would absolutely have supported it That Administration to which I
had the honour for a short time to belong, were inclined to double the grant for Irish education, notwithstanding the remonstrances of some of its supporters. Could any man of sense believe that that was the purpose of the promoters of that bill ; or that they would be satisfied with 50,0001. a year out of the Protestant establishment of Ireland ? No, there was not one. Those persons who are the very breath of the nostrils of the Government—those persons by whose word alone they live—I mean the Radicals—(and I must here say of the Radicals, what I cannot of the Whigs, that, whatever may be their object, however de- structive to the institutions of the country, they at least are honest enough to avow it, and candid enough not to conceal their ends)—well, I say, that these very people, Mr. O'Connell, his party, and half a score others, ay, even the Government newspapers, do not scruple to tell us that the 50,0004 is as no. tiling, and that the affirmation cf the principle, with its manifold results, is the advantage they seek fur. But the House of Lords arc not to be entrapped ; they will not relinquish that principle; they' will stand upon it, abide by it, and if necessary, fall by it. I believe in my conscience, that the Ministers themselves now see that they never took a more foolish step than in pledging- themselves to their supporters on this question. If the people of Ireland have a grievance, which I shall not deny-1 shall not deny that it is a grievance for an im- poverished peasantry to be compelled to pay directly for the suptiort of a reli- gion which it believes to be heretical—if, 1 say, the people of Ireland have a grievance, and if it is still unrenioved, it is the fault of the Government, and not of the Peers."
[It is worth while to remember, that Lord Wharncliffe and his colleagues in the Peel-Wellington Cabinet were prepared to double the sum voted by the Liberals for teaching " the mutilated Word of God." Lord Wharncliffe, it seems, considers that the mode in which tithes are taken from the impoverished Catholics for the support of a Church which they deem heretical, is the grievance of Ireland. Pro- vided that the payment is indirect, he maintains that it would be no grievance. On this point the Irish Catholics, and, as the agitation against Church-rates proves, the English Dissenters, are at variance with Lord Wharncliffe.]
" I base bad some experience in political life, and I will say, that the House of Lords are powerless unless supported by the People. Unless their decisions be respected, the sooner you try the tyranny of a republic the better. But the House of Lords is threatened by them. Oh, little do they know what they say when they threaten us: little do they know of us when they think that we will be intimidated into a change of our principles. The Peers know that they possess one great right over their fellow countrymen, that of hereditary legisla- tioon ; but remove that right, and I will velure to say that there is not a Peer in England who would be without the power. Their threats of reform or an- nihilation pass us like the idle wind.' We fear them not ; and 1 will tell them, the [louse of Lords will nut suffer itself to be reformed or annihilated. I tell them, moreover, that, if they are bent upon it, they cannot attain their object without a revolution. I thank God, however, that things have passed since the last session of Parliament, which plainly tell me that there is as yet no danger of that extremity. But, though the country is safe for the present, I entreat you to be watchful, earnest, and active ; for your enemy is at hand. You must have a strong body in the House of Commons to act in concert with the House of Lords, in order to show them that no such feeling exists in the land as the foes of our freedom would fain make us believe. The people of this :country should consider well whom they elect, and they should bestir themselves in the business. If they do not—if they are determined to have a democratic constitution, and mob tyranny, without the intermediation of the House of Lords, then, in God's name, let them elect those who will effect those ends, and have done altogether with a question so irritating: but if, on the con- trary, as I firmly believe, they are attached to the constitution under which they have gone on and prospered, then they will not doubt or delay following the ad • vice I now give them. As to the Peers themselves, let them look at them as nothing in their consideration of the question. If to-morrow the right of he- reditary legislation were abolished, I have the means, derived from my property sed my position in society, and I hope my character, which I hold in despite of all they may do—I have the means I say, and I appeal to the county ot York and you, whether, if I were nut a Peer to-morrow, I should be without the
natural influence arising horn these circumstances ? Such is the feeling which I only share in common with all the other Peers of the kingdom; and there- fore, as I said befbre, the threats of men who would reform or annihilate our hereditary rights " pass as the idle wind."
[There is truth in part ot this. Lord %nano:14e is respectable for his talents and industry, and his income from property, though by so means large, is sufficient to defray the expenses he is subject to. Ds is one of those Peers who would not lose much in real importancebya reform of the Peers. But he is a favourable specimen of the order. The paupers, profligates, and swindlers of the house of Lords, would be demolished by a measure which should make the second Chamber responsible and elective. Lord ‘Vharneliffe says that the House of Lords are powerless unless supported by the people. This is untrue: they are powerful now in opposition to the people—though only so an sufferance.]
Previous page
