TOPICS OF THE DAY.
REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
THE Morning Post and the Standard have quoted largely, and with natural satisfaction, from an elaborate article in the Leeds Mercury, 'written in a very Conservative spirit, to decry the at- tempts now making to bring about a reform of the Upper House of Parliament. The Post intimates that the object of the writer is
connected with the election politics of Leeds: if this is true, it would seem that Mr. BAINES, expecting to be deserted by the Liberals, is anxious to conciliate the Tories. His journal is cer- tainly taking the course which is most pleasing to the latter; and if the House of Commons shall act in the same accommodating spirit, all danger of a collision will vanish until after a new elec- tion; for the Peers will persevere with impunity in obstructing and mutilating measures of extensive improvement, as in the days antecedent to Reform.
The writer in the Mercury professes to be alarmed at the pros- pect of breaking up the Liberal phalanx, which he anticipates as the consequence of agitating the Peerage Reform question ; and talks of "violence," "precipitancy," "revolution," "licence," "anarchy," and "blood," after the most approved Conservative fashion. But he is needlessly disturbed. There is every dis- position to discuss the subject with the care and delibera- tion which its importance requires. There is a general im- pression among those who see the necessity of making the House of Peers responsible to the Nation, that the modus operandi—the process by which this change is to be brought about—requires additional discussion and consideration. Difference of opinion either as to the change itself or the mode of effecting it, will not weaken the support given by the Reformers to Lord MELBOURNE, as long as he perseveres in his present policy. Ministers are not called upon, by those who agitate the Peerage question, to take part with them : all that is required or expected is, that they should allow the discussion to take its fair course. It will be found, if the Ministers follow this wise, and to them only safe policy, that not a vote will be held back even by the Members of the "Extreme Left." Although convinced of the importance of substituting Responsible for Irresponsible Legislation in the Upper House, as speedily as possible, yet we are fully aware of the folly of intolerant dogmatism on this question, in its present state ; and should no more think of withdrawing support from Govern- ment, or of refusing to cooperate with men who agreed with us on other points because they differed from us on this, than of making the reduction of the Stamp-duties on Newspapers the basis of a Political Union.
We are reminded that from the disunion of the Reformers the Tories drew courage for the coup deka of last November. But it may be asked, whence arose that disunion, if not from the dispo- sition on the part of the Whigs to give way to the Peers ? It is not from the temperate and reasonable discussion of the Peerage Reform crestion, but from the truckling policy misnamed " con- ciliatory, ' that disunion will spring. This is the rock on which there is most danger of splitting. The cry of King, Peers, and Constitution, if raised by Earl Firzwieniam and the Dukes of NORFOLK and DEVONSHIRE, would, it is said, bring an army of Yorkshiremen into the field against the advocates of Responsible Legislation. But these are the very persons with whose aid and concurrence we should ex- pect the alteration to be made. They are the men who, if the members of the Upper Chamber were elected by the People from the Peerage, would occupy prominent posts in the assem- bly. At present they are lost amidst a crowd of pauper Peers and heroes of the battle-field—men whose sword is their title to the privilege of legislating. The writer in the Leeds Mercury refers with satisfaction to the names of WELLESLLY, HILL, COM- BERMERE, and others. How came these men to have the irrespon sible power of legislating for the British empire ? Because they were successful soldiers ! A precious education, truly, for a legislator, is to be obtained in the camp The absurdity of the present system is in nothing more glaring, than in the fact that the reward of military services should be the right to make laws. Let the brave and skilful General or Admiral be rewarded with stars, ribands, titles, and money ; but do not commit the absurdity of transferring him from the camp to the senate, merely because he has done good service against the enemy with his sword. It is assumed that the Monarchy cannot exist long after the abolition of the legislative privileges of the Peers. Why it should not, we cannot guess. The Leeds Mercury argues against the abolition of the Aristocracy, and says that it was never heard of till 1835. Who proposes to abolish the Aristocracy now? It would be sheer nonsense to talk of abolishing the Aristocracy, in such a country as this. But it is not even proposed to deprive the Peers of their hereditary titles. Nay, the very first step suggested, is a new creation of Lords. All that is required is the abolition of the hereditary irresponsible power to make laws for the People. To assume that a limited monarchy cannot exist unless four or five hundred persons possess that power, is con- trary to living experience. Look at France and Belgium.
It is all very fine to write about the "Barons," and to refer to the ancient glories of the Peerage : but of the whole mass who crowd into the House on a field-night, how many are descended from the ancient Barons? The public has been enlightened on the subject of the Peerage : the greater part of it is known to be
the spawn of Boroughmongery—the efflorescence of Taxation. Give the People the privilege of choice, and they would perhaps cull the HOWARDS, the Sevsfoints, and the STANLEYS, from the KENYONS, the Rom.xs, the FORESTERS, et hoc genus omne. But now, small is the power of the old nobility in the House of Lords ; they are absolutely swamped by the influx of soldiers and boroughmongers.
The Reformers are comforted by the Leeds Mercury with the assurance, that if for a "considerable series of years" they return Liberal Representatives, "in time" the politics of the Peers will be assimilated to those of the House of Commons. What is to be done in the mean while ? How is Ireland to be kept quiet? Is it credible that the People of England will suffer measures of the first importance to be laid aside, and the whole machinery of the Government to continue in confusion, for a "considerable series of years?" If they were disposed to act so like apathetic fools, (which they are not,) they would soon become aware of the absolute necessity of preventing the continuance of such a state of things, by restoring harmony among the different branches of the Government. The time is at hand when the absolute im- practicability of the system of checks and balances, which has been feigned to exist, will be fully demonstrated. There can be but one controlling power in any country. In England, that power has been wielded at times by the Monarch, the Peers, and the People, separately,—never, in point of fact, conjointly. The Peers in this country have bad a long " spell ;" but the turn of the People is coming round fast. Having learned the secret of their own strength, the uselessness of violent proceedings, and the advantage of acting according to law, we doubt not that they will exercise their power with discretion and justice. The Constitution, as recognized by all parties, points out the way. It is useless to attempt to stop the progress of this question. The demand for the Reform of the House of Peers is not of factious origin, nor is it urged by men likely to be driven from their purpose. The final struggle between two great principles has commenced : it is to be determined whether we are to have Responsible or Irresponsible Government in this country,—that is the question ; and if writers on the Tory side choose to say that a Limited Monarchy with a Responsible Legislature is a " Re. public," they are welcome to the use of the nickname : the Re- formers will not be deterred by it from pursuing substantial good. The conflicting parties, like the opposed principles, are irreconcile- able. There is no choice ; or none but between temperate dis- cussion, with a view to rational adaptation—and bigoted submis- sion to an institution of the ages of barbarism and violence, which is become unsuited to the state of society, and by its ill- working threatens the convulsion of a commonwealth.
Previous page
