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

"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 theif4ain j

I

not changed,
'altered ; a 4 C.)..,
istf .2.
lways hither i ...
sol concess ...o‘l6 . , ff Cli
,o, to rema t
04 . • Lill W
iv zip et, iso
.....
Rustics of . . t. •
Of t -‘.. - Pt
rs.l iu:AllVp tri
6....1 .:6,•1111
Ili

386

admits that this does not very clearly or de•
cidedly belong to either side. He sags :
" I have never regarded this as a very easy
or very simple question. I have never thought
that every opponent of Jewish einancipation
should be set down as a bigot, Ot• that every
friend of religious liberty must. neAssarily be
an advocate of that measure. I editiit frankit
that there is much to be said on both sides;
and the arguments fbir.ittlagainitthe chant&
at one time appeared to me 'so nicely balanced
that I am not ashamed to confess it was with
some difficulty I made lip my mind that, on
the whole, the preponderance inclined
favour of the removal of these disabilities."

It is not, then, that the House of Lordd is
clearly wrong in the position it takes up. nor
is it, as in 1829, that a great peril must be
braved, if we remain where we are. 1t is
simply that the House of Commons continues
to send up " Oaths Bills," and that it is un-
pleasant and difficult to stand up against this
pressure. Therefore, the Upper House is to
give way to the Lower, because the Lower
House is pertinacious!
But, should this course ever be taken, and
should the House of Lords thus proclaim its
own weakness, we should be glad to know what
can in future stand between the House of
Commons and ABSOLUTE POWER !