THE ARROGANT COMMONS.
LORDS arc looked upon as a superior order of beings, composed of precious porcelain instead of the vulgar clay, the lutum twpe, of which the mass of mankind are inade. There are -once sulky Radicals who deem Peers on a par with the rest of the world in all but worthless trappings, foolish nicknames, and childish gew- but but the " great body of the people." of whom we hear so h, reverence the Peerage. Ay, and even " philosophical much, are not insensible to the magic sound of " my Lord. The House of Peers, the collective majesty. and conglomerated essence of all that dignity which resides in individual Lords, is naturally therefore approached by the ignoble multitude with humility and parasitical phrase. They are our masters, actually and de jure. They .acknowledge no responsibility to earthly
power, and spurn the idea of in controlled. And theirs is i
not an empty boast, whatever it may have been n times past and for a brief period. To them, therefore, the magnates of the land, prayer and petitions should be offered in lowly guise and with "whispering humbleness."
But the men of the House of Commons have no such preten. sions to superiority over the "common people." Who are they, by their own account? what do they profess and pretend to be ?— Our representatives, delegates, and deputies. Their power is derived from the people ; and the theory at least of the constitu- tion is, that they aro responsible for the exercise of the delegated authority. Mind, we speak of the theory and the forms of tile constitution, for which so much veneration is professed—as it is a matter of mere form to which we are calling the reader's passing attention. These House of Commons men, so empowered, delegated, and
deputed, our servants, have the arrogance to act in their inferior sphere as if they were the Lords our masters ! They too insist upon being addressed in terms of lowliness. They deserve repri- mand; remonstrance might be usefully applied ; hut, forsooth, they play the aristocrats, and will receive from the people only prayers. Now, if the Members of the House of Commons would act ingenuously, discard hypocrisies, and come out in their real characters,—if they were to avow openly that the theory of the constitution is vulgar humbug ; that real representation hardly exists; that they are set on high to do their own will and pLa- sure, not the people's,—then there would at least be no variance between their practice and professions. But what is their actual conduct?
On Tuesday, General JOHNSON presented a "remonstrance" from Wakefield against the Poor-law. Immediately the Speaker took the alarm : the House must be petitioned, not remonstrated with. The people must play, not preach. PETER BORTHWICK (of all men in the House) was shocked at the "determined breach" of respect committed by the remonstrants : he moved that the sinning document should not be received ; and a majority of 200 to 10 supported sensitive PETER. Yet it is certain, that there is not one of the two hundred, if the question were put directly to him, but would admit that he was a representative of the people, liable to be called to account for misconduct, and having no power or authority whatever not derived from the people. Such being the case, let there be consistency in form, at least. Let not the deputy be exalted into the superior. For petitions let dictates be adopted, for prayers reprimands when needed. If the representa- tive system exists only in theory, let the different parts of the theory coincide: if for the sake of delusion the House of' Commons chooses to call itself the representative of the people, let it be ad- dressed as such, and not crouched to and fawned upon as the tyrant over slaves. Words are things!
Previous page
