At the Hampshire Reform Meeting, on Monday, Mr. Shaw LEFEVRE and Mr. HECTOR, went a step farther. The latter gentleman, the Member for Petersfield, said —
“ It always had been his opinion that till they stopped the supplies, they could not restrain the House of Lords in the course it seemed determined to pursue. [Cheers]. Not that he would go to such lengths until he was called on by his constituents, nor did he think that any Member of Parliament would justified in doing so; but let the constituency of the country call upon their representatives to act thus, and they would be ready to do so; and if constituences did not so call upon them, they would not do their duty to themselves or to their country. [Loud cheers]. He could only say that he considered this to be the grand specific for reforming the Lords, and that when his constituents called upon him to lend his aid in achieving it, he would be at his post to obey their directions. [Loud cheers].”
During the discussion on the Reform Bill, the Times threatened the Lords with bludgeons and brick-bats, and consistently with that threat, now sets about proving that the Lords are responsible to the people. When, however, the meaning of the ambiguous phraseology used by the Times comes to be sifted out, it is found to amount to no more than this, that if the people are provoked to effect a revolution, the Lords may be overthrown.
The more judicious advocates of Peerage Reform, perceiving the injury its agitation cannot fail to produce, in dividing and weakening the Reform party, have of late greatly moderated their demands. They see, that making it a ground of quarrel among themselves, they are but playing the game of the Tories, and, therefore, they now reduce their demands to this extent,—that it shall remain an open question. This is the proper course to take.
After all, the ultimate solution of the question rests with the people. It matters little how this political party may argue, or the other declaim. If Peerage Reform be necessary and wise, and would be beneficial, it will stand years of discussion, and triumph at last. Our hope is, that before that time shall arrive, it may be found to be unnecessary. Its advocates have this for their fundamental proposition,—that it is necessary, in order to obtain good government. We expect, however, that they will arrive at their end—good government—before they have obtained what they consider the means, i.e. Peerage Reform. In that event, no doubt, the great body of Peerage Reformers will be content to abandon their demand. This is the only chance which Peers have; for nothing can be more certain, than that if they continue to stand in the way of the equitable aid popular government which the intelligence of the people demands, neither their wealth, nor their ability, nor their dignity, nor the antiquity of their institution, nor the innumerable ramifications by which they are connected with the wealthy and intelligent classes immediately below them, will save their exclusive and hereditary privileges from extinction.