The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-17 00:00:00

interest as Well as duty direct. But even supposing
that be were to do so, could be and the Peers united
crush the energies and subdue the spirit of this
mighty empire ? The times of Charles I. and
of James 11. are standing mementoes to the contrary, of
which his Majesty cannot fail to be aware. Lastly, sup-
posing a Tory government to be the result of Tory in-
sanity and royal delusion, what is to be done with the
Commons ? Are they to vote themselves idiots by aban-
doning an Administration in which, but the other day,
they declared their entire confidence, or are they to he
dismissed and a new House to be called ? And if they are
sent back to their constituents, will one of a more Tory
complexion, and more in harmony with the Peers, be re.
turned? Is not the most probable result, in either case,
the adoption of that ultimo ratio to which recourse was
once before hid—the voting of the Peers to be a nuisance ?
—lMrniny Advertiser.

REFORMING THE LORDS.

Paley said, that there was " not more paradox
than truth in the much-decried apophthegm that an
independent House of Commons is incompatible
with the existence of the Monarchy." Had lie lived
in our days and changed " Monarchy" for " House
of Lords," the " apophthegm" would have appeared
to be perfectly true and by no means paradoxical.
For the writers and thinkers who were wont to
maintain that the government of the country was
carried on by a system of checks and balances—that
King, Lords, and Commons, had each a concurrent,
but neither of them a predominant power in the
State—are fast disappearing. Experience has de-
molished their theories—if theories they can pro-
perly be termed, which will not bear reducing to
practice. At one period of our history, as for in-
stance under the Tudors, the Kingly power was all
but despotic; and both Houses of Parliament shi-
vered under the frown of the Monarch. At short
and brief intervals, the House of Commons, with
the aid of some mighty popular delusion, as in the
days of the Popish Plot, bullied the other• tao
Estates. But since the Revolution,—since the
country has made the greatest advances in civiliza-
tion and wealth,—since, in fact, the ruling power
has been most productive of good things to its pos-
sessors,—the aristocracy have coerced the Monarch
and the people, by means of a corrupt House of
Commons. In the British Constitution, then, as in
that of every other country, there has always been
one, though not the came, predominant power. At
the present time, there can be no question as to the
quarter in which that power is deposited : it is irre-
sistible i►► the hands of the Representatives of the
people; and both King and Lords must submit to
it, in like manner as the Commons have submitted in
their days of thraldom.
Fortunately, in regard to the Monarch, no ques-
tion arises. The King of England goes with, and
does not thwart the nation; and there is no dispo-
sition to curtail or interfere with the exercise of his
executive authority. But the House of Lords is
refractory, and must be reduced to obedience. Their
late decision, and the Ministerial avowals which it
occasioned, prove beyond all question, that, as at
present constituted, it is a s!umblingblock in the
way of improvement, which it would be the merest
imbecility not to remove. We attach no great im•
portance to the Mignelite vote. The wellbeing of
the country was little concerned in the question;
but its decision► against the Ministers, and against
the known fe:lings of the nation and its representa-
tives, reminds those who had forgot, that tl►e Peer-
age is determined to use the power which it must
possess if suffered to remain in its present state, to
render the Reform Act impotent for good. Lord J.
Russell admitted that the fear of a collision with
the majority in the Lords restrained the Ministers
from doing what they knew to be advantageous for
the country. It may be said that this is a mere
cloak for their own lukewarmness or incapscity, of
which the Ministers are glad enough to avail them-
selves. Suppose it were so—the effect is equally
pernicious whether the excuse be real or feigned.
It will serve the present, and not merely the pre-
sent, but future Administrations also, as a reason or
pretence for numberless sins of omission.
Unless, therefore, we are prepared to throw away
the fruits of victory, and will lazily and infamously
consent to see that reform for which we have
toiled so hard, converted into a mockery arid abor-
tion, means must speedily be taken to reform the
House of Lords. That matters would come to
this at last, we have long ago arid very often de-
clared. It would seem that the time it come when
the canveision of the House of Lords, from being
an obstacle in the way of improvement, to an instru-
ment of good, must be effected. The question is,
in what way this can best be done, and done quickly.
The readiest remedy is the usual one—a large
creation of new Members. The long reign of the
Tories has crammed the House of Lords with Tory
Peers : it might be of service to turn the scale by
selecting a number of Whig gentlemen, who have
become Reformers, and promoting them to the rank
of hereditary legislators. But the objections which
arise to the adoption of this mode of proceeding are
numerous and important. A Ministerial majority
might indeed he secured thereby for the present;
but how long it would remain Ministerial, how soon
a fresh creation would be required, no man can
foretell. The King of the French created sixty
❑ew Peers for• the purpose of procuring a vote for
the abolition of their owe► hereditary privileges; but
the majority nevertheless soon afterwards became
anti-ministerial; and more Peers were necessarily
created. You can place no reliance upon the con•
duct of any man who may do as he likes, and is
responsible to no one but himself Earl Grey has
found that some of his new-made Peers, the Mar-
quis of Westmeath for example, are not to be de-
pended upon. The evil, therefore, may be only
remedied for a very short and uncertain period by
the creation of new Peers, who are expected to take
the popular side in politics—were they made to
serve aristocratic purposes, the case, we grant,
would be materially changed.
Another objection to the augmentation of the
Peerage is, that it is a great deal too numerous
already for any legislative purposes. The few well-
informed and patriotic members which it contains
are outvoted, and their influence is nullified, by the
mob of ignorant, thoughtless, and dissipated Lords.
This evil is glaring, and requires a remedy. Why,
then, it may be said, would you resort to the as-
sured means to augment it P—for it should be re-
membered, that although virtuous and able men
may be selected in the first instance, the chances are
greatly in favour of their successors being scamps.
Then again, the Peerage is an irresponsible body.
The King may be controlled through his Ministers;
the Members of the House of Commons must
answer for their conduct to their• constituents; but
neither King nor people can call the Lords to ac-
count. 'This irresponsibility in the exercise of ex-

tensive power is an anomaly in the constitution of a
country pretending to be free. It is an anomaly,
moreover, productive of much practical mischief.
To increase indefinitely the number of persons to
whom the exercise of this irresponsible power is
conceded, must therefore be a questionable proceed-
ing, however it may be recommended by the neces-
sity of the case. _

Some of the readers of the Spectator may recol
lect, that, neatly two years ago, before the idea of
" swamping" the Peers had become popular, we
suggested a mode, which, though by no means free
from objection, might still have the effect of render-
ing the House of Lords more useful than it now is.
The use of a Second Chamber is to prevent legisla-
tion from being precipitate and slovenly—to revise
and perfect the decrees of the First Chamber.
Now the House of Loids is, and from its constitu-

tion necessarily must be, a very bad instrument for
this end. But if, with a due reservation of existing
rights, the hereditary privileges of the Peers as le-
gis
lators were abolished, and m future, life peerages
only were created, and regard had not so much to
the wealth or birth, as to the virtue and acquire-
ments of those upon whom they were bestowed,
then, we should stand some chance of having a
sound constituency, out of which some fifty or a
hundred really useful and well-informed as well as
independent *nators might be chosen. These
Srnators would be responsible to the great body of