The Press. — London, England, 1858-04-24 00:00:00

. ,J)• tip ~; LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 24, 1858. No. 260.—V0L. VI. STAMPED SIXPENCE. UNSTAMPED..FIVEPENCI "WHEN TO GIVE WAY." To know when to give way and when to be firm, is one of the chief points in wise govern• ment, whether in a family or in a nation. R is quite as easy to err in conceding wrongly or too soon, as in not conceding at all. Lord GREY has recently written a calm and statesmanlike essay on the proposed Parlia mentary Reform. But there are many men who can be wise in the closet, and very fir from wise in the senate. He told the Rouse of Lords, on Thursday, that the time was come for them to give way. Had he added no more, we might have wondered how he arrived at such a conclusion. But he had forgotten just then the sage counsel given by an old judge to a young one—" Give your judgment, for that " will generally be right ; but avoid giving "your reasons, for they will often be wrong." He went on to adduce reasons why the time was come for concession. And those reasons show us—what we might otherwise never have known—that his premises were entirely erroneous ; and, consequently, that his con clusion must very naturally be erroneous also. Lord GREY first spoke of " unmistakeable " evidence that on this subject the mind of " the nation is finally and conclusively made " up." Now this is palpably an error. No one who has watched for any time the state of public feeling can doubt that the proval ent sentiment among both the higher and lower classes, is that of indifference as to the change proposed, and of disgust at the annual repeti tion of the struggle. Comparing this question with others on which a similar annual effort is made—as on the Ballot, Church-rates, &c.—it is quite clear that even among Liberals—even among those who are always for breaking down restrictions —there is not one tenth part of the interest felt for an Oaths Bill which is shown on these other subjects. So far as petitions to Par liament prove anything, the opposition to the present measure has, we believe, this year exceeded the support. We believe that more petitions have been presented against the measure than in its behalf. But we are told to look at the increasing majorities in the House of Commons. Such an increase is natural and almost inevitable, and proves nothing as to any increase of real feeling. Whenever the House of Commons his once decided by a majority in favour of taking off any restriction, rate, or tax, that majority is sure to be an augmenting one. A vote against Jewish disabilities or against Church-rates is a popular, a liberal one ; a vote to retain restrictions or a tax is unpopular, and is one which it is disagreeable to give. Hence, so soon as the majority is once declared in favour of remission, that majority is sure to increase. The hesitating and doubtful members soon find reasons for going over to the popular side. LATEST EDITION. ___ And all this takes place without any move ment out of doors—without any growth of public support or of popular agitation. So fa+•, then, as facts can b•' measure.l or ascer tained, there is not the least ground for assert ing that "public opinion has declared itself on the side of the Jews." We do not believe that one-tenth of the people take any interest in the matter. But Lord GREY'S second reason is drawn from what ho deems a great example. In 1828 the repeal of the Test Act was carried in the House of Commons; and the Duke of WEL LINGTON immediately yielded his own opinion, and advised the Lords to consent to the mea sure. Therefore—it is argued—the Peers had better at once assent to the Oaths Bill. Why, the mere statement of the facts shows that the case is a totally different one. The repeal of the Test Act was carried for the first time in the House of Commons, and the Duke advised the Peers immediately to assent to it. But the question of Jewish disabilities has been under discussion for five and twenty years, and the opposition was as determined in the four and twentieth year as in the first. The truth is, that the two cases have no re semblance. The Test and Corporation Acts had been practically defunct for half a century before 1s:28. These Acts declared that no Dissenter should sit in a corporation. But the Corpora tion of London had included forty or fifty Dis senters for many years before 1138. Other corporations, all over England, were in a like state. The law was never put in force, nor could it have been, without causing a perilous turmoil. This was the practical reason for repealing the old statutes. And if, at this moment, Jews were in the habit of sitting and voting in the House of Commons, fe,w men, we fancy, would wish to prolong the contention by objecting to the repeal of inoperative laws. Lord Gn EY'S two reasons, then, prove, when examined, to be wholly invalid. There is no "unmistakeable evidence of the public will ; " and the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts in 1828 was merely a bringing the law into conformity with the established practice. What reason, then—what substantial reason remains, for now giving way? No other, so far as we can see, than this alleged ground— " That the House of Commons persists in sending up Bills for the relief of Jewish dis- abilities ; and that the House of Lords must, at some time or other, give way." Is this safe ground to take? Is it to become a maxim of Parliamentary practice that the House of Lords can only exercise its veto a certain number of times, perhaps five or seven, and must then succumb ? Such a principle, if once established, will lead to some important results. A month or two hence, in all probability, a Bill for the abolition of Church-rates may reach the House of Lords. There can be no doubt that a largo majority of the Peers will be prepared at once to give a negative to any such proposal. But what if the principle has before then been conceded, that any measure which the House of Commons resolutely adopts must, sooner or later, become law J Will not this argument bo a powerful one in the mouths of the Church rate repealers,—" It is admitted thatthe House of Lords must, sooner or later, give way; why, then, prolong the strife ? Why not concede at once, and with a good grace, what you must concede in the end ?" And what answer can be given to this reasoning, if the principle has been established, that to succumb, sooner or later, must be the course of the House of Lords ? It is a grave and serious fact, of which we should never lose sight, that the whole use and value of a House of Lords is gone, if its entire independence is once surrendered or compromised. The French revolution of 1789, and our own of 1612, both turned upon this one point. So long as tho Peers could maintain their own independent position, they re mained the bulwark of the Throne. But the moment they wore swept away, or forced to yield to the democratic power, the torrent swept onwards, till Church and Throne and all else that was sacred or venerable vanished. before the storm. " The time to give way," then, is when any new circumstances arise to modify previous convictions. We do not now attempt to decide whether the Duke of WELLINGTON, in 1829, adopted a wise or an unwise course when he conceded the Romish claims ; but at least he had one new circumstance of impor tance to plead. "My convictions remain the same; but I perceive the possibility of a " rebellion in Ireland ; and I have to choose " between surrendering my own opinions, or " running the risk of a civil war." We should not like to give a positive approval of conces sion even on these grounds ; but the Duke had at least some reason to offer. But to give way merely from innate feeble. ness—merely because the assailant perseveres in the attack, and you grow tired of perse vering in the defence—this is to proclaim yourself incompetent to the resolute discharge of your duty. For the House of Lords to take this course would be to bring into question, in a way that no other act could do, the utility of its own existence. We expect no such weak ness on the part of that august assembly. We anticipate that it will reply, with the Earl of DERBY—" The question has not changed, the " circumstances have " opinions remain un " will be what it has at It is important, too, GREY does not counsel ground of the i f4ain j I not changed, 'altered ; a 4 C.) .. , ist f .2 . lways hither i ... sol concess ... o‘ l6 . , ff Cli ,o, to rema t 0 4 . • Lill W iv zip et , iso ..... Rustics of . . t . • Of t -‘.. - P t rs.l iu:AllVp t r i 6....1 .:6,•1111 Ili