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

THE SUN, LONDONL TUESDAY. DECEMBER 8. 1S

LETTER from DANIELL Q'CON N ELL,
ESQ-, M. P., to the EDITOR of the LEEDS TIMES,
on PEERAGE REFORM.

" Princes and Lords may flOurish, or may fade,
A breath can make them, as a breath has made."

Derrynane Abbey, Nov. 20, 1835.
solicit a space in your columns for a discussion
on a most important topic—" The Reform of the House
of Lords." I will be as brief as I can, especially as my
Tamworth correspondence remains over too low, ; but this
subject is too important to be canvassed with brevity. It
deserves the fullest and most profound consideration, as
being one of those organic changes in the established Go-
vernment, which ought never to be made without the most
obvious and pressing necessity.
I think that necessity partakes of both qualities—it is
obvious, it is pressing. The Lords last session demon-
strated the necessity—they.also gave most abundant evi-
dence that it is quite unsafe to postpone the remedy. 'Fliey
have raised questions of the most vital and perpetual im-
portance—lS the reform in the Com Mons to be useless ?
Arc 170 men to be masters of the, destinies of the great
British nation ?
I have great confidence in this simple view of the sub-
ject. It is plain as the sun at noonday, that 170 indivi-
duals have it in their power to prevent every alleviation of
the public burdens, every amelioration in our institutions.
They can put a stop to the correction of every abuse, to
the amendment of every defect—they can prolong and per-
petuate every absurd, oppressive, insulting, and pernicious
monopoly. In short, they can render eternal every exist-
ing injustice, and with impious hand stay the tide of every
salutary improvement.
For these crimes there is no legal punishment—these
men are subject to no responsibility—they incur no risk,
save from that which should be avoided as plague or pesti-
lence—forcible revolution. In short, without a reform in
the Lords, the people of the British islands are slaves—
despicable slaves to 170 despots, whose will is their sole
guide, and whose passions, prejudices, and, above all, whose
personal interests are diametrically opposed to the rights
and liberties of the people.
This common-sense view of the state of British legisla-
tion strikes at once every rational and uninfluenced individual
in the community. I preached these truths to tens of thou-
sands in England, and to .hundreds of thousands in Scot-
land. I claim the honour of being one of the first of the
apostles- of this new doctrine, all have the happiness to
know that countless multitudes of the independent Re-
forniers of Great Britain are as convinced as I am that
freedom is a mockery, and liberty a mere name, as long as
an irresponsible body-of 170" persons possess their present
uncontrollable dominiOn—that iS,'as long as the House of
Lords remains unreformed _ _

The causes that have made, this despotism of a few so
prominent at the present period, will he considered more at
large in the course of .these. letters. The reform of the
House of Commons is the leading. cause—but there are
others which this discussion will mere fully develop.
One thing is certain, that the despotic power of the 170
Peers is no longer theoretic or disputatious. It is cer-
tain, and practical, and active. It is also, unblushing, in-
solent, and contemptuous of public opinion as well as of
public good.
I ask, would it ever have been avowed in the House of
Lords that measures introduced by the Ministers of the
Crown, for the benefit of Ireland, should be rejected, not
for any defect or insufficiency, but simply and singly because
I, even I, had supported these measures ? Could, I ask it,
such an avowal be made and. acted upon, unless the 170
despots, with the Duke of Wellington at their head, did en-
tertain a total disregard to the public good, and
,a sovereign
contempt of the public opinion ?
Similar conduct on the part of the Duke, in regard to the
constitution of the House of Commons, advanced by at
least twenty years the Reform of that House. 'He had the
unparalleled imprudence and folly to assert deliberately in
his place in Parliament, as Prime Minister of the CrOWn,
that the system of rotten borough and nomination represen-
tation was the perfection—nay, the " beau ideal" of legisla-
tive institutions !
His is a strange history. We have to thank him for the
Emancipation, first, of the Protestant Dissenters ; and,
secondly, of the Catholics—measures, each of which he
sternly refused upon principle,' and ungraciously yielded to
compulsion. We are to thank him for having seen the re-
form of the House of Commons in our day ; and .ve shall
—I doubt not—owe to him, and to his staff of 170 Des-
pots, the same species of left-banded gratitude, for making
certain, and accelerating the Reform, of the House of
Lord's.

The current of public opinion has set in, and set in
strongly, in favour of that reform. It is deep, not loud ;
it is sturdy and determined, full of hope, and enlivened by
the'certainty that it can be effectuated without violence,
without any risk any alteration in the social condition of
private families, or any danger of the spoliation of pri`.-
vate property, or the shedding of one drop of human blood.
The people of the British islands have seen in their own
day and in their own country, more than one all-important
and salutary amelioration in our institutions, favourable to
civil, and religious liberty, effected by peaceable means,
and they look forward to the perfection of the machinery
of improvement by the Reform of the House of Lords,
with a steady determination that 'such Reform shall be ,
effectuated in the same manner that emancipation has
been achieved, and the Reform of the House of Commons
accomplished.
All that remained was to arrange the organization of the
tactics necessary to give efficacy and power to the public
sentiment, and thus to bring the moral force of a great and
enlightened nation to bear upon the strong holds of Aris-
tocratic despotism. The cry of all dishonest politicians
was up ; the Tories shouted " resistance"—the Conserva-
tives exclaimed " no surrender"—and public plunderers of
every grade shrieked out " robbery," lest the means of
robbing the public should be taken away from themselves.
But all this outcry is and will be weak and futile as the
wailings of infants, unless dissension arises in the camp of
the Reformers, and division weakens that which nothing can
destroy—the British determination not to submit to any
despotism.
But that despotism has already an ally among us—
Baines, the well-fed proprietor of the Leeds Mercury, has
sounded his penny trumpet of discord, and has endea-
voured to call off a small section of Whigs, or rather
Whiglings, from the attack to the defence of tyranny—
for Baines knows that irresponsible power is the very
definition of tyranny. That irresponsible power Baines

defends.
Let us, however, canvass his arguments. He is a clever
man, as times go, and has adduced the best arguments he
can in favour of the party he sustains ; in truth, he has the
most powerful motives to exert all his ingenuity_ to find out
reasons to justify, or at least to palliate, his desertion of
the first principles of constitutional liberty. We have,
therefore, in his manifesto, a fair specimen of the strongest
case that can be made for the continuance of the despotic
authority of the Lords, and against the agitation of the
question of the abolition of that despotism just at the pre-
sent period.
I will, therefore, take up the manifesto of Baines, and
follow it, paragraph by paragraph, as long as there is any
thing beyond mere verbiage to follow, and I will expose the
mischievous tendency of some, the utter futility of others,
the total absence of a rational argument, and the constant
but .discreditable presence 9f political cant which pervade
the entire.
It may not be possible to disconnect all the paragraphs
the one from the other—for there sometimes runs one and
the same farrago of assumption and misrepresentation
through several consecutive paragraphs—but we will do
the best we can.
The first paragraph or exordium contains twenty-one
lines„ and ends appropriately with the word " folly." 111
this. his exordium, Baines denounces division amongst Re-
formers ; but this, as I will soon show, is mere hypocrisy
on his part. I, however, readily admit that diVision is a
bad, a very bad thing but a violation o principle is
worse, and we Radicals will, I am quite sore, avoid di-
vision from the Whigs, unless the unhappy case should
occur of an attempt to violate principle, or unfairly to
prevent the working out of that principle. There is but
one magic in politics, and that is always to be right;
and I do think that there exists at the present moment
the strongest disposition in the great body of the Radical
Reformers to be right upon every political question of
importance, without being swayed by passion, disgust, or
prejudice. The sound and rational Radicals are destined
to be the political saviours of Britain.
Baines illustrates the evils of division in public parties by
a short but inaccurate sketch of recent Tory history. He
totally forgets that the division among the 'Tories was
created by the more intelligent and generous portiol of that
body perceiving that it was impossible much longer to resist
the general impulse towards reform. It was the more manly.
and forward part of the Tories that separated from the dull
and the sluggish, who foolishly believed, and still believe,
that the cause of rational improvement could he totally
stayed. Whereas, on the contrary, those who would create
division amongst the Reformers, are the laggards and the
supine, who will not go on with the rationdmovement, and
yet know not when or where to stop. These are the men
who endeavour to sow dissension amongst It Aorm:rs.
The second paragraph purports to commence the discus-
sion, and proves beyond controversy that 13.1:nes is a hy-
pocrite when he preaches against division. Mark what his
first arguutent is, He states that it was I who brought
forward the measure of " Reform of the lords," and that
my bringing it forward was a proof of its beigg, the rmr,T
qf wise, Now, this very man is one of ti ose who cant
against the use of personalities, and yet his first ~Irgurnent,
on a most grave and important question,
is a pure and sim-
plc personality,- in accusing an .ndividual habitual folly.
This, to be sure, may be true ; but it is certainly personal.

" kr. O'Connell is the apostle of this measure; therefore
it is unwise." Such. is his 'co,ciliatory le6c!.•- I Content
myself for the present with denying his inference. I admit
it is not the better measure, because of my advocacy ; but
I utterly deny that it is the worse ; and this at least is cer-
tain, that commencing with a personal attack is not the way
to prevent that division which Baines affects to deprecate.
But he does not rest here. He goes on to say that my
proposition for a Reform of the Lords must be unwise ; be-
cause I brought forward the Repeal of the Union, which
he is pleased, in his own conciliatory way, to call " a pre-
posterous blander." The wanton and most unnecessary in-
troduction of " the Repeal" in this manner, is not merely
insulting to me alone—it is an insult to that influential body
of Irish Members who, with me, voted for the Repeal ; we I
are forty-three, including Tellers. Now this class of Mom-
bers has, Baines must admit, given considerable and
liberal support to the party to which he belongs ; a sup-
port which was so little expected—l will say nothing of
how it was formerly deserved—that Peel speculated on its
being withheld as one of his inducements to accept office,
and frankly said so at his great Tamworth dinner. haims,
however, insults us all ; he declaims against division, and
then be turns round -upon upwards of forty Members of
Parliament, and says, " Gentlemcn—No division amongst
us—be unanimous with us ; but, between ourselves be it
said, you arc a pack of blunderers !—preposterous blun-
derers ! !—nay, worse than all, hist' blunderers! ! ! who
disgust England and Scotland, and whose proposal of any
measure is a presumption that it is the reverse of wise.
But come, shake hands—let us be friends still—no division,
good gentlemen, for Heaven's sake !"
Such, literally, is the meaning of his second paragraph.
It demonstrates how hypocritical his pretences of avoiding
division amongst the Reform party was, or how wretchedly
silly be himself can be, though generally, lie is a' shrewd,
sensible fellow ; hut I do believe he is devoured by vanity,
and that, after all, he recollects with some mortification
that once. I had the: misfortune to bring down peals of
laughter from the entire House upon a pompous and prosaic
declamation of his, full of churchwardenincr piety on the
enforcing, by new laws, the observance of the Sabbath ; I
cannot other Wise account for his folly.
For my part, I readily forgive him, and I abstain from
noticing the concluding part of his second paragraph, in
which he borrows some worn-out Tory ribaldry on the sub-
jest of the " Tail"—another insult, to be sure ; but I for-
give him that, as well as his calumny on the " just approach-
mg" comet, which he has the cruelty to ill treat', by com-
paring it to me and to the Repealers.
But, to be serious ; as he has introduced the Repeal,
and insinuated that I have abandoned that measure, I
deem it but candid. to inform the British .Reformers, that
I have not abandoned the pursuit of the Repeal of the
Union ; it is, on -the contrary, true, and let Baines make
the most of it, that I am as thoroughly convinced as ever
I wag, that Ireland will never be well or honestly governed
until she has a domestic legislation of her own. I, there-
fore, have not abandoned, I have only postponed the agi-
tation of that measure ; and I have postponed it for two
reasons—first, to give, in the 'full spirit of candour and per-
fect fair play, room for the entire working out of an expe-
riment, of whether Ireland can have a just and beneficial
Government without the Repeal of the Union. I enter
into that experiment fully, heartily, actively, energetically.
Should the experiment succeed—and Lord Mulgrave and
Lord. Morpeth are as yet doing all they possibly can to
make it succeed—if it succeed, then my judgment will prove
to be wrong ; but my heart will be consoled by the pros-
perity of the loved land of my birth. If it fail—as fail I
think it must—l will then turn round on the honest Re-
formers of Great Britain ; I will ,point out the sincerity
with which I have made out the experiment of an imperial
legislation ; I will point out the natural and unpassable
obstacles to its. success. I will then be right in the judg-
ment of my conscience, and of all the impartial men of
the I3ritish. Isles ; and with eight millions at my back,
and justice in my cause, it would indeed be preposterous
to doubt of success. _ _

The v second reason why I postpone " the Repeal" is,
that Ireland is not as yet ripe for a simultaneous effort.
'l'i►e Orange faction is as yet frantic, fanatical, and above
all, selfish. It is ready to sacrifice country and liberty
to the base and factious interests of a sanguinary party.

..... ,
But I thank you, Baines, for introducing the " Re-
peal," because it enables me to ask you, whether the
house of Lords be not now the most prominent and
unmanageable obstacle to the good government of Ire-
land? The 170 despots have treated England and Scot-
land &icily in. the last session. They have treated them
unjustly;--they have thrown out,, or retarded, _or muti-
lated, at their caprice, many measures of vital utility to
Great Britain. But Ireland they have treated insolently
—contemptuously. They scorned to argue. They ac-
tually kicked out every measure to ameliorate the insti-
tutions of Ireland. It is therefore part of my great ex-
.perimeut upon the Union—it is an essential part of that
experiment which drove me through the North of Eng-
land and through Scotland, to rouse public opinion, in
order to control, if possible, the Lords, and to procure
that salutary reform in their House, without which Ire-
land must continue miserable and enslaved—the pitiful
pelting form of ,every abuse—the source of expense and
insecurity, and weakness, to the whole British empire.
I am in my conscience convinced, that there is no mode
of ultimately preventing the Repeal of the Union—nay,
the separation. of these countries—but by procuring that
justice for Ireland which the House of , Lords con-
temptuously refuse her.. Yo 4 must have a reform in the
Lords—or, mark my words, " Repeal of the Union."
I now proceed to the THIRD paragraph—and the more
I canvass this manifesto, the more does Baines display his
unfairness—his spirit of misreprc.,sentat:on—llis total want

of candour.
He addresses himself especially to my plan for the Re,
form of the House of Lords, and he describes it thus—
" It is proposed to deprive the Peers of their hereditary
privileges—TO ABOLISH THE HOUSE or LORDS—and to
substitute for the assembly of Barons, an elective assembly
chosen by the people."
Recollect, that he attributes this plan to me, whilst he
knows, he well knows, that it is not my plan, or any thing
like my plan.
I answer—it is not proposed— perhaps it ought—but it
is not proposed to abolish the House of Lords ; on :the
contriffy, it is proposed to continue a -House of Lords—
it is net proposed to substitute for an assembly of Barons
another assembly—on the contrary, it is proposed to con-
tinue an assembly of Barons. It is not proposed to take
away.from the Peers their hereditary privileges, or any
privilege, save one—the privilege of doing wrong without
responsibility and with perfect impunity—that is all—that
one privilege we desire to take away, and that alone.
On -the other hand, here is Baines shocked at the
thought -of compelling the Peers to do right—insisting,
with -all his lUngs,-on their " right divine to govern wrong."
It is a sacred right ! says he, oh ! they have had it for
one thousand years'.—he exclaims---it is rank blasphemy
to endeavour to deprive them of it !!!
About a century ago an English traveller chanced to be
at the fair of Mill-street, in the county of Cork. To his
surprise, as he gazed at the multitude, a well-dressed, well-
mounted man, armed with a large shillela, dashed amongst
the people, knocked down, men, women, and children, over-
set the stalls of gingerbread, crushed the crockery-ware,•
and did all imaginabl mischief without resistance, and with
impunity. " Who," said the astonished Englishman to a
peasant who was bleeding profusely from a blow of the
slant, ." whol-that man that does all this mischief with
idaiinnitY ?" " Who !" replied the peasant with surprise,
" do you not know ? that is the great O'Leary, the chief-
tain of Toncir, Who has the hereditary privilege for ONE
THDOSAND TEARS of ruling the fair of Mill-street, by
knockini, down all parties." " But," replied the English-
man,
" would it not be fit that O'Leary shoulA exercise
his privilege with common sense?" " Common sense !
common sense l" cried the indignant vassal, " Saxon, know"
—and lie knocked him down—" Know that O'Leary scorns
to have common sense."
This is
,just Baines's case with me. I simply ask that
there should be common sense in the exercise of the pri-
vilege of the Lords ; Bainet does not knock me down, that
would not be a prudent experiment on his part. But he
does as had, safely—be calls me a blunderer,' a preposte-
rous blunderer, an Irish blunderer—and, moreover, a Re-
Publican !! ! and he then, with a soft simper, shows that
he and the Lords scorn common sense.
But the people of England hnve not the same noble
contempt for common sense with Baines ; it is, on the con-
trary, an article they are fond of. They know that a wrong
is not mitigated by having lasted one thousand years ; on
the contrary, length of duration only aggravates the mis-
chief, and makes it more imperative to put an end to it.
In truth, the only question ought to be, in what manner
the mischief of hereditary and irresponsible power is to be
terminated.
My plan is this : I propose it with due submission to
the judgment of those who may differ with me upon the
details—my plan is this
1 first-_j t.ike the English Peerage, and I find they
amount altogether to 421 ; there are 12 Peeresses whose
sons will be Peers, total 433. The Irish Peers, the greater
part of whom never saw Ireland, are 202 ; of these no
less than 72 are included in the English Peerage, leaving
130 Irish Peers to be added to the 433 English, total
563 ; add for Scotland 57, not being English Peers ; the
total of the existing Peers will thus amount to 620 per-
sons. I reckon the Irish and Scotch Peers as well as t 1
English. for they certainly should be ptit cfrl a rooting of
perfect equality else the LIPI(A4 i§ a mockery to them.
to Carry the lis4ll for the reform of the House of
Lords, it would ho 'necessary to create a new batch of Peers
and it would bo wise in that case to croato a large number,
suppose 180, so as to render the success of the Bill quite
certain. It would be useful in another point of view, to
:have a great addition to the present Peerage;because there