The Press.
London, England, 1856-01-26 00:00:00

74

pendence of the House of Lords. By the
word unconstitutional we do not, of course,
intend to question the Royal Prerogative. Yet
we have not now to learn that what may be in
accordance with the letter of the law may be
opposed to the spirit of the Constitution. And
a prerogative which has been exercised unly
once since the Norms Conquest, caanot now
be exercised habitually, without reviving dis-
putes which were far better forgotten. It is
astonishing how blindly awn soinalligec arg44o.
Here is a measure, the whole gist of whi fh
lies in the creation of new members of the
House of Lords , yet precedents are adduced
in its favour, almost entirely composed of
women and aliens, or persons who were mem-
bers already. This attempt at proving the
innovation a strictly constitutional proceeding
is, without exception, one of the very lamest
We ever met with, and almost leads us to
suppose there must be people who, on the
principle that two negatives make an affirma-
tive, conclude that bad reasoning and bad
premises put together constitute logic.
None but those who are positively slaves to
prejudice can deny the enormous importance
of preserving the integrity of the Upper House.
To those poor silly creatures who think a
man cannot possess genius or energy unless
he wears a dirty shirt, and spouts at me-
chanics' institutes, we do not address our
present arguments. We leave them to their
self-complacency, with a charitable hope
that no introduction to polite society will
ever cruelly undeceive them. But to readers
of a different stamp—men who know what
the unflattering lessons of history really
are—who understand that the permanence of
its institutions can alone make a nation great,
and make its greatness happiness—to these we
appeal most earnestly and most confidently.
An hereditary peerage, arbitrating between the
Crown and the people, is the surest safeguard
against civil war and revolution ; and the
creation of life patents is the surest means of
undermining the hereditary peerage. Louis
PHILIPPE destroyed the hereditary nobility of
France, and constitutional monarchy was
wrecked. The hereditary nobility of England
destro3ed absolutism, and constitutional mo-
narchy was preserved. It is not on the
muddy declamations of low-bred adventurers,
nor the whining harangues of flabby capi-
talists, that the country can rely. Pelf is the
object of both. And whether a man would
. sacrifice his country to Russia, or himself to a
Minister, is a matter of indifference. From all
the noisy claptraps of the day the true inde-
pendent leaders of the people naturally stand
aloof. Shall we on that account destroy their
independence ? Shall we object to them on
the very score of their distinguishing excel-
lence ? It is because the House of Lords
are relieved from the necessity of perpe-
tually courting the people that they are the
people's best friends. But let them once be
swamped by an influx of plebeians holding
life peerages, and they will be compelled
either to retire from public life, or array
themselves in an attitude of unceasing hos-
tility to the nominees of the Crown. In
the latter case their independence will bo at
once sacrificed. They will be oppositionists
by compulsion, and, instead of the dignified
and arbitrative position which they now
occupy, must of necessity degenerate into
either nonentities or partisans. Such a con-
summation may in certain quarters be chuckled
over. The ruin of the Constitution may be a
fit subject for jesting there, but it is not
effected yet ; and we would only warn those
by whose advice this system has been adopted,
without the sanction of the Legislature, to
beware of provoking a storm of indignation
which they may be foolish enough to consider
impossible.