The Sun.
London, England, 1836-10-04 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

We are not fond of deceiving our readers by exag-
gerated statements, and we have therefore always
spoken with much hesitation on the subject of the
public feeling regarding Peerage Reform. We find
that we have greatly underrated the intensity of that
feeling. From all parts of the country we receive in-
telligence daily from authorities on which the utinort
reliance may be placed, that a deep-rooted conviction
is everywhere entertained that a change must -take
place in the constitution of the House of Lords. The
people have become persuaded that not only can no
really important measures be expected so long as the ;
Lords remain unreformed, but that the country is ex-
posed Co imminent danger from the effects which col-
lision may produce. • We have just seen a letter froth
an unwilling witness, who has been some time on
visit in Scotland, and whose soundness of judgment
is as unquestionable as his means of infOrmation are
ample, in which he declares that " there is a tremen-
dous feeling on the subject of Peerage Reform all over
Scotland." We deemed it prudent in a matter
of such importance to • speak with caution,• and even
with .hesitation. But, with the evidence which we
now possess, we are warranted in saying that if •
the Lords have " sown the wind " they will " reap
the whirlwind." We should be ashamed of the
people of England if we could for a moment be-
lieve that they could regard with any other feeling
than that of derision the .miserable ravings of that once
effective advocate of Liberal opinions, but now con-
temptible organ of Toryism, the Times. The plain •
good sense of our countrymen is not to be baffled by
mystifying the question with vague declamations against
" submerging the entire State, by the mere pressure of
barbarous numbers and blind undirected force ;" by as-
surances in " the aristocratic branch of our Constitu-
tion are chiefly comprehended the invaluable characte-
ristics of stability and self-controul," and the evils of
" everlasting movement. There is a short and pithy
thato
answer to all this nonsense and gabble
effect T e
t Reform
Bill itself, and every measure for giving
Bill, have been opposed by the Peers. We ex-
torted the Reform Bill from their fears, not from their
sense of justice ; and we only obtained the modification
of Corporation reform, to which they gave their consent,
from their belief that the Commons would spurn the mu-
tilated measure. They oppose all reform, defend every'
abuse, and appear to be imbued with the spirit of
hatred towards whatever promises to conduce to the im-
provement and prosperity of the people of these
kingdoms. And what have the people in return for
this patronage of whatever is evil, and hostility to all
that is good ?* The advocates of the Peers them
selves now abandon the foolish theory of De Lolme
and Blackstone of three powers, and admit that the
supreme power cannot be divided. They admit that
before the Reform Bill that power which is now con-.
fined to the Lords prevailed in both Houses. Though
they do not say so in terms, the consequence to which
their conduct can alone point is the recovery of their - •
lost ascendancy in the House of Commons, by bribery,
by intimidation, by sowing divisions among Reform-
ers, and other means committed by that personage
between whom and the devil a connection was so hap-
pily pointed out by Lord Melbourne. The only be-
nefit which the people can derive from a second branch
of the Legislature is more mature deliberation, by hay-
ing all measures discussed by two assemblies. The pub-
lic impatience may sometimes be beneficially checked
by the necessary delay which the discussion in two
Houses must interpose between the origination and
final decision of a measure, to say nothing of the advan-
tage to be derived from the renewal of deliberation in a
fresh assembly. But these advantages are quite recon-
cileable with such . a reform of the Peers as would
imbue them with feelings not opposed to those of the
nation, and a sifirit not dissimilar from that which ac-
tuates a majority of the representatives of the nation.
Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwer accounts for the singular
and very rash conduct of the Peers, in provoking the
strong hatred of the people, by supptFing them to en-
tertain the project of obtaining a majority in the Com-
mons, by sowing divisions among Reformers, by which
they might destroy reform, and consequently get rid of
collision :

" The conduct of the Peers," he says, " has been singu-
lar and so very rash, to all appearance, that I cannot help
thinking, even after I have allowed much for Lord Lynd-
hurst's natural levity and recklessness, that there must be
some design in it which has not as yet been generally per-
ceived ;—I ask, therefore, what that design can be ? The
whole danger and only cause of perdition to the Tories
and the Lords is our majority in the Commons. It is
evident, therefore, that one of the principal objects in any
policy they pursue must be to convert that majority into a
minority.
" Let us suppose, then, Lord Lyndhurst in council, and
haranguing those whose discussions he is to lead—what
might he say?—
'There seems to me, my Lords, two advantages in this
daring course, which I, in opposition to what has been said
by my Right Hon. Friend (hem!), the Member for Tam-
worth, advise and adjure your Lordships to pursue. In
the first place, we thereby give heart and spirit to our
friends, and make them feel that we are not merely direct-
ing a skilful retreat, but boldly contending for open victory.
In the next place, we are sowing dis.sensions, of no undan-
gerous nature, in the camp of our atrocious enemy ; for, ob-
serve, my Lords, if by this course we do not excite any
outcry against your Lordships, then evidently we triumph,
and may presume that the country will shortly back our
efforts. But, supposing, which is far more probable, I
grant you, that we do excite this outcry, what follows ?
Why, some of those reprobates called Radicals, who feel
none of that respect and veneration which your virtues and
your wisdom (bowing to and are so well quali-
fied to inspire—these persons, borne away by the ardour of
their ungovernable natures, will cry at once.for violent mea-
sures of organic change in your Lordships' House. "Is
this not to be feared ?" you will say, perhaps l Not at all ;
because from that moment the band which now hangs over
and awes us as a majority sinks into two antagonist mi-
norities. Thus, happily, the arguments which were used
for changes in the Constitution (smiling sarcastically) will
be over, and the two Houses agree as of old! My Right
Hon. Friend at the head of a majority in one House, and
my unworthy self, your Lordships, at the head of a ma-
jority in the other, conducting harmoniously the affairs of
state, and enjoying those high situations which, looking at.
our various qualities, it would be ungrateful not to acknow-
ledge that Providence designed for us.' "
Mr. Bulwer admits that " the game thus played is
a dangerous one ;" but " if," he observes, " on the
other hand, our anger against the Lords—pushing
some further than others—divides •and separates us ;
then, indeed, Lord Lyndhurst may get a majority in
his favour out of that very question—Peerage Reform,
which he has excited."
The whole strength of our argument against the
Lords," he proceeds to observe, " lies in our majority—in
our majority which carries measures in the Commons that
are rejected by the Lords ; thus the Constitution cannot
work—thus legislation is paralyzed—thus our Constitution
becomes a dead letter.

,‘ But just suppose we have not the majority (and to -
produce this result it would not be necessary to lose many)
then bow are we ? The House of Commons no longer
passes laws which the House of Lords rejects ; the Con-
stitution is no longer bound, nor legislation paralyzed. The
two Houses do go on together ; where is your practical ne-
cessity for a change in the Peerage ? May not the very
question of this change, raised indiscreetly, avert and ob-
viate its necessity ?"
What Mr. Bulwer proposes is this—
" Well, then, you may say, will you leave the House of
Lords as it is ?"
" You cannot alter the House of Lords, and it is not
wise or safe that you should, however you may think ill o
it, unless there be a great majority in the country and the
Commons .rho arc in favour of your doing so. All that I
look to, then, is, retaining the majority you have got, and
waiting under the influence of those circumstances which,
if yon will but allow the time, must powerfully increase it.
• "As to Peerage Reform itself, there may be wisdom in
many of the theories respecting "The Peerage' now put
forth. But the English never busied themselves much
about governmental theories ; what they have always
looked to is governmental effects.
" Their quarrel with the House of Lords is not because
that House is an hereditary body, but because it is a body
that seems determinedly opposed to all popular government.
If you wish for a reform in the Lords, you have only one
way to effect it, the way they themselves are taking. But
a good pilot waits till the tide is high before he attempts
the harbour.
You must wait.—Every fresh measure rejected is a
new wave for your vessel. Three years ago, the man who
spoke of Peerage Reform as likely to be carried in our
time would have been thought a madman : three years
hence, if the Lords pursue their present course, the man
who contends against it will be deemed out of his senses.
But this is not the case yet. The people of our country .
arc not impetuous ; they do not learn, like the French, a