WM LORDS, THE JEW BILL, AND THE CONSTITUTION. TICE politics
of England are changingfrom a field of intellectual and, moral effort, and party struggles, into a barren arena, where men without convictions wrangle over questions without issues. Perhaps the philosophy of the present situation, at least in the minds of those who, as members of the obstructive majority of the Lords, or as self-seeking party leaders in both Houses, keep open this chasm in the forum, was bestexpressed by Lord. Dungannon, on Tuesday, in his protest against "continual and unconstitu- tional references to consequences." Certainly, according to the present demeanour of party leaders and the state of great ques- tions of domestic and foreign importance, it would seem to be thought that "consequences" have but little relation to what we say and do. The cloud-cuckoo-land of Aristophanes was scarcely less related to the solving of the practical questions of life, than are the debates of Parliament at this hour. Nor did schoolmen ever thaenss their baseless and purposeless subtleties with more of irre- sponsible nonchalance than was orhibited by the Lords in the face of
a serious constitutional difficulty, and a grave political discussion,. It seems to be considered of no consequence " whatever that the: utmost possible strain. of mere logical exercise of power, should; be laid upon a constitution the essence of which is the cora,. promise of power. Nor is it felt that in exhibiting their power under this aspect of dangerous logical right to reject, the Lords stand convicted of a caprioions and revolutionary spirit, and re- verse at a blow the traditions impair the morale and endanger the safety of the polity of which they vaunt themselves in this very act the guardians. Perhaps the history of legislative assemblies scarcely furnishes a parallel for this outrageous im- prudence. It is as the great organ of Conservative duty that the Lords exist. To ialay the part of mere obstruetives is in view of the rationale of the English constitution, to behave as !the worst of destructives. Continental politicians of the ideologue school are perpetually pointing to the relation of the three estates of Parliament, each absolute in theory, but all harmoniously, moving and working together in fact, as an unintelligihle wonder : and of such a scheme of polity, when conceived by the great Roman thinker, he doubted whether it was possible ; but averred. that if it were, " haud diuturna ease potest." Is the House of Peers about to justify that wonder and verify that prophecy ? And that, in behalf of a notion which can only be characterized as the fanaticism of the impossible ? For all po- litical thinkers and. the vast majority of Englishmen have come te the conclusion, that the admission of the Jews into Parliament is either a thing to be contended for, or at least not to be contended against. And it is not easy to conceive how a legislative body can play a more dangerous or ridiculous part, dangerous because ridiculous, than by deciding a question with a total oblivion of the opinion of the wise, the desire of the majority, and the prin- ciples of the constitution. Here is a scam/alum tnagnatum indeed ! There is one view indeed of the subject, upon which alone the Lords may be justified or accounted for; and which, perhaps' if it be really their ground of action, may prove their only success. Long quiet, and excess of enjoyment of the good things of life, political and material, may have occasioned in their breasts a temporary surfeit of peace and prosperity, and they may unconsciously, per- haps, have a latent thirst for a "row.'
However, nobody in his senses believes that the English consti- tution is going to pieces. There will be a collision between the Houses, and, indeed, it may not impossibly be considered in some ()snorters as proved or suggested by this case, that the time is ripe for some modification of the composition or action of the House of Peers. But, substantially, that splendid and patriotic aristocracy, which, in spite of exceptional moments of opposition, has always been in fundamental accord with the hopes and des- tinies of F.ngland, will retain in the constitution its legislative position comparatively unimpaired. The primary indignation of the country will fall upon those, who are far more really respon- sible for the folly of Tuesday night—the Conservative leaders, and. also the Liberal chiefs, in so far as they may have advised a selfish and unpatriotic abstention from the division. But though the main fault lies with leaders, who ought to be wise and cool- headed enough to avoid such a deadlock of the constitution as has arisen, it is not possible to view without some anxiety the prospects of the conflict, which now appears inevitable. Doubters of the principle of a balanced monarchical polity, destructivea from inclination, and the whole mass of the absolutist or demo- cratic fanatics of the Continent, will rejoice at the temporary dia. comfiture of their standing rebuke, the British constitution. The peers of England afford a triumph to Mazzini. Be the weight of English Conservatism, permeating as it does all ranks all classes, all hearts, what it may, the Lords have given to desiructives an argument which can never be entirely taken away from them. What next ? Even at the eleventh hour the Commons would, we doubt not, postpone all exclusive action of their own, if a prospect could be held out of a Liberal Ministry strong enough in majority, men, and mind, to utter to the Lords the inevitable "You must." But the prospect of such a Ministry belongs to distant view, and its making would seem to be possible to "en- chantment" only ; and to refer the Jewish question to it, is to explain and provide for obscurant per obscurius. We apprehend, therefore' that the rising party of Will and national purpose, which has, within the last fortnight, measured its strength against the cliques and the Inevitables, in the successful failure on Mr. Wise's motion, and the unequivocal success on Mr. Mon- sell's, will not be content to relegate this question to the limbus of possibilities or probabilities ; but will make it another champ- de-hataillc for the trial of the great national question' whether there is to be a strong Liberal Government or not, and on what principles and with what men, as well as of the particular ques- tion. The actual position of the bill renders it impossible, indeed, to put up with the decision of the Lords ; for if that were done, the Commons would. acquiesce in an express legislative exclusion of the Jews. The next conventional step towards a solution will be a conference of the two Houses • but of course nothing can come of that ; and the case being really removed out of the region of ar- gument, the position of the "managers" will be not a little undig- nified, not to say ludicrous, and. unfit for reasonable human beings. For no man ought to make himself the agent of absurdity. And heavily responsible we must hold those to be, who conspire to exhibit everybody, or function, or theory, or practice of the con- stitution in turn, in the light of a solemn farce of imprecticability. However, conference there must be, and difference. And,
must follow, on the part of the Commons, a measure of donb
power and legality, and in all probability a conflict perfectly new an the history of the constitution, between privilege and statute- law: for it is an inaccuracy to describe it as one merely between Parliament and the Courts. Assuming as is at present the general opinion, though opposed to distinguished legal authorities, that the statute-law is really a bar, and that the House of Com- mons has not the right of substituting a declaration, in lieu of the abjuration oath, under the 6 and 6 of William IV. e. 62, sec- tion 8,' the issue of the impending conflict can plainly only be in a humiliating surrender on the part of the Lords, who will be literally driven into passing an act. But we are not without hopes that the judicature may affirm that the act we refer to does give the power, a question which the Commons appear now pledged to try by exercising it: this will save the country the misfortune of a direct victory., little better to all parties than a defeat, over the House of Lords. At the same time, there may be reason to con- tend that the Peers require for the future health of their relations to the other bodies of the State, and to national opinion, that the conflict which they invite should be met, not eluded. For, after all, it may be said there cannot be wisdom, or courtesy in treating the Lords like spoiled children, who must have their way, that way not being the way of the country's purpose. And to solve this question by passing by the Lords appears almost to affirm that they are incurably antagonistic to the nation : certainly, if there ever was one, a destructive and democratic opinion. How useful, how patriotic, how statesmanlike, how meritorious of Lords Derby and Chelmsford to raise this dilemma for their country- men ! Here, again, we say, is scandalum maynatum indeed !
* That it shall be lawful for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and for all other bodies corporate and politic, and for all bodies now by law or statute, or by any valid usage authorized to administer or receive any oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit, to make statutes, by-laws, or orders, autho- rizing and directing the substitution of a declaration in lieu of any oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit now required to be taken or made, provided always that such statutes, by-laws, or orders be otherwise duly made and passed, according to the charter, laws, or regulations of the particular Uni- versity, other body corporate and politic, or other body so authorized as aforesaid.
Previous page
