A MODERN "SYMPOSIUM." 



101 



But slight as seems the connection between popu- 

 lar interests and a more merciful dealing with 

 crime, it is clear enough that all the impulse in 

 this direction came from the popular sympathies 

 of the Lower House and not from the enlightened 

 intelligence of the Lords, and came in richer 

 measure from the reformed popular House than 

 from the unreformed. 



Again, take the case of slavery and the slave- 

 trade. A resolution against the slave-trade was 

 carried in the House of Commons in 1806 with 

 scarcely any opposition, while the opposition in 

 the Lords was still very substantial though not 

 formidable ; and the bill introduced by Lord 

 Grcnville in 1807 against it was carried only by 

 100 against 36 votes, whereas in the House of 

 Commons the same bill passed by 283 to 16 

 votes. But slavery (as distinguished from the 

 slave-trade) could not, as we all know, be abolished 

 till a great Parliamentary Reform Bill had been 

 carried, and even then it soon appeared that the 

 popular party outside the House was much more 

 powerful than the popular party inside it. When 

 in 1832 Mr. Buxton brought forward his motion 

 against slavery, Lord Althorp refused to pledge 

 the Government to any immediate abolition, and 

 moved a dilatory resolution in favor of going 

 back to the policy of 1823. Mr. Buxton gained 

 90 votes against 163 given to Lord Althorp, but 

 it was very soon apparent that the popular feel- 

 ing outside Pailiamcut would convert the minor- 

 ity into a majority. In 1833 the Government was 

 compelled to declare that " they had found the 

 pressure of public opinion on the subject of sla- 

 very too strong to be resisted,'' and yet the meas- 

 ure which they proposed was not strong enough, 

 and was immensely strengthened in the House of 

 Commons, where the Government had to yield 

 fresh points to Mr. Buxton, while the Bouse of 

 Lords, which throughout took a very faint interest 

 in the matter, dividing languidly in a House sel- 

 dom consisting of so many as forty members, 

 simply yielded to the obvious will of the other 

 House. Let me add that thirty years later, in 

 1861-'65, while what is called "society" almost 

 ostracized men who took the side of the North 

 and condemned the great slaveholders' conspiracy, 

 the cotton-operatives (who suffered most for the 

 moment by non-intervention), joining hands with 

 the ten-pounders of our boroughs, kept Parlia- 

 ment from committing itself on the wrong side. 

 Can it be doubted by any sane man that the pro- 

 pelling force of the feeling against slavery came ' 

 in all these cases from the judgment of the masses 

 — a judgment guided, no doubt, as Mr. Gladstone 



puts it, by "the minority of the minority," but 

 nevertheless accepting the guidance of that minor- 

 ity of the minority with a heartiness and enthu- 

 siasm which was not to be found at all among 

 the class which furnishes the House of Peers, and 

 not to be found in anything like equal force 

 among the classes who " propelled " the votes of 

 the unreformed House of Commons? 



Next I will take an illustration in which the 

 temper of the doubly reformed House of Commons 

 may be compared with that of the unreformed and 

 reformed House, as well as with that of the House 

 of Lords. Mr. Gladstone has truly said that the 

 question of Catholic claims is the one on which it 

 is questionable whether popular opinion has been 

 or has not been sounder than the opinion of the 

 educated classes taken alone. Yet I do not hesi- 

 tate to say that on the subject of religious free- 

 dom generally, not excluding the Catholic claims, 

 the House of Lords has (with one curious and 

 significant exception, as much due, I imagine, to 

 hatred of Ritualism as to love of Dissenters, and 

 an exception of as late a date as last session) 

 been behind even the unreformed House of Com- 

 mons, and that the unreformed House of Com- 

 mons was far behind the reformed House of 

 Commons, and the reformed House of Commons 

 much behind the doubly reformed House of Com- 

 mons. Even on the subject of the Catholic claims, 

 in this century at least, the unreformed House of 

 Commons kept in advance of the Peers, who were 

 nevertheless in a far better position for judging 

 the matter dispassionately than any other body 

 in the realm. In the session of 1805 the majority 

 against the Catholic claims in the House orOoin- 

 mons was 336 against 124, a majority considerably 

 less than three to one. On the day but one before 

 the division, the Peers had rejected these ciaims by 

 a majority of 1 78 against 49, i. e., a majority nearer 

 four to one than three to one. Sixteen years later, 

 in 1821, Mr. Plunket's bill recognizing the justice 

 of the Catholic claims was carried in the Com- 

 mons by a majority of 19 on the third reading, 

 and thrown out in the Lords by a majority of 39. 

 In 1822 Mr. Canning carried through the Com- 

 mons a bill to remove the Catholic disabilities, 

 but it was thrown out in the Lords by a majority 

 of 42. In 1826 the Catholic Relief Bill passed 

 the House of Commons by a majority of 268 to 

 241, and was rejected in the Lords by a majority 

 of 178 against 130. In 1827 there was a reaction, 

 the Dissenters and the Catholics had quarreled, 

 and the new Parliament was more in favor of the 

 Dissenters than of the Catholics ; yet the Catho- 

 lic Relief Bill was only rejected by a majority of 



