The Press.
London, England, 1858-07-03 00:00:00

626

entirely new position. For the first time. it
seems to be admitted as a principle of the Con-
stitution, that the Peers have not an unlimited
power of refusal ; but that after a certain number
of negatives, there exists some undefined neces-
sity of giving way. This change of position is
perhaps the most important political tact of our
time. It removes the House of Lords from the
position it has hitherto occupied ; and places it,
undeniably, below the House of Commons. The
final, the reol power of legislation, will be felt to
rest, in future, with the more popular assembly.
And this, not merely, as hitherto, that the House
of Commons, with the people at its back, must be
listened to; but that the House of Commons, by
itseK may claim to dictate to the House of
Lords. The latter may have the right of saying
No a certain number of times ; but when that
limit is reached, then the will of the Commons
must be done.
This, we say, is a new state of things in
British history. It is a deliberate relinquish-
ment of its independent position by the house
of Lords; an abdication of its place and func-
tions, and an acceptance of a lower condition
and status in the Constitution. That such a
change should have taken place under a Con-
servative Administration is to us a matter of

deep regret.
Nor is that regret at all allayed by the ap-
pearance in the Times of a warm laudation of the
Earl of DERBY. Nothing more ill-omened could
well be conceived. Any one who will turn to the
Times of March, 1829, will read there the most
glowing eulogium on the Duke of WELLINGTON and
Sir ROBERT PEEL, for conceding the Romish
claims. The Duke and his friend were both
ejected from office the very next session, and
remained on the Opposition benches for eleven
long years. In the Times of 184.5-6 any one
may read similar praises of Sir R. PEEL for
surrendering the Corn Laws. Sir ROBERT
PEEL was ejected from office in less than a year,
itnd remained excluded from power to the end of
his life. Hence, to find any friend of ours—any
one whom we respect and admire—bepraised in
the Times, gives us a sort of cold shudder. The
laurels and flowers with which they cover the
object of their deceitful praise, are the laurels
and flowers with which men bedeck a victim.
The minor Radical journals, Daily News, &c.,
chime in with the Times, and follow the
Standard's article which we cited last week, in
pteferring " retbnning Tories to obstructive
Whigs." But then they deny the consistency of an
opposition to the Church-rate Bill to-day, after
conceding the Jewish claims yesterday; and
they plainly threaten that the same meant, the
same perseverance which has succeeded in the
one case, must and shall succeed in the
other. Let the Lords look to it, for they are
fairly warned. And surely a body of 135
English Peers (the number of those who voted
or paired against Lord LucAs's Bill), if they
remain united, may do much to stem even a
stronger torrent than the Dissenters can direct
against them. The present state of things cannot
last—the present state, we mean, of union between
declared Radicals and supposed Conservatives—
between Times, Standard, and Daily News. If
" England does not love Coalitions," she is not
very likely to tolerate long such a combination
as this. When those who have long been
opposed come to act together, people will natu-
rally ask, Which has drawn the other after him?
Who are the masters, and who are the tools ?
Whose game is it that is playing, and who is to
be the winner in the end ? We need not be told
who are the losers.