PEERAGE REFORM.

THE thorough Reformers are under sonic obligation to those jour- nals, Whig or Conservative, who continue to debate this question ;

which not only the Conservatives as a party, but many of the Whigs and some of our timid Ministers, were anxious to hush to rest—the phrase, we believe, is to shelve it. Every attempt to screen the Lords, produces another shaking and sifting of the sub- ject; and the cause of truth—the establishment of Responsible Government for the Nation, upon the ruins of Irresponsible Oli- garchy—will certainly be promoted. We combated Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S dogma that "unques- tionable danger to the Monarchy "would result from the abolition of the Peers' privilege of hereditary law-making, by showing that such a measure would not affect the Royal authority in any essen- tial degree, and that all the important functions of the Kingly office might be discharged with the aid of an elective Second Chamber, at least as well as they are now. The facts and argu- ments adduced in support of our position, if not invincible, are as yet unanswered. The Leeds Mercury has doggedly reasserted Lord Joust RUSSELL'S ipse dirit ; but that is all. The journalist escapes from the point under immediate consideration,—which was, not whether Peerage Reform was a good or a bad thing, but whether the Monarchy would be endangered by converting the House of Peers into an elective and responsible assembly. He did not point out in what way the danger would arise ; he did not demonstrate the close connexion between the hereditary privileges of the King and of the Peerage ; but be referred to the change of Ministry in November 1834, challenged us to "try our hand" at that, and "engaged" that we should make out a stronger case against Monarchy than against the Peerage. Well, we showed, by circumstances too recent, notorious, and certain, to be denied, that the objections which were good against the Peers could not be sustained against the King; because the latter, having ap- pealed to the Country, very promptly succumbed to its veice, when that was declared against his recall of the Tories. We said that nothing more could have been required even of the President of a Republic ; but that, had the King been enabled to resist the de- mands of the Commons when lawfully made through their recog- nis-ed organs, then indeed he would have furnished the admirers of Republicanism with an argument against Monarchy, which they are not likely to be furnished with. We think we "tried our hand" at the case laid before us, with some success : and the writer in the Leeds Mercury seems to be of the same opinion, for as he carefully avoided any attempt to prove how the Kingly Nal would be put in risk by abolishing the hereditary legislation of the Peers, so, in his last paper, -though he has devoted a very long article to what is ostensibly a reply to the Spectator, he has again gone wide of the question which he himself started, and in place of making good his position as to the "case against Monarchy," insinuates that we are concealed and tmcandid advocates of a " simple Democracy," presenting a "masked front," &c. Surely there is no room for paltry insinuations of this kind. When some- thing of the sort was formerly hinted at, we frankly avowed that we would not be scared by a nickname—that if any one chose to tall a Government in which Lords should be made answerable for their conduct as legislators, in the same way as Commoners are, by the name of "Republican," it would not make the slightest difference in the estimation of the real Reformers. We repeat this. We are not the advocates of a "simple Democracy" for England ; we do not call ourselves "Republicans ;" the Leeds journalist may, if the name pleases his fancy—we battle for things, for principles which we fearlessly proclaim, caring nothing for suit terms of reproach.

We are told that it would not suit our present purpose to accept another invitation of the Leeds Mercury,—namely, "to try if a stronger case could not be made out against the Monarchy than has ever been made out against the Peerage." Suit our purpose! certainly not. The Monarchy does not present a formidable bar- rier to good government. The King does not refuse his assent to useful measures; he authorizes his Ministers to introduce them. The King does not obstinately struggle against the majority of the Commons; he yields to it. Our object being the regular working of the machine of government, for the good of the public and the removal of practical grievances, we have no motive for attacking the Monarchy, or for attempting to demonstrate the abstract supe- riority of one form of government over another. Let the Aristocracy, -however, once be removed, (as if it were proposed to remove the aristocracy?) and, according to the Leeds journalist, we should soon bear such la guege as this- • re of the Kin so much talked of is rtial and delusive. He is still protected against the consequences of the most wicked and mischie- vous conduct. The 'Sing may turn off the best Ministry in the world. He may seize an opportunity of allying himself with a faction, and raising unworthy men to power. He may unexpectedly, and when the nation is not prepared' dissolve a truly independent House of Commons, in hopes of obtaining one more subservient. He may thus compromise the tranquillity of the country, and render perpetual vigilance and excitement necessary to cluck his designs. And he may do all this without having the slightest real and personal respon- sibility. He has the monstrous power of plunging the nation into war. He burdens the People with unnecessary expenses. The mere trappings of a Monarchy would furnish out a Republic. Hereditary monarchy indeed !—it is as absurd as hereditary legislation. The former could only stand with the support of the latter ; and now that the hereditary privileges of the Peers are gone, the flagrant anomaly of hereditary Monarchy must in all consistency he done away. Is virtue hereditary ? Is talent hereditary ? Why, then, should power be hereditary ? Every argument used against hereditary legislation applies with additional force to an hereditary .fficer who holds both executive and legislative power. Why should the nation retain a public officer capable of doing such incalculable inischief,—subject to a responsibility little more than nominal,—who needs so much watching and checking,—who may be the most foolish or the most vicious of mankind ? Why pay so dearly for so bail an in- stitution? Let us at once have a President chosen by the People—their wor- thiest citizen—amenable to them for his conduct—not maintaining an idle and profligate court—and not taking from their pockets the money thus squandered in vice and foolery."

It is mere unsupported assumption to say that the conversion of the hereditary into an elective Upper Chamber would cause such language as this to be used. The King must be judged by his own acts. It is inconceivable that a popular outcry against the Monarch would arise from the abolition of the hereditary legis- lative privileges of the Peers. Why should it ? It cannot be supposed that the King would become more wasteful, or more in- different to the public good. No one looks upon the House of Peers as a corrective of Royal misconduct. What unpopular acts have the Peers prevented the King from committing? They did not prevent him from dissolving the Parliament. Their Lordships have not checked Royal waste : they have not rendered the King's responsibility real. How then can the removal of the hereditary Peerage be felt as a reason for abolishing the hereditary Mo- narchy? On the contrary, the ill-judged and unpopular acts of the Sovereign are very generally, and we believe very justly, ascribed to the bad advice of' Lordly counsellors ; and the People would feel inclined to place greater reliance in the King were these falsely-styled props of the Monarchy taken away. If, however, the decided majority of the nation—whether wisely or foolishly—should come to the deliberate and settled conviction that a President chosen by the People is preferable to an heredi- tary King, assuredly a President there would be, and no King. We should then have a Republic. That time may arrive ; but at present there is no considerable number of persons who would put themselves to risk or loss to establish a Republic in England. We have always been aware of this, and repeatedly stated it as the fact. The current of public feeling runs the other way. If the reasons in favour of a Republic were therefore much stronger than we deem them, it would be mere folly to urge them now. The country will not hear of a Republic. After a long and most unnecessary tirade against Repub- licans, the Leeds Mercury proceeds to a subject which really does

occupy the thoughts of a large number of our fellow countrymen. Although there are very few who trouble themselves about a Re- public, there are millions who feel the irresponsible legislation of the Peers as a present grievance. In great and small matters their Lordships are regarded as positively mischievous. It is to the remedy of a practical evil of vast extent that the public mind is applying itself. According to the journalist, however, the People are under a great delusion on this point. We are told that "time questions are very few indeed—scarcely any are re- maining—on which the Peers have interests different from those of the People." The following list is supplied of measures which are to be held as disposed of.

We point to the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, to Catholic Emancipation, to Parliamentary Reform, to the Reform of the Irish Church in 1833, to the Abolition of Slavery, to the Abolition of the Vestry Cess in Ireland, to the opening of the India and China trade, to the Liberal course ot Foreign policy, to the Irish Tithe Bill, to Municipal Reform in England and Scotland. After such a series of reforms, all accomplished against the opinions and wishes of a majority of the Lords, and accomplished in the short space of seven years, it is an insult to the understandings of Englishmen to tell them that the House of Peers is an insuperable barrier to improvement."

Now, on looking over this list, two questions occur—in what state were these measures carried, and by what means?

The Corporation and Test Acts are repealed, but the Dissenters are still only tolerated. The removal of those oppressive acts was only a step towards doing justice to the Nonconformists ; and the Peers refuse to take another step. Catholic Emancipation was ac- companied by an insult to a powerful people which they have never forgiven : it was to conciliate the Peers that the Catholic millions were irritated. The Parliamentary Reform Bill surely was not a final measure : after the experience of the last election and the last registration, the working of the 501. tenant-at-will clause, the retention of the old freemen, and the innumerable obstacles in the way of establishing undoubted claims to the franchise, that surely will not be maintained. Even the most thoroughgoing asserters of the legislative wisdom of the Peers—to whom we owe almost all that is bad in the measure—must admit that the great ques- tion of the Reform of the Representation is still an open one. The Irish Church Bill of 1833 was so mangled by the Peers, that Lord GREY more than once hesitated whetner he should pro- ceed with it. We all know what became of the Irish Church Bills of 1834 and 1835: the rejection of both these measures

proves that the welfare of millions is as nothing with the Peers when compared with the selfish views of a faction. The India Bill and the Slavery Bill did not interfere with the selfish interests of the majority in the Upper House. Nothing politically or personally was to be gained by opposing them; so they were suffered to escape. The Scotch Burgh Reform Bill was not understood, and was allowed to pass by mistake. Tills was admitted and lamented last session by more than one of our noble legislators. As to the English Bill, it was so mutilated, that the House of Commons only took it as an instalment : the whole question of Municipal Reform is still open.

Thus, of the settled measures, those relating to Parliamen- tary Reform, Municipal Reform, Ecclesiastical Reform, and Dis-

senters' grievances, are so imperfect and unsatisfactory, that extensive alterations, additions, and improvements, are required; in no one instance has the discontent been more than partially removed.

Then how were these measures carried, even in their unsatis- factory and mangled state? By constant and unwearied agitation.

The Peers did nothing willingly. The duty of legislators is to pre- pare and pass laws for the public good; they should be volunteers in the work. But the Peers required to be forced to do their duty. They obstinately resisted what they should have been eager to promote. Catholic Emancipation was only obtained under the dread of a civil war. The Reform Act was also carried by a formidable display of physical power, in a manner the most un- constitutional, short of absolute violence, that can be conceived.

Yet, forsooth, the passage of these bills, among others, is ad- duced as a reason for allowing the Peers to retain their means of mischief. No doubt they will yield when frightened half to death. But is this the way in which acts of Parliament, the laws which govern a vast empire, are to be carried? Are we yet such novices in the art of government—that we are to suffer w hat ought to be an instrument in forwarding the business of the state, to be a repelling power—a most formidable obstruction, only to be removed by repeated efforts aml at imminent danger to public

tranquillity, and perpetually returning to its old station ? The Lords, says the Leeds Mercury, are " perpetually yielding." Why,

this is sufficient for their condemnation. It is an admission that

they have interests hostile to the rest of the community. Why should they yield 5' Is it because they are " perpetually " in the

wrong; or because, being right, they cowardly surrender the right

to violence ? Men yield to a superior hostile power; and as the Peers consider what is good for the Commons bad for them-

selves, they resist the measures of the Commons as long as they

can; and when resistance becomes impracticable, then, and then only, they yield. Is this as it should be ? Ought not both

Chambers to be governed by the same principles in their legis- lative acts ?—instead of one being for the People, the other for that fraction of the nation called the Peerage ?

What we seek is the regular, harmonious movement of the state machine. We desire the interests of the majority to prevail.

For the sake of peace and order, we wish the Legislature to do its duty without the interposition of the body of the People, which should never be necessary in a Representative Government. But unless the House of Peers is made responsible, that is to say elective, there will be a constant necessity for agitation — an endless struggle of the masses with the privileged and irrespon- sible caste of legislators. In a pecuniary point of view, the loss

by agitation is, in such a country as this, enormous. Yet agita- tion is still to be the order of the day. When we ask how the Peers are to be operated upon, we are reminded of the means by which the Reform Act and Catholic Emancipation were carried,— as if it were possible, even if it were desirable, to keep the coun- try always up to the fever point—as if the dread of physical force and threats of civil war were to be the constant stimulants to legislation ! Instead of this wearisome and dangerous work, why not reform the Lords as we have reformed the Commons ? Why not have one struggle, and subsequent peace and good govern- ment, instead of eternal trouble, discontent, and bickering? The frequent and habitual recurrence to agitation, as the only effec- tual way of procuring good measures, may become dangerous before long to all established institutions.