THE POSITION AND PRACTICE OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS. BY LORD HOUGHTON. (From the Fortnightly Review.) ROFESSOR Fawcett, in his article in the | of the Irish Church as an exceptional act of Ousober last, does historic justice, he the not conceal his surprise at finding himself discussing the abolition of the present House of Lords, though he acknowledges that he has long been astonished at any politician calling himself a Liberal supporting such an anomaly as an Hereditary Legislature. His right to argue the question in his temperate and gentleman-like way has since been amply vindicated by its introduction at several public meetings, and by a solemn Conference held in one of the principal towns of the kingdom. But I must demur to his assumption that this agitation is due to the legislative action of the House of Lords during the session of 1871. With the exception of one measure, which deeply affected a considerable number of individuals in the community, and to which Mr. Fawcett makes no allusion, I cannot see that there has been any exercise of the suspensive veto which has seriously touched either the interests or the imagination of the people. The abolition of the University Tests was agreed to after the rejection by the House of Commons of amendments mainly of a theological character, and which Non-conformists were just as likely to approve as Churchmen. The demand for further information on the new Organization of the Army was natural in men who had not an absolute confidence in the military genius of the present administration; and the reception of Lord Shaftesbury at Glasgow a few weeks after his motion to reject the Ballot Bill, showed that the country perfectly understood that the House of Lords simply declined to pronounce any opinion on the subject, with no opportunity to discuss it fairly, and with no pressure of a general election at hand. I trace this and other present political agitations to far deeper and more general causes. It is only due to Mr. Gladstone to acknowledge that he continually represented the destruction supercession of the natural right of contract between landlord and tenant to be applicable to a form of society so peculiarly susceptible of abuse and injury to the weak as had long subsisted in Ireland. But inferences were drawn by others, of which he could not be wholly unconscious. There were Nonconformist members of Parlia ment who openly avowed that they only valued the Irish Church Act in so far as it gave them a point of advantage from which to attack the English Establishment. And soon Miall and his hundred knights appeared armed cap-à-pic and ready for the fray. The old walls of mutual confidence between owner and occupier, built up of the best materials of ancient English faith, and cemented by the mutual beneficences of centuries, though likely to sustain for a long time to come many a more serious assault than Communism can now level at them, were now no longer regarded as invulnerable, and the Irish anomaly was hailed in many centres of superficial and angry discussion on subjects of public economy rather as a welcome precedent than as an unhappy necessity. When the depths of our social and political existence were once laid bare, who could resist the temptation of scrutinizing the foundations of the House of Lords and of the Monarchy itself? The inquisition into the construction of the House of Lords has presented nothing curious or interesting. We knew perfectly well before that the representative principle was something quite different from the hereditary; and it was the old boast of the English constitution that they worked well together, each in its proper sphere. The Reform Bill of 1832 affected the House of Lords very nearly as much as the House of Commons, and the transference of the proprietary boroughs from the peers to the people was a legitimate change which has worked well on both sides. Any influence which Peers now possess is the fair result of their property and position, and can only fall with the order itself. The speakers in the Conference at Birmingham were hampered with the same contradiction which troubles the present assailants of the Crown; they could not make up their minds as to whether they wished to strengthen or weaken the obnoxious institution-whether they wanted it cleverer or stupider, just as whether in the other case they desired more or less parade. The advocates for total destruction had the least difficulty to encounter; but they were not agreed as to the process of annihilation-whether it was to be accomplished by popular energy or by "the happy despatch." There was also a fundamental difference of opinion as to the use of a Second Chamber at all, and the feeling on the whole seemed to preponderate against it. Indeed, the whole tone of the meeting was that of men not attempting to remedy any practical grievance, or to give new blood to old historic forms, but of revolutionists desirous to break down any immediate barrier between themselves and the political Unknown. No serious observer of the progress of nations can regard the Republican spirit as alien to the English mind. In years that now lie far behind, at the time when the Democratie en Amérique of Alexis de Tocqueville had made an epoch in the political literature of the time, it was my privilege to discuss the application of the subject-matter of the book to the immediate circumstances of Europe with that delightful writer and friend in the deep shady lanes that meet the sea-sands along the varied coast of La Manche. I remember frequently expressing my belief that, as the patient political good sense, and the habit of daily compromise of opinion, had enabled my countrymen to deal with the ages of personal and constitutional government more peacefully and successfully than any other people, so I did not doubt that, when the influences of Democracy grew strong, and the successful example of our great political Agnate beyond the Atlantic had gradually weaned our people from monarchical forms and associations by the processes he had so finely analysed, we should lapse into the new state of things by some movements of social machinery which now we did not even contemplate, and through phases of moral action which now I am might appear visionary and impossible. compelled to confess that my patriotic confidence is considerably shaken, and I cannot now regret that the progress of Free Trade, the passage from a restricted constituency to Household Suffrage with no further confusion than the usual dramatic effects and domestic excitements of party differences, the disappearance of religious distinctions-though not, alas! of theological acrimony-and the homely peace and virtues of the Court, followed by a sympathetic sense of domestic disaster almost out of proportion to the loss of an individual man, have checked and suspended for a considerable period those influences from which we cannot expect the mind and heart of this nation to be entirely exempt, but which we have here no more right to condemn and arrest than any other current of public opinion, provided the course be moderate and the water clear. For, without demanding from the Republican spirit of our time the terrible austerity of Cromwell's Ironsides, it cannot be forgotten that its superiority over the Monarchical sentiment has ever been founded on its higher ideal of political duties and responsibilities, without reference to the material interests of individuals or of classes. Nothing, indeed, could be imagined less cognate to the old reverent, or later philosophical Republicanism of this country than a preference of one form of government to another, because it extended or transferred the luxuries of life, or diminished the fair proportions of well-requited labour. In the same sense it would surely never have occurred to a follower either of Sir Harry Vane or Algernon Sidney to have based an attack on the Throne on an extravagance of household expenditure. For though it is a platitude to assert that every Court must, from its very nature, carry with it much that is repugnant to the dignity of man, and that a factitious reverence is only a less evil than a sincere servility, still no one has yet devised a combination of the advantages of a continuous Headship of the State with an entire absence of pageantry, and even Republics are always on the brink of official ostentation.* The * I remember M. de Lamartine in 1848, during the happy weeks when he felt sure of being elected to the Presidency, saying to me, “We are going to have a magnificent Republic, more splendid than ever the Empire imagined. No Sparta here!" simplicity of the Presidency at Versailles has never been exceeded, and yet M. Thiers has an Aide-de-camp. But this is not the worst symptom of our Republican demonstrations: there is so little in them of that sense of a real injury which is the sound justification of English discontent, and there is so strong a taint of that foreign disaffection which is a mingled outgrowth of old misgovernment and disorganized passions. The Greek poet Pindar wrote of Delos as of— "A sacred Island, set apart by Fate, The sea its frontier, and the coast its gate; Where every stranger with free foot may stand. May God long guard the pillars of that land!" and assuredly it is not for us to limit or disallow this great hospitality, even though it does bring our national sympathies into contact with the impotent rage of the conquered and the horrible insanities of despair. Still more infectious, perhaps, are the generous illusions of those who will not be disabused by the most cruel collision with stern reality, and who claim credit for all their hopes and desires just as if they had been accomplished facts or heroic deeds. All these foreign elements have found their way into modern English Republicanism, and though not likely seriously to affect its actions, go far to corrupt its morality and degrade its objects. That the feeling which existed against the House of Lords should have been less affected by this ignoble envy than might have been expected, is due to two causes, both deserving remark. The first consists in the curious and undefinable liking of the mass of the British and Irish people for the titled classes; and the second in the nature of the superiority that is claimed. However unwilling Democracy may be to acknowledge the inference, the fact stands that in the case of two men, one titled, and the other not, competing by fair popular election for any office of honour or emolument, with a general impression of their equal fitness and equal desert, the title tells. Still more strongly is the advantage discernible where the intellectual or moral competence is not so clearly defined, and where the merit has to be taken for granted; here, too, the probability of success is in favour of the aristocrat. This must mean that there is a conviction-and who in the present state of physiological investigation will treat the theory with contempt?—that there is a transmission of hereditary qualities which excite admiration and respect.* It may, then, be assumed that in our present social institution there is believed to be something in the difference of class which promotes, if it does not ensure, higher education, finer manners, and wiser self-management and that the order and condition of society especially affected to politics is likely to possess certain qualities adapted to the governance of mankind. I state this last point with a qualification, because I cannot take upon myself to determine how far the respect given to rank among ourselves is due to any legislative function attached to it. The Scotch or Irish peer, who has nothing to do with the House of Lords, has probably, in his own local circle, as much regard and deference as if he were a busy peer of Parliament, but he no doubt receives some reflected dignity from the real political position of the mass of his titled fellows. The difficulty of obliterating titles in the history of modern European political life is absolutely inexplicable. No earnestness of democracy, no fervour of patriotic sacrifice, no energy of revolution, no confiscation of property, no legal disqualification, are of avail; the quiet force of old association seems to bear down both passion and principle; and, at this very moment, in the midst of a people with whom civic equality is the very soul of social existence, in the very town where, near a hundred years ago, the nobility laid at the feet of the nation all privileges, titles, and distinctions, there is gathered together an Assembly elected by universal suffrage, of which a distinguished member, the Duc de Broglie, French Ambassador at the Court of St. James's, remarked that he had never sat in the same room with so many Dukes in his life." Does it really much matter whether these traditionary influences exhibit themselves in the rotations of fortune and the catastrophes of history, or are in some slight degree recognized and evolved in the regular construction of a Constitution ? In what sense, and to what extent, the House of Lords is influenced by this hereditary principle, and what is the practical operation of * "The greatest blessing a man can receive from Heaven is to be well born; and there are many well born among the poor and needy."-W. S. Lander. that branch of the Legislature in the daily work of the Constitution, are considerations which may seem obvious and common-place, but which appear to me to be often lost in vague declamation and uncertain generalities. accused of partiality or injustice in the presence of any decided superiority. The Assembly exhibits a very different aspect on different occasions. On a great night, It-that is, when the House of Lords are about to accept unwillingly, to reject for that Session, or to suggest serious amendments to, some im may, therefore, be not superfluous to present in a few lines its actual working in the State, and to examine its practical defects and their possi-portant measure that has come up from the ble remedies. The House of Lords consists of some four hundred and fifty peers available for purposes of legislation. Of these not above two hundred take any part in the transaction of its business. Of the rest some have never taken their seats, and the greater part profess little or no interest in politics. Thus a kind of unconscious elimination takes place without jealousy, ill-will, or personal offence, in the body itself, accomplishing, by a process of natural selection the effects which Sir Thomas Bazley and others have proposed to bring about by a competition among the peers themselves. Some few, indeed, who inherit their titles early in life, show an inclination for politics; but little encouragement is given them to force their way into public attention, and unless they obtain office, they represent a very feeble force of that hereditary power which strikes Mr. Fawcett with dismay, and they are placed at a very serious disadvantage in the political race. There is for them no training ground from eight to half-past nine o'clock, such as the House of Commons affords for several nights in every week. The great majority of the working members of the House of Lords are of two classes; those who come up from the House of Commons in mature life in consequence of the decease of their fathers, and of persons raised to the Peerage on some ground of individual distinction. There is one characteristic which strikes the latter portion very forcibly on their admission to the Upper House; it is the complete parity among the Peers. However paramount the distinctions of rank in society, they are quite imperceptible in the Legislature. The peer of yesterday is completely on a level with the premier Duke of England; and, though the Lords, like every other public body, show most interest in the reputations of their own creation, and are somewhat jealous of specialities that come suddenly amongst them, they cannot be Commons, when some three or four hundred peers are collected in that lofty hall and, in the presence of all the members of present and late Governments, and the notabilities of the Lower House, with an attentive audience of diplomatists, distinguished ladies, and a quiet but interested public, the well-considered and stately debate is continued through the midnight hours, and far into the the summer's dawn,— there are few spectators who will not bear away the impression of the noblest political Council among civilized men. For the discussions themselves I do not entertain the accustomed admiration. It is the fashion to say they are better than anything in the House of Commons. This can hardly be the case, when they are nothing more than résumés of the best that has been spoken there, delivered by familiar voices, and with no pretence to originality. Sometimes, indeed, a fount of oratory bursts forth almost native to the locality, when you might ask, who would wish to destroy the House of Lords with the eloquence of Lord Ellenborough in his ears ?* From such a scene to the Legislative body of which a constant record runs for weeks together-" the House of Lords met at five o'clock, did so-and-so; their Lordships adjourned at twenty minutes to six"-there is no doubt a considerable and unwelcome contrast. But between these two forms of meeting and discussion there is another on which I should be very glad to fix the public attention, rather than on either of the fore-mentioned representations of the Upper House. That is when, in the latter half of the Session, about a hundred peers come down to consider an unpolitical Bill of grave social importance. Be the question connected with the administration of the Criminal Law, with the repression of vicious habits, with the Public Health, with the *Even as I write, the voice of that greatest of English orators has passed away. House of Commons. They have more time and more freedom from the personal entanglements which damage so much charitable effort to this must be added-pace Mr. Miall—the comparative toleration for religious differences in matters of public duty and beneficence, of which the rejection of the Prison Ministers Bill of last session was so painful an example. It is here that their independence of local, social existence. They have certainly two pa.politics and private interests, their long famili-pable advantages over the philanthropists in the arity with country life, their intimate knowledge of what the labouring classes really like or dislike, fear or hope, their habits of magisterial practice, their own long experience of the obligations of Members of Parliament, combined with their present freedom of judgment and irresponsibility of action, and many other reasons which will suggest themselves to the thoughtful observer, afford them a special aptitude for the work that is before them. To this may be added the constant presence of the men most learned in the Law, ready to detect fallacies, eager to criticise vague generalities, and glad to exercise their knowledge for the public good, without any of that stint of their time which barristers in the House of Commons must in a great degree regard as stolen from their professional practice, and as an interference with their duties to their families and themselves. There is another component of this body on which I cannot look with the same unqualified approval. I allude to the parliamentary, diplomatic, and official veterans, who, but for this opportunity of prolonging their public existence under conditions of less physical labour, would be enjoying the repose of private life; and who by bringing the old authority of their names to bear on novel questions, frequently increase the difficulties of the present by combinations with the problems of the past. There seems no doubt that the last years of the Duke of Wellington were most disastrous to the organization of the British army. Nevertheless, this tribunal so constituted is an admirable instrument for the functions of legislation that do not require the stimulus of immediate popular excitement. There seems, indeed, to have been an instinct of this fact in that curious revival of the Young England of thirty years ago—the New Social Movement. The story of this attempted league has not been told with sufficient distinctness to authorize any But it may very fairly be asked, If the House of Lords presents all this admirable legislative machinery, why let it rust in chronic inactivity only interrupted by the spasmodic action of party differences? Now this is the very ques tion I desire to put to Her Majesty's Gover ment. Of course they may reply, that thoug the House of Lords is good, the House of Cormons is better, and that it has all the leisure and opportunities required for the purpose. But, unfortunately, the members of the Goverment have exhausted themselves in apologies for leaving so much undone, and have pleade that there were obstacles of time and space that even their abilities could not surmount, and which prevented them from making three nations happy. Mr. Bruce's constituents may call out to him from the depths of the earth, and protest against the continuance of colliery acr dents; Mr. Bass and Sir W. Lawson may complain, each from his point of view, that just enough has been done by the production of the Licensing Bill to worry everybody and settle nothing; Mr. Goschen may lament that he has started a great scheme of local taxation without the opportunity of expounding its principles or of testing its applicability; Mr. Stansfield may promise us all sorts of sanatory ameliorations, with the chance that every one of them may be stifled in the slough of Irish Education. Even the Scotch members, who generally manage to carry everything that they care about by their good sense and spirit of compromise, even they may speak of themselves as being reduced to a |