Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

next Reform Bill MUST be carried through the Lords-I believe they have made up their minds that all the necessary measures shall be taken.-What, then, you cry again, will they make fifty or sixty Peers immediately? are they taking advantage of this recess to look out for them? are the patents preparing?—nay, prepared? No-I do not believe this at present will be the Ministerial measure :-What then, will they be able to neutralize the Bishops,-and will they buy over, by the base lures of place and power, some of the Peers?— I do not think they will have great success here, either;-I think scarce one vote will be won from the Bishops, nor two votes silenced :—and I think that among all the lay Peers, mere sordid inducement will not at this moment, with the lynx-eye of the Public and the stern Inquisition of the Press directed to that body-obtain the barter of three votes ;--what is more, the corruption they strive to efface from the Commons, I doubt greatly whether Ministers could gracefully or wisely exercise in the Lords. What, then, will be done? How will the majority be gained? To answer this question, let us glance for a moment at the spirit that distinguishes the House of Lords from the House of Commons.

In the former-a glaring truth strikes upon us at oncc-there is not the same strong demarcation of two parties. The habits of Members of the Upper House are essentially different from those of the Lower. They are not so constantly brought together-they are not animated by the same warm, daily, eager contests in which men grow attached to their leaders, and merge individual opinions in zeal for one general cause. They are more broken up into small knots and petty sects-they are more acted upon by separate opinions, or the influence of the few associates with whom they mix. Thus individuals are more easily detached from the mass than they are among the Commons: and, as shades of political sentiment are among them more fine and more numerous, so, either small changes in a particular measure, or minute differences in the mode of treating it, or slight variations in the temper of the times in which it is brought forward, act upon their conduct, and always have so actedto a far greater degree, than with the Members of the Lower House; -to a degree, indeed, that without remembering the above cause, we should be often at a loss to account for. Keeping this fact in mind-glance for a moment over the spirit which pervaded the late discussions in the Upper House! Put aside natural resentment and natural prejudice, and you must confess that, for the main part, the opposition to the Reform Bill was conducted in a liberal and enlarged temper. The principle of Obstinate Anti-reform that was so visible in the Commons, was scarcely recognized among the Peers. All, or nearly all, acknowledged the necessity of Reform-of not moderate

no! of considerable Reform. Many Peers in public-many more I have heard in private, object not to the extent of the proposed Reform, but to isolated defects in its plan;-for, let us be ingenuous, some who oppose this Reform are yet strong Reformers. There are Vivians in the Upper House as in the Lower; men who would go to the democratic extent of a district representation, and there are few who do not acknowledge at once the two vital principles of the Bill— the disfranchisement of close Boroughs-the enfranchisement of large communities. Well, then, we have among the opposing Peers, not all stubborn Anti-reformers, who cannot be converted, but some warm, nay, if you please, reluctant Reformers, who may be conciliated :-deviations from the old Bill-that we, the people, would not only yield, but consider amendments, may satisfy at least some three or foursome four or five out of the hostile majority. One or two more, (we can readily conceive this number) haughty, not illiberal noblemen; not adverse to concession, but chafed by seeming intimidation, and seduced by the cry of a faction to consider the warnings of the press, or the cautions of the Lower House, or an indiscreet vehemence in petitions, as a general attempt to substitute menace for reasoning, may have wished to show a firmness in a first refusal, but may have the wisdom not to show obstinacy in a second. A third sect of individuals, of more unpopular tenets, have been taught to consider the cry for Reform a momentary ebullition. Every month of perseverance-patient, steady, unrelaxing perseverance on the part of the people, is an incontrovertible proof of the fallacy of this conception; they can no longer hug this belief, when the People and the Bill appear a second time before them. There is a fourth, and far more numerous party, among the majority, who will recognize the wide difference between rejecting the Bill once, and rejecting it twice. And this is, indeed, a most serious, a most important consideration; a second rejection will do all that the Anti-reformers' most sanguine apprehensions of the Reform could prophesy in the future,—that is to say, it will place the Lords and Commons in one prolonged, determined, angry collision, to which there could be administered no remedy, and there could be contemplated no end;-no end but one-the ultimate and entire concession of the Peers, when concession can no longer appease resentment, -and what might have been the grace of Power has become the necessity of Weakness. I say this with the most respectful desire to avoid menace. I appeal to experience,-have not the Lords always, in any similar contest, yielded to the Commons? The second appeal to the Lords is also different from the first -inasmuch as the stagnation of business will be greater and discontent deeper. It will no longer be a subscription to a great popular experiment-it will be the only remedy for great national embarrassment. There

are yet a fifth class of noble politicians who will perceive a consequence of the second rejection which was not to be the consequence of the first. Many a deep and sagacious tactician, the moment it was understood that Ministers were not to resign if the Bill were lost, perceived that the danger that otherwise would follow rejection was averted. The people would not give vent to general and systematic disturbance. Why? because such disturbance would involve them in a conflict with the powers of Government. What was that Government? the leaders of their own party and the friends of their own This reflection was the bridle to excess. But if again defeated, the Ministers must resign-a Tory Cabinet must come in; and I have not yet met the Tory who did not acknowledge that such a change would be the signal for commotion-the signal for violent men to act and moderate men to despair.

cause.

I expect, then, that influenced by the one or the other of these motives, several Peers who voted against the late Bill, will fall away from the hostile party, and won, not by sordid, but wise and honest feelings, be found among the friends of quiet, and of the people, in the next division on the subject of Reform. There is this advantage in converting the present Peers rather than creating new: a Peer created counts as but one vote gained; a Peer converted counts as two.*. And it will be remembered, as a proof and a consequence of that feebler and less united spirit of party that distinguishes the Peers from the Commons, that to converts among the Lords there never has attached that blame of inconsistency or tergiversation which there has to Members of the Lower House, who have committed themselves more decisively not only to measures, the wisdom of which necessarily fluctuates, but to the guidance of persons whom it has been considered by the spirit of party a yet greater crime to desert. Thus, in the converts on the Catholic question, the weight of Tory indignation fell on every Commoner so converted, and singled out but one or two Peers among the majority in the Lords.

It is, I cannot but imagine, to these individual changes-honourable, not degrading that Ministers now look for the success of the New Bill. Actuated by this expectation, I believe that they delay a

* Moreover, there is a difficulty in finding sixty proper persons for Peers, which does not sufficiently strike the public. Elder sons of Peers are not as abundant as blackberries; and very few among them would consent to figure in so numerous a creation. Nor would the haughty race of great country gentlemen, from whom Peers are usually made, like, especially in these critical times, to accept an equivocal, and with the Peers an obnoxious, title; the occasion and the number of the creations taking away all individual honour in the promotion. I know that this difficulty does exist. To this it will be answered by the Country,-" If you cannot find proper persons for Peers, take improper persons, rather than expose us to the chance of revolution." Very well-certainly, if necessary-but it would be better, if possible, to pass the Bill without it.

numerous creation, which may be unnecessary. Perhaps a few new Peers may be made soon; and certainly a few, sooner or later, may at all events be inevitable. But within at furthest a fortnight after the introduction of the New Bill in the Lower House, Ministers must decisively know their exact strength in the Upper-if then it should be found that new allies among old foes are not to be gained, that a large creation of Peers is necessary, we may rely upon it that that creation will be made. On the probable chance of that creation the Ministers must have counted when they brought in the Bill, and when they adhered to office after its loss. On that chance the King also must have counted, when he retained his reforming Ministers, and prorogued his reforming Commons. The Ministers and the King must then have resolved on that creation if necessary. To execute any measure, men want but two things-the wish and the power. We have from the King the most open assurance-we have from the Ministers the most solemn pledges-of their common wish. The power they have. What then is wanting? No WE MAY CONSIDER THE BILL AS ALREADY PASSED! WITHOUT A Numerous crEATION OF PEERS, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD—WITH THAT CREATION, IF INDISPENSABLE. IN EITHER EVENT SUCCESS IS CERTAIN, BECAUSE IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

But the creation of sixty new Peers, if necessary, to carry this Bill, will be, you say, a vital blow to the Peerage. A second rejection of the Reform Bill will be a blow far more vital!-It is well remarked by the sagacious and wise writer, to whom we are indebted for the valuable article that enriches this Number-" On the discussions on the French Peerage," that an Aristocracy must be popular with the country in which it exists in order to last that all history proclaims this truth."' The infusion of sixty men, who are the echoes of a grave and settled opinion, into a legislative chamber, which at present has no effective sympathy in that opinion, may perhaps be a far wiser course for the preservation of the Aristocracy than a superficial observer may readily perceive. It may tend exactly to effect that congeniality of sentiment which must always, even in countries the most despotic, exist between the governors and the governed. Mr. Pitt's Peers echoed the public opinion of that day, which, on the whole, influenced by a system of terrorism, was anti-liberal. To create Peers, that, by now echoing public opinion, may represent in the House of Lords the due change of public opinion, may be a shock at first to that body,—but a shock, like some that are recommended by wise physicians to the physical frame, operating rather as a restorative than an injury, and giving a new elasticity and youth to the grand principle of its existence.

A REFORMING MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.

WHY MAY WE BLAME THE BISHOPS?

-

VERY severe-and very general have been the attacks on the Bench of Bishops for their vote on Reform. Let us consider for one moment fairly and dispassionately, whether or not the attacks have been just. If we regard the vote as merely given against a political measure, however salutary and wise we might have thought that measure our censure has been neither just nor liberal. But that is not the true light to consider the question. The Reform Bill was not only a great political measure-but it was a remedy to great moral disease, it was levelled against a system of gross and organized bribery--constant perjury-and acknowledged jobbing and dishonesty, -it was to this system of immorality that the guardians of state morals gave their support. And it is for this that we have an undoubted, an undeniable right, seriously to lament-solemnly to arraign-and unforgettingly to treasure up their decision. For the votes of the Lay Peers is an evident excuse; there is a school of statesmen, and a wise, though we think a mistaken school, that consider corruption and guilt the necessary tools of the State. These legislators shrug up their shoulders, smile, and say to our proofs of moral deterioration, "All this is very true, but we are men of the world, can things be managed otherwise?" This defence of dishonesty on the plea of necessity may be argued by Statesmen, but is it to be allowed by Churchmen? Do we pamper the pastoral hierarchs for this method of tending the virtue of their flock? No!-the moment we can show them a system that generates vice-(and no one in this acquits the present system)-we have a right to call on those whom we exalt as the enemies of vice, for their most zealous assistance in removing the system.

We are friends to an established church; we think that Hume's argument in favour of one has never yet been satisfactorily answered. But whether or not, the political power we have given to the heads of that church has been so administered as to justify the enormous pecuniary sacrifice we make to it,-whether their conduct is such as to strengthen the established church by confirming its foundation in the people's love,-whether, by permitting them to record votes on behalf of vice on temporal matters, we do not, on the contrary, create disaffection to their spiritual authority-is a matter on which, as friends to religion-as supporters of the church-as fathers of a family-as contributors to the public burthens, we ought most gravely to deliberate-and most resolutely to decide.

« AnteriorContinua »