TOPICS OF THE DAY.
WHERE ARE THE LORDS ?
IF the Ultra Tories were the only party in the nation that con- tended against an addition to the House of Lords, it would be use- less to argue with them. They are " tied to their idols," and might be properly left alone. But it is common enough to hear Liberals—Reformers—ay, unsuspected Reformers—speak of a large creation of Peers as " an evil," to be palliated only by extreme ne- cessity. They will allow, rather than the Reform Bill should be lost, that Lords ought to be created ; but if by any means saving a creation the Bill could be carried, that of all consummations would be the most desirable. Now, will these exceedingly considerate gentlemen just look at the present state of the House of Lords ? Let them hold it to the light, and inspect it narrowly. Let them read the debates of any night since Monday. Let them listen to the description given of the House by its members. Let them look to the divisions, and contrast the opposition to Ministers on Tuesday and Wednesday with the opposition itr the division of Monday fortnight. Let them note the falling off from 155 to 36— nay, to 15. Let them mark the tone—passionate and puling— that at present pervades the House, and compare it with the bold and confident language of the Tory Lords previous to Earl GREY'S resignation. Let them do all this, and then say on their con- science if any creation of Peers could have placed the Upper House in a more pitiable predicament than it is now in.
The Lords have got what they clamoured for. The Bill is pass- ing, and will speedily be passed, without an addition to the Peer- age. The " independence ' of the House, as they count indepen- dence, is preserved; neither is there any " swamping," as they call it; and yet who fails to perceive that the House of Lords now occupies a lower place than ever it did since it was first called into existence? What would have been the consequence had one hun- dred Peers been created before the second reading? The Waverers would never have wavered. Those Peers who, up to the second reading, had maintained a very high character for fairness and firmness, would have preserved that character still. What would have been the consequence had one hundred Peers been created after the second reading ? The Waverers having wavered once, would have contented themselves with that once ; having proved false to their old friends, they would have kept faith with their new friends. The Duke of WELLINGTON would have still enjoyed a large share of the respect of the nation. The professions of public men would not have become, as his conduct has rendered them, a byword and a reproach. The Opposition would have con- tinued to tight the Bill: and the People, conscious of the sufficient strength of their own Peers, would have tolerated the fight in good humour, because, though they could not love their opponents, they did not utterly despise them. Nor would the Opposition have fought in vain. The Minister would have given up a good deal ; even the People would have conceded something, in order to insure a speedy and amicable settlement of the rest. Will either do so now ? The Opposition, so far from striking out Schedule B and Schedule D, as that poor, vain thing their leader—that joint crea- tion of ROWLAND and SruLz—promised them, have not power to command the obliteration of a superfluous letter in the longest word of the most insignificant clause of the Bill. Such is depth of humiliation into which they have been plunged by their zeal for "independence."
Will our readers do us the favour to recollect, that we gave warning of this peril to the Peerage while the danger was yet far off? Eight or nine months ago, we demonstrated that the House of Lords had no strength of its own with which to make head against the growing Public Opinion; and we have never ceased to contend for an application of the means by which alone it could be reformed, strengthened, and brought in harmony with the nation.
We need not stop to settle the whence nor the how of the im- pulse recently given to the march of Reform. The fact is beyond dispute, that henceforth we must have a popular House of Com- mons; and it is equally beyond dispute, that henceforth we must have a popular House of Lords, if we have any House of Lords. The Peers must either go on with the People, or get out of their way. We wish them to go on with us ; and, for that reason alone, we wish to infuse into them such a portion of youthful blood as may enable them to keep the road. Is there any man in his senses that deems it possible for the House of Peers, if not rescued from its present position, to remain in England for ten years more, unless upon sufferance? True, like that fine per- sonation of " second childishness and mere oblivion," so exqui- sitely given by CHARLES MATHEWS, the doting advocates of aris- tocratic exclusiveness may continue to totter about the empty mansion of their departed power, and to prattle of the feats of their boyhood; and while the bell for departure falls unheard on their stopped ears, and their younger companions are pushing off the boat, may boast of their readiness and their acuteness: true, they may drivel, as old Adam Child does, about their haleness and their -vigour, and tell us how "they can do without a cloak or -a coat, or without any thing," they have " so much pluck :" they must be content, nevertheless, to appear to all men's view but their own, as old and weak and wretched, and only tolerated be- cause they are so.
Previous page
