pinion1 of Hy 13rtg.
PliEltAc o REFORM.
Coy Rum —As the Tory journals eau find nothing to say in favour of the House of Peer's, they hope to terrify the people from cruleivuuring to adapt it to the national wants by appealing to their liars. Because there was an oli- garchy in Athens a! ore two thousand years ago, we are told to put up with an irresponsible tyranny in England now. Because it is possible that the House of CUITIIII10119; now eleCtlil for seven years, may usurp the whole power of the state for life, the nation is patiently to bear an existing evil, and is to maintain two conflicting legislative bodies in order to put a stop to all legislation. Such far-fetched reasons bespeak a weak cause. Sutely the people, who have had sense and spirit enough ta obtain it Reform of die House of Commons, and who see the necessity trf reforming the House of Peers, will not lose their senses and their courage when that House is reformed ? They must then rely, as they now rely, on their own watchfulness, and on the conflicting ambition of all to preserve the rights of all. * 4 • It is a gross misrepresentation of the views of the Refiminers of the House of Lords, to assert t hat they wish to set up in the place of the House of Lords an inesponsible and blundering oligarchy, composed of a hare majority of the House of Commons. They wish to have two Houses, but to make both responsible, and place both under the legal con- trol of the nation. At present, undoubtedly, both must be physically and morally under the control and responsibility of the majority, but their is no legal mode of making the control and responsibility felt as to the House of Lords. lithe House of Commons act coutraly to the will of the nation, at no distant period an opportunity will occur of selecting another. The nation reposes, therefore, on hope, or it may, by numerous petitions and memorials to his Majesty, by a well-timed expression of public opinion, procure at any time a new general election. Such a condition insures submission tilde authorityof the Housed Commons; but, if the House of Lords act, as at present, contrary to the will of the nation, insulting half the population and injuring the other half by the insults offered to their fellow citizens in their name and by their power, there is no other redress fir the nation than to destroy the House of Lords as now constituted, which, in fact, is what a great number of persons demand. An elective House of Lords would be amenable to the nati fff ; and the latter, having at all times a legal and quiet method of changing some of the members of that body, would always have a strong motive for patent submission to its authority. And let those remark, who so strenuously object to substi- tuting a quiet and legal mode of reducing the House of Peers to obedience to the national will, for the violent and extra legal mode which is now always in the power of the nation, that they can find no higher praise to give to the Tory Peers than that they have protected the rights and liberties of the nation. That is tke sum of all the arguments lately urged in favour of that House. On that ground an appeal has lately been made by the Tory press to the nation. Thus the Tories already recognize the power of the People to support or to overthrow the Peers, and if they are not grossly inconsistent they cannot object to establishing a quiet and legal method, by making the members of the house of Lords elective, of insuring an answer to their appeal. The fact is, and this is the condition which we accuse the Tory press of overlooking, that the House of Peers is now dependent for its authority on the great bulk of the community ; but the communIty, when the Peers displease it, has no means of making the Peers sensible of that dependence, but by overturning the /louse of Peers. As friends of order, quietness, and continued tranquillity, We wish to see, now that the House of Peers has systematically and avowedly set itself against the House of Commons and the great bulk of the nation, the painful necessity of utterly overturning the House of Peers obviated by timely reform.— Srpt. I. Timas-.--One Government print—and only one—has ventured to attempt an answer to our exposure of " Peerage Reform." * • • The reply is a There piece of stupidity. It denies most strenuously that the meaning of " Peerage Reform" is the establishment of an irresponsible oligarchy, and then goes on to prove, with all the unconsciousness of brainless boobyistn, that every word we have said on the subject is perfectly true. And this is all we need say in answer.—Sept 2.
THE TIMES, THE PEERS, AND THE POOR-LAWS.
TRUE SUN—Although we will yield to none in the earnestness of our de- mands, not:merely of justice for the poor but fin the administration of charity in a kindly and sympathetic spirit, we cannot quietly allow humanity to be made a stalking-horse for the purpose of political party. The Times this morning talks of " rushing to the rescue of the poor trom the cowardly and cold-blooded tyranny of the Whigs and Whig-Radicals," and speaks of the
war-cries" of " Peerage Reform and the Poor-Law Act." This is a dis- honest combination. If the poor, or the poor's friends, can be persuaded that
their cause will be served by an alliance with that of Peerage dictatorship, or Tory cupidity, they will become, and will desetve to be, the lutist miserable dupes that were ever deluded into selling their birthright for a mess of pottage. a * • The Peers made no stand for the poor ; they reset ved themselves for the Irish parsons. If their feelings be what are now trumpeted abroad, what a cowardly, selfish, hypoct Rica! thing is a Tory Peerage and the Tory party. With a majority of eighty at their command, they allow a bill to pass unop- posed ; and then, three years afterwards, raise a howl about weak soup, black bread, hard cheese, and ultd meat. If such be the bounty of the bill, it is the gift of Tory Lords as well as Whigs. Who told the Times to speak for the Tot ies? It may be used as their tool, but is it sure of having been installed as their oracle ? Blaekwood tells a different tale ; and the authority is just as good. In the article on which we cm lllll ented yesterday, after a censure un the enor- mous expense of useless Commissions, a special exception is made on behalf of the one in question. " Some part of this expenditure has indeed produced valuable informatiou, and been the foundation of useful measures, as the Poor- law Commission." here, then, we have Tory against Tory. The pirate hangs out one flag at stem and another at stern. The objectioeable portions of the Poor. law Amendment Act were jointly supported by two sets of persons, who were actuated by very different motives. One set consisted of political center- miats, opposed on principle to any public provision at all for the imor. They would willingly have attempted an entire and total abolition. That pur- pose being impracticable, they did whatever could be (how to in fuso the :pith of a repeal into the form of an amendment. This set was chiefly W Fig and Radical. There were others whose principle was in their pockets. Thvy thought only of the pressure of the rates. As they were payers and not ieceivers, they desired a more economical system. They diseermal a connexion between rising rates and sinking rents. These practical men for MCC dallied with phi- losophy. They thought with the theorists, or rather they talked with them, and forwarded the project because it promised to be prulitable. Of this class were many of the Tories and Tory Peers by whom the bill was supported Nobody will accuse the Duke of Wellington of being a political eeonomist. But his (race committed the party to the Poor-law Amendment. •
Who pauperized the country from one end to the other, and added six millions sterling per annum to the Poor-rates ? The 'furies. Who went on, year after year, grinding to the earth the industrious classes, making paupers by hundreds of thousands, rearing workhouses, and gaols, and gibbets, nor ever attempting the correction of the 'nisei y their own policy had genet ated ? The Tories. Who laid on that heavy load of taxation which first perverted the character and operation of the old Poor-law, and instead of about ten millions, extorted fifty millions per annum fr the country ? The Teries. A lel to st hom do we owe the bread-tax ; by whom is it fixed on, as it was laid mm; who, to keep up their rents, take two- fifths of the labourer's loaf by the corn monopoly, and then cant about the quality of a troll:house crust ? The Tories. The very philanthropic, sympathetic Tories. Like sundry of their other doings, " this
is too bad. Sept. 2.
TORY PATRIOTISM.
MORNING POST—We are informed, from a good source, though we ate eluetant to pledge ourselves unconditionally to the fact, that the discussions which are well known to have been going on between the CabMet of St—lantes's and the Tuileries, since the proclamation of the Constitution in Spain, have at length assumed a very unpleasant appearance. The thunderer of Downing. Street, completely foiled by the supetior tactics of Louis Philip, has shaken the whole celestial dominions in his fury, and has threatened toexpose several acts of his faithful ally, which have been totally at variance with his professions at the time. He is about to prove that Louis Philip has actually given as,i4ance to Don Carlos, not only by permitting the frontier to continue open, in violation of his engagement to close it, but by absolute and direct means. Supposing that Lord Palmet stun is able to prove communications between the King of the French and Don Carlos, what good can arise to him ? Every one has seen that Louis Philip, finding that the Queen was unable to maintain her position at Madrid, has, in accordance with the policy of France, invariably acted upon since the time of Louis the Fourteenth, to keep up an ascendancy in the Peninsula, listened to the projects of Don Carlos with a more favourable ear than he would have don c if Christina could have made good her grom.d. No other statesman in Europe but the blind Cupid of the Fervign °Mee sva.• dee aved by the share which Louis Philip took in the Quadruple Treaty. The joining in it was little better than an artifice to keep a control on the develop- ment of e cots in the Peninsula, and to prevent England having all the merit, the honour, and the gains of Sininish regeneration if the treaty could have been carried through. The hang of the Fiench had no Shale in originating the tteaty ; it was the sole inspiration of Lord Palmerston, as he has taken care mure than once to tell us. Ilad it been successful, the object of Louis Philip would have been answered by that means; but now that It has failed, it is a policy worthy of a Continental Court to secure an influence at the other side, and the Citizen Monarch has not neglected to do so. Lord Paltnerston may cry nut that he has beeu humbugged and deceived. No per- son has doubted of the fact ; but o hat benefit will arise to him from the avowal ? Will being laughed at afford Ilium consolation in his misfortunes? Ile wants no new claptrap to secure that great species of popular applause. This will he a grand finale for our wise Secretary's operations. Welt may he rejoice in his Quadruple Treaty and intimate alliance with France. If the af- fair works out to the last according to the present progress, he will have so fully succeeded in his foreign policy as to be left alone in Europe, the great Powers turning away in disgust from his revolutionary pretensions; France, wearied of so unprofitable an alliance, inconsistent with its new policy, and the Peninsula, for which we have fought, slipping through our fingers—or that portion of it which may continue fur a season true hanging like a millstone about his neck. Louis Philip cares as little for Lord Palinerston's threats as he dues fur his alliauce.—Sept. 2.
Previous page
