On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
renders it prudent not to be positive on that score . The late Lord Chief Justice Abbott laid it down that the Constitution comprehended whatever was constituted . If so , the House of Lords 1 * certainly part and parcel of the Constitution ; so was the representation of Gatton and Old Sarum ; so were many things which have been abolished whenever the abolition was desired
by the possessors of power . It is true , these abolitions have been effected by certain forms , impl y ing the joint consent of King , Lords , and Commons . But why should not the Lords be persuaded to give their consent to any change needful for the welfare of tile community , by reasons analogous to those which obtained their assent to the Reform Bill ? Or why might not the Constitution be preserved by some such legal fiction as that by which the appointment of a regency , in the reign of George the Third , became formal and authentic law ? The point is a knotty one ; but the old proverb says , ' Where there is a will there is a way ;' and when the desire is once general and determined to do without the Lords , no doubt means will be found , peaceful , legal , loyal , and very constitutional , for its accomplishment .
Suppose the whole affair to have been quietly and harmoniously arranged ; and a Bill for conductin g the legislation of the country , in ftiture , by means of the Sovereign and one representative body , ( consisting , indiscriminately , as the people might elect them , of Peers and Commoners , ) to have become the law
of the land with all the due formalities of assent by King , Lords , and Commons ; would not the Aristocracy itself be in a much more comfortable situation ? It is not possible for them ever to govern the country in their separate capacity as a Peerage . They can only make a long and unavailing struggle , attracting to themselves all ill feeling from the community . The country
must be governed in and by the House of Commons . The Peers must exercise their portion of the government in the House of Commons . They did so before the passing of the Reform Bill . They must do so again . Not , as they did then , by means of nomination and corruption , but by being themselves placed there , those of them who are qualified , as representatives . Almost
all the county representation would fall to their share , as a matter ef course . Their influence on all questions of home or foreign policy would be more prompt , direct , and effective than at present . Now , the utmost exertion of their power only stops the wheels of the State ; then , they would have the proper share in giving the impulse , and indicating the direction . As independent evmg tne impulse , ana indicating tne direction . As independent
xlies ., the two Houses have manifested princi p les and feelings so dissimilar as to ensure constant collision ; and yet neither can move without the other . We have only the prospect of ceaseless agitation . There m a constant tendency towards a violent convulsion . The Peers , if they reflect at all , can only look to governing the nation by force , or beipg themselves the victims of
Untitled Article
MF 0 The House of Lor& + ~* -Reform or A bolitwn 9
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Sept. 2, 1835, page 570, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2649/page/6/
-