TOPICS OF E DAY.
THE IMPOSSIBLE " COM PROMISE."
LAST week, we could net help fearing that Ministers might, by advising the Commons to submit to the Lords, make ready for their own dismissal. They have most agreeably disappointed us.
But who is it that would deprive them of the great accession of power which they have gained this week, by advising them to sacrifice the principles on which they have already declared for collision rather than submission ? The grounds on which Lord JOHN RUSSELL urges the House of Commons to rejict once more the Pssa.-and-Lvunituass. plan of Irish Municipal Destruction, are two,— first, that of " justice to Irelant1;" secondly, that of the insulting manner of the Lords in sending back to the Commons that measure precisely, which the Natienal Retresentatives have once deliberately rejected. Here are two principles of action: Ministers advise the Commons to in- sist on justice to Ireland, and to maintuin their own dignity. But can you be just and dignified by halves or quarters ? Will it be just towards Ireland, if the Commons give up half or three- quarters of the towns of Ireland to Lord LYNDHURST? will the Commons accept a less tolerable insult from the Lords, by adopt- ing no more than three-quarters or half of a measure of which insult is the whole aim, scope, and tenour? You owe me money ; justice requires that you should pay toe all that is my due : will you do me justice by giving me a ;art as payment in full ? An insolent bully writes an insulting letter : "Withdraw your letter," says the person insulted, "it is rather too long; make it a little shorter; and then, though knowing that you mean to insult me, I shad not be °Minded." Such is the nature of that "compro- mise" between the two Houses, which is called "the Duke of RICHMOND'S plan."
This plan did not originate with the Duke of Ricnstotan: it was first suggested by the Morning Post ; and is, we have no doubt, a trap set for Lord MELBOURNE, whose strength depends wholly on principles,—on that which may be abandoned or saeri- ficed, but cannot be compromised. But even supposing that Lord MELBOURNE should fall into this trap, will collision be the less inevitable ? As the Commons have already once rejected the PeEL-and-LvunnuasT measure, so have the Lends deliberately declined the Duke of Riensionn's proposal. Supposing the Commons to return, saving their presence, to their own vomit, and swallow half or three parts of it, will the Lords eat the whole of theirs ? Because the Lords insult the Commons, that is no reason why the Commons should insult the Lords. On the contrary, admiring, as we do, Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S advice to the C( mmons, as to the calmness, deliberation, and a digni- fied bearing, we are the more surprised at his having hinted that it may be expedient for them to send back to the Lords that measure precisely, which their Lordships have once deliberately rejected. Insult for insult is not the way by which the Com- mons will fulfil their duty to the People, or even prevent collision between the two houses. The collision is inevitable : let it rest on those antagonist principles which render agreement impos- sible until one House submit to the other, and the popular cause is sure to triumph. Or, at any rate, if the Commons are to abandon their principles, say so, and do not falsely call it "corn- promise."
Previous page
