ecruntrn.

Five hundred Reformers of West Somerset dined together at Taun- ton on Wednesday. They are described by the Morning Chronicle as being "the bond fide owners of the soil of the county—the real and positive constituency of the district." In the list of the principal per- sons, we find the names of Sir Thomas Lethbridge ( Chairman), Mr. E. A. Sanford, Mr. C. J. K. Tynte, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Leader, Mr. Lee Lee, Mr. Berkeley Portman, Mr. Earle Drax, and the Honourable Philip Bouverie. The health of his Majesty's Minis-. ters was received with loud cheering, and called up Mr. La- bouchere, who claimed for Government the credit of having brought forward many excellent measures, though, in consequence of the opposition of the Lords, most of them had not been passed into laws. Had all the bills Ministers brought forward been carried, Mr. La- bouchere said the session would not have been misspent. " The

Members for West Somerset" having been toasted, Mr. Sanford spoke at length on the proceedings of the late session ; observing, that the result of the labours of the Agricultural Committee had proved the

truth of the opinion be had expressed on a former occasion, that Par- liament could do nothing for the farmers in the way of relieving them from taxation. The Tithe Bill, however, bad been carried; and that be

considered would essentially benefit the agricultural interest. After alluding to several of the measures rejected by the Peers, Mr. Sanford touched upon the question of Peerage Reform. He confessed that

he was no advocate for reforming the Upper House. (Cheers and dis- approbation.) No one could reprobate the conduct of the Lords more than he did. (Loud cheers.) It had been unwise, improper, and un-

constitutional. But would they therefore advocate a change, in a mo-

ment, in that branch of the Legislature ? (" Yes, yes ! ") He knew it was a delicate question ; but he was there to speak his opinions

boldly, and would resign his seat when the electors could find a man

who would act better for their interests. ("No, no! ") Would they have him keep his opinions from his constituents ? ("No, no ! ") The conduct of the Peers had placed their order in jeopardy, for it was that which caused the discussion which was now going on ; but he loved the Constitution, and would not consent to any measure which be was not sure would benefit it.

Mr. Tynte was convinced that the force of public opinion would compel the Peers to pass the measures brought forward for the good of the country. He trusted that his constituents would find that to be the truth before he met them again. (" No, no I") He thought they s% would.

Sir Thomas Lethbridge thought that a reform of the House of Lords should be effected— He remembered when he first voted (in 18M) for the Reform of the House of Commons. It was the first time he had given such a vote ; and why had he done so ? Because he considered that the time for Reform had come ; and be recollected the observations made to him at that period by a Secretary of State— no small man, he could tell them—an individual to whom he had been accus- tomed to look up, and to whom be had always looked up with honour, the late Mr. Canning, who was afterwards Prime Minister ; and who then said to him, in a good-natured way, " Why, Lethbridge, the worst vote you ever gave is that in favour of Lord John Russell's motion :" and he replied, that he did not

think so; and he could tell Mr. Canning further, that all the talents and power he could oppose to it would not prevent that Reform from being carried. It

was carried; and they all thanked God that it was ; and they now looked for something more ; and he would say that they would have it also if they went the right way to work. They bad got the COMMODB reformed ; and if it were found necessary that the Lords also should be reformed, let them go to work properly, and they would achieve their point. (Loud cheers.) It was said to him, when he voted for the Reform of the Commons, what would be done with the Lords? To which he replied, that it was impossible then to say; but that he had no doubt a way would be found to make tbein square w ith the Com- mons, and fit them appropriately into the machine of the Constitut n. ( Cheers.) That was his opinion at present ; and he would ask, was it not wise and con- stitutional, if the Lords were in the wrong, to place them rightly by the force of reason ? He would have no violence, no nonsense," as teas said at the faire, but a good, rational, constitutional movement to effect their:purpose. Mr. Leader described the series of Reforming measures which had not become laws, and pointedly alluded to the cause of their failure- " The obstacle to improvement and to good government in these times, is a many-headed despot, called the House of Lords. ( Great cheering.) They, led on by a cunning, reckless, and ambitious lawyer, have rejected, or so mutilated as to cause to be rejected, all the popular measures passed by the Commons. They seem to me to have lost their senses in their blind obedience to this man. They may fancy, perhaps, that in following him they are guided by a good safe light ; but they will find to their sorrow that they have been following a mali- cious will-o'-the-wisp, that is leading them to their own des:ruction. So impli• . itly do they yield to his guidance, that they deserve less to be called the House if Lords than Lord Lyndhurst's Tail. ( Cheers and laughter.) This being the „se, it becomes our imperative duty to inquire into the constitution of this a body, which has challenged the nation to a mortal combat. ( Chars.) Many good friends to Reform, quiet, well-intentioned, honest men, but timid politicians, fearing some great and mysterious calamity from what they call organic change, shrink from an inquiry into the House of Lords. It is, however, weak and childish policy to blink a question which, sooner or later, must be forced upon us to answer and decide." He begged to say a few words on the nature and habits of the Lordly body- ss They are hereditary—irresponsible: they have the singular privilege of voting at any distance on any question, whether they have heard it or not ; they have, many of them, great wealth ; they have, as a body, great power ; and, above all, they have a selfish, narrow interest, diametrically opposed to the in- terest of the great mass of the People. They are hereditary ; so that—no matter how stupid—no matter how vicious—no matter how ill-educated—no matter how unfit to discharge the duties of legislation—if a parent or relative die, so as to give one of them a Peerage, he immediately becomes a legislator, with the power to obstruct all legislative improvement. No comment can be needed on this point. The mere statement is sufficient. They are irresponsible ; so that they can exercise their hereditary power for their own pleasure, and without consulting the wishes or interests of their fellow countrymen. And observe, they alone in this country are irresponsible : we, Members of the Commons, are responsible to Parliament ; the King, through his Ministers, is responsible to the People ; these hereditary legislators are alone irresponsible. Sir Robert Peel, indeed, throwing much sanctity. into his voice, and turning his eyes

pointing up to Heaven, was pleased to inform us that the Lords were respon- sible to God.' Alas ! that is but poor consolation for those who know what these Lords are-,who know how many of them pass their time—who know that many of them live as if they were forgetful of even that responsibility to which the ex-Prime Minister so piously alluded. They vote by proxy ; so that one of them who may be amassing wealth (in the People's service, forsooth !) restoring the fallen grandeur of his house, recruiting the ruined fortunes of his family in some Colonial government, or parading his besotted vanity as Ambassador to some foreign court—intriguing, perchance, with the subtle despots of the Con- tinent against the liberty of foreign nations, as well as against that of his own country, while he is all the time gorged and gilded with the People's money ; such a man, I say, if one of the hereditary, irresponsible legislators, though di- vided from England by hundreds of miles, may vote upon any measure discussed in the House of Lords. They have, many of them, great wealth ; much of it has been gained through the monopoly of every place of power and profit, which they have enjoyed for -the .last hundred years and more. Let that pass, however. I will say of their wealth only this—that it would be well for them, and the country too, if they employed their wealth better than they now do. They have great power—too much power for our good. They have grown old in the habit of domination, which of all habits is the most difficult to resign ; and they employ their power almost invariably against the People. Whence comes their power ? From the source of all political power—the People; who can, when they please, take from them the power which they now possess. But, say our opponents, the People love the Lords; the People delight in sub- mitting to the Aristocracy ; the People are worshippers of wealth and rank, even when united with ignorance and vice. I do not, for my part, believe these assertions; for they are only a disguised way of saying that the English People are abject slaves, and delight in their slavery. This is not the truth ; this is as far from truth as darkness is from light."

The evil was palpable—would the People apply a remedy?- " You must either submit tamely to the domination of the Lords, or you must reform them. Oh ! exclaim some of our friends, pray take patieuce ; the Lords have always made concessions when they have been sufficiently frightened, and so they will again. Concession!—why the very word is an insult. We ask not for concessions ; let trembling slaves beg for concessions from their proud masters ; we demand what is just from those into whose hands we have in- trusted power for the common good, and we will have it. As to frightening the Lords into doing right, it is a bad method—not because it alarms, but be- cause it causes much ill-blood and violence and too much excitement in the country. Besides, this reasoning of frightening the Lords into doing right, is much like the wisdom of a man who, trusting to his superior force, should at- tempt to prevent an armed man from attacking him when he might disarm him if he pleased. Let us disarm the Lords, and then we need not take the trouble to frighten them ; let us take from them their unjust and ill-used power, and then we need not put ourselves into a position to wring good manners from them."

[Mr. Leader was enthusiastically cheered by the meeting at every pause in his admirable speech.] Mr. Earle Drax, of Charborough Park, declared himself a decided advocate of Peerage Reform, vote by Ballot, and Triennial Parlia- ments. He considered those the three tests of a true Reformer. His grandfather had represented the city of London for thirty years, and had always been the steady advocate of Liberal opini2ns. [It is clear from the reception of Mr. Leader's speech, and the dis- approbation of Mr. Sanford's and Mr. Tynte's Whiggism, that the Members for West Somerset on some important questions misrepresent their constituents. They will be compelled to take several moves onward. ]