THE LORDS AND THE COMMONS. 



497 



past forbeaiance of the nation. The Peers have done many unpopular 

 things of late years. They have rejected many measures which the 

 people were most anxious should become the law of the land. And , 

 because the latter have passively submitted to these disappointments, 

 the Peers have leaped to the conclusion that the extinction of the 

 measure of Irish Municipal Reform would also be suffered to pass over 

 without any more serious consequences than perhaps a few expres- 

 sions of regret, mingled, it might be, with a certain quantity of abuse 

 of their Lordships' House. 



This is, assuredly, a most unphilosophical course of argument. It 

 is at utter variance with all the lessons of experience. How a body of 

 men, whom we must assume to be at least conversant with the history 

 of their country, could ever have come to such a conclusion does, 

 indeed, fill us with immeasurable surprise. The page of history, 

 whether of our own country or of any other country in the world, is 

 crowded with instances of kings and statesmen — aye, and of tyrants 

 of every grade — becoming the victims of such an erroneous course of 

 reasoning. They have all been emboldened to take another oppressive 

 step because of the impunity with which they had had recourse to pre- 

 vious measures of oppression, until the forbearance of the oppressed 

 was exhausted, and the oppressor became the victim. 



Fain would we still cling to the hope, that this last error of the 

 Peers— fearful as its magnitude undoubtedly is — may not prove fatal. 

 Earnestly (though, as the event has proved, in vain) did we in our last 

 two Numbers admonish them of the perilous course they were pur- 

 suing. We would now address our entreating voice to the people, and 

 beseech them yet to save the Lords, though they appear as if bent on 

 their own destruction. Mr. O'Connell brings forward his motion for a 

 Reform in the House of Lords on the 21st of the present month, when 

 he proposes, among other things, to substitute the elective for the here- 

 ditary principle. We do not regret that the question of a radical 

 change in the constitution of the Upper House is thus to be mooted in 

 the Commons, because it will afford an opportunity of reading a few 

 more lessons to their Lordships respecting the infatuated course which 

 they have of late adopted; but we hope it will not be carried. We 

 trust it will be lost, in order that one trial more may be given them. 

 But we do hope the House of Commons will distinctly and in the most 

 energetic terms, intimate to the Peers that that will be the last trial, and 



