let him give me any fair answer to that question, and I will find in it at once, either the principle of Repeal or the principle of Reform of the Lords.

" By my plan, the unelected English Peers would be precisely in the situa- tion in which the unelected Scottish Peershave been for more than a century—

in a situation identical in essence with that of the unelected Irish Peers, but is many particulars superior. In short, the state of the unelected English Peers would be a known, a familiar 'status' of the Peerage—one created by most important statutes, and alreiuly existing around us at every side.

" I propose no innovation, no material change in the Peerage. I would merely introduce into the Peerage of England whit has been already introduced into the Peerage of Scotland and Ireland. The only alteration I propose is in the detail of selection ; and I do think that every rational man will allow that the election by the People at large is infinitely superior to the mode of election by the Peers themselves. Even Baines himself must admit that the electionlay the Peers themselves is the very worst in principle and in practice that could be adopted—it would aggravate the present evils, and remedy none."

The letter concludes with a brief reference to the change effected is the position of the Peers by the Reform of the House of Commons— which made the hostility of the former to public rights inure glaring— and with a declaration, in opposition to the opinion of Mr. Roebuck and others, that a second Chamber is desirable as an instrument of legislation.

• Fear years "—probably a misprint for "fire years:" he had previously pre. posed "that the legislative body of toe Peers should be elected fur fire years, one fifth to go out annually,"