WHAT WILL THE COMMONS DO WITH THE LYN Dll U

RsT BILL?

WHAT might they to do? what can they do? These are but (Uremia forms of one imp.ortant quostiou, to be deciled on Thurs- day next ; :Hid in order to inalsraand it, we must review the position of the t memo antagoili,t branches of time Legislature. Aid, is the first place, it should he observed, that time difference has not albeit Oil soy matter of detail : it is the consequence of legislating on adverse principles. The Commons passed a bill for the purpose of enabling the inhabitaitts of Irish towns to govern them-elves " well and quietly" by the agency of popularly-elected Councils: the Peers have rejected this measure, and passed ano- ther, for the purpose of abolishing municipal institutions, and of making the Lord-Lieutenant, in the words of Lord LANSDOWNII, the sole porator " of Ireland. The Commons aimed at ex-. tending to Ireland the principle of " vigilant popular control,' already in operation in England and Scotland : the Lords resolved to substitute the authority and control of the Crown for that of the Pei ple, and have framed a bill which will effect that object if passed iuto a law. Such being the directly opposite policy which the Iwo Houses have deliberately chosen, it is manifest that a compromise between them can only be cittcted by a sacrifice of principle on one side or the other.

This sac' ifice or concession the Peers have been called upon, and have refused, to make. The House of Commons required the Peers to abandon their principle when it adopted the Ministerial Bill. But the Lords would not give way one step. They scouted the principle and destroyed the machinery of the measure which the House of Commons sanctioned by repeated majorities. The oppoetunity of compromise was oirered to them, and insolently rejected; amid it now remains to be seen whether the House of

Commons will pray their Lordships to bine a little of their dignity, and grant a fraction of the popular suit.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the House of Commons and the Ministers are prepared to play this despicable game, and are willing to attempt a compromise with the Peers— how are they to set about it? what can they do?

The Peers have purposely left no opening whatever—not a single loophole through which the most meanspirited and small- souled of Ministers or Members could creep. Had the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND been acceded to, there might have been a pretence or an apology for one of those farces called "a conference between the two Houses," with the Duke's proposition fora basis; and it was at seine such arrangement that we suppose Lord JOHN RUSSELL was driving, when he declared that he would not become "a participator in depriving the people of Ireland altogether of municipal government." But the Peers have decreed that mu- nicipal institutions shall be entirely swept frotn Irish ground. The question has been formally placed before them : they delibe- rately rejected the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND to allow the " ten-pounders " to elect their local legenators in the seven largest cities in Fennel. Had they, indeed, agreed to this proposition, they would have stultified themselves, and thrown aside the prin- ciples on \INA they acted throughout in dealing with the Irish Municipal Bill. They dreaded, or pretended to dread, the demo- cracy, the multitudinous violence, of the proposed municipal con- stituency : and it is manifest that this objection has more force in tithe mice to large than to small toans—to Dublin and Cork than to Middleton and Belturbet. Had they given corporations to the more populone places in Ireland, they would have had no excuse for refusing them to the smaller. The Peers acted consistently in rejecting the Duke of Rictimomis motion ; and it is vain to ex- pect that they will accede to that motion if repeated. The National Repreemtatives would gain nothing but ignominy from their overture. The Peers cannot "back out."

Besides, such is not their policy. It is clear that the House of Lords, as at present led, has two objects in view,—one, to stop the progie:s of actual Reform; the other, to heap insult on the house of Commons, in the hope that the Commons, by submission to insult, shall become despicable in popular estimation. Should the Commons quail, and supplicate the Peers to accept their humble oflin.ing of compromise, the triumph of the Upper House would only be enhanced by the contemptuous rejection of it. The Peers desire to degrade the Commons : they play a deep game. As with individuals, so it is with bodies of men, they who have mk the spirit to resent a purposed affront, but, like spaniels, kiss the foot that spurns them, must expect kicks and contempt from all quarters. The Peers know, that for men degraded as they seek to degrade the majority of the House of Commons, there is little chance at a general election. Therefore nothing would de- light them more than an opportunity to reject a proposal of com- promise from the House of Commons.

We cannot suppose that the Ministers in the House of Com- mons—albeit terrified at the idea of that collision which the Lords court and provoke—would so ftir humble themselves as to advo- cate concession to the Peers, even though by such a policy they should gain the applause of M. Ira N RAUMER! They cannot turn their backs upon their colleagues; they cannot treat Lord LANS- DOWNE as a vain babbler—pronouneing his energetic, and appa- rently sincere repudiation of the Le-Norman concoction, to have been mere " sound and fury." Lord LANSDOWNE has gained honourable reputation for himself and his colleagues by his un- compromising denunciation of the principles and details of that bill which he vainly opposed, but which his colleagues in the House of Commons may and should throw under the table. We say that we cannot believe that a majority of the Cabinet will de- cide in favour of succumbing to the Peers,- with the certainty before their eyes, that their prayer for a fraction of justice to Ire-

land will be rejected with scornful exultation: but if they were, what would be the consequence ? The disgust of the English Reformers would only be equalled by the indignation of the Irish.

Were the Tories to attempt another coup cletat, dissolve the Par- liament, and appeal to the People, can anybody believe that the result would not be fatal to the Whigs ? The Radicals might gain in strength, as the Tories would assuredly; but, instead of

enthusiasm, the Liberals generally would exhibit apathy, dis- trust of their leaders, and scorn of the Whigs. The whole conse-

quences no tiring politician may scan. A rebellion in Ireland would probably be one of the many calamities the nation would have to pay for and endure. But, at all events, destruction to Whig predominance would be the inevitable result of unworthy concession to the Peers.

And why should the Whigs step between their inveterate ene- mies and the People? They cannot suppose that their self-im-

molation would preserve for the "older" the odious irrespon- sibility it now possesses. Nobody, free from bigotry and ignorance of the grossest kind, really believes that the Church of Ireland can be maintained, in defiance of the Catholic millions,

for many years ; or that the right of making laws can be long retained by the irresponsible House of Lords. The day when the State religion in Ireland shall be laid low, is evidently fast ap- proaching; and is not the progress of the Peern,:e Reform ye-s- tein marvellous ? Men who deprecated the whisper of such a thing six months ago, are now elm-welled to write and speak ef it

— nay, in its favour—daily. The Whigs camnit preserve the Peers from the pressure from without, by throwing Li:must:Ives

into the 13; each : nay, they would hasten the destruction of those *hem they seek to save. Ilrhy then sacrifice themselves, in the attemet to postpone the consummation which the Peers seem resolve l. in their infatuation, to bring about? Rene ring to time past conduct of the Whigs, it is inmossible to feel confident that they will act up to the mark, in the Commons, which Lords MELBOURNE, LANSDOWNE, 011d HOLLAND Tvi!ched in the Lords; but we cannot believe—to say nothing of patriotism, consistency, and public reputation—that they are so devoid of the instinct of eelf- reservation as to fall into the LYNDHURST snare for the division and demolition of the Liberal petty, to whose union they owe every timing, but which would be broken up by a truckling policy on the part of the Whigs on 'Thursday next. Should they, as we hope, adopt the more manly policy, they will not content themselves with simply "disagreeing" to the " amend- ments " of the Peers. The forms of the House will enable them to get rid of the bill and to record their abjuration of its princi- ples at the same time. On ref rence to the N tic -book, v e find that the consideration of the Lord' amendments is the second " Order of the Day" for Thursday. It would be competent to move a negative on the motion that time Order of the Day be " read ;" but it would be more solemn and weighty to allow the Howe to proceed to the second motion, " that the amendments of the Lords be considered ;" and then, instead of considering them, to move resolutions. declaring that the LYNDHUKST Bill is not the bill which the Commons sent up to the Peers, but a new one, of totally different principles, title, and enactments; that the Commons refuse to consider this new bill, for the reasons, amongst others, so forcibly stated by Lord HOLLAND, that it comes before them in an unprecedented and un parliamentary manner, requiring a detailed discussion which the forms of the House do not provide for, and which it cannot therefore receive; that the principle on which British Legielation and Government ought to be carried on, is that of maintaining and extending popular privileges, and doing equal justice to the inhabitants of the Three Kingdoms, without distinction of sect, creed, or party; and that this principle is violated by the Einem- newer Bill, inasmuch as it denies to Irishmen the right of local self-government, which Englishmen and Scotehmen enjoy. Resolutions to this effixt being passed, they ought to be com- municated to the Peers, as the famous Anti-Repeal resolutions were communicated : and if their Lordships adoption of' them were asked, as on that occasion, it would only be a fair return for the request of the Peers that the Commons would agree to their " amendments" on the Municipal Bill. In this way, the Bill would fall to the ground, and neither the !blew nor the Ministry would be committed in an unknown cour-e; while time assertion of principles would put the Com- mens in the right and the Peers in the wrong with the country.