OBSTRUCTIONS TO RATIONAL LEGISLATION.
THE efforts made by Ministers to "conciliate" the Anti-Reform Opposition in the House of Peers, are now universally allowed to
[ have failed. In vain have useful measures been mutilated or abandoned at their bidding ; in vain has the patronage of the Army ; been given up, while in the Navy, the Church, the Law, the Diplo- matic and Colonial services, good things without number have been
showered on their kith and kin • in vain has Lord GREY whined, arid Lord BROUGHAM wheedled,—not one Tory has been con- fverted to the party of the Whigs, or to the party of the Nation.
"Conciliation," then, has failed. The question, whether it ought ever to have been tried upon such materials, we need not
discuss. It is sufficient to know from Earl GREY'S own lips, that,
night after night, he sees a majority on the Opposition benches, who may, whenever it suits their purpose, decide any question against him. The past conduct and present avowals of that ma- jority, leave little doubt as to how they will deal in future with any measure of real and substantial benefit to the bulk of the nation, which they may be called upon to sanction. They will
contemptuously reject all such, in the teeth of the House of Com- mons and the Ministry. They will do this, as the Globe senti- mentally expressed the thing last week, from " feeling ;" they will do it, as the Chronicle this week more plainly and honestly ex- plains it, because their interest in the monopoly of abuses and corrupt patronage is greater than their interest in good govern- ment.
The questions which every one asks are—should this state of things be permitted to continue? how long is the Reform Bill to remain a dead letter? does the House of Commons perform its . duty, in acting subserviently to the bad "feelings" and corrupt selfishness of the Lords ? These questions are answered, as in- deed they must be, in the negative, by all who supported the Re- form Act as a great practical measure—not merely as a theoretic change, a shifting of the choice of Representatives from one portion of the people to another portion. A remedy for this state of things , must, then, be sought ; the means of correcting the "proved abuse" of the House of Lords must be applied. The remodelling or reforming of their Lordships' House, would, in this view of the matter, become a practical measure. Its aim would be definite, its immediate effect at least certain and beneficial. It would be a grand step towards rational legislation and good government. It is just a twelvemonth since the collision of the two Houses of Parliament, on the subject of the Foreign policy of the Whig Ministers, gave occasion to some remarks (not for the first time) in this journal on the subject of remodelling the House of Peers. The necessity for a measure of that description, sooner or later, was apparent enough then. Subsequent events have certainly not diminished the necessity. The Lords have been so coaxed and flattered by the Ministers and their organs of the Press,—such horror has been testified by the Whigs at the very idea of coming again into collision with them,—such pains have been taken, at the expense of all that is manly in politics, to allow them their own way in every thing,—that all remembrance of the les- son taught by the agitation of the Reform question appears to have departed from their noble breasts. But their Lordships' me- mories must be refreshed. They must again be reminded that the "whisper of a faction cannet prevail against the voice of the nation.
Various plans have been suggested for rendering the House of Peers a workable body. One of them, in the article alluded to,* was to this effect—that a numerous creation of Peers,for life only, should be made (Liberals of course) ;Alia; out of the whole body, some fifty or a hundred might be elected to serve 'in Parliament as Repre- sentatives of their order; that the hereditary privilege of legisla- tion should be utterly abolished, while the titles and other gew- gaws might descend as heretofore from one Lord to another. This method of dealing with the Lords, contemplated a gentle pallia- tive rather than a radical remedy ; it would reduce the assembly to convenient size, and render its members responsible to their own body at least. At present the Peers are utterly irresponsible. Even the Monarch may be called to account for misconduct, by the impeachment of his Ministers; the Members of the House of Commons are responsible to those who elected them; but the Peers are their own masters, having nothing to control or regu- late their conduct, save their own selfish interests and passions.
The Morning Chronicle of Thursday suggests a more demo- cratic plan than this.
" Perhaps (says the Chronicle), the best method of all would be, to give to the same bodies who return the Lease of Commons, the power of returning from the Peers a certain number, say one hundred, a proportion to be returned by the great towns, and another portion by counties. In this way we shall have two assemblies, diffeling in their elements, yet not opposed in interest to each other; the Houses of Lords and Commons would always be in harmony with each other, being responsible to nearly the same constituencies. Another great advantage would be, that the Lords would be under the necessity of qualifying themselves for the task of legislation, and of keeping on good terms with the rest of their countrymen. The great misfortune is, that at present they have no motive for cultivating the good-will and regard of the nation, and of properly qualifying themselves for their duties."
To something like this it must come at last, if the Peers per- severe in their present policy, as it: is most likely they will. The project of an extensive Order of Merit with delegated repro- *-....ltararmias the Lords ;" Spectator, IStb Jane 1833. sentatives, was perhaps better suited to a time gone by : the plan of the Chronicle is more accordant with Radical convictions now : if we wait a few years longer, without a manifest change of temper in the Lords, the call for their deposition, as a power an- tagonist to the public interest, will become national. But it may be said, the Peers have not had a fair trial : and we incline to agree in this. The policy of the Whig Ministers been so halting, and their influence over the House of Commons so extensive, that public opinion has not been brought to bear against the Peers. The practice so generally adopted by Ministers, of defending their conduct by false reasons, and keeping the true motives of action in the background, has prevented the public in a considerable degree from perceiving the real obstacles to the suc- cess of good measures. Lord GREY has been what the Times calls "an intermediate substance" between the Peers and the People. Had he and his colleagues and their supporters spoken out, and given the nation broadly to understand, that the selfish opposi- tion of the House of Peers was the real and only reason why such and such measures could not be introduced or carried,—or rather, had they introduced the measures, let the Commons pass them, and boldly presented them for acceptance in the Lords,—had they thus permitted the moral weight of the country to press upon the Oligarchy, there is good reason to believe, judging from what happened at the passing of the Reform Bill, that the Peers would have proved more manageable. The same ingenuous mode of dealing with the country, it may be added by the way, would have been of service in matters where the influence of the Court was felt to be malign. Why should not the real truth be told? Though the King personally "can do no wrong," we know right well that those about his Majesty are fal- lible. If it is apprehended that back-door influence is at work,—that any private functionary gives a false colouring to matters sub- mitted to the Sovereign,—or that individuals or measures are art- fully misrepresented to the Royal ear by any person whatsoever,— let the fact be published, and the nation be made aware of the base practices used to obstruct the progress of good measures, and who the guilty actors are.
Until this open and manly policy is adopted,—until the force of public opinion is brought to bear directly upon' both the Court and the Peerage,—it cannot be said that the Constitution, as it is called, has had fair play.
Previous page
