Companies dealing with their property until the judgment of Parliament had been pronounced upon their future status. We can hardly believe that so cautious, not to say timid a Minister as Lord Derby would have authorized such a statement to be made on his behalf; but if such a Bill is introduced into the House of Lords, we hope that high Court of Justice will have sufficient respect for the rights of property to reject so arbitrary and insulting a proposal. With respect to County Government, there can be no reason why Sir Charles Dilke should not try his 'prentice hand on its reform, as well as his predecessors. If, however, he approaches that most complicated and thorny question in the light and jaunty spirit which animated his recent speech, he will fare no better than they. The fact is, County boundaries, arbitrary in their inception, have, owing to the numberless changes incident to the varying occupations of the population, become yearly less adapted for the governing control of the various bodies working partially or wholly within their ambit. Of this no more significant proof can be given, than is afforded by the mapping out of the Poor Law Unions by the Commissioners half a century ago. They were unsentimental, hard-headed, men of business, and in forming the Unions they had exclusive regard to the practical wants and convenience of those who were to manage and be affected by the operation of the new law. Had Counties been the most suitable areas to take as their basis, no doubt they would have gladly taken them. Since then, the Union Areas have been accepted for many fresh legislative experiments, and to assume that the practical work of a County can now be most conveniently carried on in the County town, according to the analogy of a Borough Corporation, is to imagine a rural Utopia. In the Counties themselves there is not the slightest wish for any change of the kind indicated by these Metropolitan reformers, and the farmers especially dread the substitution of popularly elected dispensers of County finance for the unpaid, practical, and economical justices, assembled in Quarter Sessions. Still, if legislation on this subject is not intended or used as a pretext for delay in dealing with the far more urgent question of Local Taxation (amounting now to the enormous sum of 35,000,000l. a year), the Conservative party are not called upon to oppose it on principle, though the details of any such measure would have to be most minutely and jealously scrutinized. So far we have endeavoured to anticipate the probable legislative proposals of the Government, and to trace the course which we venture to hope the Conservative party will adopt with respect to them; but there are one or two questions of pressing importance, in which we think our leaders should themselves take the initiative. Of far greater interest to the agriculturists of the three Kingdoms, and to the consumers of meat and milk, than extension of the franchise or reform of County government, is the exclusion of foreign diseases, and the abrogation of the present intolerable restrictions on the movement of their sheep and cattle. The resolution which Mr. Chaplin carried in a full House last Session still remains a dead letter, and all the information vouchsafed to the various bodies representing all sections of the farming community, by the Prime Minister, or by the new-fangled department which is supposed to be seized with the management of agricultural affairs, is that, in the opinion of the Government, they do not possess the legal power to carry into effect the wishes of the House of Commons, though they did not hesitate to act upon a similar resolution of the House in reference to the Contagious Diseases Act. We need not stop to enquire whether the law is as it is so stated to be; time is precious, and it becomes the duty of the leaders of the country party to remove that technical obstacle out of the way of the dilatory new department, and this, as it seems to us, can best be effected by a short Bill introduced into the House of Lords, and sent down to the House of Commons without any unnecessary delay. As head of the Royal Commission, whose recommendation in this matter was embodied in Mr. Chaplin's resolution, and as the author of the present well-meant but unsuccessful system, the Duke of Richmond would appear to be the most fitting mouthpiece of the agricultural world at this juncture. But be this as it may, we trust the House of Lords will at once grapple with this vital question, and take the lead in its satisfactory settle ment. In another matter of urgent and serious importance the House of Lords may fitly and beneficially take the lead, and that is in addressing the Crown for a Royal Commission to enquire into the causes of the alarming depression in the Cotton Trade. In spite of the efforts which have been made to counteract foreign competition and home over-production by abolishing, without any regard to the wants or wishes of India, the slight import duties imposed in that country upon English manufactured goods, and by selling at a merely nominal profit, it has been known for the last two years to all interested in the great Cotton industry of this country, that its condition was rapidly deteriorating, and that in a reduction of the cost of production, that is, of wages, lay the last hope of the manufacturers in their desperate attempt to fight hostile tariffs by free imports. That such a reduction should be resisted by the men educated for the last forty years to believe that with the free import of corn their manufacturing supremacy was firmly established, was to be expected, and it is, we think, much to their credit, that many of the leading spirits among them have so far emancipated themselves from the stale doctrines of the Cobden Club, as to suggest a full and impartial enquiry into the circumstances which have obliged the masters to make the reduction. The admirable manner in which the operatives of the Cotton districts bore the privations inflicted on them by the American Civil War is still fresh in the recollection of the public, and we are confident that a request from the House of Lords for a Commission of enquiry, such as is now suggested, would be attended to even by the present Government. Similarly in the question which has of late so deeply agitated the public mind, the condition of the Dwellings of the lowest class of the community, we trust the House of Lords will at once ask for that enquiry which those who are practically acquainted with the facts of the case are agreed should precede any fresh legislation. These are all subjects which require immediate treatment, and which are abstracted from all direct party considerations. In the encumbered and confused condition of business in the House of Commons, it is hopeless to expect they could receive prompt, even if they could secure impartial, attention; it is therefore to the hereditary Chamber that the suffering interests and classes are now looking for redress and amelioration. Let a bold and manly initiative in these and similar affairs be the answer of the House of Lords to Mr. Chamberlain's silly and insulting exhortation to them to stand out of the way. That illustrious Assembly may be sure of this—that if, for the sake of averting for a little time the hostility of such politicians as Mr. Chamberlain, they are content to stand out of the way, and abstain from initiating such measures as they conceive to be requisite for the public good, or yield a cowardly assent to those of which they honestly disapprove they will do more to endanger their time-honoured privileges and position as an independent branch of the Legislature, than all the diatribes of all the demagogues from the days of Orator Hunt and Daniel O'Connell, to these of Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Bradlaugh. It may be, probably will be, that before the close of the coming Session their mettle will be severely tried: Bills of one or other of the two classes to which we have been referring, will be sent up to them, of a character, and directed to ends, of which they cannot approve. To assent to their principle in the hope of rendering them innocuous in Committee is shown by recent expe rience to be a vain as well as an ignoble course. "Thorough' is the true statesman's watchword, when clear and definite issues are at stake. No delusion can be greater than to suppose that, because the policy which on some particular question finds favour with the House of Lords is condemned by the majority of the House of Commons, it is therefore condemned by the electorate or the people. In proportion as the House of Commons becomes more and more a reflex of the changing moods and opinions of the democracy, so has it less claim to arrogate to itself the right and power to speak for its successor. The House of 1874 repudiated the policy of the House of 1868; the House of 1880 repudiated that of its predecessor. Signs are everywhere visible, that the next House of Commons will be composed of very different elements, and will favour a very different policy, from the present House. It is the plain and obvious duty of the House of Lords to take these facts into consideration, and, in dealing with the measures of organic reform which may be sent up to them by the existing House of Commons, to remember that it has passed its grand climacteric, and that numerous bye-elections have shown conclusively the change which has taken place in the electoral mind since 1880. Of this change the outspoken pamphlet by Mr. Marriott, which we have placed at the head of this article, is an indication. In it Mr. Marriott has the boldness to utter what many Liberals, in and out of Parliament, are rapidly coming to think. His final warning to the leaders of his party, that unless they disavow Mr. Chamberlain, his words and works, at the next election, many of those who voted with the majority will be found giving their votes in favour of the Conservative leaders, in the hope that they may play better the part Lord Hartington assigns to the Whigs, and so direct, guide, and moderate' future popular movements that 'beneficial changes may be brought about' by the calm and peaceful process of Constitutional acts,' *—may be profitably studied by the noble leader of the once proud and powerful Whig party, who appears to think that its present chief privilege and sole duty is to act jackal to the Radical lion. To the feeble counsels of Lord Hartington, and the insolent command of Mr. Chamberlain 'to stand out of the way,' we trust the House of Lords will turn an equally deaf ear; if in the coming Session they find themselves confronted with measures of organic change of which they disapprove, and which have never been fairly submitted to the judgment of the country, let them recall the noble language in which Lord Lynd *The Liberal Party and Mr. Chamberlain,' p. 30. hurst addressed their predecessors in the far more perilous crisis of 1831, and act as those predecessors then acted. "We are placed here, my Lords, not to pass Vestry Acts or Road Bills, but for the purpose of guarding against any rash result from the advisers of the Crown, and against the wishes of the people, when they might lead to destruction. I say, my Lords, I fear not the threats with which we are menaced. The people of England are noble and generous. If they think we have not done our duty, but have deserted it from base, personal, or selfish motives, they would turn from the contemplation of our conduct with disgust. On the other hand, whatever may be their inclinations, and however vehement their desires, if they see that we honestly perform our duty, be our decision what it may, they will receive it with approbation and applause. I believe that in what has been said respecting the public feeling there is much exaggeration. I do not speak of the mere multitude, but of the enlightened portion of the community. And I am convinced that, if they were satisfied that from any base personal motives we neglected to do what in our conscience we conceived to be our duty, they would turn from us with contempt and disgust. My Lords, I am satisfied too, that whatever may be the conclusion to which we come, if we perform our duty according to our own view of it— although that should be contrary to their inclination, they will abstain from all violence. If, on the contrary, we should by our vote this night give the people reason to suppose that, contrary to the dictates of our consciences, and what we believe to be our duty, we, urged by unworthy motives, should decide in favour of the Bill, our titles, our possessions, and the liberties of the people, would all be forfeited, and we should be for ever debased. Perilous as is the situation in which we are placed, it is at the same time a proud one, the eyes of the country are anxiously turned upon us; and, if we decide as becomes us, we shall merit the eternal gratitude of every friend of the Constitution, and of the British Empire.' '* It may be said that these noble words were spoken by an ennobled lawyer, who did not rightly apprehend the functions and duties of the House to which his transcendent abilities had raised him; but the spirit which animated them, and the course they recommended, found their counterpart in the deliberate opinion of the calm and cautious Sir Robert Peel. In the following year, when the Ministers had extracted from the reluctant King the power to create a sufficient number of Peers to override the decision of that House, the leader of the Waverers, Lord Harrowby, applied for advice to Sir Robert Peel. That advice was given in a State paper, published in 1863 by the late Lord Stanhope,t and is well worthy of perusal by all who *Life of Lord Lyndhurst,' by Sir Theodore Martin, p. 295. |