Page:Blackwood's Magazine volume 137.djvu/152

146 that the freedom of action of the Peers is completely reserved."

Yes – the freedom of action of the Peers is completely reserved; but can the same be said of the freedom of action of the Commons with respect to the Redistribution of Seats Bill? By the most extraordinary volte-face known to our parliamentary history, the struggle, commenced a few months ago by an arrogant Minister and an angry majority in the Lower House, for the purpose of ousting the Upper House from all jurisdiction in the great question of Parliamentary Reform, has ended by respecting the rights of the latter, and submitting those of the former to the previous control and decision of the leader of the Tory majority in the victorious House of Lords!

The futility of Mr Gladstone's alleged precedent in the case of the Irish Church was apparent to everybody. There the measure had been thoroughly discussed and voted upon by both Houses of Parliament, and when an apparently irreconcilable difference of opinion on one or two points of detail not affecting the principle of the measure was found to exist, the leaders of both parties in the House of Lords met and agreed to a compromise; but here, before the bill is even introduced, it is submitted to the previous judgment and criticism of the leaders of the Opposition in both Houses of Parliament, and is only allowed to see the light after its reputed parents have divested themselves of all power to change or modify any of its provisions which either found favour with, or were inserted by, Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote. Our parliamentary records may be ransacked in vain for any such capitulation on the part of the Executive Government; and while we will not withhold our tribute of approbation for the self-control and self-abnegation thus displayed at the last moment by Mr Gladstone, we must resolutely assert that the honours and substantial fruit of the campaign rest with the Opposition and the House of Lords. The history of the words "seen and approved," as quoted by the 'Daily News,' admirably illustrates and explains the actual situation. In the ancient and picturesque city of Coblenz is still to be seen the Castor-Brunnen, with its original inscription, "An 1812. Mémorable par la campagne centre les Russes. Sous la Préfecturat de Jules Doagan;" and the Russian General St Priest's famous addition to it, "Vu et approuvé par nous Commandant Russe de la ville de Coblenz. Le 1ᵉʳ Jan. 1814."

So on the back of the Redistribution Bill appear, indeed, the names of Mr Gladstone, Lord Hartington, and other Ministers; but underneath them are legible to the mental eyes of every member of the House of Commons the words – "Seen and approved by us, Salisbury and Stafford Northcote." A greater triumph, we venture to say, was never won by the calm courage and wise perseverance of an Opposition.

But it may be said – it has been said – Of what value is the victory when it ends in a political revolution? To this question the answer, as it seems to us, is twofold. First, the revolution was virtually accomplished when the House of Lords last July accepted Lord