The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-08 00:00:00

would be t imp wtant advantage, that the number of per
sons eligible to sit in the Upper House of Parliament being
so much greater, the people would have a large range fo:
selection.
Taking then the pre3est Peers at 6:0, and adding 180.
you would have 800 Peers altogether.
I propose that the House of Lords sliould in future con-
sist of 150 only—that these 150 should be elected by the
people, out of the 800.
The 800 Peers would be the sole personi eligible. The
electors I propose to be the people at large.
For that purpose I propose that Gre it ritain and Ire-
land should be divided into I.s(Nistricts, as nearly equal in
point of population as possible. Each d'strict to elect one
Peer. Every householder to be an elector, and for my part
I should most anxiously desire, that the electors stiou!d
have the protection of voting by ballot. It is included in
my plan.
It seems to me that, As the number the el s 'Lb -voe'd
be limited, the Elect ors ousht o b as tam er ,us s
possible.
propose that the number of Peers should never be less
than 500. Ido not propose in any way to restrict the
Royal prerogative of creating Peers. The more Peers the
Kinn. may create, the greater would he the op)ortunii y
afforded' for the people of making a good choice.
I propose that the legislative body of the Peers should
be elected for five years ; one-fifth to go out annually, with
the full capacity of being re-elected.
This plan would leave the prerogative of the Crown un-
touched. The. King would have the power to create as
-many Peers as he pleased. The only limitation would be
in the-opposite sense. There should be always 500 Peers,
-there are now 620.
This, then, is the summary of my plan :—Let the Ho ise
of Lords for legislation be reduced to 150. There seldom
attendt. so many, except for bad- purposes. Let the selt c-
ton or 150 be given in districts, which may, with the ut-
most facility, be framed for that purpose. My plan wou'd
include household suffrage and vote by ballot.
I look forward to the' enactment of triennial election or
the Members of the House of Commons. The simulta-
neous election of that House no person proposes to disturb ;
but the situation of the legislators in the Lords should, I
think, be for four years—removed annually in the propor-
tion of one-fifth.
Thus, therefore, Mr. Baines must in spite of him: elf see,
that I propose a HOUSE of LORDS—and a House of no-
thing but Lords ; an assembly of BARONS, and nothing but
Baroos. I do not alter the Constitution, as it is called,
one particle. The only change I propose is within the
principle and the practice of the constitution—a prin-
ciple twice sanctioned by legislative enactment—conse-
crated by two of the most important Acts of Parliament
in the statute-book, and made the bond of union between
the three separate kingdoms of which the empire is com-
posed.
That principle worked out into practice is the selection
of a portion of the Peerage, and their separation from the
rest, for the purpose of legislation. ,
Thus, by the Act of Union with Scotland, the right of
legislation was taken away from the Scotch Peers gene-
rally ; end out of about 154 Peers—which composed, as I
recollect, the Scotch Peerage at the Union—only 16 were
to be selected, and the right of legislation preserved to the
selected 16. The rest of the Scotch Peers were placed in
the self-same predicament in which my plan would place
the 'English Peers beyond the 150 who are to have the
power to legislate.
Thus, again, by the Act of Union with Ireland, the
right of legislation was taken away from the Irish Peers ge-
nerally, and out of about 150 Peers only twenty-eight were
to be selected, and the right of legislation reserved to the
selected twenty-eight.
In each law of union, the principle of exclusion of the
many and of selection of a few of the Peers of each country,
was established and worked out, but in point of practice, was
worked out with a strong and striking difference. The sixteen
Scotch Peers were and are selected for. each Parliament
only—each of the twenty-eight Irish Peers is selected for
his life. The principle of exclusion and selection was the
same in both cases—the mode of working out that principle
was essentially different.
Now this is precisely what is proposed—to adopt the
principle of exclusion of the many and of the selection of a
chosen few—the mode of that selection to lie differ(;nt.
Experience has shown that the mode of selection by the
Peers themselves is the very worst imaginable. Let us
adopt the principle, but work it out with the improved ma
chinery of popular suffrage, protected from intimidation,
coercion, and corruption, by the-ballot.
Shall it be said that the exclusion of several of the Peers
from the right to legislate is a robbery, a spoliation of their
vested rights,_their existing privileges ? To which I reply,
the union with Scotland, and above all the union with Ire-
land ; and I take leave humbly to ask Mr. Baines, is the
latter founded on spoliation and robbery ? Let him give me
any fair answer to that questionond I will find in it at once,
either the principle of Repeal, or the principle of Reform of
the Lords.
By my plan, the unelected English Peers would be pre-
cisely in the -Situation in which the unelected Scottish Peers
have been for more than a century—in a situation identical
in essence with that of the unelected Irish Peers, but in
many -particulars superior. In short, the state of the un-
elected English Peers would be a known, a familiar " status"
of the Peerageone created by mo-st important statutes,
and already existing around us at every side.
I propose no innovation, no material change in the Peer-
age. I would merely introduce into the Peerage of Eng-
land what has been already introduced into the Peerage of
Scotland and Ireland. The only alteration I propose is in
the detail of selection ; and I do think that every rational
man will allow that the election by the people at large' is
infinitely superior to the mode of election by the Peers
themselves. Even Baines hiniseli must admit that the
election by, the Peers themselves is the very worst in prin-
ciple and in practice that could be adopted—it would aggra-
vate the present evils and remedy none.
Ms letter has run to such length, that I must postpone
to my second that rhapsody in Baines's manifesto of decla-
mation, mixed with no indistinct insinuations and per-
sonalities, of no measured kind, against me and my motives.
The subject is of too much importance to lose one moment
in personal vindication. I will dwell on those topics only
to show how conscious Baines must be of the want of
argument to sustain the House of Lords in its present
situation, when he resorts to the paltry resource of pan-
dering to the prejudices which many influential classes in
England entertain against me, and which I will take care
shall not be diminished.
The truth is, that the reform in the House of Commons
has placed the Lords in a predicament of more hostility
to public rights, than they were in' before that measure.
The Lords, at that time, acted principally through the
instrumentality of their delegates in the Commons. The
mode of operation by which the oligarchy ruled was by
their instruments in the Lower House. But these instru-
ments themselves were, to a certain extent, influenced by
public opinion—they were in contact and connection with
the peOple—and they corrected the oligarchical selfishness,
by an admixture of some popular elements inseparable
froM a House of Commons. however constituted. But
this is too large a topic for the close of a letter.
In conclusion, let it be always recollected, that the plan
which 1 announce and submit for revision and correction,
whilst it oilers a security againit. despotism, by making all
legislative power subject to responsibility, still builds its fa-
bric on the principles and upon the practice of the law and
the Constitution. Our Legislature will still be composed
of King, Lords,,and Commons—no innovation is proposed,
save as far as every amendment innovates—no new principle
-is brought forward—no new 'Practice. suggested. The de-
tails may,-nay, must be improved ; but neither iathe prin-
ciple or the practice new. We will not want to add as
much as one word to our Parliamentary vocabulary. The
adjunct " Representative" has long been attached to the
word " Peer." A " Representative Peer" is not only a
familiar expression, but it is actually a legal and technical
description.
There are Peers, and " Representative Peers" in Scot-
land—there are Peers, and " Representative Peers" in Ire-
land—there can-be, aye, there will be, Peers, and " Repre-
sentative Peers" in England.
Reformers of Great Britain, I submit my plan to you—
do not he deceived or apathetic. You have but done hall
your work in Reforming the House of Commons. It is
indeed what the Irish children call the smallest half. The
reform there requires amendment, but you can have no
right to expect the improvement wanted there—or the re-
form of the law, or any other beneficial- measure, justly or
fairly treated, until you succeed in the reform of the Lords.
One topic More, and I. conclude this epistle. Upon the
fullest consideration, I declare my conviction of the utility of
Two Chambers for legislation. In the first place there are in
existence two chambers, and I would not change more than is
absolutely necessary to be changed. But secondly, a second
chamber diminishes exceedingly, if it do not altogether take
away the danger of legislating from impulse, passion, or party.
Even a second House of Commons would afford this ad-
vantage—a reformed House of Lords may, I think, be so ar-
ranged as to ho preferable. I speak of this topic because
it is already held out as a ground for division. But we can-
not divide on this subject if we recollect, that a Reform of
the House of Lords, not its abolition, is our object. A
very able man—a mail of great moral courage and of most
valuable energy—a man destined, in my opinion, to do much
4Ad great good if he will regulate his impulses and prefer
practical utility to theoretic perfectien—l mean Mr. Roe-
buck—has already advocated legislation by a single cham-
ber. I am sorry for it, as it is one of the accidents of
which the oligarchical faction will avail themselves. How-
ever,.the increase of obstacle is only a reason for increase of
exertion. Let, thereferes- the Reformers of England, of
Scotland, and of Ireland, rally for the practical measure of
Reform of the Lords ; and, leaving tlieorie4 to their