Full text of "The House of Lords: its history, rights and uses. With a short summary of the past actions of some of our old nobility"

See other formats

I ,.1

THE HOUSE OF LOEDS :

HISTORY, RIGHTS AND USES.

WITH

A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE PAST ACTIONS OF
SOME OF OUR OLD NOBILITY.

THOMAS FIELDING,

47, Clarendon Road, 0. ox M„ Manchester.

JQjTesbbs. Simpkin, Marshall. Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd.

Stationers* Hall Court, Ludgate Hill, E.C.

and Printed by George Berridge & Co.,

171. Upper Thames Street, E.C.

1907.
%[J^jL RIGHTS RESER VED.]

JyV

£■;

PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION.!-:

The object of the following pages is twofold : —1st. To correct,
f iu some measure, the misrepresentations and apocryphal tales
f which are so frequently circulated about the origin, use, and
position of our Aristocracy. 2nd. To furnish those who desire
to look into the subject with some reliable data and with a few
hints for correcting some of the wrong notions which are being
so industriously spread by the enemies of our present Con-
stitution— Radical and revolutionary agitatorg — whose sole
object seems to be destruction.

The reader will notice that in some portions the subject
j

has been dealt with in an abrupt and fragmentary manner —

intentionally so — simply from a desire to confine this work to

a definite size, and also that the ideas herein expressed might

be followed up and enlarged by the reader himself. They are

merely intended as " hooks " on which he may hang his own

ideas, and carry out the suggested thoughts.

Much important matter, chiefly of an illustrative charac-
ter, has necessarily been suppressed ; but the facts adduced
may be relied on for accuracy, and that I conceive to be the
| most important part of a book of this kind.

The necessity for the "Fifth Edition" of this work at the
present time springs from the fact that, up till quite recently,
the attacks on the House of Lords have been made chiefly by
extreme Radicals^ Revolutionists and Socialists individually.
Since, however, the declaration of the Liberal Conference at
Leeds (1894), and the subsequent official adoption by Sir H.
Campbell-Bannerman and his Cabinet of a policy calculated to
destroy the Constitution of the House of Lords and injure its
influence, it has become increasingly necessary for all friends
of Constitutional liberty to spread correct information respect-
ing the work and position of that branch of our Legislature, to
whose action we owe so much of our present social and political
freedom.

406044

[ 4 ]
The amendment of the 1906 Education Bill by the House of
Lords is said to have brought matters to a crisis. In any case,
the practical destruction of the House of Lords has been
decreed, and the next political contest will not be fought either
on Home Rule, Labour, or the Newcastle programme, but on
whether we are to retain our Constitution intact or submit it
to " political vandals," whose destructive instincts will only
be satisfied by the demolition of the Throne, The House of
Lords, The Church, and the Capitalist.

A careful perusal of the following pages, will, it is hoped,
supply some reasons why these revolutionary tactics should
not succeed.

If the object aimed at be wholly, or even partially, accom-
plished by the present publication, and any reader be thereby
induced to examine this interesting subject for himself, he will
find it not only instructive in the highest degree, but his
veneration and affection for an institution like the British
Peerage will be equalled only by the pleasure he will derive
from its contemplation. The author will in that case be amply
repaid by such a result of his efforts.

Thomas Fielding.
January, 1907.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS:

ITS HISTORY, RIGHTS, AND USES.

CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND.

One of the first stops for the political student of our history to
take is to master the fact that the present constitution of this
country consists of the following estates — commonly called
" The three estates of the realm " — under

The Monarch at the head.
1st. The Lords Spiritual.
2nd. The Lords Temporal.
3rd. The Commons.
On this subject, the following authorities may be quoted:
Blackstone (sec. 153) says : —

'• The constituent parts of parliament are, the king's majesty, the lords
spiritual and temporal, in the one house ; and the commons in another. The
king and these (3) estates form together the body politic of this kingdom."

Sir Edward Creasy, a Constitutional writer, and a Chief
Justice of Ceylon (p. 4), says< —

" The great primeval and enduring principles of our constitution arc as
follows : The government of the country by an hereditary sovereign, ruling with
limited powers, and bound to summon and consult the parliament of the whole
realm, comprising hereditary peers and elected representatives of the commons."

Hallam says (Constitutional History, p. 17) : —

" The government of England, in all times recorded by history, has been
one of those mixed or limited monarchies which the Celtic and Gothic tribes
appear universally to have established."

De Lolme (p. 167) says: —

'• The basis of the English Constitution, the capital principle on which the
others depend is. that the legislative power belongs to parliament alone — i c, all
power of establishing laws, and of abrogating, changing, or explaining them.
The constituent parts of parliament are — the King, the House of Lords, and the
House of Commons."

KING'S PREROGATIVES.

A word as to their power and functions.

The King is the supreme ruler of this realm, and by virtue
of this office there is vested in him, by custom and parlia-
mentary authority, the following among other prerogatives
and powers: (1) He is the supreme magistrate- — the source
of all executive and judicial power. (2) He dismisses and
calls together Parliament. (3) He is the fountain of

[ 6 ]

honour — i.e., the distributor and donor of all titles and digni-
ties, including the peerage and every other lesser titular
distinction. (4) He is the superintendent of commerce, regu-
lates weights and measures, coins money, and gives currency
and value to foreign coin. (5) He is the head of the Church,
and nominates bishops. (6) He is the head of all the military
and naval forces, and officers only act by virtue of his commis-
sion. (7) He makes treaties, and is a personification of the
collective majesty of the nation.

In glancing over the list of the foregoing prerogatives and
powers with which the laws of this country have invested the
monarch, Ave seem, at first sight, at a loss to reconcile them with
the idea of a limited monarchy — the term unlimited would
seem to be more applicable, for the king not only unites in
himself all the branches of the executive power; he not only
disposes without control of the wThole military power of the
State, but he seems to be, moreover, master of the law itself ;
since he calls up and dismisses at his will the legislative bodies,
and apparently is invested with all the prerogatives that were
ever claimed by the most absolute monarchs. But if we
examine this matter closely, we shall see that all this power
exists in theory rather than in fact. The machinery is in the
hands of the king, it is true, but the power to make it move is in
those of the two Houses of Parliament. It is from their
liberality alone that the king can obtain supplies; -and in
these days, when gold has become the great moving spring of
affairs, we may safely affirm that he who depends upon the
will of another for the supply of so important an article (what-
ever his apparent power may be) is in a state of real dependence.

This is especially the case with the King of England. He
lias the prerogative of commanding armies and fleets ! But
without Parliament he cannot pay them. He can appoint
officers to places of power and trust ! But without Parliament
ho cannot pay their salaries. He can declare war ! But with-
out Parliament he cannot carry it on, nor pay for a single
cannon, or a round of ammunition. The position of the
monarch is like that of a first-class battleship, beautiful to look
at, and dangerous to oppose; but Parliament can draw off the
water, and leave it stranded — a useless and harmless hulk upon
the shore — or, like a steam engine, useful and powerful ; but
unless Parliament consents to supply the steam, it is weak and
of very little utility.

Hul we in list not travel further on this tempting path, but
rome to our more immediate purpose — "The House of Lords."
It is an interesting study to notice and follow the growth of
our parliamentary insi itutions.

For at least seven or eight reigns after the Norman Con-
quest the Commons were entirely unrepresented in the Great

[ < ]

Council of the nation, except as spectators, or occasionally as
complainants when sonic public grievance required a remedy,
to pay for which taxes had to be levied.

ANCIENT BARONS, THE LEADERS OF THE PEOPLE.

The reason for this is not difficult to explain. We must
remember that in those times the barons and bishops were the
natural and actual leaders of the people — in arms, in social
position, in religion and learning; and last, though not least,
in resistance to the encroaching power and despotism of various
of our self-willed monarchs. They were also the leaders in
procuring for the people of this kingdom that liberty and
freedom which has been the foundation of all her past greatness,
and is the root from which will spring all our future distinc-
tion. They also paid nearly all the taxes, and provided from
their own substance the expenses of all the wars ; moreover,
the reverses of the country fell first upon them Every reign
will supply proofs of the foregoing facts. We will now merely
instance the case of the procuring of Magna Charta, with its
numerous confirmations in later reigns.

MAGNA CHARTA.

The character of King John has often been described, and
historians are almost unanimous in their opinion of him. lie
was cruel, treacherous, despotic, licentious, and cowardly.

His treatment of Prince Arthur, and also of his own wife,
will for ever stamp his name with infamy. Lingard says of
him (vol. 3, p. 70) : —

KING JOHN.

" He stands before us polluted with meanness, cruelty, perjury, and murder —
uniting with an ambition which rushed through every crime to the attainment
of its object, a pusillanimity which often at the sole appearance of opposition
sank into'despondency. Arrogant in prosperity — abject in adversity — he neither
conciliated affection in the one, nor excited esteem in the other. Seldom was
there a prince more callous to the suggestions of pity."

An old record tersely describes him as —

" A knight without truth.
A king without justice.
A Chiistian without faith."

Such was the character of the man whom the nobles and
people of those times had to deal with. He betrayed Nor-
mandy, he sold and delivered his country into the hands of the
Pope, he harassed and oppressed his subjects with a heavy
hand; until at last the nation, in the persons of the bishops,
nobles, and knights, rose as one man, and compelled this

[ -s ]

monster, at the point of the sword, and after a long struggle
of three years, to sign that Great Charter which has been
the glory of this country in the past, and will be the beacon
to light all future ages of law-loving and law-abiding Britons
to further liberties.

ACTION OF THE BARONS.

The struggle was long and severe. The obstacles to over-
come were great and difficult. The barons, after being several
times deceived and often threatened, declared war against the
King and occupied Bedford, London, and other places, while
John was paying money to the Pope to take off the interdict and
excommunicate the nobles. Stephen Langton, Archbishop of
Canterbury, headed the movement. Though threatened with
excommunication by the Pope, his spiritual master, and with
imprisonment by John, his temporal one, he courageously
braved the fury of the one and the threats of the other, rather
than give up the people's cause. Though a priest, he was
before everything an Englishman, and one feels proud to belong
to a nation which can boast such men for leaders. All honour
to them !

At length, deserted by every one, his mean spirit humbled
by the determined attitude of the people, John consented to
sign the Charter, and, after more equivocation, a meeting was
arranged to take place at Runnymede (a green plain between
Staines and Windsor, on the banks of the Thames), and here,
headed by Archbishop Langton, six other bishops, all the
barons, and 2,000 knights, under the free sky, " The Temple
of God," this victory of freedom was won ! — the solemn act
was performed whose beneficial effects will descend to the
remotest ages. To us English of to-day that event is of the
utmost interest, far surpassing that of battles or conquests.

In the green meadows by the Thames, tyranny was
crushed; modern liberty was born! and we, as a people, have
to thank those public leaders, the ancestors of the nobles of
England. Magna Charta was a great act. Its provisions are
of universal application, its benefits were for all, rich and poor
— peer and peasant, and like a good tree in a fruitful soil, it
eon I in lies fo bless all under its shade.

MAGNA CHARTA.

I, on! Chatham, speaking in the House of Lords (Jan. 9,
1 770) on tliis subject, said : —

0 villi- ancestors, my lords— it is to the English Barons, that we are
indebted for i be law - and cons! itution which w e possess ; they did not confine it to
done, bul delivered it as a conn blessing to the whole people."

[ 9 ]

Sir James Macintosh, describing- this transaction (vol. 1,
pp. 221-2), says : —

■• Whoever, in any future age or unburn nation, may admire the felicity of
the expedient which converted the power of taxation into the shield of liberty, by
which discretionary and secret imprisonment was rendered impracticable, and
portions of the people were trained to exercise a larger share of judicial power
than was ever allotted to them in any other civilized state, in such manner as to
secure, instead of endangering, public tranquility — whoever exults at the spectacle
of enlightened and independent assemblies, who. under the eye of a well-informed
nation, discuss and determine the laws and policy likely to make communities
great and happy— whoever is capable of comprehending all the effects of such
institutions with all their possible improvements upon the mind and genius of a
people, is saereily bound to speak with reverential gratitude of the authors of the
Great Charter. To have produced it, to have preserved it, to have matured it,
constitute the immortal claim of England on the esteem of mankind. Her Bacons
and Shakespeares, her Miltons and Xewtons, with all the truths they have
revealed, and all the generous virtue which they have inspired, are of inferior
value when compared with the subjection of men and their rulers to the principles
of justice ; if indeed it be not more true that these mighty spirits could not have
been formed except under equal laws, nor roused to full activity without the
influence of that spirit which the Great Charter breathed over their forefathers."

De Lolme says : ~—

'; All the objects for which men naturally wish to live in a state of Society
were settled in its various articles.

" The judicial authority was regulated.

" The person and property of the individual were secured.

'• The safety of the merchant and stranger were provided for.

"The higher class of citizens gave up a number of oppressive privileges
which they had long accustomed themselves to look upon as their undoubted rights.

': All possessors of lands took the engagement to establish on behalf of their
tenants and vassals the game liberties which they demanded from the King.

" The implements of tillage (tools) were secured to the labourer (bonds-
man), and for the first time in the annals of the world a civil war was terminated
bv making stipulations in favour of those unfortunate men (labourers)." —
Conl. Hist., p. 277.

Sir E. Creasy says: —

li The Greater Charter is rich with clauses which have for their object the
interests of the nation as a whole. It provides for the purr, the speedy, the fixed
and uniform administration of Justice. It prohibits arbitrary imprisonment and
arbitrary punishment of any kind. It places the person and property of every
freeman under the sacred protection of free and equal law." — Hist. Enq. Con.,
pp. 129-30.

No monument marks the place where this great work was
achieved, though no single spot in this country so well deserves
one ; and should a fitting memorial ever be raised, the words
of the poet Akenside would be a suitable inscription —
" Thou, who the verdant plain dost traverse here,

While Thames, among his willows from thy view

Retiies : 0 stranger, stay thee, and the scene

Around contemplate well. This is the place

Where England's ancient barons, clad in arms.

And stern with conquest, from their tyrant king

(Then rendered tame) did challenge and secure

The Charter of thy freedom. Pass not on

Till thou hast bless'd their memory, and paid

Those thanks which God appointed the reward

Of public virtue. And if chance thy house

Salute thee with a father's honoured name,

Go, call thy sons : instruct them what a debt

They owe their ancestors ; and make them swear

To pay it, by transmitting down entire

Those sacred rights to which themselves were born."

[ io ]

EARLY HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT.

The present constitution of Parliament dates from about
the 49th of Henry III., say from 1266, there being writs extant
from that date. Blackstone says (sec. 142), " From 1066 till
about 1225 the Lords were the only legislators."

After that date the Commons were occasionally summoned,
till, in the year 1266, they became a regular part of the legis-
lature. For some considerable time after this both bodies sat
in the same chamber; not mixing in debate, nor making
amendments to each other's proposals, for very often the Lords
made the laws, while the Commons were mere spectators and
listeners; and there are instances since this date when laws
have been made2 and the consent of the Commons has not
even been asked.

ORIGIN OF HOUSE OF LORDS.

Respecting the origin of the House of Lords, it has, like
the Monarchy, the Church, and other institutions, grown up
from early times into its present form. Its earliest stage
seems to have been the Saxon " Witan/' which was essentially
an aristocratic body; and not, as some suppose, "an assembly
of villagers met under a tree."

On the contrary, it was the Great Council of the wise men
of the nation, as its name implies ; summoned and presided
over by the king. It consisted of the bishops, earls, thanes,
and other prominent men. Its business was to make the
laws, vote the taxes (of which they paid the greater part), and
to advise the king as to the making of war or peace, which
advice he was bound to follow. This assembly was also the
Supreme Court of Justice, somewhat as our House of Lords
is at the present day.

There was not in those times any middle class, nearly the
whole of the community being dependent upon the earls or
thanes; hence the necessity for separate representatives for the
Commons was not so great, because the interests both of Lords
and Commons were identical, each class being dependent upon
i lie <it her.

After the Norman Conquest (according to Sir E. Creasy,
p. iNfi) I he Great Council, which made the laws, consisted of
the great barons, or those who were tenants-in-chief of William
only those bad a right Io attend. These afterwards became
divided into two classes, of greater and lesser tenants, for we
find from chap. 11 of Magna Charta, as to summoning the
Great Council these words — "We (the king) shall cause the
archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be
separately summoned by our letters, and we shall cause our
sheriffs and bailiffs to summon generally all others who hold

of us in chief."

[ 11 ]

WHY HEREDITARY?

We thus see, in the words of the Charter, the clear origin
of our Upper House of Parliament, consisting of lords spiritual
and temporal. As the temporal peerage was thus a body com-
posed originally of the most powerful landowners in the king-
dom, it naturally became an hereditary peerage, without
any express enactment to that effect. This will appear

•clear if we call to mind that the power of devising (i.e., willing)
real estate did not exist for many ages after the grant of the
Great Charter ; and, although alienation with the consent of the
superior lord, and upon payment to him of a fine, was permitted
by law, yet the entire transfer of large estates by such means
could seldom or never have occurred, for this simple and obvious
reason, that there were no wealthy capitalists to come forward
and buy the whole lands of a mighty but impoverished baron
at a single bargain. As, therefore, the estates of the great
barons descended generally frqni heir to heir, and as each heir,
on coming into possession, had the same rights as his prede-
cessor, viz., those of a great baron of the realm, the idea of
hereditary descent became gradually associated with the status
of a peer.

And this theorj'- of the descent of feerage at last prevailed
so far, so as to be extended to a new species of peers, to men
who held no baronial possessions, but whom our kings sum-
moned by writ to meet and consult (in the Great Council)
among the prelates and chief men of the realm.

Having thus sketched the origin of the House of Lords, let
us now enquire into its composition, powers, and rights, as it
at present exists.

COMPOSITION OF HOUSE OF LORDS.

The House of Lords is made up of several different orders
of nobility, and may be enumerated, as follows, in order of
precedence (January, 1907) : —

Trinces of the Roy

al Blood .

. 2

Bishops ...

. 21

Archbishops

Barons ...

. 271

Dukes ...

. 29

Scotch Representative Peers..

. 16

Marquises

. 35

Irish „ „ ..

. 28

Earls

. 164

Viscounts

. 45

Total

. 616

Note. — These figures include 13 minor* who cannot vote, leaving the net
voting strength of the House of Lords at 603 members.

The 10 Scottish peers are elected for each separate Parlia-
ment, while the 28 Irish peers, and the 20 bishops and arch-
bishops are each selected for life.

[ 12 ]

PRINCES OF THE BLOOD.

Of the above, the two princes of the blood seldom or
never take part in debate or try to influence public questions
in any way. It is to their honour and credit that they exercise
such self-denial — that they have the good sense to abstain
from mixing themselves up with political matters rather than
give offence to any of their fellow-countrymen, or wound the
susceptibilities of any political party. So that generally,
because of this willing abstention, they have fewer political
privileges than the poorest householder in the land.

How unlike the princes of other foreign reigning families,
who are often sending out political manifestoes, and disturb-
ing the public mind. Again, thirteen of the above peers are
minors, and are for the time excluded from taking any part
in the business of the House of Lords. It therefore follows
that the number of active politicians in that House may be set
down at about 601.

POLITICAL DIVISION OP HOUSE OF LORDS.

If we divide these we find that there are about 354 Con-
servatives, 107 Liberal Unionists ; 98 Liberals, 1 Nationalist,
and 41 whose politics are not stated. An objection is sometimes
made against the House of Lords that it is too Conservative,
and therefore ought to be abolished. That objection is often
made by those who do not know what Conservatism is. In
the opinion of many that is a reason for its continuance.
Though it be Conservative, it is certainly not the fault of the
Liberals that it is so; for we find they have done their best
to make it a Liberal assembly. From 1830 to December, 1906,
there have been created 419 peers, and of this number 238
have been made by the Radicals and only 181 by the Con-
servatives. These facts ought to be seriously pondered by the
Radicals themselves, and the question asked: Why is the
House of Lords Conservative?

REASONS FOR CONSERVATISM OF HOUSE OF LORDS.

The question is a very natural one, and deserves a com-
plete answer; but the scope of the present paper will not
permit an extended reply. One or two reasons, however, I will
venture to give. When a "Liberal" member is returned
to the House of Commons it is usually by the influence of
Libera] and Radical Clubs and caucuses. He is for the time,
bo a Large extent, their servant to carry out their orders, more
than thai <»f the whole of his constituents. He is little more
than a delegate.

[ 13 ]

Mr. Goldwin Smith. — (Radical and Gladstonian) — truly
describes this class of M.P. when he says: —

" What then is the House of Commons .' Does it retain any feature of a
national council or even of a deliberative assembly .'

•' Is it anything but a cockpit of faction ! Are its debates anything but
factious wrangles .' Do not its manners plainly bespeak its degradation .' What
is its character even as a machine for doing business .' What is worst of all, it
has totally lost its independence — while it arrogates to itself omnipotence, it has
itself become the slave of ttie caucus ******

''Members hardly keep up the pretence of voting according to their
consciences. They openly avow their bondage. The application of the screw
has always been growing more and more severe till, at last, the representative
has been reduced to the level, not only of a delegate, but of a political
messenger." — Nineteenth Century, March, 1«91, pp. 363, 364.

He has, accordingly, to trim his sails, to modify his
opinions in accordance with the views of the Liberal 300 or
the Radical GOO, as the case may be. After a long public
service as member for the illustrious and ancient borough of
" Bribery-cum-Ballot," he is elevated into the serener atmos-
phere of the woolsack, as " Baron Battersea " (with apologies
to Mr. John Burns, M.P.). Then having no longer the dread
of the terrible captain of the local 300 before his eyes, with
his eternal directions as to how he must vote, or the inevitable
complaint of "our committee," he begins to breathe more
freely — to have an opinion of his own, and gradually to con-
sider constitutional questions from a diiferent standpoint. He
takes a more statesmanlike view of things, and looks at the
harmonious working of our grand old Constitution with an
eye of affection and reverence, rather than with a desire to
pull it to pieces. He mixes with and enjoys the society of men
renowned for their talents in law, literature, and science ;
this, with the frequent listening to the voice of his Sovereign,
and the sight of the Throne from a nearer standpoint, has a
tendency to give him larger and broader views of the import-
ance of the State of which he forms a part ; a wish to cherish
those institutions whose beneficent working he sees around
him ; and gradually, almost unconsciously, he imbibes those
Conservative feelings which all real and true Conservatives
possess.

WHAT IS CONSERVATISM ?

Conservatism is simplj- the desire to conserve intact those
grand old institutions which have been a glory to this king-
dom in the past, and, if rightly used, will continue to be a
blessing in the future. These, therefore, are some of the
influences which act on our late member for the venerable
borough of " Bribery-cum-Ballot," and which gradually wean
him from those reckless individuals who first did him the
honour to make him a statesman. He becomes, like the
majority of the gentlemen around him, a lover of his country

r u j

with its institutions as they are, and not as some wild oroche-
teers (with nothing to lose, but everything to gain from
changes) would have them be.

HEREDITARY CHARACTER OF HOUSE OF LORDS—
OBJECTION TO.

An objection we often hear brought against the House of
Lords is that it is hereditary, that it is a body of irresponsible
men, avIio sit in Parliament merely because they are the " sons
of their fathers." This objection to be valid should be true,
whereas it is only partially so. We admit at once that the
titles of a large number of the members of the House of
Lords are hereditary,' and that the succession to those titles
and seats is vested in their respective heirs. But what remedy
do the advocates of abolition propose ? Selection, they say, is
the proper method, and the only way in which the House of
Lords should be formed. If we look at the history of this
House in recent times we sliall find that this method has been
largely employed. First, there are the twenty-six archbishops and
bishops, then the forty-four Irish and Scottish peers, all
selected from the best of their class.

There are in the present House of Lords 169 members who
have served in the House of Commons, and have therefore
been selected by the votes of the people as fit persons to sit
in Parliament, which gives a total of 239 persons in the
present House of Lords who have entered Parliament by virtue
of

SELECTION.

If these figures teach us anything it is this, that selection
plays a large part in the formation of our present House of
Lords ; but because it does not form the whole, as some violent
people desire, are we prepared to upset the country and
endanger its safety merely to carry out an idea, which, if
developed to its fullest extent, would probably not work any
better (if as well) as our present system ?

Let us look at this matter a little closer.

Since 18G8 there have been created by three Liberal
Premiers and three Conservative Premiers 250 new peers. The
numerous survivors among these do not owe their position in
the House of Lords to the fact that " they are the sons of their
fullici-s"' — they were selected.

There arc also the 1G Scottish and the 28 Irish Peers;
tHese have been elected because of their fitness as legisla-
tors and statesmen.

Vim Lave also the ?f! Archbishops and Bishops; these
have not been horn Peers; they have boon selected by both
Conservative and Liberal Premiers because they represent
all that is best in the religious and educational life of the
nation.

[ 15 ]

There are also about four Lords of Appeal — selected by
both political parties from the highest legal authorities in the
land — whose experience and knowledge wuuld make them of
great value in any deliberative assembly.

All these form a very large body of peers — not one of
whom owes his position to the " accident of birth " as the
Radicals say.

HEREDITARY PRINCIPLE.

But let us glance still more closely at this " hereditary
principle." Reference has already been made to the growth
of this principle in dealing with the origin of the House of
Lords. It was then, and for many generations, the only means
which could have been employed to secure the constitution of
the " Great Council." No other kind of representation was
practicable or possible — (1) Because the barons and bishops
were the natural leaders of the people, temporal and spiritual.

(2) They embodied the collective wisdom of the nation ; and

(3) their material interests were the most important in the
country. Therefore, as a natural consequence, their rights,
■privileges, and duties became transferred to their respect ire-
heirs along with their estates.

THE REPRESENTATIVE PRINCIPLE.
To many politicians this principle seems to be as sacred
as the one with which we formerly endowed our monarchs,
viz., " the divine right of kings."

A statesman dealing with the subject in the House of
Commons in 1888 showed that most of our constitutional
arrangements were not founded on that principle.

The Throne was not representative, but hereditary.
The Cabinet was selected by one man — the Premier.
The Prime Minister himself was selected.
The Judges were each and all nominated.*
All the Ambassadors — in whose care was the safety of the
country at Foreign Courts — were selected.

The House of Lords at that time contained : —

23 Cabinet Ministers or ex-Cabinet Ministers.
4 Viceroys of India.
6 Viceroys of Ireland.
4 Governors-General of Canada.
8 Other Colonial Governors.
G Ambassadors.

2 Speakers of the House of Commons.
194 Peers, former members of House of Commons.
78 Members or ex-Members of the Government.
8 Judges.
157 Peers, who had served in Army or Navy.
All of whom were representative in the best sense of the
word, but not representative in the sense that they had been

Under Liberal Ministries.

No.

Under Conservative Ministries.

No.

Earl Grey, 1830-1834

Sir Robert Peel, 1834-1835 ...

Viscount Melbourne, 1 835-1 S41

Sir Robert Peel. 1841-1846 ...

Lord John Russell, 184C-1852 ...

Earl of Derby, 1852

Earl of Aberdeen, 1853-1S55 ...

Earl of Derby, 1858-1859

Lord Palrnerston, 1855-1858 ...

Earl of Derby, 1866-1868

Lord Palrnerston, 1S59-1865 ...

Mr. Disraeli, 1868

Earl Russell, 1865-1866

Earl of Beaconsfield, 1874-1880

Mr. Gladstone, 1868-1874

Marquis of Salisbury, 1S85-6 ...

Mr. Gladstone, 1880-1885

Marquis of Salisbury, 1886-1892

Mr. Gladstone, 1886

Marquis of Salisbury. 1895-1902

Mr. Gladstone, 18K2-1894

Mr. Balfour, 1902-5

Earl of Rosebery, 1894-5

Sit 11. Campbell - Bannerman,

1905-6 ... .

Total created under Liberal
Ministries (12 years)

Total created under Conserva-
tive Ministries (34 years)...

238

181

N i > tk. — These do not include about 85 Bishops selected by various Premiers.
THE THRONE HEREDITARY.

The Throne of this country, as far as this principle is
ooncerned, has occupied an identical position with that of the
House of Lords — it is hereditary. The present reigning family-
has no hi her righi to it.

Throne and peerage both are hereditary. It is a notable
fad that both inside and outside; the House of Commons those
persona who >how an animus against Royalty are the same
class of people who show their hatred to the House of Lords.
They sometimes biss the National Anthem — (see Liberal Meet-
ing al Portsmouth, February 14, 1894), and also cry "down

[ 16 J

selected to their respective offices and duties by a Committee
or Caucus of the type of the " three tailors of TooJey Street."

CREATION OF NEW PEERS.

Then we find that since the year 17G0 there have been
created about 850 new peers, or 232 more than the present
number of the whole House. The balance is accounted for by
extinctions. Since 1820, over three-fourths of the total
members of the House of Lords have been created. Even if
we take the reign of our late Queen there were 373 new
peers created, without counting about 85 additional bishops,
making a total of 458, or about two-thirds the total number
in the House.

Mr. Gladstone created a new peer for every six weeks he
held office.

•Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman has created a new peer for
every three weeks he has held office (September, 1896)— a
record ! — not bad for a peer-hater !

PEERAGES CREATED SINCE 1830.
The number of additions to the House of Lords made
since 1830 is shown by the following table : —

I 17 ]

with tlie House of Lords," showing that in the minds of such
persons destruction of all our stable and cherished institutions,
such p,s the Throne and the House of Lords, is part and parcel
of their political aspirations.

" To give freedom to a nation governed by an hereditary
monarch, an intermediate body must exist between the
sovereign and the popular assembly," is the opinion of a dis-
tinguished French writer.

It is a remarkable fact, and an object lesson as well, that
the Monarchy and the House of Lords fell at the same time,
and were restored at the same time.

OLIVER CROMWELL.

In matters of this kind there is no other principle short
of Republicanism, or out-and-out Communism. Even Oliver
Cromwell, though he had destroyed the monarchy and the
House of Lords,* found that orderly government could not be
carried on without it, for he nominated his son Richard to
succeed him in the duties and responsibilities of Protector,
wishing to make the office hereditary in his family.

And why, we may ask, should this principle not be acted
upon? Is there any more injustice in Earl Percy inheriting
the position, wealth, rights, and duties of his father, the Duke
of Northumberland, than there is in the Prince of Wales in-
heriting the position, rights, and duties of His Majesty King
Edward VII., his father. Do they not both stand upon the
same ground and involve the same principle?

The common affairs of every-day life are also carried on
and regulated by this principle. Every landowner, merchant,
millowner, and tradesman leaves to his son or heir, as a
condition of inheritance, along with his property or business,
the responsibilities, duties, and engagements into which he
himself has entered, and his heir can only enjoy the one by
engaging to fulfil and perform the other. It is thus with the
members of the House of Lords. Therefore, when a man
knows beforehand what his responsibilities and duties will be,
he receives as a rule the education and training necessary to
fit him for the post he is destined to occupy, and is not pitch-
forked into it by chance, as many members of the House of
Commons are.

BISHOPS IN HOUSE OP LORDS.

Another reason urged for the abolition of the House of
Lords is, "that it provides seats for the bishops." '"Why,"
it is asked, " should the chief ministers of the Church of
England be chosen for seats in the House of Lords, while no
similar place is provided for the clergy of the other religious
denominations ?"

This question looks rather like envy, while the reason
annexed to it is absurd. To disestablish the whole GOO member^

* Sec note, p. 78

[ 18 ]

of the House of Lords because there are 2G bishops amongst
them looks rather like hilling a man to cure him of the tooth-
ache. Are the bishops such terrible characters that their
presence pollutes the atmosphere of the Upper House ? I may-
appeal with confidence to anjrone who knows them for an
answer.

OBJECTIONS TO BISHOPS ANSWERED.

Then, again, the bishops do not sit there on the heredi-
tary principle — they therefore meet the views of those who
advocate selection — for they are nominated by the Liberal or
Conservative Premier of the day, as the case may be.

If it were true that the bishops are chosen from among
and over the heads of the other religious denominations, and
provided with seats in the House of Lords, perhaps there might
be reasonable ground for enquiry. But is it true? By no
means. Blackstone says (sec. 15G), " The bishops sit there by
right of their baronies, being called to the house by the same
title as any other baron."

The bishops had seats in the House of Lords hundreds of
years before there were any other denominations in this
country; their titles are therefore hundreds of years older
than any of the sects — nay, they are older .than those of any
other class of nobles, older than the formation of the Kingdom
of England and so older than the monarchy itself. So that to
say the}' were chosen to represent the Church of England from
among, and to the 2)rejudice of, the other sects is simply stating
what is untrue, and, in the way it is usually put, is dishonest
and unfair.

These gentlemen who are so anxious to reform the House
of Lords, by excluding the religious element from that
assembly, have often brought bills into the House of Commons
to attain that object, but in all cases without success.

Two reasons may be given for these failures; 1st, the
House of Commons has no more control over the House of
Lords or its members, than the Radical Party has over the
next eclipse of the moon; 2nd, although the House of
Commons lias often been composed of a majority of Liberal
members, their " education " has not yet progressed suffi-
ciently far on the " path of destruction " to induce them
to destroy the oldest, best, and most stable portion of the
House of Lords by excluding the bishops.

In 1834 (March 13), a bill was introduced into the House
of Commons to exclude the bishops, but although there was
a large Liberal Trmjprity, the bill was thrown out.

The voting wasT^r-

For exclTMH>n .\ 58

Agoinat oxcluBioii 125

C QC'I ^20 Majority Itf

[ 19 ]

Another similar effort was made (April 2G, 183G).
The voting was: —

For exclusion ... ... . . ... ... 53

Against exclusion 180

Majority 127

Another attempt was made (February 10, 1837).
The voting was : —

For exclusion ... ... ... ... ... 92

Against exclusion 197

Majority ... ... 105

A further attempt with this object was made (June 21,
1870).

The voting was : — •

For exclusion ... ... ... .. ... 102

Against exclusion ... ... ... ... 158

Majority ... ... 56

And even after these attempts the Radicals are not happy.
For the comfort of these misguided souls, let me quote short
extracts from two speeches which even the modern Eadical
ought to treat with some degree of respect : —

"Mr. W. E. Gladstone, M.P., said (House of Commons,
June 21, 1870): —

" If there is to be a House of Lords in this country, as there ever has been, it
is well that that House of Lords should be as strong as possible. It is desirable
that we should see collected in that assembly all the elements of strength, and
am;ng the elements I know none so important as diversity. You cannot well
afford, in an hereditary House of Lords, to part with elements of weight and
power which that chamber derives from the presence of the bishops. * * * *

" The bench of bishops has contributed to the intellectual force of dis-
cussions in the House of Lords in a proportion far transcending the numbers by
which that body is represented there. To some extent they represent the popular
clement there.

" The very fact of such a number of men being there — by their merits, by
their character, by tbeir services, not by subserviency, not by base compliance —
does constitute, in no ignoble sense, the presence of a popular element in the
House of Lords. It is an element which at any rate comes from the deep and
broad strata of the community, and which contributes vigour to that assembly.''

Lord Rosebery said (House of Lords, 1884): —
" We have in this House twenty-six bishops, avery one of whom must have
won his way to his position in this House by sheer merit and by hard work. It is
perfectly impossible to say that these twenty-six eminent individuals are not by
reason of their past career an ornament to any assembly."'

PRESENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT BEST.
We have the privilege to live in a land which has existed
as a kingdom for over 1,000 years. Its institutions have
grown, its liberties have expanded, along with the life
and progress of the nation, to their present beautiful propor-
tions. If to-day, after the great experience we have had, we
had to construct a new constitution, to make a new form of

[ 20 ]

government, perhaps we might not make it in every detail
identical with the present one : we might modify some portions
and introduce slight changes in others : but, in whatever
manner our ideas might be embodied, it would be impossible
to form a system which, in its main features, would work
better than our present one.

"OUR" SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT GROWN UP WITH OTHER

INSTITUTIONS.
"We should also remember, in looking at this question, that
our present system has grown up — it has been modified and
adapted after the experience of ages — having been tested for
hundreds of years. It has been found to work well, while all
the rest of the nations around us have been floundering about,
experimenting, trying, seeking, and failing to find a system of
government as stable, as secure, and as free as our own. Ours is
the growth of experience — and to substitute any new theoretical
constitution, however nice it might look upon paper, for the
one which has been practically tested, would be to throw away
the substance and grasp at the shadow.

CHARACTERS OF BISHOPS.

But why object to bishops? Are they not selected from
amongst a class of men, the best educated, most experienced,
most enlightened, in the country? Are they not themselves
men of the highest culture and attainments — men of large
views and practical knowledge? For example, the Episcopal
Bench has, in quite recent times, contained at least five
ex-headmasters. They are as follows: —

Archbishop Benson ... ... Wellington.

Bishop Temple ... ... ... Rugby.

Bishop Lloyd ... ... ... Bangor.

Bishop Ridding . . ... Winchester.

Bishop Pcrcival Clifton and Rugby.

If we include University "dons" we must add at least eight
more to the scholastic Bishops of recent times: —

Bishop Westcott Cambridge Professor.

Bishop King Oxford Professor.

Bishop Jayne ... ... . . Principal, Lampeter.

Bishop Stubbs ... ... ... Oxford Professor.

Bishop Wordsworth Oxford Tutor.

Biehop Perowne Cambridge Tutor.

Bishop Paget Dean of Christ Church, Oxford.

Bishop Rylc President of Queens' College Cambridge.

Arc they not called upon, in the administration of their respec-
tive dioceses, to govern and direct large numbers of men, and
manage various corporations and interests? Are they not each
at the head of an army of gentlemen {clergymen) who are con-
stantly engaged in visiting, advising, and ministering to the
wants of the working and other classes of the community? Do
they not know more of, and sec more of, the wants and wishes
of the people generally than any other class of men? Their

[ 2J ]

opportunities for gaining this knowledge arc greater — because
of the influence and association of the clergy with the people —
than can be those of any other class. Will anyone say that
the Bishop of London does not know more of the wants, wishes,
and difficulties of the people of his diocese than almost any
other person in it? The same may be said in general of all
the bishops. Finally, as an evidence of their fitness, have they
not constantly fulfilled their duties as legislators in a manner
honourable to themselves, and high^ satisfactory to the nation
at large? Have they not often stood to the front, at the risk
of their own lives, when the liberties of the people have been
at stake ? I need not remind readers of our history of the
glorious stand made by the seven bishops, when everybody else
was afraid, hi opposition to that liberty-crushing tyrant James
II.

SPIRITUAL DUTIES.

One further objection we will notice — it is this. Say the
grumblers — -" Let the bishops attend to their spiritual duties,
leave politics alone, and they will have enough to do.'' No
doubt it is perfectly true that if everybody would attend more
to his spiritual duties, letting many things with which he dues
meddle aTone, the world would be no worse for it. There is an
old saying about reform that, " if each person would reform
one, no other reforms would be required." There is also an
extract from an Old Book, which used to be fashionable —
something about " taking the beam out of your own eye "-
which ought to be strongly recommended to these faultfinders
who can see so much wrong with the bishops, and who object
to leaven politics with religion.

But I contend, in reply to the above objection, that ,i
bishop is attending to his spiritual duties when he is legislating
at St. Stephen's just as much as when he is administering the
sacraments in a church, or visiting the deathbed of a parish-
ioner. To teach men to do justly, love honesty, and live
soberly, by making laws to enable them to do so, is, in every
sense, a spiritual work. To inculcate reverence for the Sabbath,
hatred of perjury, lying, and stealing, can be and are as effec-
tually taught through the laws which are made at Westminster
as in the pulpit of any church or chapel. So that the notion of
bishops not attending to their spiritual duties while in their
places in Parliament is simply a narrow and contracted view of
what spiritual work is, and how it is performed.

Depend upon it, those who object to see such men as the
bishops fof legislators, under the mistaken notion of religious
equality, would, perhaps unconsciously, soon" be the means of
opening the door to bad laws and vicious legislation, which
might take ages to eradicate. The very fact of such men as
the bishops sitting there and legislating for the people is some

[ 22 ]

guarantee at least that the measures they support will Lave
religion and justice for their basis ; and their^presence iu Par-
liament is a public acknowledgment that religion has not,
with the so-called march of progress, been entirely banished
from our government and laws.

OBJECTION— FEUDAL SYSTEM.

Before further enlarging upon tlie functions of the House
of Lords, we will briefly refer to one or two other objections.
We are told that the action and position of the aristocracy is
part of the " Feudal System " — that " it is degrading for ar.
enlightened nation like ours to be governed by a system which
was introduced from the Continent in tlie dark ages, by a
conqueror who imposed it upon his unwilling subjects ; " — Avith
much more to the same purport. It is a most remarkable fact,
and worth remembering, that you never hear this kind of
language in Parliament itself. The reason is obvious. There
the Feudal System is thoroughly well understood, and anyone
talking in that style would lose his character for sanity; he
would be at once put down as a candidate for a lunatic asylum.
No ! this kind of bombast is reserved for the edification and
amusement of semi-revolutionary, Home Rule, and other meet-
ings. In these places the Feudal System is not well under-
stood, so there is little danger of contradiction.

But every reader of history knows that the Feudal System
has been abolished in all its details for hundreds of years. By
that system a man was bound in the closest manner to his im-
mediate lord (i.e., landlord). If the lord rebelled, the tenant
was bound to rebel. If the lord were taken prisoner, the tenant
was bound to find money for his ransom. If the lord's son was
knighted, the tenant was bound to pay all the expenses. If the
lord's daughter got married, the tenant had to find her a dowry.
If the tenant died without children, the lord seized his goods.
If a tenant was under age, the lord compelled him (or her) to
marry whoever he (the lord) pleased, and against the tenant's
will. Very often when a lord disposed of his lands, he sold all
the labourers along with it. &c, &c, &c.

Would anyone outside Bedlam believe that we are living
under this system now? What would be the result, for
example, it Lord Derby did any of the things I have named?
Why — apartments in the nearest prison — and serve him right !
Living under the Feudal System forsooth! AVhy, every tenant
was bound to his lord to the full extent of his life and pro-
perty. Is anybody so bound now? And yet these sensational
people, who trade on the credulity of the working classes, wish
to j m ■ i made US that we are si ill living under that system, which
was more horrible than the slavery abolished by the late Presi-
dent Lincoip,

[ 2:; j

OBJECTIONS TO PEERS AS LANDOWNERS.

"The Peers," wu are also tokl, "are landowners, and have
different and opposite interests to the bulk of the people."

" There's a good deal of sin outside,'' said Uriah Heap ;
r* there's nothing but sin everywhere — except here (laying his
hand on his heart)." — David Copperfield.

As a party the Radicals have been for many years making
attacks upon the Constitution — upon the Church — upon the
House of Lords, and upon the Throne. They have accused the
House of Lords of being "obstructives," " incapables," "irre-
sponsible persons." Some Radicals call them " noodles."

The Liberal Conference at Leeds said : " The House of
Lords consisted of land and acres — instead of mind and brain."
They also hinted that their capabilities were " to brew large
quantities of beer."

Mr. John Burns, M.P., in a recent speech (February 11th,
1894), in his usual "gentlemanly" style, stated that the Peers
were no better than Pauper lunatics. We pay Mr. John
Burns £2,000 a year to sit with some of these " lunatics " in a
Radical Cabinet.

His distinguished Welsh colleague, Mr. Lloyd George,
M.P., also at £2,000 a year salary, the other day compared
the Peers — 20 of whom are his colleagues in the Ministry
— to " defacers of the coinage ! " to " coiners ! " to " dead-
heads ! " and other specimens of Radical " Billingsgate."
" Wreckers " has become quite a common term with the
Radical politicians and scribblers to nse against the Peers,
and — worst crime of all, " A house of landlords." Yet what
do we find is the fact? A late Radical Ministry, 1880-85,
contained more peers and relatives of peers than probably any
other Ministry of modern times. Of the members of the
Cabinet, ten were peers and three were relatives of peers. Of
the remaining forty-five members of the Ministry, twenty-four
were peers, and nine were related to members of the peerage.
So that out of the 58 members composing the Ministry, forty-six
were peers and peers' sons, while only twelve were mere
commoners.

In the Radical Government of 1894 there were twenty-two
peers, receiving £74,000 per year in salaries, while the Cabinet
contained seven peers — including a peer Premier. If, there-
fore the peers are "drones," who "toil not, neither do they
spin," why in the name of common sense and common honesty
do these Radical Governments employ them in the most im-
portant, delicate, and arduous offices of the State? Why do
they waste the public money in paying their official salaries
if these lords are incapables, noodles, and drones? Let them
answer these questions to their followers, whom they dis-
honestly mislead in these matters.

[ 24 ]

It is only to pander to the prejudices of their Socialist and
revolutionary supporters, that the members of the present
government join in the cry of " Down with the House of
Lords!" for in practice they create more peerages than any
other party in the Slate, and find more pay and places for
them. Then, there is the charge of being

LANDLORDS.
It was not till the advent of Radicalism that to be a land-
lord was synonymous with crime, to be punished with confisca-
tion. Look at the facts. Eight members of the late 1880-85
Liberal Cabinet owned 150,000 acres of land, at a gross rental of
£297,000 per annum, giving an average acreage of 19,000, and
an average rental of £37,000 to each. Again, twenty-two other
members of that Ministry owned 841,700 acres of land, at a
gross annual rental of £376,100, giving an average acreage of
38,200 acres, and of £17,000 rental to each person. Further,
twenty-nine members (mostly peers) of the 1894 Liberal
Government were of the landowning class, while twenty-two
of them owned 737,000 acres of land at an annual rental of
£408,000.

PEER-LANDLORDS IN RADICAL MINISTRIES.

Look for a moment at every Radical Ministry of modern
times.

Mr. Gladstone's Ministry of 188G contained 29 peers — six
of whom were in the Cabinet. They received in salaries from
the taxpayer £73,000 per annum. Fifteen of them were
"wicked" landlords, owning 573,000 acres of land (an average
of 38,000 acres each), at a gross rental of £351,000 per year
(£23,000 per year each). That is a fair sample of " wicked-
ness."

The next Radical Ministry under Mr. "W. E. Gladstone
(1892-4) was equally distinguished for the number of wicked
peer landlords it contained. There were in this Ministry 24
peers (six of whom were in the Cabinet). These 24 peers were
paid sain lies, out of the taxpayers' pockets, to the tune of
about £69,000 a year. Thirteen out of these twenty-four
" wicked " Radical Ministers owned land to the extent of
576,000 acres, for which they demanded from the tenants
£333,000 a year — or an average of £25,000 per year to each
of these Radical "lunatic" landlords.

Lord Rosebe-ry's Ministry was the next on the scene
(1894-5). These political saints only had twenty-two peers in
their company, a very moderate number — seven of. them were,
however, in the Cabinet — but they made up for their modera-
tion by the extra demands they made on the taxpayers. These
twenty-two modest Radical peers only demanded from Lord
Rosebery that the taxpayers should pay them the small sum

[ 25 ] •

of £74,000 a year in salaries — a mere bagatelle where a Radio j]
"economist" is concerned. Of course it was paid, and they
smiled — while the taxpayer grinned and Lore it as will as he
could.

Thirteen out of these twenty-two peer-Ministers owned
604,000 acres of land — an average of 40,000 acres each — and
demanded £315,000 per year rent — making an average for these
13 modest Radicals of £^4,200 each.

Some Radicals, like Mr. Keir Hardie, M.P., say, " Rent is
robbery" There must be an awful lot of "robbers" among
Radical Ministers — eh?

"Oh! but," say the latest converts to economy, "we have
reformed since the ' mandate ' of 1906." Have we r Let us see.
The present Ministry of all virtues contains twenty peers —
(" lunatics ") — who help to keep Mr. John Burns and Mr. Lloyd
George in order — a rather stiff job.

The taxpayers have to pay these twenty " noodles " £56,500
a year in salaries. Six of them are in the Cabinet. Twelve
out of these twenty "drones" — as. the Radical likes to call
them — own 307,000 acres of land — about 25,600 acres each.
They have the " cheek " to ask £367,000 a year in rent for this
land, making 'about £30,600 a year for each of these twelve
" drones " — sitting " cheek by jowl " in a Radical Ministry,
with such specimens of democratic purity as Mr. John Burns,
Mr. Lloyd George, and Mr. Winston Churchill.

A truly happy family! How they must smile at each other
to think how neatly they have deluded the Radical voter.

As an illustration, here is the "graceful" language of the
Right Hon. John Burns, M.P., Secretary of the Local Govern-
ment Board in the present Ministry : —

" The Gilded Chamber, or the Guilty Chamber if they preferred that name,
was no longer the stronghold of a high type of statesmanship, but was the
meeting-place of the representatives of property, reaction, wealth, landlordism,
and the company promoter, always seeking an opportunity to conspire against
the best interests of the people * * The House of Lords was the

Juggernaut acting in the interests of the railway companies, but the House of
Lords would soon learn that the English people of to-day were not the brutal,
ignorant, apathetic, enslaved, drunken helots they were a century ago.

" The country which had sent King- 'Charles to sleep without his
head would stand no veto from Queen Guelph (Victoria) or Lord
Salisbury."— Times, Feb. 12, 1894, p. 10.

Is it criminal to be a landlord ? Then the members of the
late and present Radical Ministriesare the greatest criminals', if
not, then they are the greatest hypocrites, for joining in these
communistic and revolutionary cries. They pander to the
vices and hatred of their discontented followers to get their
votes, while thej' themselves belong to the very class against
which they have encouraged these attacks. A\re know them
to be insincere! Would any honest man — or any honest
party — get votes, places, and power on the strength of a pre-
tended attack upon the House of Lords and the peerage, while

[ 20 ]

at the same time, when comfortably in office, ihey employ those
very peers to do the work of tlie state, because they cannot
find other men with sufficient brains and capacity to perform it?

LANDLORD AND TENANT.
Suppose for a moment that they are landowners. Does
not the land produce the food for the peer as well as the
■peasant? Is it not ecpially the interest of the labourer,
farmer, and landlord to get as much produce from the soil as
possible? Does the fact of a man possessing £5,000 worth of
land make him any worse, or better, than he would be by
possessing £5,000 worth of mills or workshops? Do the
interests of tenants in the towns, where peers are rarely, if
ever, the immediate landlords of the occupiers, get better cared
for by the landlord than those of tenant farmers ? Are not
the working men, in mills and workshops, as hard pressed
for money and luxuries as those who work in the field? Let
the deputation of unemployed who waited on Sir Henry
Campbell-Bannerman the other day give an answer. We
may venture to say that where one occupying tenant in
a town gets any of his rent returned, or receives any aid
from his landlord, at least twenty such tenants will receive
such help in the country. In short, take matters all round,
there is as much consideration, at least, from a peer to his
tenants as from a commoner to his ; and there is more genuine
good feeling, mutual help, and consideration between these two
classes of country landlords and their occupying tenants
than there is between any two classes of landlord and
tenant in the country. This kind of complaint is only got up
to throw dust in the eyes of voters at election times, and enable
the agitators to live at the public expense.

RESPONSIBILITY OF PEERS.
That the Peers " are an ' irresponsible ' body " everyone
who will give a moment's consideration to the subject will see
to be untrue. It is a fact that they are not responsible to a
caucus of 300, like some members of the House of Commons.
They are not called over the coals by " our committee" for
using their own judgment, as is too often the case there; but
they arc a ns we ruble to general public opinion, and always
give ivay to llial opinion, when clearly expressed. Further,
who lias greater interest in the peace, prosperity, and general
welfare of the country than the Peers? Are there any men
wlio will suffer more from social disturbances than they? Is
there a class with more at stake than they? Are not the
honour and stability of the country of the utmost importance
to them ? II' so, have I hey not therefore the greatest possible
responsibility resting upon them? How, then, can they be
irresponsible?

[ 27 J

OBJECTION.— PEERS CLOG THE WHEELS OF STATE-
OPPOSE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, &c.

" Tliey are a clog' on the wheels of the State," say others;
" they oppose the will of the people as expressed by the Souse
of Commons"; "a minority and oppose the wishes of 'In-
majority/' &e. All these different statements mean about the
same thing', and one general answer will meet them.

The Peers are by no means a elog on the State machine.
Their action is as great a benefit to the business of law-making
as that of the Commons. We must not forget that The Lords
Spiritual and Temporal on the one hand and the Commons on
the other are perfectly independent the one of the other.
Each has a veto on the acts of the other, and when they
exercise that veto they are simply acting upon and within the
lines of the Constitution. No one with justice can say that
any wrong is being done. Frequently this is lost sight of,
and we often impute blame for the failure of some particular
pet scheme or other where no blame is really deserved.

INDEPENDENCE OF THE TWO HOUSES.— MEASURES.

When the House of Commons rejects the Bills or amend-
ments of the House of Lords it is acting within its rights,
and no one would be justified in blaming them for so doing.
On the other hand, the Lords have the same right to reject the
proposals of the Commons; while the King, by virtue of his
office, has the right, should he choose to exercise it, to refuse
his assent to the proposals of both Houses. It is true this
right is very seldom exercised (only about once in two hundred
years) — the last time the veto was exercised was in 17 U7.
Before they are presented for the Royal signature measures arc
supposed to have been well threshed into shape in the course of
the debates of the two Houses, which have power to alter and
amend as they think fit. The Monarch, therefore, has no such
choice. He cannot even make the slightest alteration in a Bill
■ — not so much as change a single word. He must accept or
reject it entirely, and he very seldom (in fart, never, now-a-
days) takes so serious a step as to veto a measure presented In
him as approved by the considered judgment of both Houses.

EFFECTS OF INDEPENDENCE.
The independence of the different Houses produces these
beneficial results. Every measure gets an independent con-
sideration on its merits by two different classes of men.
Neither House can interfere with the debates of the other.
Neither House has the right to allude to— either to praise or
blame— the proceedings of the other. No recriminations are
allowed, which is no doubt the cause of the smooth working
of our parliamentary machinery. Each Bouse is sovereign

[ 28 ]

within its own walls, regulates its own proceedings, rules its
own servants, and causes its own orders to be carried out. A
measure affecting the procedure of one chamber is never sent
to the other for approval. In short, each House is entirely
independent of any other power in the realm, for the inter-
ference of the Monarch would be resented as an affront just as
much as that of any outsider.

RIGHTS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

I wish to lay stress upon these facts, for a special reason,
viz., when you hear people going about blaming the House of
Lords for exercising their constitutional rights; urging the
House of Commons to invade those rights, by forcing the
Lords to comply with measures which may from time to time
be proposed; we may conclude that these men are dangerous
characters, whether they be lecturers, town councillors, parlia-
mentary candidates, or Ministers. They are simply advising
revolution, and urging their hearers to do that which, if
attempted, might produce civil war.

The proof of the excellency of our constitution is that it
is jjractical and workable, and its utility is a result of its
independence.

OBJECTION.— MINORITY.

As to the charge against the House of Lords of " being a
minority and an opponent of the will of the people," this
involves the question of representation and parliamentary
government.

" The House of Lords has played a great historical part in the past — it is in
the true sense — though not in the sense of the House of Commons — a great
representative Assembly, representing many of the important elements of
prosperity and stability in the country, and constantly recruiting from the
ranks of the people new elements of the same kind." — Lord SELBOENE, at
Lord Mayor's Banquet, August 9th, 1882.

CHARACTER OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Every one who has carefully studied our constitution Las
come to this conclusion with De Lolme (p. 168), that parlia-
mentary representatives not only represent the particular
county or town which sends them, but they also represent the
whole body of the nation; it therefore follows that though a
gentleman may be scut to Parliament by the votes of a section
of the community, immediately he takes his seat in the
Imperial Parliament he becomes a representative of the whole
nation. (He is not a delegate, and this is a mistake' made by
many.)

In I his [mperial and national sense, which is also the legal
one, the whole of the members of both Houses those who sit
by the votes of the burgesses, and those who sit by right of
their baronies are parliamentary representatives of, and law-
makers for, the whole people.

[ 20 ]

But to descend to a lower and more contracted view of the
question, viz., the question of interests.

It is the genius of our present Constitution that interests,
rather than numbers, shall be represented in Parliament.

REPRESENTATION OF INTERESTS.

The land, trade, education, each have their separate repre-
sentation. The two Houses are equally the representatives of
these various branches. Each Peer has been elevated to his
rank by having a title to a barony conferred upon him, where
each of these different interests more or less is concerned.

The manner of becoming* possessed of the character of
representative is different in the Commons from what it is in
the Lords, but the duties of the office are the same.

REPRESENTATION AS DELEGATES.

But even to look at this point in the delegate sense — •
which, though incorrect, is the view taken by some — it is said
that " the. House of Commons is the voice and will of the
people "; and " vox populi," you know, is " vox Dei," but often
only so when it chimes in with some pet preconceived notion.

In 190G there were 7,266,708 voters on the register in the
three kingdoms, and at the last general election there were
polled 3,082,908 Liberal (including Labour, Nationalist and
Parnellite) votes, and 2,308,391 Conservative and Unionist
votes. This represents about 75 per cent, of the total register.
The Labour vote ought not here to be counted to the Liberal .,
but we give it to them in order to be more than fair.

VOTES AND VOTERS.

At the last General Election 2,463,606 votes were cast for
Unionist candidates and 3,168,595 for Radicals, Labour men,
Nationalists, &c, making a total of 5,632,201 actual voters.*
The total population of the United Kingdom is at present about
43,659,121, so that, so far as actual voters are concerned, the
present members of the House of Commons only represent
about one-eighth of the people, though they are entrusted with
the interests of, and make laws for, the whole.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER OP HOUSE OF LORDS.
"We can easily see, therefore, that there is an immense
mass of the population unrepresented. If we include the Con-
servative and Unionist members and voters, though for the
present their voice is nullified by the Radical majority", we get
a House of Commons returned by 5,632,201 actual voters, which
in the purely delegate sense, leaves a balance of 38,026,980 of
the population unrepresented. We are forced to the conclu-
sion, therefore, that political po-wer, both with the voter and
the representative, is a public trust, confided to them to use

* In 111 constituencies, with 923,100 electors, there was no contest.

[ 30 ]

for the public welfare; and to say that the House of Commons
only represents the whole of the people is simply an
assumption which the facts do not hear out.

We have, therefore, as good grounds for supposing that
the House of Lords represents this large mass of non-voters
as that the House of Commons does so; nay, there is reason to
suppose that the House of Lords represents it even better — for
we find that the majority of the non-voting population live in
England, which in all recent conflicts between the two Houses
has returned a majority in support of the action of the House
of Lords. We conclude, therefore, that on the delegate
principle, these G70 M.P.'s simply represent the voters who
have sent them — but on the representative principle — which is
the true one — the House of Lords along with the House of
Commons jointly represents the people of Great Britain and
Ireland.

GROWTH OF HOUSE OF COMMONS.

As we have already hinted, the House of Lords in early
times was entirely predominant, and was the only parliamen-
tary institution which the country possessed. Gradually, how-
ever, after the Commons began to sit in a separate chamber,
about the year 1332, their power grew; they began to have a
controlling as well as an assenting voice in raising the taxes,
and by carefully and wisely guarding this power of control —
making the grant of money conditional on the redress of
grievances, or extension of liberty — they have at length
acquired a position the equal of, and in one or two matters
superior to, that of the House of Lords. When, therefore, we
plead for the rights and privileges of the House of Lords, we
are not forgetful of those of the House of Commons. We must
not unduly exalt the one at the expense of the other; there is
no necessity whatever for that. Each house has its uses,, its
duties, its rights; each is governed by its own laws and obeys
its own rules ; each is necessary for the welfare of the country,
and neither could fulfil its proper functions without the other.
So that to lose either of them would be a calamity to the
interests and liberties of the people, which it would be utterly
impossible to repair.

CHARACTER OF HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The character of the two Houses is entirely different,
resulting from their different mode of being chosen. The
House of Commons is recruited from different classes of men
throughout the country — local manufacturers, merchants,
tradesmen, ju-ofessional gentlemen, including lawyers and a
few landowners— men who, as a rule, have passed the greater
portion of their lives in their respective avocations in amassing
money, who have only turned their serious attention to politics

[ yj j

wheu business would permit, or when their fortunes were
made. Comparatively few in the Hou.se of Commons have been
trained to politieal life from their earlier years, unless it be
the sons of peers, who have been born and fostered in a political
"atmosphere," and have always had leisure to study the
problems of statesmanship.

CHARACTER OF HOUSE OF LORDS.
Now take the House of Lords. That House is composed
of men who, in many eases, are born of families either renowned
in war, science, law or politics. There is a certain prestige to
keep up, and the son is educated in the highest manner to the
business (if I may use such a term) of statesmanship— know-
ing that in after life he will have to perform those functions — ■
in the same manner as a person is brought up to a profession
or trade. Besides this, large additions are made from time
to time from the best men in the House of Commons, men
who have been tried and proved themselves capable statesmen.
Others again are sent there because they have distinguished
themselvds as administrators, warriors, ambassadors, or have,
by application, arrived at the top of their respective profes-
sions in literature, science, art, or industry. All these, with
a sprinkling of the most learned men in the country in the
persons of the bishops — men who have been chosen, not at
random, but from amongst the best of the 25,000 clergymen
who minister to the wants of the people through the Church
of England — form an assembly which, chosen in this maimer
from men like these, must be of the very highest possible
character.

" The strength of the House of Lords lay in illustrious members — in ancient
traditions and in persons who represented the Country — some by all that wealth
could furnish— some by all that descent could give, and some by all that genius
could impart. He hoped it would not be indecorous for a political opponent to
say that the noble marquis (Salisbury) combined all the three — (loud cheers)." —
LORD Rosebery in House of Lords, March 19th, 1888.

" Again, it was the Lords who wrung Magna Charta — the Great Charter of
the Land — from a powerful king. Is that an offence ? It was the Lords — the
Spiritual Lords — who went to the Tower in calm defiance of James II. Is that
a sin never to be forgotten or forgiven ? It was the Lords who during the great
war raised and equipped at their own cost whole regiments of volunteers. Is
that an unpardonable crime .' It was the Lords who with heart and hand helped
the Church of the nation to place a school in every parish, and who did so when
the Nonconformist Conscience was in arms against national education, raging
against it from pulpit, Press, and platform, denying point blank on principle —
always on ' principle '—the right of the State to meddle with education at all.
Is that the scandal which made the delegates at Leeds so savage ? It was the
Lords who championed with eloquence and enthusiasm the Ten Hours Bill, and
it was the Liberals in and out of Parliament who insulted Lord Ashley, after-
wards Earl of Shaftesbury, and who, by their strenuous antagonism, so delayed
the Bill that the too sensitive Peer, its author, grew grey and fretful under the
prolonged delay. Perhaps it w^as the Ten Hours Bill which was the enormity
that made the delegates at Leeds so terribly ferocious. Then these wicked Lords
have got it into their stubborn heads that Ministers have no genuine majority
for the Repeal of the Union, and are, moreover, no free agents, but are despicably
dependent from day to day upon the votes of men whom they themselves have
branded as traitors and cast into gaol.'' — England, June 30th. 1891.

POWER OF HOUSE OF COMMONS —MONEY BILLS.

The House of Commons, therefore, is the younger of the
two chambers; its power is of modern growth; while the Lords
have acquiesced in its growth, and have often supported the
Commons in their struggles for parliamentary liberty. It has
wisely, generously, and voluntarily given up some privileges
to make the position of the Commons stronger. To mention
one instance — the money bills and regulations for levying of
taxes. Though originally the right to initiate taxation be-
longed to the House of Lords, with an assenting voice in the
Commons, this assent was constantly made contingent upon
some privilege being granted to them ; so that eventually
assent grew into veto, until now the right of initiation has
become vested in the Commons entirely. When, therefore,
money bills (imposing taxes) are passed by the House of
Commons the Lords never make airy amendment. If they do
not approve, their only course is to reject the Bills altogether,
as none of their amendments will be considered by the
Commons. Thus you see that though the taxation proposed
may very seriously affect the Lords individually — and every tax
does affect them more than any other class — they have, for the
sake of the peace, stability, and good government of the
country, given up their right of financial amendment to the
Commons.

LORDS HAVE OPPOSED THE COMMONS.

The complaint that the House of Lords has often opposed
the wishes of the House of Commons is somewhat childish.
Of what earthly use would a second chamber be if it had not
the power to record its own decisions and act upon them?
Where would be its utility if it was bound simply to always
agree with the House of Commons? Who would like to sit in
a second chamber to be ]ike one of the dummies in Madame
Tussaud's, only to move when its machinery was allowed to
work? A chamber of that character, instead of inspiring
respect, would be the laughing-stock of the world, and be
justly despised. We have heard of children crying for the
moon, making everybody near them miserable because they
could not have it; but have we hot political children, con-
stantly crying for the extinction of the House of Lords, who
are quite as foolish and far more dangerous?

THROWING OUT BILLS.— PUBLIC OPINION.

If the House of Lords sometimes throws out, or makes
amendments in, Bills stmt up from the Commons, do they not
^•ot paid back with interest when their proposals are treated
in the same way by the Commons? Have not the Commons
been as great offenders in this matter as the Lords? Yet who

I 33 ]

ever lieard anybody propose the abolition of the House of
Commons as a punishment ?

Almost every year, whenever some pel scheme of some

rt Anti-everything Society" is thrown out, the wire-pullers

and the indignation-meeting promoters at once begin a crusade

against the iniquitous House of Lords. All the foolish and

filthy stories of our ancestors; all the silly twaddle of some

ancient, obsolete, and obscure aristocrat ; all the anomalies

of the pension list; with every hind of damaging report,

invented by some equally silly " Own Correspondent," are

dragged up, and made to do duty as arguments in favour of

shutting up the House of Lords. So long as people can be

found to listen to and read such rubbish, and take it as their

political pabulum, so long will these unseemly and childish

outcries continue. No doubt the House of Lords has thrown

out bills which have passed the Commons, and it would not

be worthy the name of a " House of Parliament " if it had

not done so. But, as the late Lord Derby said, speaking of

that House :

" It has never been the course of this House to resist a continued
and deliberately expressed public opinion. Your lordships have
always bowed, and always will bow, to the expression of such an
opinion." :;

And I may here say that it is the duty and privilege of
Parliament (both Houses) to bow before, and give effect to,
the deliberate expression of opinion of the people of this king-
dom. The man would be worse than a fanatic who would
counsel any other course.

"Public opinion (as is well said by Sir E. Creasy, p. 390) is in truth now
the great lever of political action in England, but with many valuable checks
and regulations. We are free, not only from Royal, but from democratic
absolutism. The will of the majority is justly powerful, but it must develop
its power in accordance with law. and in obedience to law, even when it is
proceeding to work a change in the law. Our liberty is Institutional Liberty,
and not the license of an impassioned multitude that brooks no restraint of form
or precedent ; that strikes, but hears not ; that cannot or will not reason
beforehand, though it often repents when too late.

We have said the House of Commons has thrown out bills
quite as freely, and has refused its sanction to measures as
often, as the House of Lords has.

If this be a crime (all sensible men know it is not), then
the two Houses are equally guilty. If abolition is to be the
penalty for being independent and using its best judgment,
the sooner we return to pure despotism and the " divine right
of kings " the better.

6 Cf. The speech of Lord Lansdowne in the House of Lords on the Trades Dispute? Bill
(Dec. 4, 1906). He believed it "to be the duty of their Lordships' House to arrest the pro-
gress of . . . measures whenever they believed that they had been insufficiently con-
sidered and that they were not in accord with the deliberate judgment of the country. He
claimed, not for that House, but for the constituencies, the right of passing a final decision
upon such questions." In the case of the Trades Disputes Bill he expri ssed an opinion that
the country had declared its will at ihe General Election and, therefore, while disapproving
of the terms of the Bill himself, he urged the Lords to pass it, which they did, I See Timet
Dee. 5. 1906.)

[ 34 ]

The constant cry of the House of Commons being immacu-
late, whiie the House of Lords is corrupt, can only be made by
people who have never read or have forgotten the history of
their own country.

It is common for the opponents of the Upper House to ran-
sack the parliamentary reports for instances where that House
has opposed some particular measure, and to parade that as a
crime.

REJECTING BILLS.

Amongst the many thousands of proposals and enactments
which have been discussed in Parliament during the last two
hundred years, a list of some half-dozen which have failed to
pass is paraded before us, in order to show the iniquity of the
Lords; i.e., because they did not swallow them at once, with
their eyes shut, merely because they had struggled through the
Commons.

This sort of argument is very unfair. It is also dangerous
to the cause of those who introduce it. It is a sword which cuts
both ways. For we find the House of Commons has been more
guilty than the Lords in this respect. In 1702, again in 1703,
and once more in 1704, the Commons passed that disgraceful
Act for the oppression of dissenters, called the " Occasional
Conformity Bill " ; but when it came to the Lords it was
ignominiously thrown out. All the bishops opposed it. This
Act was to fine and disqualify any dissenter who had once
conformed and taken the sacrament in the church, if he was
ever afterwards, during his term of office, found attending
chapel. Another attempt was made in 1711, which succeeded ;
but the Act was found so oppressive that it had to be repealed
seven years afterwards. (See further, as to this, p. 106.)

CHURCH RATES.

To the opponents of Church Rates I may state that the
House of Commons was the place where they were first made
compulsory by Act of Parliament, in 1647. (The House of Lords
was then abolished.) Anyone refusing to pay, or who was
unable to do so, was imprisoned, and kept there till the money
was found.

Abolition of church rates was first proposed in the House of

Lords in 1837, but, the House of Commons being hostile, the

Government dropped the bill. It was strongly opposed by

Mr. W. E. Gladstone. The voting in the House of Commons

was : —

For the Bill (abolition) r'8

Against the Bill 489

Majority ... ... 431

(June L2. 1837.)

[ 35 ]

Another attempt at abolition was made in the House of
Commons (March 14, 1849), but again was rejected in that
House. Voting was: —

For the Bill (rejection) 84

Against the Bill 119

Majority ... ... 35

Still another attempt in 1854 shared the same fate in
the House of Commons. Voting was : —

For the Bill (2nd reading) 182

Against the Bill 20'J

Majority 27

In 1858, the Bill passed House of Commons but was
rejected by House of Lords. Mr. W. E. Gladstone still voted
against it; he was then of the same opinion as the House of
Lords.

Another attempt was made in the House of Commons in
1861. Voting was : —

For the Bill 274

Against the Bill 274

Majority 0

The Speaker gave his casting vote against the Bill — so it
never reached the House of Lords.

Two further attempts were made in House of Commons
for the abolition of church rates in 1862 and 1863, but were
as usual unsuccessful.

Mr. W. E. Gladstone continued to oppose all the time. He
had not yet been converted — but his conversion was " on the
way."

The Bill passed both Houses in 1868, under the Premier-
ship of Mr. Disraeli. Mr. Gladstone had then become con-
verted.

The House of Commons has rejected bills for the abolition
of Church Rates at least eight times for the House of Lords
once.

HOUSE OF COMMONS— REJECTING BILLS.
This " sin " of rejecting bills has been much more freely
and frequently committed by the House of Commons than by
the House of Lords, though the Radicals wish to make the
voters believe to the contrary. For instance, here are a few
samples : —

TAKE THE CORN LAWS.
From the year 1823 to 1845 the various proposals with
this object, viz., abolishing or modifying the duties on Corn
were rejected by the House of Commons twenty-four
times.

[ 36 ]

The following- are the details: —

Moved by Mr. Whitmore, and rejected 6 times

Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.

Mr. Hume,

Mr. Villiers, ,

Mr. Cobden,

Lord J. Russell,

Mr. Fryer,

Mr. Clay

8
2
9

1
1

Totul rejections ...

... 24

The " Corn Law " was eventually carried in the year 1846,
by Sir Eobert Peel, the Conservative Prime Minister, by 327
to 229, majority for the Bill, 98.

It was also passed in the House of Lords the same j^ear by
211 to 164 — majority for Bill, 47, second reading. The third
reading was passed without division.

Seventeen times during the reign of Queen Victoria the
House of Commons rejected these Proposals.

The tactics of delay in the House of Commons are well
described by Walpole in contrasting the methods of that House
with those of the House of Lords, when he says : —

" Tactics of delay, frequent as they are in the Commons, have never been
tolerated in the Lords." — History of England, vol. 4, c. 19, p. 283.

AGAIN, TAKE THE QUESTION OF REFORM.

Between 1822 and 1830 the House cf Commons rejected 5 Reform Bills.
„ 1852 „ 1866 „ „ 12

Total rejections ... 17

A REFORM BILL REJECTED EVERY FIFTEEN MONTHS.

Yet the Radicals try to get up a cry against the House of
Lords because that chamber rejected the Eeform Bill of 1832 —
once only — what bigotry !

NEXT WE HAVE THE COUNTY FRANCHISE.

Between 1839 and 1878 the House of Commons rejected
proposals on this subject eight times. — And what about the

BALLOT ?

If there is one fault above another which has been thrown
at the head of the House of Lords, it is that the Ballot Bill
was rejected by that assembly in 1871 — although Mr. Gladstone
had himself opposed it all his life previously, but in 1871 he
had then just become converted to the idea. The House of
Commons has made a " record " in the mailer of throwing out
Ballot Bills.

Between (lie years 1830 and 18(>7, the House of CoraniqD.s
rejected no less than twenty-one Ballot Bills.

[ 37 ]

In addition to all this opposition by the House of Com-
mons, in 1872 that House insisted that before an illiterate
voter could be allowed to vote^ he was to make a declaration
of illiteracy before a magistrate and bring the certificate to
the polling booth. This would have disfranchised many
thousands of voters all over the county. The House of Lords
threw out that proposal, and established the present system by
a majority of 32. Another evidence of giving personal liberty,,

Note. — As there are at present over 34,000 illiterate
voters in Great Britain and Ireland who voted at the last
general election (1900), probably 30,000 of these would have
lost their votes if they had been compelled to go before a
magistrate for a cert i Heat e as the Radical House of Commons
wished them to do.

Besides this, the House of Commons has rejected Bills for
admitting Dissenters to the Universities three times. The
last time was when the Bill was moved in the House of Com-
mons in 180D, by Mr. Goschen, when the voting was as
follows : —

Voted for the Bill 190

Voted against the Bill 206

Kajority against ... ... 16

The House of Commons has also rejected the Factory
Acts not less than six times, with a great many other useful
measures, too numerous to particularise.

In 1863 it was proposed by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer (Mr. Gladstone) to tax hospitals and (/unities. If such
a proposal had been made by the Peers, we should have heard
of it at every general election for the next hundred years.

During the years 1801-29 the House of Commons rejected

bills for "Roman Catholic Relief " no less than Four-
teen times.

Hundreds of similar instances might be given, to relate
which would be simply to write a History of England. AVe
may safely conclude on this point that the House of Commons
in modern times has rejected at least ten times as many bills
as the House of Lords has; and also that the Commons have
proposed far more abortive and oppressive legislation than ever
was done by the Lords. We have here a very strong illustra-
tion of the saying that — " one man may steal a horse, while
another majT not look over a wall.''

RECRIMINATION USELESS.

But what is the nse of recrimination of this kind ? It
cannot possibly serve any good purpose, as each House has
been equally active and almost equally culpable in rejecting

406044

[ 38 ]

the proposals of the other, when the proposed measures were
thought to be injurious to the interests of the people, for whom
they are appointed to legislate.

GROWTH OP THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

' We have seen how the House of Lords has grown in the
past; how its actions and powers have kept pace with the
times; though its relative position to the House of Commons
has not been entirely maintained, the reason for which has
been already considered.

The number of members in the Upper House is now much
larger than at any previous period of its history, and very
rightly so.

The growing prosperity, population, learning, and interests
of the country require its legislative chambers to keep pace
with them.

The creations of Peers are not only much more numerous
now, because of the larger number of eminent men to choose
from, but the creations are much more regular and uniform.
The creation of Peers in the past was often regulated by politi-
cal expediency, some Premiers requiring support to enable them
to carry special measures, and other reasons. Now public
opinion is (and very properly) against such a straining and
unfair use of political power ; and though we may occasionally
have an instance of the honour being conferred from purely
personal motives, the general motive seems to be for dis-
tinguished public service, high scientific or legal attainments,
or some exceptional quality in the recipient of the honour
which the country does well to recognise.

This honour, like every other political position in the
present day, is far more free, far more pure, and better
deserved than ever ft was at any previous period ; and we, as
a nation, can rejoice that, on the whole, our public men on
both sides are practically pure in their political lives.

ANCIENT PEERAGE.

The number of Peers in the Parliament of 1454 was only
51 ; in the first Parliament of Henry VIII. there were 29 ; the
greatest number under that monarch was 51. The first Par-
liament of James I. had 82, while the last had 96. In 1628,
under Charles I., there were 117, and 1640, 119 ; while in the
first Parliament of Charles II. there were 139. (Hallam, 632).
In the first of George III. there were 224, while at the beginning
of the present reign there were 439. (Acland & Eansome).
Similar increases havo taken place in the House of Com-
mons, and it was only in 1801 that it reached 658 members.

[ 39 ]

After the Reform Bill of 1884, the House of Commons consisted
of 670 members, at which number it stands at present.

Previous to the Reformation there were very often more
spiritual votes than temporal ones. The contrast, therefore,
between those times and our own is very striking. Now we
have a House of Lords three or four times as numerous as ever
we had before. If " in the multitude of counsellors there is
wisdom," our nation ought to be tile best governed in the
world. We have a large House of Commons, an almost equally
numerous House of Lords, with a Royal Family at the head
which, we may safely say, will compare favourably with any
reigning house which has ever been known to history, both for
purity of character, intellectual attainments, and desire to
promote the happiness of the people over whom they reign.

PAST ACTION OF PEERS.

The actions of the House of Lords in the past will also
bear comparison with those of any similar assembly in this or
any other age.

We have seen how they procured for us the Great Charter
at the risk of life and property ; at the risk of excommunication
and loss of spiritual help — loss of the means of grace, baptism,
burial, and the common religious services which every Christian
has a right to, as a citizen of a Christian country.

To procure this great blessing for us at such a cost was
noble, but it required equally great efforts to preserve it. The
fortress was built/ but it required to be watched, guarded,
strengthened. This is what devolved upon our nobles to do,
and they did it wisely and well.

Each succeeding king had to be taught that the liberties
of the nation were to be his first care, and when he chanced to
forget this, as many of them did, they were each respectively
made to sign a confirmation, and sometimes an enlargement,
of those rights which had cost so much to procure. In this
way confirmations were signed by the following monarchs :
Henry III. (1216-1272), Edward I. (1272-1307), Edward II.
(1307.-1327), Edward III. (1327-1377), and Richard II. (1377-
1399} — i.e., during a period of two hundred years from the
passing of the Great Charter until our liberties were completely
established and secured.

Note. — So important was the Great Charter considered to
be by the people of England, that between the years 1215 and
1415 it was confirmed no less than thirty-seven times; and a
further fact may be noted, that at the restoration of Charles II.,
he was asked by the House of Commons to confirm it on the
verv day he entered London.

[ i<> ]

GREAT ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.

As we descend the stream of our history, the Peers have been
equally active and solicitous for the growth of liberty, and for
curbing the prerogatives of the Crown. We have the " Petition
of Eight," obtained under Charles I. ; the " Habeas Corpus
Act " (1679), under Charles II. ; the " Bill of Rights," and "Act
of Settlement," under William III. ; in the passing of all of
which the Peers took a leading part.

The "Petition Of Right" is a confirmation and enlarge-
ment of some of the provisions of Magna Charta. It provides,
in the amplest manner, for the liberty of the subject, freedom
from kingly and other oppression, and the free use of a man's
own property without outside interference from any one.
During the discussion of the " Petition of Right " the
House of Lords, in its care for the liberty of the^ subject, im-
prisoned the Crown-Sergeant Ashley, because he insisted on the
right of the king to imprison a man wrho refused him a loan.

The " Habeas Corpus Act " is another enactment for
protecting the people from arbitrary imprisonment, as its name
implies.

The magistrate is bound at once on the issue of a writ of
habeas corpus, to produce the body of an imprisoned person
to the Court to determine whether his imprisonment is just.
No rotting in prison waiting for trial, as is so often the case
in some continental and other States.

The " Bill of Rights " is a further enlargement of the
"Petition of Right," and provides, amongst other things, that
the Crown cannot of itself levy taxes nor keep a standing army
without consent of Parliament. Members of Parliament are to
be free to utter their thoughts on any or every subject without
interference from king or ministers. Parliament is to be called
together every year, so that no more than one year's taxes can
be levied at once. Elections are to be quite free. Trial by
jury is to be inviolate, and the right of petition to the Crown
not to be interfered with.

The "Act of Settlement" defines and settles which
is to be the reigning family in this country, who and what
kind of persons they are to be, what they are to do with the
prerogatives and other powers which they have to exercise.
This, you will sec, settles all disputes as to the succession;
also what the king can legally do, and what he cannot do.
We thus avoid the miseries and horrors of civil war, as well
os the constant disputes us to who shall occupy the throne,
which have been the ruin of so many other countries.

The author before quoted (Sir E. Creasy, page 4) says of
these Ads that " they deserve to be -oiled, not its ordinary laws,

C « ]

but as great constitutional compacts, which deserve to be
classed with the Great Charter itself; " and Lord Chatham calls
these Acts "the Bible of the English Constitution."

Besides the statutes above named, which to a large extent
owe their existence to the Peers, they, along with the Com-
mons, have passed all the great Acts which are the glory of our
Statute Book and the boast of the people. It has been too
much the fashion to give all the credit to the House of
Commons for the legislation of recent times; wo are so accus-
tomed to see and hear our local members, and so seldom see a
member of the Upper House, that wc imperceptibly come to
regard them as the chief and only legislators. AVe ought to
remember that, whatever credit is due to Parliament for the
passing of laws, it is equally due to both Houses; — -to give all
to one and ignore The other is not only ungenerous but unfair —
causing the judgments of the unreflecting portion of the com-
munity to be unjust.

Mr. W. E. Gladstone's opinion on this subject ought to carry
some weight with impetuous Radicals. He said: —

" I must as a candid man, looking at this question for a practical purpose
consider this — that notwithstanding all this action of the House of Lords of which
we are inclined to complain, we have had a period of fifty years such as has never
been known in the entire history of the country — I may almost say in the entire
history of the modern world — in which the House of Lords has introduced a vast
amount of practical legislation upon the statute book of this land — and from
which we are from day to day reaping the benefit." — Hansard, 3rd Ser., vol. 84,
p. 554.

Lord Selborne (August 9th, 1882), speaking of the House of
Lords, said : —

" It has played a great historical part in the past. It is in the true sense,
though not in the sense of the House of Commons, a great representative
assembly — representing many of the most important elements of prosperity and
stability in the country, and constantly recruiting from the ranks of the people
new elements of the same kind."

Note. — -All the grand legislation alluded to above has

passed the House of Lords as well as the House of

Commons.

Space will not allow me to give details of the separate

action of the Peers, in the part which they took to procure these

great statutes, which have been so beneficial to this nation.

Everyone will, however, recollect the names of Monmouth and

Argyle, who first took up arms against the tyrant .lames II.

The invitation to William III. to come over and occupy the

British throne was originated by the aristocracy — because no

one else had sufficient courage to do so — and was signed by

Lords Danby, Devonshire, Shrewsbury, and Lumley ; also by

the Bishop of London, Admiral Russell, and Henry Sidney.

William and Mary were first acknowledged as King and
Queen by the House of Lords, which consisted at that time of
1G6 Peers and 20 Bishops.

[ 42 ]

MODERN ACTS.

In enumerating a few Acts of modern times, of which all
Englishmen are proud, let us give the full credit of this legis-
lation where it is due — to both Houses — not exalting the Lords
at the expense of the Commons, nor vice versa.

The Act for the "Freedom of the Press," passed under
Charles II., was due to the Earl of Shaftesbury ; that further
instalment of liberty, the " Treasons Bill" also owes its exist-
ence to the same Peer. This Act gives prisoners accused of
treason the benefit of counsel and witnesses, with the power of
challenging juries.

" There have been periods of history in which it has been
charitably believed by some in this country that the military
party were the popular party, and struggling for the liberties
of the people. There is not the smallest ray or shred of evi-
dence to support that contention. Military violence and
a regime established by military violence are also contradictory
with the growth of freedom. The reign of Cromwell was a

great reign, but it did nothing for English freedom

because it was the rule of a military force, and it has not left
on the statute book the record of such triumphs as were
achieved by peaceful action during the, in many respects, base
and infamous reign which followed — the reign of Charles II."
— W. E. Gladstone, House of Commons, July 24th, 1882.

THE REPEAL OF THE TEST ACT.

This detestable Act was imposed in 1673. In 1787 its repeal
was proposed by Beaufoy, supported by Pitt, but the motion
was lost. Other motions in 1789 shared the same fate, and it
was not till the Duke of Wellington became Premier in 1828
that the Bill introduced by Lord John Russell was carried in
both Houses — supported by Government, two Archbishops, and
nearly all the Bishops. — Cassell's History of England, vol. 7,
p. 109.

Division in House of Commons was 237-193 — majority 44.

Division in House of Lords was ... 154- 52 — majority 102.
It was not opposed in the latter House on the Second Reading.
"The measure (Repeal Bill) was received with gratitude by
the Dissenters, and the grace of the concession was enhanced
by the liberality of the bishops and the candour and moderation
of the leading statesmen who had originally opposed it." — Sir
Erskine May, Constitutional History, vol. 2, p. 391.

Lord Godcrich, ex-Liberal Premier, speaking in the
House of Lords on this Hill ami on the attitude of the bishops,
said : —

•'The sentiments which your lordships have hoard from several right rever-
end prelates do no less honour to themselves than to the assembly to which they
were addressed, and the church to which they belong." — Hansard, vol. 18, 1505.

C 43 ]

CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.

It was the Liberals in 1700 who passed one of the most
severe Acts against the Roman Catholics ever known. Here
are some of the provisions of the Act : —

1st — Every Roman Catholic priest exercising his func-
tions—to be imprisoned for life.

2nd — £100 reward to any person giving information of
same.

3rd — Every Roman Catholic youth to take oaths of alle-
giance and supremacy, declare against transubstan-
tiation, &c, on penalty of forfeiting right to hold
land or other property.

4th — No Catholic children to he sent abroad for their
education. &c, &c, &c.

In 1778, under Lord North's Government (Conservative),
most of the penal portions of the Act of 1700 were repealed.
A further measure of relief was proposed in 1801 by "William
Pitt (Conservative), which he failed to carry, and it was left to
a Conservative peer and Premier, the Duke of Wellington, who
gave the final relief to the Roman Catholics by passing the
above Bill through both Houses of Parliament. It was passed
by as large a proportional majority in the Lords as in the
Commons, thus: —

House of Commons ... ... 320-142 — majority 178.

House of Lords 213-109— majority 104.

THE "REFORM BILL," 1832.

One of the great crimes attributed to the House of Lords
by fiery Radicals is the rejection of this Bill by a majority of
41, but they entirely forget to notice that the House of Com-
mons had previously rejected five similar Bills. The Lords
passed this Bill by 106-22 — majority 84.

The great William Pitt, the Tory Prime Minister, pro-
posed a similar Reform Bill to this one, abolishing 37 rotten
boroughs, in 1785, but the Whigs and the Liberals were too
strong for him, and the measure was thrown out. He was
evidently 47 years before his time — the country had to wait till
1832. The credit, however, belongs to William Pitt of being
the pioneer of Reform, though some Radicals claim the honour
for Earl Grey in 1832. By the Bill of 1832, 200,000 working
men were deprived of their votes, and Mr. Disraeli, by his Bill
of 1867, restored the working men's franchise by giving House-
hold Suffrage in towns.

[ 44 ]

These few facts and figures may help to explain the
position of Reform in 1831-2: —

March, 1831 — Bill brought in House of Commons passed

second reading.
Amendment against Bill on third reading carried against
Government.

Voting was :— 299-291— majority 8.
This Bill never reached the House of Lords.
Parliament then was dissolved — April, 1831.
Parliament reassembled — June, 1831.
Another Reform Bill introduced —

Majority.
Passed House of Commons — voting: 345-236 — 109.
Defeated in House of Lords — voting : 199-158 — 41.
Another Reform Bill brought in House of Commons : —
Bill passed in House of Commons — March, 1832.
Bill passed in House of Lords — June, 1832.
Voting: For, 106; against, 22 — majority, 84.

THE " REFORM BILL," 1867.

After several months of struggle in the House of Commons,
under the able generalship of Mr. Disraeli, this Bill passed
both Houses, and gave the working classes, for the first time
in their history, Household Suffrage in the boroughs. This was
accomplished under Lord Derby's Conservative Government.

It should not be forgotten that this Bill was strongly
opposed by practically all the Liberals then in the House of
Commons, at the head of whom were Mr. Gladstone, Mr.
Bright, and 287 other Liberals, who tried in Committee to
upset the rating principle of the Bill in favour of a rental
principle. They failed — but^ so keen was their opposition that
they followed it into the House of Lords, and there again at-
tempted further wrecking tactics.

The Lords accepted the principle of household suffrage,
and passed the Bill.

So bitter was Mr. Gladstone's enmity against the Bill that
on May 12th, 1807, ho stated to a deputation of 300 gentlemen
who interviewed him: —

" I will use every effort and avail myself of every remaining opportunity to
strike at the odious principles of inequality and injustice involved in the Bill,
and if we fail, as we probably shall fail, to decline to recognise or be parties
in any measure to it as a settlement of the question and to continue to maintain
by every constitutional means in our power the principles on which wc have
acted."— Times, May 13, 1807.

Reform Bills for Scotland and Ireland were passed through
both Houses soon after.

Do not forget that twelve Reform Bills had been rejected
by the House of Commons between 1852 and 1866, yet during
all that lime iliere w;is a Radical majority in the House. How
they must have loved " Reform"— eh?

[ 45

THE FACTORY ACTS.

The Factory Acts, under the guidance of Lord Ashley, soil
of a Peer, afterwards Lord Shaftesbury; passed by both
Houses, after often being rejected by the House of Commons.
Who can estimate the benefits which these Ads have conferred
upon the working classes of this country? They have led the
way for all similar enactments which have rendered life in
mills, workshops, mines, and bleachworks comparatively easy
and pleasant, which before was simply unbearable and worse
than slavery. They are a great credit to us as a nation, and,
thanks to our enlightened legislators, we are the only people
who possess such Acts. Out of 47 Acts regulating factory
labour, nearly all were Conservative measures, to carry out
the benevolent intentions of the late Lord Shaftesbury, who
passed his whole life in this philanthropic work. When the
Consolidating Act for factory legislation was introduced
into the House of Lords in 1878, Lord Shaftesbury said, ' Two
millions of people would bless the day when Sir Richard Cross
(now Lord Cross) became Secretary of State for Home Affairs.'

An interview between Mr. Wilberforce (a Tory) and
William Pitt, the Tory Premier, led the former to devote the
whole of his life in trying to secure the

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
The matter was brought forward in 1792, but the House
of Commons threw out the Bill.

Another Bill was brought into the House in 1833 by Lord
Derby (then Lord Stanley), and after much opposition the slaves
were to be liberated on pavment of £20,000,000 to their owners.
(The Gladstone family got £68,000 of this for their 1,273 slaves.)
This victory of humanity over barbarism (the slave system)
was accomplished after 42 years of strenuous struggle (1791-
1833), begun by Pitt, the great Tory Premier, and continued by
Lord Derby, Wilberforce, Clarkson, Macaulay, and others, both
in Parliament and outside, and we may fairly apportion the credil
for this good work to both Houses of our legislature equally.

THE "IRISH LAND BILL," 1870.

The " Irish Land Bill," 1870, passed the Commons by an
immense majority, only eleven obstructives voting against it:
while in the Lords there was no division either on the second
or third reading, and it was passed without material alteration.

This Act was intended to settle the Irish land difficulty,
and although it affected the Lords closely, they sacrificed their
personal interests to those of their country. A wasted sacrifice.

The settlement of Irish land questions is like the desert
mirage — a delusion. We have passed several Irish Land Bills
since then, but " settlement " seems about as near as
William the Conqueror's reign is that of Edward VII.

[ 46 ]

Another Irish Land Bill passed in 1881 — fixing fair rents
to Irish tenants was read a second time in the House of Lords
without a division.

Still another Irish Land Act, 1887, conferring great bene-
fits on 150,000 Irish tenants (leaseholders) by putting them in
the same favourable position as yearly tenants, enabling them
to have fair rents fixed by the Courts, also giving free sale,
was sent down from the House of Lords to the House of Com-
mons and passed.

The " Elementary Education Act," 1870, passed
the House of Commons with some difficulty, after much opposi-
tion from the Nonconformists, but in the House of Lords it was
passed without opposition ; politics were sunk for the sake of
education, and for a quarter of a century the country has been
reaping the benefit of their patriotic conduct.

Since then, about eleven Education Acts have been
brought in and passed both Houses of Parliament. Nearly all
Conservative Acts.

The Act of 1902, the latest and most comprehensive, has
worked well in every part of the country. Under it, for the
first time in our history, the child of the poorest workman can
climb from the bottom to the top of the educational ladder.

The Radical Education Bill of 1906 was read a second
time in the House of Lords without a division. It is false to
say that they rejected it. The Government dropped it rather
than agree to amendments, proposed by the Lords in the
interests of justice and liberty, securing to all teachers free-
dom to teach, if they were asked and were willing to do so,
denominational religion in all schools built by the denomina-
tions (Church of England, "Wesleyan, Roman Catholic, etc.),
such teaching to be at the expense of the denomination and
not of the public. The " Liberal " party would not agree to
this!*

The " Colliery and Mines Regulation Acts," for

miners ; the " Merchant Shipping Acts," for sailors ;
a Artizans Dwellings Acts," for over-crowded and down-
trodden poor in the large towns ; the various agricultural Acts,
for the benefit of our agricultural population, are all fit supple-
ments to those above-named, and show that the Legislature, in
passing them, had the health, interests, and liberties of the
people at heart ; that they were anxious to render the position
of the artisan as free and secure as possible, in order to keep

* See further as to this Bill, pp. 69-73. Speaking in the House of Commons on Dec. 20
1906, Sir H.Campbell-Bannerman himself described the final point at issue between the two
Houses as follows :—

" Why were the amendments" {I.e., the final proposals of the Government in the House
of Lords) "rejected? . . . They were rejected because of demands made which they
would not fullll. And what were these demands f The demand was solemnly avowed that
in the hitherto denominational schools, the non-provided and the transferred schools,
according to the nomenclature of tins legislation, specific sectarian religious teaching
should continue to bo given by all tho teachers, if willing, in every school, large or

small, in town and country alike, irreBj live of the assent of the l eal authority. That is

a, plain description of thej demand."— Times, Dee. 21, 1906, Surely not a very unreasonable
"demand ! "

[ 47 ]
pace with the general progress of the country. They all
passed through the House of Lords without the slightest diffi-
culty, save on a few small points in one or two of them.

HOUSE OF LORDS r. HOUSE OF COMMONS.

FURTHER LEGISLATION AND PROPOSALS OF THE
HOUSE OF LORDS.

" Property Qualification." — First introduced in the
House of Commons in 1711, by which a Borough representa-
tive must possess £'-300 a year, and a County representative
£000 a year.

The Lords threw out this Bill when first presented. The
Bill was afterwards made law, but the Conservative Govern-
ment of 1858 abolished the property qualification altogether,
with the consent of both Houses.

" Parliamentary Trains."— By a clause put into a

Railway Bill (April 22nd, 18(34) at the instance of Lord Derby,
the House of Lords compelled Railway Companies to provide
cheap trains at least twice a day for the purpose to taking
working men to and from their employment at reduced fares. —
Hansard, vol. 174, p. 1488.

This resolution was strongly opposed in the House of
Commons, whose members numbered at that time at least 100
railway directors. The Lords stuck to their guns, and work-
ing men all over the country have been greatly benefited,
thanks to the House of Lords.

"Merchandise Marks Bill," 1887.— This Bill,
though first introduced in the House of Commons, was much
opposed by the Liberals. It, however, passed that Chamber.
When it got to the House of Lords it was agreed to without
a division and became law.

Its object is to prevent working men from being de-
frauded and robbed by the wily foreigner imitating English-
made goods, stamping them with imitation trade marks, and
selling them as English goods. The result of this beneficent
Act has been to stop the fraud, make trade more honest, and
give the English working man a chance to live.

A further amendment of this Bill was introduced into the
House of Lords in June, 1894, by Lord Denbigh (C), and op-
posed by the Radical Government. The House passed the
second reading by 49-2G — majority 23.

The "Law of Evidence Bill," 1887.— This im-
portant and useful Bill was introduced into the House of Lords
by Lord Bramwell (L.U.). Its purpose was to enable persons
charged with criminal offences to give evidence on oath on
their own behalf, and to allow wives or husbands to give evi-
dence. It passed the House of Lords March 4th, 1887, but
was rejected by the House of Commons, mainly through the

[ 48 ]

obstruction of the Irish members. Who curtailed liberty here?
This Bill had previously passed the House of Lords in 1886.

The " Church Patronage Bill."— This was a Bill to
give parishioners opportunities of objection when an unsuit-
able clergyman was presented to a living. It was brought
into the House of Lords by the Archbishop of Canterbury in
1886 and passed. It got no further. It was again brought in
the House of Lords by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1887,
and was universally supported, and passed. It got no further.
Again the Archbishop of Canterbury brought forward the mea-
sure in 1893. It was read a third time on March 21st. It
got no further, chiefly in consequence of the narrow-minded
conduct of a few Radical Dissenters. Here again the House
of Commons curtails liberty and blocks reform.

The " Electric Lighting Bill," 1887.— This Bill
passed a third reading in the House of Lords March 31st, but
though it was one to benefit the trade of the country no time
could be found for it in the House of Commons.

Two other Bills were introduced into the House of Lords
with the same object — one by Lord Thurlow, and another by
Lord Crawford, in 1888. Lord Thurlow's Bill was read a third
time (April 23rd), and, after considerable opposition, managed
to scramble through the House of Commons.

The " Lunacy Act Amendment Bill."— Here was
a Bill for the purpose of increasing the protection afforded by
law to persons of unsound mind — Heaven knows they require
all the protection possible to be given them. This Bill was
introduced into the House of Lords in 1884. Again it was
introduced into the House of Lords in 1885. Once more it
was introduced into the same Chamber, and, after considerable
discussion, it was read a second time, March 1st, 1886. Nothing
further was done. Once again the Lords came to the help of
these unfortunate people, and bring in for the fourth time this
useful measure. It passed the third reading on March 17th,
1887, but not till two years after this had it a chance of getting
placed on the Statute Book. Where was the House of Com-
mons all this time? Echo answers where??

" Railway and Canal Traffic Bill," 1887.— This
33 ill was introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Stanley of
Preston, a Conservative Peer, for the purpose of providing a
Court of Appeal to prevent traders and workmen being injured
by undue preference and unfair railway rates. Its object was
to improve trade.

The British trader was handicapped in his trade trans-
actions, especially in the matter of carriage of goods, by
the Railway Companies giving unfair preferential rates to
foreigners, and refusing equal terms to the Englishmen. The
following are a few cases by way of illustration: —

[ 49 ]

A ton of foreign corn from Victoria Docks, London, to

Peterborough (75 miles) was charged for carriage 6s. 8d. A
ton of English corn from London to Peterborough was
charged 14s. 5d., more than double the amount. The foreigner
was preferred.

A ton of American meat from Liverpool to London was
charged 25s. A ton of English meat sent from or to the
same place was charged 50s. The Englishman was injured.

Fruit sent from Flushing (Holland) to London got
through for 25s. per ton, passing Sittingbourne Station on the
way; yet the same sum, 25s., was charged for English fruit
from Sittingbourne to London. Radicals favour every country
but their own.

American cheese from Liverpool to London cost 25s. per
ton, passing through Cheshire; but Cheshire cheese picked
up on the way at various stations had to pay 42s. (id. per ton.
Injure the English farmer.

American meat from Glasgow to London was taken for
45s. per ton. Scotch meat sent from the same place to the
Metropolis paid 77s. per ton. Is that a punishment for sending
so many Scotch M.P.'s?

The London and South Western Railway carried French
hops from Boulogne to London for 17s. (id. per ton, but they
charged 35s. per ton for hops sent from Ashford to London —
only half-way on the same route. The teetotal party rules the
Radicals.

It is owing to the initiative of the House of Lords that
these and other similar hindrances to British trade have been
removed.

It was read a third time in the House of Lords May 5th,
1887. No progress was made with it in the House of Com-
mons, so it had to be dropped for that year, Again Lord
Stanley of Preston came forward with this Bill in 1888. It
passed its third reading March 13th, and, after much oppo-
sition and hostile criticism, it was read a third time in the
Commons August 7th. Here, again, you have the Lords fight-
ing for our trade, while the Commons are acting as " a clog on
the wheels of the State/' They have little time to devote to
labour and trade questions.

They are too busy trying to reduce the Army, weakening
the Navy, injuring Voluntary Schools, voting themselves
salaries of £300 a year each, insulting the Colonies and up-
rooting the Constitution, to be able to find much time for either
trade matters or to diminish that large army of unemployed,
many of whoin are starving. Home Rule for Ireland, uproot
the Welsh Church, destroy the House of Lords are their pet
ideals — not one of which will do one pennyworth of good to
one single workman throughout the count ry.

C 50 ]

" Housing of the Working Classes." — In conse-
quence of the resolution moved by Lord Salisbury on February
22nd, 1884, in the House of Lords, a Royal Commission — by
consent of the Queen — examined into this subject. The Prince
of Wales took a full share of the work. After the Commission's
report Lord Salisbury introduced a Bill to carry out the Com-
mission's recommendations, July 15th, 1885. The Bill was
read a third time in the House of Lords July 24th, and passed
the House of Commons August 11th, 1885.

The result of this legislation has been most beneficial to
the working classes.

In London, 36,000 working men have been provided with
comfortable houses, besides 20,000 more under the Peabody
gifts. Birmingham and many other of our large towns have
equally benefited by this legislation.

This is an entire creation initiated and carried out by
the House of Lords in the interests of working men.

" Cramming in Elementary Schools." — This evil
system, which was so detrimental to the health and best in-
terests of the children, has been abolished, entirely owing to
the persistent efforts of Lord He la Warr, a Conservative mem-
ber of the despised House of Lords, who called attention to
the question in the House on March 11th, 1884; again on April
1st, 1884; again on June 27th, 1884; and on several subsequent
occasions.

" Criminal Law Amendment Act." — This im-
portant Act was to make provision for the protection of women
and girls, and for the suppression of vice. It was introduced
and passed by the House of Lords in 1884, but the House of
Commons was so busy bringing in and discussing a " one-
legged " Reform Bill, that it had no time to discuss an import-
ant measure like this. It was therefore dropped, but the Lords
brought it forward again in 1885, when it passed both Houses.

The " Medical Relief Clause." — This clause, pro-
viding that no voter should be disqualified because he had
received Medical Relief, was inserted into the Registration Bill
and passed in the House of Lords by 72-47 — majority 25, on
May 19th, 1885. This was afterwards assented to by the
House of Commons on May 20th.

Thus many hundreds of poor voters owe their power to vote
entirely to the House of Lords' initiative.

In order not to extend these examples at too great length
the following details of some of the more important measures
of modern times, with the action of the House of Lords and
the House of Commons thereon, may serve to illustrate our
present branch of the subject: —

" Opening of Museums for three evenings per
week " was moved by Lord Ilarrowby (C), and carried by
House of Lords.

[ 51 ]

" Opening of Museums on Sundays."- Carried in
House of Lords by 76-62 — majority 14.

" All Seats in Parish Churches to be Free."—

Moved by Bishop of Peterborough, and carried in House of
Lords March 11th, 18SG.

" Shop Hours Regulation Bill."— This Bill, for the
relief of shop girls, introduced by Sir J. Lubbock (now Lord
Avebury), passed House of Commons after much opposition,
lasting live months. Scarcely any opposition offered in the
Lords. The Bill passed the third reading by 125-5 — majority 20.

"Allotments for Cottagers Bill." — Introduced

into the House of Lords by Lord Dunraven (C), and carried- —
1887.

" Allotments for Cottage Gardens (Compensa-
tion)."— This Bill, for giving compensation to cottagers,
passed House of Commons after many amendments, but passed
the Lords unchanged.

" Inspection of Boilers." — Passed first and second
reading in the House of Lords. Brought in by Lord Stanley of
Preston (C), in 188T.

" Coal Mines Regulation Bill."— After 130 amend-
ments and six months' discussion in the House of Commons it
passed the Lords without opposition. Its effect has been to
save the lives of 4,000 miners since 1887.

" Police Enfranchisement Bill," was moved in the
House of Commons by Mr. Burdett-Coutts (C), and, after some
discussion, passed. It was agreed to by the House of Lords
without any amendment May 16th, 1887.

"Coal Mines Bill." — Introduced in House of Com-
mons by Sir It. Cross (C.), to give miners the right to appoint,
their own check weighers, and also to be represented at inquests.
This Bill was violently opposed by Mr. H. Broadhurst (G.L.),
but eventually passed. Introduced into House of Lords by Lord
Ashbourne (C.), and passed without opposition or amendment
June 22nd, 1886.

"Merchant Shipping Bill." — Introduced by Lord
Onslow (C), for providing extra life-saving appliances on ships,
in the shape of boats, belts, &c. Penalty for neglect — Owner,
£100; Captain, £50; passed both Houses. Originated by
House of Lords.

Another Act for the safety of sailors was passed in 187'!.

Both these Acts passed the House of Lords unani-
mously.

A further Act in 1880 was similarly treated by the House
of Lords.

" Overtime on Railways." — Lord De la "Warr (C)

moved for returns on this subject in the House of Lords, with a
view to legislation in 1888.

[ 'V ]

Again the same Peer called attention to this subject in
1889, based upon the above returns, and this action led to the
legislation passed in 1893.

" Committee on Sweating." — Lord Dunraven (C)
called attention to this subject in the House of Lords in 1888,
and moved for a Committee of Enquiry, which was granted by
the Conservative Government of the day, which resulted in
Lord Salisbury's " Alien Pauper Bill " — intended to stop the
importation of pauper foreigners into this country, and in the
"Immigrant Aliens Act" passed by both Houses in 1905 in
the teeth of strong Radical opposition.

The " Alien Pauper Bill," 1894. — This Bill was
introduced into the House of Lords July 4th, 1894, by Lord
Salisbury, the head of the Conservative Party. Its object was
to stop " sweating " ; to stop British workmen being displaced
by pauper foreign labour. The House of Lords read the Bill
a first and second time. It was ready for going into Com-
mittee, when Sir William Harcourt (Radical Leader in the
House of Commons) was asked if he would grant time for its
discussion in that House. His reply was, "Not a moment!"
This is an evidence of " sympathy " of the Radicals to the
British working man.

Since that time thousands of undesirable aliens were
landed in this country every year, filling our workhouses
and prisons. The Radicals continued to oppose any attempts
to prevent this large influx of foreign paupers. It was proved
that between 1899 and 1904, 20,040 of these aliens had been
committed to prison for various crimes, costing the taxpayer
£30,000 a year to keep them, while at least another £30,000
a year had to be paid by the ratepayers through the Boards
of Guardians to keep those in our workhouses and hospitals.
Three new contagious diseases were brought into this country
by them.

At last, in 1905, the Unionist Government remedied the evil
by The Immigrant Aliens Act already mentioned, which,
nil hough opposed by the Radicals at evert/ stage, passed both
Houses with large majorities and is now the law of the land.
Another instance of good work initiated by the House
of Lords and finally resulting in valuable legislation for the
people.

" Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act."—
This Bill was introduced into the House of Lords by Lord
Cranbrook (('.), and passed its second reading February 16th,
1891, but it did not jkiss the House of Commons till September,
1893 — two years after.

" Inspection of Workshops," 1891.— Lord Thring
and Lord Dunraven each broughl in a Bill for this object,
which \\:i> read ;i second time in the House of Lords, but the
House of Commons could not find time to deal with this subject.

[ 53 ]

"Employment of Discharged Soldiers in
Government Offices. "—Lord Minto (L.U.), on May 18th,

1893, moved that something should he done in this direction,
but up to the present (1907) little further has been done, t hough
it was supported by the whole House of Lord-.

"Land Transfer Bill," 1893.— This was a Bill to
facilitate and cheapen the transfer of land — to help landlords,
farmers and labourers alike — and relieve depressed agriculture.
Passed second reading in the House of Lords April L'Uth.
Afterwards rejected in the House of Commons.

Agriculture may be "bleeding to death," but no relief
could be got from a Radical House of Commons, and the
matter was postponed till a Unionist Government dealt with
it by a Land Transfer Act in 1S97.

"Labour Conciliation Bill," 1893. — Introduced
into the House of Commons by Sir J. Lubbock (L.U.) (Lord
Avebury).

Its object was to prevent strikes and lock-outs — by pro-
viding a board Of conciliation for the settlement of all
disputes between employers and workmen.
It was supported by —

The London Trades Council.

The London Chamber of Commerce.

The London Conciliation Board.

The Radical Government (1894) blocked this Bill when-
ever it was put on the order book of the House. They refused
to give any facilities for its progress, although they had taken
the whole time of the House. At length, wearied by many
weeks' weary waiting, it was decided to introduce it into the
House of Lords. It was supported by Lord Salisbury, Duke
of Devonshire and many others. It passed the House of Lords,
but was afterwards rejected by the Commons, although it was
not a party measure, and would have been of great service to
working men. The Bill was again introduced into the House
of Lords in 1894, but after being read a second time,, was
dropped because the Government would give no facilities to
secure its passing through the House of Commons.

Another striking instance of Radical "sympathy" with
working men and their labour. The matter had to wait till
it was dealt with by a Unionist Government in the most
useful Conciliation (Trade Disputes) Act, 1896.

"Temperance Reform." — This subject has been

pressed forward frequently by members of the House of Lords.
The Bishop of London's " Intoxicating Liquors Bill " was read
a first and second time in 1893. The Bishop of Chester's Public
House Scheme was also read a first and second time in the
same year, but nothing was done by the Bouse of Commons in
this direction at that time.

L 54 j

Three Acts of Parliament since that time in the interests
of " Temperance " have been placed upon the Statute Book — all
passed by both Houses — introduced b}7 the Unionist Govern-
ment, and dealing with: —

1st — Sale of Intoxicating Liquor to Children.
2nd — Registration and Regulation of Clubs.
3rd — Extinction of Superfluous Licences and Compensa-
tion for those suppressed. An Act passed in the
face of bitter Radical opposition.

These Ac-ts will compare very favourably with the Radical
Act creating Grocers' Licences, which has been so harmful in
the encouragement of drunkenness among working men's wives
and which is the only "Temperance" (?) legislation of the
Liberal party in modern times, notwithstanding their constant
boast of being the " Temperance Party."

" Hours of Railway Servants Bill," 1893.— This
Bill was introduced into the House of Lords and passed by
G4-2G — majority 38, on June 22nd. It afterwards passed the
House of Commons.

" Settled Land Act." — This reform, the greatest land
reform of this century, was introduced into the House of Lords
by Lord Cairns (C.) in 1882 and passed. It was afterwards
piloted through the House of Commons by Sir Richard
Cross (C).

Mr. Fowler (Radical lawyer) said, " This is a wise and safe
step of true land reform; indeed he was surprised that the
House of Lords should have passed such a sweeping measure of
reform."

" Compensation to Workmen."— In 1884 Lord
Salisbury caused to be adopted a Standing Order of the House
of Lords that for every railway going through the metropolis
compensation be given to disturbed workmen, and also a suffi-
cient number of houses provided for those displaced by the
railway. Care for the masses.

The Workmen's Compensation Act, introduced

by a Unionist Government, was passed through both Houses
in 1897, and its benefits were extended by a further Unionist
Act in 1900.

These Acts give compensation in case of accident to the
following workers: —

In Factories, Docks, Wharves 3,600,000 persona.

In Mines 730,000 persons.

In Railways 465,000 persons.

In Quarries 104,000 persons.

Builders and Bricklayers 700,000 persons.

Navvies and Labourers 800,000 persons.

Agricultural Labourers 1)00,000 persons.

Over seven millions of people have been given the right lo
compensation for every accident which occurs in the above

[ M ]

trades by those splendid Acts, by this ( 'ha iter of Labour. There
are 150,000 accidents in this country every year, and by giving
Compensation to and protecting- and providing for the father-
less children and widows of injured workmen, this splendid
Act of 1897 justifies the character given to it by Mr. T.
Greenall, the Pendlebury Miners' Agent, as " one of the
grandest measures of modern times in the interests of the
workers."

"Scotch Fisheries Bill, 1893." — This Bill, which
proposed to levy a rate for the development of coast fisheries on
every town and county in Scotland, except Glasgow (which was
then Sir G. Trevelyan's constituency), was smuggled through
the House of Commons in the small hours of the morning, and
is a fair specimen of the usual " Radical Job." Sundry Town
and County Councils in Scotland came begging at the
door of the House of Lords to save them from the " jobbery "
of a Radical Government. The Lords listened and responded,
took out the objectionable rating clauses, and the ratepayers
of " dear old Scotland " rejoiced that they had got a House
Of Lords which stops jobbery and robbery.

THE TRUCK ACTS.

An attempt was made during the Conservative ministry
of the Duke of Wellington in 1830— Sir Robert Peel being
Home Secretary — to legislate against the unjust system of
paying workmen's wages in goods instead of in coin.

""Wages" which were often paid in bacon, cheese, tea,
sugar, soap, candles, clogs, treacle, sausages, &c, could not
truly be described as wages. . . . The effort to stop this
system was strongly opposed by the Radicals, prominent among
whom was Mr. Joseph Hume, their chief spokesman, who
moved " that the Bill be read a second time that day six
months."

This motion was defeated by a large majority, but in
consequence of these obstructive tactics no further progress
could be made before Parliament was dissolved for that year.

IVext year (1831) it was re-introduced, and after much
Radical opposition, was read a third time and passed, but ten
days later Parliament was prorogued, and the Bill got no
further.

Then on June 28, 1831, the Bill was introduced into the
House of Lords by Lord Wharncliffe (C).

The second reading was moved on July 7th by the same
peer. He insisted that the Legislature had a right to say (to
the employer): ''Here is current coin of the realm; we insist
on you paying your workman in that medium."

[ 56 ]

The Bill was read a second time, and passed through
Committee without a division, thus showing the care of the
House of Lords for the defenceless workman.

When the Bill got into the House of Commons, it was
still opposed by the Radicals led by Mr. -Hume, hut in spite
of this, the Bill passed the third reading, and for the first
time in our history the wages of the workman were guaran-
teed to him in current coin, entirely owing to the action of the
House of Lords.

Even Radicals have since admitted that this extension of
the workmen's rights was a good thing for the country.

Further measures with the same beneficent object's have
been passed by the Conservatives in 1874, 1887, and 1896.

The evil system of fines and other unjust deductions from
workmen's wages have been almost completely stopped, and the
word " wages " has now become a reality to workmen,
whereas before this legislation was passed it was too often only
a fraud and a sham.

THE LORDS AND THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL, 1893.

What was this Bill ? It professed to give protection and
compensation to every working man who might meet with an
accident in the course of his employment, or to his family in
case of death, providing the accident was the fault of the
employer or his workman.

If the accident was owing to the workman's own careless-
ness or to a purely accidental cause, no compensation could be
awarded under the Bill.

EIGHTY out of EVERY HUNDRED accidents
which occur all over the country are pure accidents (nobody's
fault), and therefore could give rise to no claim for compensa-
tion whatever under the Government's Bill.

The Bill was valuable in two respects. It abolished
what, under the Act of 1880, was called " common employ-
ment," by which no compensation could be given if the acci-
dent was the fault of a fellow-workman. It also did away
with the old limit of claim, which was that no workman could
claim more than three years' wages for any accident, however
serious. This was a great hardship on apprentices and those
workmen whose wages were small.

The Bill therefore up to that point was a good Bill.

Why was it not passed and made the law of the land P The
difference arose about what is called "Contracting Out," the
meaning of which is thai there were certain firms in various
parts of the country employing 350,000 wprkmen altogether,
who had formed, by mutual agreement with, their men,

C 57 ]

Insurance Funds, to which the men contributed 2d., 3d.,

or 4d. each per week, the firms contributing' about three-ioxLttha
of the total amount of the fund thus collected. Some firms,
such as Tangye Bros., Birmingham, contributed the whole
amount of the fund, without asking the men for a farthing.

The use of these Insurance Funds was that, what-
ever accident occurred to a workman, — no matter whose fault it
might be — he or his family at once received compensation out of
the Fund, according to a scale previously agreed upon by the
men themselves. There was no loss of time; there was no
trouble; there was no need to see a lawyer; the injured got
more than three times as much money as he could have got
under the Bill, if it had passed ; consequently these Insur-
ance Funds were of great benefit to working men and their
families.

Those who were insured in these funds contracted not to
avail themselves of the provisions of the Act of 1880. This
was called "Contracting out," which was to be prohibited in
the case of the Bill of 1893.

Some of the chief firms who had these Funds were : —

The London and North Western Railway; The London
and Brighton Railway; South Metropolitan Gas Company;
Oldbury Alkali Company; Messrs. Armstrong and Company;
Newcastle-on-Tyne ; South Wales Miners' Provident Society;
Messrs. Tangye Brothers, Birmingham, &c, &c, &c.

Here is a case showing how these Funds worked : —

London and North Western Railway: —

1891. 1892.

Contributed by the Company £16,143 £17.475

Interest allowed on Mens contribution 917 977

Total sum allowed by Company £17,095 £18,452

Men's contributions 19,511 21,109

'Total Funds available for Compensation for

Accidents £36,(306 £39,561

Thus the men received over £1(3,000 in 1891 and over
£17,000 in 1892, presented to them by the Company, to
be used as compensation in case of accident, besides allowing
interest on all the contributions of the men themselves; what
could be fairer than this? What could be mure conducive
to the men's safety, to their families' comfort, or to the cordial
relations which ought to exist between employers and work-
men?

If the Bill had passed in the form brought in by the Radical
Government all these Insurance Funds would have
Been destroyed at once.

Mr. McLaren, M.P. for Crewe (Liberal), brought into the
House of Commons an Amendment, backed up by all the
Unionist Party, which would have prevented the men being

[ 58 ]

deprived of their Insurance Funds. The Amendment was lost
by 18 votes. The Government's mechanical majority prevailed
against these men's interests. When the Bill reached the
serener and more businesslike atmosphere of the House of
Lords, Lord Dudley, who is himself a large employer of
labour, moved a similar amendment to the one Avhich had been
moved by Mr. McLaren in the House of Commons, but of a
more comprehensive character. Its purport was not only to

protect the existing Insurance Funds of the workmen,

but also to give similar protection to all other insurance funds
which might be created within a specified time.

This resolution was carried by the Lords. The Lords
carried the whole Bill. It was not mutilated; it was not
rejected; the only alteration was a small addition affecting
350,000 workmen, whose funds required protection, which was
effectually done by the Lords' Amendment.

When the Bill got back to the House of Commons,
Mr. Gladstone, on behalf of the Government, said the Bill
"had been poisoned;" he therefore moved its rejection, and
thus destroyed his own political child.

Two Hundred and Twenty-Five Radicals voted
for the destruction of the Bill and only six against. None of
the Unionist Party voted for its destruction. The working
men of this country have therefore good ground of complaint
against the Radical Government for destroying a Bill which
would have given them greater protection and more compensa-
tion than they then possessed, and which had been improved
by the House of Lords.

There were at that time 9,786,000 working men over 20
years of age in the United Kingdom, who would have been
benefited by the Bill.

There were at the utmost only 350,000 workmen who
would have been affected by the Lords' amendment. There-
fore, because the Government did not agree with an amend-
ment affecting 350,000 workmen, they threw out their own
Bill, which would have conferred considerable benefits on
9,876,000 workmen. The motive evidently was to " spite " the
House of Lords. What a piece of reckless political folly ! A
crime against the working classes.

Although the Bill would have caused much litigation, and
filled the pockets of the lawyers with fees, it would have been
better than the Act of 1880. But the Bill only gave compensa-
tion for 20 per cent, of the accidents which occur, and the Con-
servative Baity would have preferred a Bill giving compen-
sation for all accidents. To prove that this was the desire of
the Unionist Party, while the Employers' Liability Bill was
in Committee of the Bouse of Commons, November 14th, 1893,

[ 59 ]

Sir E. Hill, Conservative Member for Bristol, moved resolu-
tions giving compensation for all accidents, whether caused by
negligence, failure of machinery, or other similar cause, so thai
no litigation, friction or discontent could occur, and the work-
man would receive all benefit instead of the lawyers.

This was voted for by every Conservative in the Bouse of
Commons at the time, but they were defeated by the Radical
Government and its supporters, and it was left to a Unionist
Government to secure this splendid reform Eor the workers by

the Acts of 1897 and 1900.*

THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND REFORM.

The action of the House of Lords has been much misre-
presented on the question of Reform.

It has, however, borne its full share of the work of reform
during modern times, along with, and as well as, the House of
Commons. In some cases more than its share. It has cor-
rected and improved the work of the House of Commons. In
the Reform Bill of 1867, after months of discussion in the
House of Commons, the principle of " Household Suffrage "
was accepted by the Lords. The Bill was passed practically in
the shape it left the Commons, except for one amendment
granting a minority representative to all three-cornered consti-
tuencies, thus securing some amount of representation to the
minority of large towns returning three members.

This arrangement lasted till 1884, when single-niemlx'r
constituencies became the rule under the Bill of that year.

WHAT ABOUT THE BILL OF 1884?

This Bill was intended to apply to the Counties the same
principle (Household Suffrage) which Lord Derby and Benja-
min Disraeli, by the Bill of 1867, had applied to the Boroughs.

When brought into the House of Commons by Mr. Glad-
stone, it was discovered to be a very incomplete measure, deal-
ing only with the Franchise, and not touching the equally
important question of Re-distribution of Seats. The efEecl of
the Bill would have been to create masses of new voters without
the slightest attempt to secure equality of representation.

Some time before this Mr. John Bright, M.P., ha?3
declared : —

"Repudiate without mercy any Bill of any Government, whatever its
Franchise, whatever its seeming concession may be, if it does not distribute
the seats which are obtained by the extinction of the small Boroughs amongst
the great City and Town populations of the Kingdom. The question of Dis-
tribution is the very soul of the question of Reform, and unless you
watch that you will be deceived."— See Hansard, vol. 182, page 121 1. April 12th,
1866.

* See p. 54.

[ ^o ]

This advice was the key to the whole position. It explains
the opposition both of the minority in the House of Commons
as well as of the House of Lords to the " one-legged Bill "
brought in by the Government. Many attempts were made in
the Commons to compel, induce, or persuade the Ministry to
bring in a complete measure (both Franchise and Re-distri-
bution), but without avail. 13y their mechanical majority they
forced the Bill through the House of Commons.

When presented to the House of Lords ±n this incomplete
state, similar objections were urged. The Government were
asked to include a Re-distribution Bill along with the Fran-
chise Bill. This request was bluntly refused. Nothing then
was left for the House of Lords to do but to block the Bill,
not to allow it to proceed beyond the second reading until

a measure of Re-distribution of Seats should
accompany the Franchise Bill in accordance with the
advice of Mr. John Bright quoted above.

The Lords, therefore, passed the following Resolution
(moved by Lord Cairns) by a majority of 59 : —

"That this House, while prepared to concur in the principles of representa-
tion contained in this Bill, does not think it right to assent to the Second
Reading of a Bill having for its object a fundamental change in the constitu-
tion of the electoral body of the United Kingdom, but which is not accompanied
by provisions for so apportioning the right to return members as to ensure a true
and fair representation of the people, or by any adequate security in the pro-
posals of the Government that the present Bill shall not come into operation
except as part of an entire scheme." — Hansard, vol. 290, col. 480.

The Lords, therefore, you see, had no objection to extend
the Franchise, as is so often asserted they had. Their only
objection was to an incomplete measure. They wished to
prevent unjust and unfair representation in the country, by
which, if the Bill had passed in its original shape, some consti-
tuencies of 500 voters would have been able to send a member
to the House of Commons, while it would have taken 40,000
voters in other places to return a member.

The action of the Lords was justified by the facts of the
case, and also by future events.

During the recess, the Government tried to get up an agi-
tation against the Lords by stumping the country, and stating
that the House of Lords was against the working classes, as
they are trying to do now on the question of the Education
Bill and the Plural Voting Bill. The agitation failed, as the
present one will fail, because it was based on misrepresenta-
tion. The House of Lords stood firm though they were
threatened by the Ministry; they remained true to the people,
and it was the Ministry of Mr. Gladstone which had to give
way. The Bill could not get beyond its second reading; it
was not rejected; it was not mutilated; it was simply hung up
Like Mahomet's coffin, between heaven and earth, until the.
Government consented to complete it by bringing in a scheme
of Re-distribution

[ CI ]

The Scheme of Re-distribution was brought in.

The Conservative leaders were asked to help the Government to
mould into practical working shape the Re-distribution scheme
of the Government. They consented to do this, and for weeks
the late Lord Salisbury and the late Sir Stafford Xorthcote
(Lord Iddesleigh) were to be seen every day walking down to
the Home Office arm in arm, to sit round a green table with
Mr. Gladstone, Sir G. Trevelyan, and others, making a work-
able measure out of the Government Bill.

They succeeded, and the working classes in the counties
and large towns have been the gainers by this action of the
House of Lords. The Lords deserve the 1 hanks of the country.
Even the Daily Xeics was so elated by the magnanimous aetion
of the Conservative Leaders that it declared on December 26th,
1884: —

;' The Franchise Bill is law. The Re-distribution Bill is as good as law.
The measure is as much Lord Salisbury's and Sir Stafford Xorthcote's as it is
Mr. Gladstone's and his colleagues." Again on November 26th the Daily News
said : " In 1885 he (Lord Salisbury) co-operated with Mr. Gladstone to establish
household suffrage in counties."

The Splendid Benefits conferred upon the
Country by the Action of the House of
Lords in insisting on Re-distribution.

By their courageous aetion in thus insisting, in the face
of unscrupulous misrepresentation, that the Franchise Bill of
1884 should be made complete and just, the House of Lords
secured for the people a satisfactory measure which had the
following effects : —

It abolished many small, rotten, and pocket boroughs.

It gave many new members to populous places, and for the
first time enfranchised many places where population, labour
and property exist.

England and Wales-
It disfranchised in England and "Wales —

SKATS

13 Boroughs returning 2 members— merged them in Counties ... 26

66 „ „ 1 „ .. „ ••• ,i,:

36 „ „ 2 .. deprived them of one ... ... 36

Macclesfield and Sandwich, each returning 2 members, disfranchised 4

132

These were disposed of as f ollows : —

London, which formerly had 22 members, now has 62 —gain 10

Provincial Boroughs got additional members ... 26 „ 26

„ created new constituencies 6 „ 6

Counties got additional members 66 ., 66

13S"
* This includes 6 new members allotted to England and Wale*.

[ 02 ]
Scotland—

SEATS

2 Boroughs returning 1 member each, merged in Counties 2

12 new seats allotted to Scotland ... 12

Note. — Seven of which were allotted to Scotch Counties, and seven to Aberdeen,
Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Ireland —

SEATS
22 Boroughs returning 1 member each, disfranchised 22

3 „ „ 2 „ „ lose one 3

Note. — Twenty-one of these allotted to Irish Counties, and four given to
Dublin and Belfast.

Thus 171 new members were allotted to the populous
places in England, Scotland, and Ireland by the end of 1884
owing to the firm action of the House of Lords.

The members for London were increased from 22 to 62,
therefore every voter in the metropolis got three times the
political power he previously possessed.

Lancashire's members were increased from 33 to 58. Thus
in that populous county every voter's power was nearly

doubled.

Yorkshire was raised from 38 to 52 members — an increase
of voting power of over one-third.

Durham

from 13 to

members-

-increase one-fourth.

Scotland

„ 60 to

„ one-

fifth.

Liverpool

., 3 to

))

300

per cent.

Birmingham ,, 3 to

))

,. 130

Manchester

„ 3 to

))

100

Glasgow

„ 3 to

))

130

Sheffield

„ 2 to

„

,. 150

Leeds

„ 3 to

)»

Salford

„ 2 to

■j 35

))

and all the other populous places throughout the country in
proportion.

Thus the liberty and political power of the voters, especi-
ally in working-class constituencies, throughout the country
were largely increased. Rotten and pocket boroughs were
abolished, anomalies were diminished, and a much more just
and uniform basis of representation was brought about,
entirely owing to the firm stand taken up by the House of
Lords when the Bill was sent up to them from the House of
Commons.

Every voter in every new constituency who had not a vote
previous to 1884 owes a debt of gratitude to the Lords for his
present political power.

We have here, therefore, another instance confirming the
House of Lords' past glorious record— of the way that that

[ 63 ]

Tlouse is careful of the liberties of the people, by conferring
by just and wise measures more freedom and a wider franchise
on the working classes throughout the country.

The following extract from a speech of Lord R-osebery at

Liverpool, December 3rd, 1884, justifies the tlouse of Lords,
and also confirms the foregoing statement, lie says: —

"The result; was a Re-distribution Bill, which no Government, however

Liberal a Government, would have the courage hardly to bring in without the
support of the Conservative leaders ... It had been considered universally a
most admirable arrangement. He ventured to say that it waa creditable in the
first place to the Government, and creditable in the second place to the
Opposition."

Therefore complete representation, full political power,

and a fair share in the government of the country, are gifts

secured by the House of Lords to the working classes.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND THE HOME RULE BILL, 1893.

Prom the nature of this Bill its title should have been
the " Disruption Bill," because had it passed the House of
Lords its certain and almost immediate effect would have been
to destroy the unity of this country, by separating Ireland
from the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Lords, however, refused to pass this Bill, and for that
" crime " they were to be disestablished ; their independent
character was to be taken away ; they were to be reduced to the
position of saying " ditto !" to the House of Commons, and all
this because they preferred to preserve and strengthen — instead
of destroying — our Empire.

The House of Lords met all this rant by calmly demand-
ing that the Government should appeal to the country to
judge between their action and that of the House of Commons.
The Government refused to do this till 1895, saying (as they
say in 1907 with regard to the Education Bill) that they
refused to be dictated to by the Lords as to the time when they
should dissolve and that they were "filling up the cup" of
the Lords' iniquities.

At length, in 1895, they were forced to appeal to the
people, who, by an overwhelming majority,* declared that the
House of Lords had represented them in this matter far more
truly than the House of Commons.

What does this mean ? It means that, if there had been
no House of Lords, the Home Ride BUI would have become law
in the teeth of the wishes of the people.

Why did the Lords throw out the Bill?

Because the Bill was never submitted to the electors of
this country. Its provisions were kept secret ; it was only
disclosed in the House of Commons in February, 1893, while
the General Election occurred in July, 1S92.

* The Unionist majority after the General Election of 1895 was 152.

[ C4 ]

The Lords, therefore, by tlieir decision referred the Bill
back to the country for the approval or refusal of the electors
through the ballot boxes before they would consent to pass
such a ruinous measure.

They are thus standing up for the liberty of the
people, insisting that their consent should be obtained before
asking them to submit to a law of this character to which
they had not given their approval in the polling booth.

Because by this Bill a financial state of affairs would
have been set up, which would have been intolerable and
unjust, both to the working classes, and also to the general
taxpayer of this country.

Every man, woman, and child in Great Britain would
have had to pay 37s. per head of Imperial taxation, while the
Irish would have been let off for Gs. Gd. per head.

Thus forcing the Englishman to pay nearly six times
as much taxes as the Irishman.

Thus intimating that one Irishman is as good as Six
Englishmen.

This is far from the experience of those who know the
Irish, and would lie an intolerable position for the Englishman
to occupy.

Take a case by way of illustration : —

Suppose two constituencies of 10,000 electors each— which
is about the average number — one in England and the other
in Ireland. Population G5,000. If the Home Rule Bill had
passed as proposed, the English constituency would have had
to pay for Imperial taxation alone —

£120,250 a year.

The Irish constituency would only have paid: —

£21,125 a year.

Difference against the Englishman and in favour of the
Irishman of —

£99,125 a year.

Such was the unjust burden which would have been put
upon the labour of every constituency in England by the
Radical Home Rulers.

Surely trade was bad enough; surely working men had
poverty enough and burdens enough without being further
loaded and oppressed by a Government which eared only for
Irishmen while they left Englishmen to starve.

The House of Lords stood up and saved us from these
financial iniquit Les.

Because the proposers of Mi is Kill arranged to set up in
Dublin a practically independent. Parliament, consisting of
two Houses a House of Lords and a House of Commons— -
in which Englishmen were to have no voice.

C 65 ]

Note. — Did they intend this for a joke? It Beems loo
funny to be true that ike parly who are clamouring against
a Second Chamber in England should be the very nun who,
when they had a new Parliament to propose, proposed to set
up a Second Chamber in Dublin, just as they are setting up a
second chamber in the Transvaal in 1907. (Radical Con-
sistency ?)

There is no accounting for the follies of Radicals. Their
"Upper House" in Dublin was to consist of 48 members,
elected for eight years, on a properly franchise of £20 a
year.

Here you have two astonishing proposals : —

The party who are deluding the working classes about

shorter Parliaments tried to establish a chamber to sit eight

years.

The party who have been boasting about abolishing
property qualifications invent a new property qualification for
their " patent Parliament " in Dublin.

The House of Lords again saved us from this folly.

Another monstrous proposal was that besides giving
Ireland a practically independent Parliament in Dublin we
in England were to be " blessed " with 80 Irishmen coming to
Westminster to sit in our Parliament, while no English mem-
bers could go over to Dublin to sit in theirs.

What a nice sense of justice the framer of this Bill musl
have had !

Here we have it seriously laid down by these proposals
that an Irishman is so clever, such a great genius, such an
able statesman, that he can sit in tico Parliaments — manage
the affairs of two nations and have time to spare while an
Englishman is such an idiot, so inexperienced, so incapable,
that he cannot manage his own affairs unless he gets 80
Irishmen from Dublin to help him. Nice, is'nt it?

And what, pray, were these 80 men going to do in our

Parliament ?

They were going to make laws for US to obey !
They were going to impose taxes for us to pay !
They were going to interfere with our labour laws !
They were going to upset our Ministries !
They were going to increase our burdens .'
They were going to interfere with all our Home.
Foreign, and Colonial affairs,

and yet were not going to be responsible to any British con-
stituency. No English elector would be able to call them to
account, and the old doctrine which the Radicals used to shout
from every platform, " No taxation without representation,"

C 66 ]

be thrown to the winds. And all this for the sake of pur-
chasing 80 Irish votes in the House of Commons. What a
price to pay for them ! Again the House of Lords has saved
the country and the British electors from these proposed
political abominations.

And yet the Radicals say " the House of Lords is of no
use ! "

There was another curious thing about this arrangement
which would be comical if it were not so serious. By the terms
of the Bill all people living in £20 houses would have a vote for
a member of the Irish House of Lords.

All persons living in any sort of a mud cabin would have
a vote for a member of the Irish House of Commons. Further,

All persons who could vote for the latter would also have
a vote for one of the eighty " patriots," who would kindly

come over here to regulate our Parliamentary affairs.

That is funny, isn't it? Most Irishmen would have
three votes, while every Irishman would have two votes.
It means one Englishman one vote and one Parliament.
One Irishman three votes and two Parliaments. Is there
anything further they would like to give the Irishman at the
expense of the Englishmen? Mind, all this political per-
version came from the party who are trying to bamboozle the
English elector by the cry of " One man one vote." But
again the House of Lords saved us from this monstrosity.

And where was poor Ulster to come in amongst all this?

Well, it seems that the Protestants of Ulster were to be
put under the heel of Archbishop Walsh. That Ulster was
to have the privilege of paying nearly all the taxation of
Ireland, while Messrs. John Redmond and Co. were to con-
descend to sit in the high places in Dublin; hold out their
hands for their big salaries ; impose protective tariffs against
English goods going to Ireland, and generally to play " old
gooseberry " with everything English, while British workiug
men were to pay for all this political sport. How nice !

Irishmen think that they can persuade Englishmen to
stand anything if they only use plenty of " blarney," and this
Home Rule craze is a case in point.

Because the Bill, moreover, had never been properly
considered. Not only had it never had the sanction of the
electors; it had not received due debate, discussion, or con-
sideration from the people's representatives, which is absolutely
requisite to every Bill. The mouths of the members were
closed by the gag. Less than one quarter of the Bill was
debated. Twenty-six out of thirty-seven clauses were never
discussed at all. Therefore it was the duty of the House of
Lords to throw out any Bill which came to them from the
House of Commons under these conditions.

[ 67 ]

They have, therefore, saved us from unjust taxation ; from
splitting up our Empire ; from coercion by 80 Irishmen ; from
ruin of our English industries; from religious oppression and
civil war in Ulster; from being governed by the gag; from
new property qualification, and two unworkable Parliami
and last, though not least, the House of Lords has saved us
from presenting tjic sad spectacle to the rest of our fellow
subjects all over the world ; that while we profess to govern
four hundred millions of people in every clime, to give light
and civilization in all the dark places of the earth; yet we are
too feeble, foolish, or decrepit to be able to govern a few
rebel and discontented Irishmen at our own doors and in our
own islands.

The rejection of this Bill is another instance of the saga-
city, love of liberty, and enlightened statesmanship of the
House of Lords.

Radicals often cried : " Down with the House of Lords !"
In connection with the agitation against the House of

Lords, the opinion of Mr. John Redmond, M.P., may perhaps

interest some Radicals ; he says : —

" Two proposals have been made in regard to the House of Lords.

"One is to abolish the institution altogether, the other is to abolish
its veto.

"How long does any man in his senses think it would take to carry the
former proposal into effect 1 Does anyone realty believe that without anofher
Revolution the House of Lords could be abolished within the next fifty years .'
And does anyone really believe in the possibility of another Revolution, within
the same period, directed against a fundamental part of the Constitution under
which England has grown to be a first-class Power and English liberty has been
irrevocably established ?:' ***** *

"Neither the English, nor the Scotch, nor the Welsh people have just now
(1893) any case whatever for an uprising against the House of Lords." *

" It would be nothing short of sheer nonsense to go to the pesple of
Great Britain on such a case as this (Rejection of the Home Rule Bill) against
the House of Lords." ******

"The House of Lords never resisted the will of the people clearly
expressed."— 19th Century, Nov. 1893, p. 668.

The Rejection of the Bill.

After four days' debate the House of Lords rejected the
Home Rule Bill on the second reading for the reasons given
above.

Out of the total members of the House of Lords (575) no

less than 460 were present to vote on the Bill : —

There voted for the Bill 41

Voted against the Bill 419

Majority against the Bill ... 378

being a larger majority than ever was declared either for or
against any Bill this century; showing the interest the Peers
took in the subject.

[ 68 ]

The following details of the division may be of interest
to voters and students.

Mr. Gladstone had created 80 Peers.

There were 62 of Mr. Gladstone's Peers members of the
House of Lords when the Home Rule Bill was before it.

What became of the 62 Gladstonian Peers?

There voted for the Bill 24 of these Peers.

There voted against the Bill 2D „

Did not vote ... ... ... ... ... t) ,.

Of the 24 Gladstonian Peers who voted for the Bill not less
than twenty-one held office in the Ministry, and received in
the shape of salary £70,000 a year. Must we charitably assume
that these twenty-one voters were entirely " disinterested " ?

This leaves only three Gladstonian Peers who voted
independently for the Bill.

The Radicals — including Lord Rosebery — sometimes com-
plain that the House of Lords is too Conservative, and that
the Home Rule Bill was thrown out by Tory votes. This is
an entire mistake. If there had not been a single Tory or
Unionist Peer in the House at the time, and if the Bill had
been left to be dealt with by the Gladstonian Peers alone,
the Bill would have been rejected by a majority of five votes,
and if we deduct the officials, there would have been a majority
of 26 votes against the Bill, consisting entirely of men who
owed their elevation to Mr. Gladstone, who raised them to the
peerage because they were such good Liberals.

Here is Britain's justification for the action of the
House -of Lords in rejecting this Bill. Out of one hundred
and Sixty-Six divisions which took place in the House of
Commons on the few clauses which were allowed to be dis-
cussed, in every case there was a British majority, rang-
ing from 2 to 39 against the Government and their Bill, giving
an average majority of about 25 British representatives against
the Home Rule proposals, which were carried in the House of
(Jommons solely by the votes of the Irish Nationalists, whom
Mr. Gladstone had himself described as wishing " to march
through rapine to the disintegration and dismemberment of the
Empire." (Knowsley, Oct. 27, 1881.)* Lord Rosebery might
well express his doubts and fears on the subject, and beg for
the conversion of the "predominant partner."

Tlio members representing the population, wealth, labour,
education, and experience in Great Britain refused the Bill
and all its iniquities. Therefore, the House of Lords has been

* The Becond reading wascarried by a majority <>!' l.'i. 54 Irishmen voting for
it. Against it there was a British majority of ]2 and an English majority of 71.

[ CO ]

Fully Justified
when they threw out the Home Rule Bill.
Mr. Gladstone justifies them: —
" I will not be a party to giving Ireland a Legislative body bo mo
concerns, and at the same time to having Irish members in London acting and
voting on English and Scutch questions." — At Manchester. June 25th, 1886.

All Unionists say '"Hear, Hear!"

The present Government, or shall we say the "Disrup-
tion Party," promise to bring in another Home Rule Bill
this year, but it is not to be called Home Rule — oh no ! A
stench by any other name; would smell as sweet. It is now
to be brought forward under some new-fangled high-sounding
title, which will satisfy Mr. John Redmond, which will noi
alarm the weak-kneed Liberals, but which will be Honie
Rule all the same. A scheme concocted in Dublin Castle, by
Home Rule officials to suit the 80 disloyal " patriots " leading
up to the "Larger Policy," which every honest politician
will see is Home Rule and nothing else.

Shall we have to exclaim once more " Thank God, we have
still a House of Lords ? "

THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND THE EDUCATION BILL (1906).

The latest charge by the Radicals against the House of
Lords is that the Peers have seriously " blotted their copy
books " by refusing to accept without amendment the
" Spoliation Bill," miscalled an Education Bill, when it was
sent up to them from the House of Commons.

What was the Bill like, and what did it propose to do?
It was not an Education Bill at all. By the first clause —

It took away from the present owners and trustees all the
voluntary schools — by force, unless an agreement was made —
Is that Robbery or is it not?

Then the Bill proposed only one kind of religious teach-
ing (Cowper-Templeism) in the schools in school hours — and
not even that, unless the local authority chose to allow it !

Is that not banishing Church of England and Roman
Catholic teaching and establishing and endowing a State-made
religion to suit the Nonconformists? For Cowper-Templeism
was to be paid for out of everybody's rates.

In the vast majority of Voluntary Schools the utmosl
concession to the religious convictions of those who built the
schools and of those parents who desired more definite religious
teaching for their children was to permit some outsider (for the
regular school teachers were forbidden to do it, however willing
they might be) to come and teach their parents' faith to such
children as chose to attend on two mornings a week out of
school hours !

Then by Clause 4 the Bill professed to give further special
facilities to denominational schools to teach denominational
religion in them if eighty out of every hundred of the parents

[ 70 ]

desired it — also if the consent of the local authority could be
obtained and if the district contained over 5,000 inhabitants
and also if the district was in a town and not in the country
and if there was convenient school accommodation for the
children of those who did not want such teaching in the
neighbourhood.

And the Radical authors of the Bill call this " giving
facilities " !

We may here ask — Why should a child's religious educa-
tion depend on whether there are 5,000 inhabitants in a dis-
trict—or 1,000 or 500 or 50?

What has the size of a district to do with the question at
all ? And why should there be one law for the town and
another for the country, unless the special object was to injure
the Church of England Schools which are mostly in the
country ?

Further — Why should 80 out of every 100 parents be
required to vote in order to get religious teaching for
children ? This seems folly, because 21 parents could prevent
religious teaching, and could thus upset and thwart the wishes
of the 79 who wished for it.

In all other things majorities rule in this country, and
why not in this?

" Minorities must suffer," said Mr. Birrell, in introducing
the Bill. But it seems as if even small minorities are to rule —
when they are Nonconformist ! And even great majorities are
to suffer, — when they are not !

Again, why should a child's education be regulated by
these miserable vulgar fractions?

Then again, why should the spiritual welfare of the nation
depend so entirely upon the consent of any 'Town or County
Council ?

These men are elected for a totally different purpose.
Their qualifications are supposed to be z, knowledge of sanita-
tion, of buildings, of roads, of gas and water, of bridges, &c,
and they may be totally unfit to judge of religious questions.
It would fill every district in the land with religious election
squabbles.

Besides all this, religious parents strongly object to have
the spiritual welfare of their children mixed up with gas,
water, paving stones, and drain pipes.

There are about 12,000 voluntary schools under trust
deeds, and the conditions of most of those trusts are that the
children of the poor shall be educated in the faith of the
founder of the school, whether Church of England or any
other Church.

Under the Bill all these trustees might be required to
break their trusts, give up their schools to the State, on pain of
liHviug a visit from the policeman to compel them to do so.

[ 71 ]
Does this look like Robbery?

Charles the First lost his head for a less political crime
than this, and the Radicals deserve to lose their seats for
supporting this unjust treatmeni of the schools — this robbery
by Act of Parliament.

How were they going to carry it out?

Well, a Radical is nothing if not sensational.

They wont back to the Middle Ages for their model of
action.

Henry VII. (1487) invented a body called the " Star
Chamber," consisting of three men, who tried suspected
persons secretly, and from whom there was no appeal.

The present Radical Government, in order to carry out
the drastic proposals of this " Spoliation Bill," were also, in
imitation of Henry YIL, going to create a Star Chamber,
consisting of three men, who should have power, forcibly,
if necessary, to take over our schools, either with or without
the consent of their owners.

And from their decision there was to be no appeal to any
Court (CI. 8, Sec. 4).

Even criminals in this country have some chance of appeal
to a higher court, but the poor school trustee, under this
shameful Bill, had no appeal from the decisions of this
Radical Star Chamber !

The old Star Chamber was abolished under Charles II.
(1641) because it was inconsistent with the then fast-growing
British freedom, but we have had to wait for the advent of a
Radical Government in the twentieth century to endeavour to
bring back the tyranny and injustice of 420 years ago.

Truly the Radical is a progressive animal — like a crab, he
progresses backward.

We are told by these Progressives (perhaps they intend
it as a joke) that at the last general election the people gave
them a " mandate " (blessed word) to do all this mischief,
when the fact is that not one voter out of a million knew,
or could possibly have known, what the proposals of the
Government's Education Bill were to be.

When this apology for an Education Bill was sent up to
the House of Lords, not one half of its 40 clauses had been
discussed in the House of Commons ; as in the case of the Home
Rule Bill, the rest had been forced through the House by
means of the gag.

There, it was carefully considered, clause by chni^o.
several amendments were put in, making the Bill a rather
more workable and less unjust measure than it was when they
received it.

[ 72 ]

The principal changes introduced by the Lords into the
Bill as it came to them from the House of Commons were as
follows : —

1st, The Commons left it to the Local Authority to say
whether there should be any religious teaching in
the schools in their charge or none at all.

The Lords provided that there must be
religious teaching of some sort in all the schools.

2nd. The Commons said no child need attend school
during the time set apart for religious teaching.

The Lords provided that all children must
attend school during that time (unless the parent
caused them to attend religious teaching elsewhere),
but secular teaching was to be provided during that
time for the children of such parents as objected to
religious teaching.

3rd. The Commons left it entirely at the option of the
Local Authority whether they would take over a
school or not, with a right of appeal to the Com-
missioners if they could not come to an agreement
with the owners.

The Lords gave a similar right of appeal to the
owners, if the Local Authority refused to take over
a school that was structurally fit.

4th. The 'Commons refused to allow the regular teachers
to give denominational teaching (even though
willing to do it not at the public expense) in
denominational schools transferred to the Local
Authority, except that the Local Authority might
allow it in schools with " extended facilities."

The Lords permitted the regular teacher to give
this instruction, if willing, in all transferred
schools.

5th. According to the Commons extended facilities
under Clause 4 were only to be allowed subject to
ihe restrictions already mentioned on pp. 69 and 70.
The Lords greatly modified these restrictions,
removing the limit of area and population and
making it compulsory on the Local Authority to
grant the extended facilities if the parents of two-
thirds of the children whose parents took part in a
ballot wished for them, provided that accommoda-
tion was supplied for the children of such parents
as did not desire to avail themselves of these
facilities. The Local Authority was to satisfy
itself, in the case of these schools, that the teachers
were willing and qualified to give the special
religious instruction.

[ 7:; ]

These reasonable amendments, when the Bill was sent to
the House of Commons, were received by its members wilh
protests and derision.

Instead of these amendments being considered and dis-
cussed seriatim,, as they ought to have been, fhe Bill was sent
back to the House of Lords with the amendments refused " en
Woe," and thus the Bill and amendments were thrown hack
into the faces of the Peers, who were told either to pass it or
leave it, as they pleased.

They left it!

It was sent hack again to the House of Commons
unchanged. The Government dropped the Bill, and thus
destroyed their own political child, having practically wasted
eight months of the time of the House of Commons.

We are now threatened with a severe campaign in the
country against the House of Lords, similar to those we have
had before in 1884 over the Eeform Bill, and in 1894 over the
Home Rule Bill, but the Peers know perfectly well, notwith-
standing the Radical cry of "Mandate" that the people of
this country are with them in this matter, and the Government
dare not ask for their verdict. The people have never been
consulted on the details of this Bill, and until such a decision
has been given, the threatened attack on the House of Lords
will be about as effective as trying to bombard the Rock of
Gibraltar with a boy's pop-gun.

You cannot drown a duck by pouring a quart of water
on its back.

Greater men than Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman have
tried a fall with the House of Lords without success, and he
will share the fate of his predecessors — if he tries.

WORK OF HOUSE OF LORDS.— CHARACTER OF DEBATES.

Look at the House of Lords in another light — as a practi-
cal working assembly; examine its debates; notice the way it
deals with the questions before it. While the House of
Commons is splitting hairs, fretting over obstruction which
it is powerless to stop, wrangling over a quibble, wasting the
public time, hindering legislation, preventing the business of
the country being conducted with that despatch which its
needs require, the House of Lords, on the other hand,
itself earnestly to solve the political problems presented to
it, does not consume a tithe of the public time, nor prevent
the passing of one quarter the measures that the House of
Commons does.

Xo imperious overbearing minister in the House of Lords
stops the full discussion of any subject, bill or motion by means
of the gag as is so often done in the House of Commons.

C 74 ]

Every subject, therefore, gets fair play and full con-
sideration.

. DEBATES.

Then, again, look at the debates. If you desire logic,
eloquence, force, and beauty of language, combined with calm
reason and dignified demeanour, you have them in the House
of Lords.

If you wish to see a subject dealt with on its merits, in
a statesmanlike and judicial manner, suited to the gravity and
importance of law-making, you will find it in the House of
Lords. Should you wish to see a debate carried on free from
personalities and the attribution of bad motives, you will find
it there. From whatever point of view you look, whether of
wisdom, knowledge, logic, eloquence, felicity of diction, or
grasp of subject, there is no company of gentlemen in the
world can surpass, and probably none can equal the assembly
of the peers.

The following important testimony bears upon this point : —
" While the House of Commons devotes weeks of aimless and arid palaver to
a single clause, the House of Lords will, without incurring the least suspicion of
hastiness, mould an intricate Bill into shape in a few sittings. During the last
session of Parliament, while the House of Commons was exhausting its entire
energies over a single Irish Bill, the House of Lords had already introduced, dis-
cussed, and passed through all the possible stages a Tithe Rent Charge Bill, a
Land Transfer Bill, a Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill, a Glebe Lands Bill, an
Irish Land Bill, a Railway and a Canal Traffic Bill, and a Church Reform Bill.
At a time when rancour and vulgarity contend for the prior place in the speeches
of a section of the House of Commons, and its debates are degraded into unseemly
brawls, the discussions of the House of Lords always move on the same lofty
plane of courtesy, dignity, and decorum. The House of Commons is frequently
turbulent and insubordinate to constituted authority. With no Speaker and no
power of suspension, the House of Lords is incapable of a breach of manners.
The House of Commons is the playground of jesters and the paradise of bores.
The House of Lords extinguishes the jester by a chilling silence, and exterminates
the bore by a buzz of sound. In the House of Commons the worst of speeches
are made by the most inferior of men. In the House of Lords authoritative
utterances fall from the lips of those best qualified to speak; and mute inglorious
Ciceros are not tempted by the fussy pride of constituents to emerge from an
obscurity which is honourable even where it is profornd." — The Hon. G. N.
Curzon, M.P., National Review, March, 1888.

Mr. W. E. Gladstone's opinion on this point may perhaps

satisfy a few fair-minded Liberals: —

" When I for one speak of the independence of the House of Lords, I speak
of that which is no mere name, a phantom — but of that which I am anxious to
see maintained in practice as well as in the code, aB a sacred part of our
constitution and to which I attach a value second only to the value which I
attach to the privileges of this House." — (Hansard, vol. 147, p. 170.)

USES OF HOUSE OF LORDS.

On the uses of the House of Lords we must be brief,
though iho subject is prolific and tempting. A few hints must
suffice.

[ -^ ]

"We have already noticed their great services in the past,
their courage and devotion to the interests of the country. We
see before our eyes how well they fulfil their duties in the
present by the laws which they assist in passing, while they
curb the impetuosity of the Commons on the one side, and
would be ready, if necessary, to withstand a threatened
encroachment of the Crown on the other, as they Lave in the
past. I would commend the words of Blackstone on this
subject, when he says (sec. 157-8): —

" The distinction of rank and honour is necessary in every well -governed
State, in order to reward such as are eminent for their services to the public, in
a manner the most desirable to individuals, and yet without burden to the
community: exciting thereby an ambitious yet laudable ardour and generous
emulation in others. Such a spirit, whes nationally diffused, gives life and
vigour to the community, which, under a wise regulator, may be directed to any
beneficial purpose. A body of nobility is also more peculiarly necessary in our
mixed constitution, in order to support both the rights of the Crown and the
people, by forming a barrier to withstand the encroachments of both. It creates
and preserves that gradual state of dignity which proceeds from the peasant to
the prince, rising like a pyramid from a broad foundation, and diminishing to a
point as it rises."

Besides its full share of legislative work of every session,
the House of Lords serves another and almost as important
a purpose in its capacity of " The Final Court of Appeal," for
all causes, ecclesiastical and civil. Its decisions carry with
them the weight which perhaps no other court differently
composed could possibly do. It is the embodiment of the
judicial mind of the nation. No other court could perform
those functions in as complete and satisfactory a manner as
that in which they are now performed by the House of Lords.
t; This jurisdiction, originally exercised by the whole House, has since 1S44
been left to the Law Lords, that is the Lord Chancellor, and other peers holding,
or having held, high legal positions. By more recent acts, four Lords of Appeal
are especially appointed to exercise this jurisdiction, under the presidency of the
Lord Chancellor. But any other legal peer, and theoretically any peer whatever,
retains the right to attend and deliver judgment." — (Sec Constitutional Tear
Book, 1894, page 60).

A striking instance of the value of this Court of Appeal
has just (December, 190G) been afforded in what was termed
the " West Riding Judgment."

This was a case where the (Eadical) "West Eiding County
Council had deducted about ten per cent, from the salaries of
the working schoolmasters in the voluntary schools because of
the time occupied in giving religious (denominational) instruc-
tion to the children. (Just like a Eadical trick this.)

The schoolmasters went to law and won the case.

Then the County Council appealed to a higher court and
the decision of the Lower Court was reversed.

Finally the schoolmasters appealed to the highest court
in the land— the House of Lords.

The Court consisted of eight judges, five Conservatives,
two Liberals, one Liberal-Unionist (including four Lords of
Appeal).

[ 76 ]

They decided unanimously in favour of the school-
masters and against the West Hiding County Council, holding
that the Act of 1902 authorises the teachers to give religious
instruction as part of their regular daily duties.

CONFERRING OF TITLES.

The title of " peer " is generally conferred upon men for
some great public service, which, as a rule, they have spent the
best part of their lives in performing; some successful general,
who has led his country to victory in a hundred fights, upheld
the honour of his nation and his Hag in every clime ; or some
great man, eminent in science or literature, who, by his studies
or writings, has advanced our knowledge of philosophy or of
mankind, and enabled us to ameliorate the lot of the human
race, gain bloodless victories over the material elements, and
add considerably to the general wealth of the nation ; or some
faithful and persevering political servant of the State, who
may have expended the cares of half a lifetime in the senate,
the energies of an active and master mind in efforts to improve
the position of his countrymen ; by trying to pass laws to
increase political liberty, whose grand result will be happiness
to toiling millions, and add greatness to the country which has
the honour to claim him as a citizen.

MEN WHO ARE ENNOBLED.

It is men such as these on whom titles of nobility are
usually conferred. And why should they not be ennobled ?
Why should not the best gifts which the country can confei
be offered to them'? How else could you reward them? II
a niche in the " Temple of Fame," a step on the ladder of dis-
tinction, or the just applause of their country, will satisfy them
for their great services, where is the man who will grudge it?
Who would act the part of the dog in the manger, and say
" No " ? And why, we may ask, should we not provide these
distinctions for the best of our people? Why should not this
spirit of personal worth be exalted ? Does a man toil from
morn to eve, from January to December, in literature, in art,
in science, merely for the sake of getting sufficient food to keep
him alive ? Is it merely for a little more or less of the dross of
this world's goods that they rise early, and late take their rest?
A moment's reflection will suffice to give an answer. Is it not
rather that they may stand well with their neighbours, with
their family, with their country? Is it not Unit they may
leave a good name, a bright example to their children and to
all who follow them? Are the toils and difficult ies of life
contended with and overcome merely to satisfy the desire for
ease — or is it not, rather, that unselfish and noble desire to
leave the world better than they found it; to give the children

[ 77 ]

who follow tlicni a better chance, a brighter position, than
they themselves ever had? It is motives Like these which have
actuated many of our nolle*. Can we say this is wrong?
Do we not rather commend it as a good thing, and i <- 1 1 uni-
sons as far as possible to imitate it?

If this, therefore, be the spirit which has contributed
largely to fill our House of Lords, can we wonder thai ii haa
the reputation of being' the first assembly of gentlemen in the
world? Is not this the cause which makes it command the
respect, emulation, and confidence of the great bulk of their
admiring countrymen ?

ORIGIN OF TITLES.

It is the fashion in some quarters to say that the bulk
of the aristocracy owe their origin to the licentiousness of
kings, the corruption of princes, or the vicious panderings to
and flattery of some great man with sufficient influence to
induce the conferring of a title. Whoever will look into the
origin of our aristocratic families will find that such a repre-
sentation is far from the truth, notwithstanding the old stereo-
typed stories of Charles II. We find the dukedom of Leeds
owes its origin to trade, as also do the earldoms of Suffolk
(extinct), Craven, Radnor, and Feversham ; likewise the
baronies of Ashburton, Carrington, Overstone, Wolverton,
Belper, Masham, Joicey, Ashton, Armstrong, and others. This
list does not by any means represent the whole of the nobles
who are interested in trade, but simply explains the origin of
those titles. We may say that a large proportion of the peerage
is directly interested in trade; about seventy of the other titles
originated in the law, sixty in the army and navy, sixteen
were conferred on Speakers of the House of Commons, sixteen
on Lord Mayors of London, twelve were new titles given to
ancient Irish and Scottish chieftains, nine were held by Prime
Ministers, fifteen belong to foreign, i.e., ancient Norman,
Danish and other nobles; while the balance is made up of
those who have been ennobled for eminent Scientific, literary,
political, and other services. Sir E. Creasy echoes the senti-
ments of Hallam, Macintosh, and nearly all our great historians
when he says : —

USE OF TITLES.

'When it is remembered also to how large an extent the Upper Eonse ia
continually recruited from the commonalty: how a peerage is the stimu]
energy, and the valued prize of eminence, there are few, or none, bni will n
in the permanence and desire the stability of our House of Lords. Men ol
constitutional principles will naturally cling to the Peers of England—' I
of the State.' And even the most vehemenl reformer mnst on reflection
feel their value. The necessity for a second legislative chamber is
universally admitted, nor could a speculator frame one that would work
than our present peerage. Such a second chamber, in order to be of the
use, must not be a mere duplicate of the House of Commons."

C 78 ]
CROMWELL AND HOUSE OF LORDS.

Nearly every one of the American constitutional writers,
such as Kent, Story, and Professor Lieber, especially the latter
(Civil Liberty and Self Government, p. 157) has eulogised
the English parliamentary system as being as near perfection
as possible. The necessity for a second chamber has been
shown in every great crisis of our history; when the liberties
of the nation have been threatened, either from the side of
a too impetuous democracy, or from that of an infatuated
monarchy. The proof also of its utility is strongly manifested
in the fact that Cromwell, when he had arrived at the apex of
his ambition, completely subjugated both Houses of Parlia-
ment, and abolished the Lords,* found himself unable to carry
on the business of the country, even in the rude and imperfect
state in which it then was, without an Upper House of Par-
liament.

Several of the present Ministers and others have referred
to the example of Cromwell as a precedent for abolishing the
House of Lords. Mr. Lloyd-George, M.P., in a speech the
other day, said " that the two greatest men," in his opinion,
" in English history were Oliver Cromwell and Dr. Clifford."
He evidently forgets that Cromwell also abolished the House
of Commons. Are we to follow his example in the case of the
Lords and stop short — not follow his example in dealing with
the Commons? Is this another bit of inconvenient history for
the Radical? Let me remind our enthusiastic Radical
abolitionist of one or two facts relating to friend Oliver and
his methods.

He instructed Colonel Pride to expel the Presbyterian
majority from the House of Commons, which was done. A
very forcible instance of " gag."

The minority, 53 M.P.'s, then voted to bring King Charles
to trial.

The House of Lords rejected this illegal resolution. This
proceeding reminds one of their answer to the gagging methods
over the Home Rule Bill and the Education Bill.

Cromwell instigated the House of Commons, therefore, to
resolve that the House of Lords should be abolished — which
was done.

Shortly after this, Cromwell goes to the House of Com-
mons, orders ihe members out, locks the door, and puts the
key in his pocket.

Is this what we are coming to under Sir II. Campbell-
Bannerman, Lloyd-George,, and Churchill?

Cromwell then appoints a Council of Stale, consisting of
nine officers and four civilians, who write letters to various

• Tins is the genera] opinion. But It is right to add that some historians have doubted
whether Cromwell supported i he resolution in the Commons Eor the abolition of the House
of Lords, believing that he desired to retain it as a Consultative Chamber. If so, it was
a proof of his shrewd eommon sense |

r 79 ]

Independent ministers, asking them to send names of men
of their respective congregations whom they think fit to 1><;
members of Parliament. This was done. Cromwell and his
precious Council then selected 139 names, and these became the
" Barebones Parliament."

Not one of these so-called M.P.'s represented any con-
stituency, nor had they been sent to the House of Commons
by the votes of any voter, but each was ordered by Cromwell
to sit as member for so and so, and for such a place — they
were sorted out by the gentle Oliver like pigs in a pen.

Shortly afterwards even these political dummies don't
please him, so he again goes down to the House, turns out
one hundred members and allows the remainder to sit. Is
this what we are coming to? He afterwards (in 1658) tried to
reconstitute the abolished House of Peers; but owing to the
violence of the Commons, and the fact that the old and true
peers would not be made puppets of nor sit with the men
whom Cromwell placed in their company, the scheme became
abortive, and he was compelled to dissolve this his last Parlia-
ment because it was unworkable. (Hallam, and also Cassell,
3, 353-6.)

Here are the results which ought to be well pondered by
all destructive Radicals, viz.: — Despotism, illegality, and
crime.

" All illusion was now gone as to the pretended benefits of the civil war. It
had ended in a despotism compared to which all the illegal practices of former
Kings, all that had cost Charles his life and crown, appeared as dust in the
balance." (Hallam, p. 465.)

We may thus summarise Cromwell's performances : —
1648 — Expelled Presbyterian majority from the

House of Commons.
1649 — House of Lords abolished as " useless and

dangerous.'"
1653 — Expelled all the members of the House of

Commons.
1654 — Expelled 100 members of the House of

Common'-.
1656 — Expelled 90 members of the House of

Commons.
1657 — Tries to set up new House of Lords and fails !
1658 — Dissolves the new House" of Commons — no

business done.
1658 — Dies without any Parliament.
We may say he strangled five Parliaments; abolished

the House of Lords; beheaded the King;

and made it a crime to read the Book of

Common Prayer, even in private houses.
Facts like these from our own history are sufficient to
show us that if a practical man like Cromwell could not con-

[ so ]

duct the business of the nation without the co-operation of a
second chamber, how could we hope to do so in these times,
when the business of Parliament is so much more important,
extensive, and complicated than it was in the middle of the
seventeenth century.

FEEBLE IMITATORS OF CROMWELL —RADICAL PROPOSALS
FOR DESTROYING THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

Lord Rosebery, knowing the folly of many of his Radical
colleagues, gave them this bit of sound experience : —

'•I have never yet met a reasonable human being who could tell vie a constitu-
tional measure by which you could, put an end to the House of Lords."

Mr. Labouchere, M.P., made several attempts to accom-
plish the abolition or coercion of the House of Lords through
the House of Commons, but failed on every occasion : —

Nov. 21, 18S4.— Voted for his motion 71

Against ... ... ... ... ... 145

Majority ... ... 74

Mar. 5, 1886.— Voted for his motion 166

Against 202

Majority ... ... 36

Mar. 9, 1888.— Voted for his motion 162

Against 223

Majority ... ... 61

Then, as a last dying kick, he advocated the creation of
640 new Peers to be put into the House of Lords to vote
for their own extinction. — (" Truth," February 22,
1894.)

Then conies Mr. Cyril Dodd (Radical lawyer) and
Mr. Gillain, with their proposal at the Liberal and Radical
Union of London (February 13, 1894):-

For the Government to advise the Queen not to issue
any more writs for the Peers— a nice Party, to try and
persuade the Queen to upset the Constitution and endanger
her own position on the Throne.

Then we have Mr. Frederick Harrison (Radical and
Socialist) urging the Government to elevate 500 sweeps to
Hie Peerage — would lie act as one of them? — ("Fortnightly
Review," September, 1892, p. 276.)

Then we have another typical Radical (Sir James Kitson,
M.P.) who has been decorated (?) with a title himself, urging
the Government to abolish the House of Lords by-
Royal Warrant. (" 'limes," April 9, 1894.)

A Radical is never happy unless be is abolishing somc-
thing destroying something!

[ 81 ]

Lord Tweedmouth said some time ago that " the task of
ending the House of Lords would be dangerous for the Liberal

Party."— (At the Eighty Club, 1894.)

And once more we have Mr. Labouchere bringing forward

a motion to " ignore " the House of Lords, because not elected
by the voters, or else create 500 new Peers. (House of Com-
mons, March 13, 1894.)
The voting was : —

For the motion 117

Against 14">

Majority in favour of ignoring ... 2

This motioij was carried against the Government, more than
half the majority being Irish Home Rulers, who voted as a
matter of revenge against the House of Lords.

Rev. Mr. Silvester Home, at the Free Church Council
meeting in London (November 5, 190G), urged the Government
to send the Education Bill again to the House of Lords, and
create 500 new Peers to force them to pass it. — How nice !
Peers are "wicked" people, but these Radicals want 500 more
" wicked 'uns " to corrupt the rest.

These men would act as " Cromwells," but the late Liberal

Premier, Mr. W. E. Gladstone, was bound to acknowledge that

Cromwell did nothing for English liberty, for he says: —

'•The reign of Cromwell was a great reign — but he did .nothing for
English freedom — because it was the reign of a military force, and it has not
left on the Statute Book the record of such triumphs as were achieved by
peaceful action during the, in many respects, base and infamous reign which
followed — the reign of Charles II.:' — (House of Commons, July 24, 1882.)

CHARACTER AND COMPOSITION OF HOUSE OF LORDS.

The composition of our House of Lords is a consideration
which all students of our Constitution ought to ponder; for
all must admit that the individual qualities of this body are a
guarantee that its functions will be properly fulfilled.

We are aware that efforts are sometimes made to disparage
the characters of members of the British peerage by raking
up and circulating stories derogatory to their honour and
position; inventing, or at least exaggerating, tales unfit for
decent society. Men who can do this — who take pleasure in
filth and social scandal — ought not to be the people one should
listen to for political education. One would not wish to
defend anything that is wrong in the aristocracy, any more
than one would defend wrong doing in any other class of the
community ; where there is a sore spot in our society it is for
the good of the community that it should be exposed — pro-
viding it be done in a proper and decent manner. The public

[ 82 ]

read a great deal of the private lives of many of our aristo-
cratic families — their exalted station causes them to be looked
up to, copied, and talked about, whatever they do. Although
there may be blots here and there, which is quite unavoidable
in so large a body of men, we may venture to say that there
is more courtesy, honour, learning, dignity, and gentlemanly
conduct in our aristocracy than in any other body of gentle-
men of equal number in this or any other country. The
assailants of our nobles and their families are very much like
the accusers of the poor woman in the Gospel — they would like
to punish them for faults of which they themselves are far
more guilty. We may with confidence say that our aristocracy
are, as a body, the pride of the country and the envy of the
world. May they long continue so.

We may say with Gibbon : —

" Its foundations were laid on ancient and free institutions which, good from
the first, were still gradually improving, and which alone amongst all others
since the origin of civil society had completely solved the great problem how to
combine the greatest security to property with the greatest freedom of action."

Under the beneficent rule of the House of Lords the
British Empire has grown to its present proportions. It is
while we have had a House of Lords that our liberties, both
civil and religious, have been born and have thriven. Many
members of the House of Lords have personally assisted in
these developments.

Four hundred millions of human beings own the sway of
King Edward VII. and in all matters of imperial concern,
recognise the authority of the Sovereign and his Parliament
of Lords and Commons, from whom their liberties flow.

Twelve millions of square miles of territory— one-fourth
of the whole habitable globe — are ruled by our present con-
stitutional authorities, while both territories and liberties have
increased and broadened down the stream of time, by the
influence and under the guidance of a Parliament of which the
House of Lords forms part. It is too precious a heritage to
throw away. It has cost too many sacrifices to secure.

Here is a significant admission from an opponent of the
House of Lords : —

" Until the reign of George III. the House of Lords was decidedly superior
to the House of Commons in the liberality and general accomplishments of its
members."— The late Charles Bradlaugh, Impeachment of the House of
Brunswick, p. 32.

Another and equally strong testimony on this subject
deserves consideration : —

'• I avow to you moreover, that I mean to support in its full integrity the
authority of the House of Lords — as an essential, indispensable condition of the
continued existence of the mixed form of government under which we live as
tantamount, in short, to the maintenance of the British Constitution — (Loud
and long continued cheers) — (Sir Uobkrt Peel, at Glasgow, 1837).

[ 83 ]

THE ARISTOCRACY AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE.

In the Financial Reform Almanack for 1884 there are 27
pages of names, in that of 1885 there are 26 pages of names of
peers, relatives of peers, relations by marriage, ancestors, and
collaterals.* These are summarised as follows: — That 532
noble families, consisting of 7,991 relatives, hold and have held
13,888 public offices at a cost, presumably out of the taxation
of the country, of £108,614,632. It also states that these lists
date from January 1st, 1850, up to 1885.

This statement, if it were true, would be as Lord Goschen
said, "a staggerer" but if it be untrue, then the unblushing
impudence and unscrupulous mendacity of the paper which
circulates these crammers is much more than a staggerer — it is
simply an abomination and an outrage.

How any journal with the slightest self-respect could be
guilty of circulating the mis-statements, the half-falsehoods,
and the full-blown lies which abound in that list passes com-
prehension. It can only be explained on the theory which
actuates all unscrupulous politicians :

Say all the ill you can,
Misrepresent as much as you can,
Get as many votes as you can,
Get them honestly if you can,

But get them !

The result often is —

Radical Party in Power.

Destructive Principles reduced to Practice.

General Discontent — Extravagance and Waste in the National Finances.

The System on which the Financial Fabulist's list is
prepared is vicious and wicked. The so-called facts are many
of them mere assumptions; while the downright imfacts are
numerous and glaring.

Whole families are accused of corruption and place-hunt-
ing, the characters of some of our best and worthiest citizens
are maligned and slandered, and their feelings recklessly and
brutally wounded. Even the sacred cause of truth would not
justify the language used ; but when such vile and coarse
attacks have no better foundation than a volume of fiction and
imagination, language fails to find the fitting punishment for
such literary assassins and hired bravos. The immoral way
in which the list is got up was accurately described by
Mr. Goschenf at Eipon, January 30, 1884.

•These are the latest years in which the Financial Reform Almanack deals
with this subject except the one for 1886. where reference is made to the enormous
mistake they have perpetrated by overstating the amount by S914,700— a mere
trifle for this " Story Teller.''

f The late Lord Goschen,

[ 84 ]

MR. GOSCHEN, AT RIPON, ON THE FINANCIAL REFORM

ALMANACK.

('Times, January 31. 1884, p. 7.)
The Financial Reformer supplies details which, when summed up, show that
28 ducal families, composed of 519 members, occupy 1,013 offices under
Government as hereditary privileges at a cost to the State of £9,760,090 ; that
the families of 33 marquesses supply 621 poor relations for 1,250 offices at a cost
of £8,300.000 ; and that the family connections of 200 earls, numbering 3,100,
hold 5,960 public offices at a cost of £48,105,000, equal to 8,226 offices held by
4,531 members of the nobility at a cost of £66,168,000. That is a curious state-
ment. It is a staggerer, \ think. One can fancy a body of working men who read
that statement saying, "The Financial Reform Almanack is, I believe, subsidised
by the Cobden Club." This is " the extent to which our aristocracy are feeding,
'preying' — that is the phrase used — upon the British taxes." When I look at the
Financial Reform, Almanack I find that it is not that they hold those offices, but
that they have held them during the last 33 years, since 1850. But who can tell
that from the paragraph I have read 1 Many of these persons are dead already
who were holding those offices ; while it also included pay or pensions received
prior to the year 1850. Now, supposing an honest employe of a bank, who begins
on a salary of £250. and ends after 30 years' service with £1,000, and that he has
had an average income of £500 — is it fair to say to him at the end of the 30 years,
" My dear sir, you have taken £15,000 out of the pocket of your employer " 1 It
is very much like adding up how many eggs or pounds of meat a man eats
during his life. But there are some more curiosities in this list. I look out a
few of the families, and I find there are included among them the families of
Lord Chancellors who have risen from the ranks, and who have only just joined
the aristocracy ; but nevertheless the sums earned by themselves, by their
fathers, by their brothers, cousins, first cousins, second cousins, and half-cousins
by marriage, are all included in this sum, in order to prove to the new democracy
what ihe aristocracy has cost the people. Lord Selborne stands for the important
total of £317,000 in this list. Of course his salary as Attorney-General is
included. His father was a clergyman, and his salary is added to the sum.
His brother is a distinguished tutor at Oxford, but he goes down also in this
black list as having received so much from the Church and from the University.
He has a cousin by marriage who is also put down, and he has a half-cousin in
the Civil Service, and it is not only what you get in one year, but if any of your
half -cousins, or brothers-in-law, or uncles have any public pay, because you have
been made an earl the whole has been swept together, and the whole is put
down, in order to teach the public how much the hereditary aristocracy receive.

I want fair play all round ; and I say it is not fair play to put down as
" British aristocratic prerogatives " the pay received by an Oxford tutor for the
work that he does there.

There is one more family that you should hear of, because it is a curious case.
It is the Lytton family, whose figure forms a total of £400,000.

Lord Lytton was a novelist, and a very distinguished novelist ; but he is
ennobled, and all that his relations have oefore his time, or during his time, or
after his time, been receiving in the way of State pay is added up, and Lord
Lytton figures with £400,000 in the black list. These families together account
for £900,000. I think that is making up statistics in a rather curious fashion.

But I object to more than these errors, as I will call them, in the making up
of the compilation. 1 object to the system of saying that any man is to be held
up in this way to abuse if he does honest work for the pay which he receives
from the State.

Among this list there arc a vast number of officers in the army, officers in the
navy, and men who have laboured in the Civil Service.

Tin-re are men for whom sums are put down here who have not only lived for
their country, but who have died for it. There are men in that list like your
own neighbour, Lord Ripon, who, in the interest of the public service carries his
health out to India anil risks his life, because he does risk life in that position,
through the climate, in the service of the State ; aud I say do not let us, now
we arc coming more ami more to democratic times, by devices such as these teach
the working classes or the populace to wish to dissociate the upper cltsses from
the service of the State, but rather let there be a rivalry— let all classes do their
best by the country.

C 85 ]

" And so say all of us." Lord Goschen has in no sense ex-
hausted the zmfacts in this black list. Here arc a few more
typical ones : —

LORD SALISBURY
and his family are put down for £192,000 of public money, of
which Lord Salisbury himself is credited with only £6,000.
The remaining trifle of £18<J,(J00 is attached to hi> name on th-j
nonsensical principle that one member of a family must bear
the political and financial sins of all the others — fathers,
brothers, grandfathers, cousins, half-cousins, father-in-law,
brother-in-law, in fact, everybody who by direct relationship,
marriage, or otherwise can be dragged in to swell the total of
these foolish lists. Lord Salisbury married one of the nine
children of the late Sir E. H. Alderson (a judge) in 18-37 —
therefore the whole of the salary received by Judge Alderson
during a long official life (the Fabulist's Guide states it at
£130,000) is dragged out of the judge's grave and tacked on
to Lord Salisbury's name. This is done to demonstrate the
Iniquitous act of Lord Salisbury in marrying an orphan whose
father had dared to receive a salary for twenty-five years'
services rendered to the State. The theory regulating the
Financial Fabulists in their statements seems to be this: That
the Liberal Minister (Lord Brougham) who appointed Sir
Edward Alderson did it because he guessed that Lord Salisbury
(who was then a baby — 1830) would marry one of the judge's
nine children a quarter of a century later. Even if we credit
Lord Brougham with so much foreknowledge, it is difficult
to understand why the whole of Judge Alderson's professional
salary should be treated as part of Lord Salisbury's profits
from public money. TVTiy not add the salaries of all judges
England has ever possessed, with that of all their clerks, cooks,
and footmen, to the sum total ? It would be a much bigger
sum than £130,000, and be quite as truthful and just. Again,
Lord Salisbury's father is put down for £41,000, and as having
held six offices. This amount is only exaggerated by the small
sum of £20,000, and even the balance was fairly earned as an
officer in the army and in the administration of his country.
A small exaggeration of this kind is nothing to this " Book of
Fables."

FRAUDULENT EXAGGERATIONS.
The late Lord Stanley of Alderley, in the House of Lords.
on July 20, 1885, cites the case of Lord Carlingford :

'• There was a peer, a member of the late (Liberal) Government, who was

said to have received, along with sixteen relatives, nearly £200, ('t

sixteen, as a matter of fact, there were only three relatives — one married to a
niece by marriage : the other died before this peer (Lord Carlingford) was born :
the third had left the service long before he became a connection by marriage.
In his (Lord Stanley of Alderley *s) own case, the salary he had received was put.
as nearly double the amount, and he was credited with the pay of Sir Edward

L 86 j

Parry, the Arctic voyager, and of General Scott, who was badly wounded at
Talavera in 1809, both of whom, late in life, married relations of his father.
They had put down £7(5,000 as the salary received by his fatber during his life :
it should have been £50,400. From a calculation made for him in a public office
the error with respect to these two salaries was £29,000 in a sum of £83,500.
Lord Stanley then mentioned that ' he had found Earl Granville's salary had
been overstated by £35,000, and Lord Kimberley's by £25,000. Who would
defend these fraudulent statistics .' ':'

Commenting on the above, the St. James's Gazette of
August 19, 1885, makes the case still worse for the Almanack
when it says :

'• In the case of Lord Granville there is a still more gross mistake, for he is
accredited with £(50,000, his salary as Warden of the Cinque Ports since 1865.
Will the editor of the Almanack be surprised to hear, or will he not, that no
salary has been attached to the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports since the death
of the Duke of Wellington in 1852. From Lord Granville's account alone, then,
we have at once to strike off another £60,000, making the total deduction not less
than £95,000, and the sum actually received by Lord Granville £76,000 instead
of £171,000."

There is no need to ask : " Will the editor of the Almanack
be surprised ?" This editor, with an impervious political skin,
will be surprised at nothing in the way of correction. You
cannot tickle a rhinoceros with a feather.

The grandson of that Lord Stanley of Alderley is now
a Radical M.P. for an important Cheshire constituency (Eddis-
bury). What does he think of these slanders on his family —
propagated by the Radical Party tt> obtain a few miserable
votes from ignorant voters ?

The man who will take away another's character by false-
hood would commit a burglary.

The Almanack for 1886 quadrupled the naval pay of the
late Duke of Edinburgh, for after December, 1884, he was on
half-pay and received : —

Fact. £ Fiction. £

The Book of Lies says 2,555

The Handbook of " Crammers " „ 45,000
The Prevaricators' Primer ,, 5,600

The Radical Romancist „ 2.000

This amount only (D. of Ed.)

593

Admiral Phillimore received

24,581

Mr. E. A. Drummond

1,045

Lord Sidmouth

))

627

Mr. B. W. Drummond

(a young "middy")

107

Lord Chas. Beresford

3,716

Captain J. R. Fullerton

))

6,500

Hon. P. J. Stanhope

„ £8

> 2*. 6d.

The Ifon.S. J.Forteseue

1,445

Lord Queensbnry

22S

Lord Lewis Gordon

309

Viscount Dursley

142

T. V. Anson

21,780

II. B, Anson

1,845

('. B. Anson

960

Don. W. V. Anson

720

The Catchpenny Calumniator

500

The Financial Fabulist

„* 16,000

The Grievance Jerrvmander

„ 25,000

This (self-styled) Financial

Reformer

., 2,000

The Political Pedlar

„ 6,000

The Universal Vilifier

„ 1,500

The Magazine of Mischief

„ 750

The Journal of Moonshine

„ 1,500

The Monetary Misleader

„ 45.000

The Sneering Story Teller

„ 3,000

The Hrckless Reporter

,. 1,500

The \ w t'ul Almanack

„ 1,500

rtalActual £64,683 Total Apocryphal £159,405

.V' ., &c, &c., ad nauseam.

■ £10,000 of this is said to be a misprint ! All these examples are from the
navy alone, and might be multiplied indefinitely.

C 87 ]

Here in these few items is a slight exaggeration of only
£94,722. "What must be the gross error in fifty-three pages
of such libellous statements ?

You told a lie, an odious, damned lie,

Upon my soul a lie, a wicked lie. — Otfello, Ad v.. sc. :'.

"Alas for the rarity of political purity under the sun."

Mr. R. D. LITTLER, Q.C., makes the following statement

in the Times : —

LORD SHAFTESBURY

is put down for £153,700, of which i'05,000 is the salary of his
father (who died in 1850, at about four-score years of age) as
Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, and £50,000
for his brother, whose office ceased in 1847; while the next
largest is the official salary of the Hon. Evelyn Ashley, for
good service rendered to the State.

LORD SELBORNE

figures for £310,000, by adding together every relative, I
suppose, he ever had from father to half-cousin and all col-
laterals ; and, as in the case of Lord Salisbury, by assuming
that by some prophetic instinct the individual who gave his
father his living some fifty or sixty years ago knew that
Roundell Palmer would be made an earl, and thus give some
future " Financial Reformer " a chance of vilifying the whole
family through the very son whose abilities have raised him
to the peerage. The whole of

LORD BRAMWELL'S

judicial salary, which was all earned before his elevation to
the peerage (£153,000), is included iu this list on the plea. I
presume, that "all is fish which come to this political net."
The same may be said of almost all the

LORD CHANCELLORS AND JUDGES,

men who, having grown grey in the service of the State, and
having been ennobled for these services, were immediately
pounced upon by the Almanac!;, and had the official earnings
of themselves, of all their living and dead relations, added
together and tacked on to their names, with every successive
office they had held, and this money counted, not as if it had
been earned, but as if it had been paid them for being aristo-
crats or the relatives of aristocrats, and not for services ren-
dered to the nation.

[ 88 ]

The Bishops were treated in the same dishonest way.
Thus the late

BISHOP OF EXETER'S*

salary as Head Master of Rugby School, and also his salary as
Bishop of Exeter, were added together and debited to Lord
Harewood, because the Bishop happened to marry a cousin to
that nobleman.

The statements as to places and salaries of the

LATE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND
were also considerably mixed and wrongly stated. The Duke
had never held more than five places ; he was credited with six.
He had not been in the army since 1850, and therefore ought
not to have been in the list at all. The present Duke (then
Earl Percy) was credited with receiving £1,800; £1,475 was
on account of a Court appointment, and was debited by the
Almanack to the Royal Family in the Civil List. Of course
the " Liar's Book of Etiquette " was not particular about debit-
ing the same sums twice over when by doing so it would
feather its own dirty political nest.

THE FIFTH DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

was debited with £12,500, and five places. He held but one
place after 1850 as an Officer in the Militia for four or five years,
and therefore ought not to be in this list at all. This involves
another small " mistake " of £12,500. The Hon. Hugh Percy,
a member of this family (died 1856), was Bishop of Carlisle for
six years, at £4,500 per year. The Fabulist puts him down for
three places, and £130,500. Note the carefulness about the
odd £500 ! This a further small " mistake " of only £103,000 !
How it is done would puzzle a Philadelphia lawyer, or even
Ananias; but judging by the results produced, there is no
difficulty in manufacturing any size of amount or any number
of places. Even if the money came from Church (private)
property, it was all the same to the "gentlemen" who con-
ducted the " Book of Fables," if they could only cram the
voters with the idea that " these aristocrats" are being kept
out of the taxes.

Another honoured name put into this "lying list" is that
of the

LATE DUKE OF ABERCORN.

The duke was put down as holding six offices, and as having
received from them the large sum of £85,000. This is another
small "error" of two places; and for three of the remaining
Hour places no salary whatever was received by the duke. The

' Bishop Trip,. I.\ .-ii'h i wards lliislm]) of London ;ui<l Archbishop of Canterbury.

[ 89 ]

oue place out of the four to which salary was attached was
that of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland; and instead of having
any profit from that office during the four years he held it
he had to pay out of pocket no less a sum than £60,000 to
meet the expenditure of the Viceregal Lodge, which was practi-
cally a present of £G0,000 to the taxpayers of the country. The
present duke (then Marquis of Hamilton), son of the foregoing,
was eredited with holding three places, and receiving 68,000.
For once the statement was right as to the number of places,
but totally false as to salaries. The marquis never received
a penny of public money, nor held any public salaried office.
Lord Claud Hamilton was credited with six offices, and £3,000
salaries. Here is a small " mistake " of five in the number of
offices, and of £2,500 of the amount said to be received.

Lord Frederick Hamilton was also credited with two offices
and £3,000 salary. Fifty per cent, of this statement, both
as to salary and office, is false. The mistakes in regard to Lord
George Hamilton were equally glaring and equally false.

These, then, are only a few samples, which might be
indefinitely increased, of the disgraceful and untrue state-
ments of that foremost of falsehood framers — the Financial
Reform Almanack.

Most people avoid fighting with sweeps, and in touching
pitch one is sure to be defiled ; but in the interest of public
honour and private character some notice should he taken of
these slanders, and an attempt made to chastise their authors.

FURTHER STATEMENTS.— APOLOGIES.

The iniquity of publishing such a list as "The Aristocracy
and the Public Service" is evident to everyone, and even the
pachydermatous Committee, who told lies through the
Financial Reform Almanack, seem to have had some twinges
of conscience, because in the Almanack for 1880, p. 118, they
confessed to having made a mistake to the extent of £914,700,
by having accused sundry persons of receiving all this money,
when as a matter of fact these persons have not received a
single penny of it.

A slight mistake of a million of pounds sterling is a trifle
to these manufacturers of financial follies. They are well
aware that those who can swallow the enormous falsehoods
paraded in the Almanack will not even make a wry face when
they have to swallow another million, more or less.

POWER OF NOBLES.

Another creditable feature in our aristocracy — they do not
intrigue and rebel, as the nobles of France did, to the ruin of
their country. They do not live by oppressing the people,
keeping them in the most abject subjection by the knout, rack,

[ 90 ]

and gibbet, as the nobles of Russia do. A noble with us has
no more power before the law than the poorest workman. He
cannot invade either the privacy or property of the meanest
person in the kingdom.

Though he may pay £20,000 a year to the country in taxes,
he has less real power over them than the humblest labourer
whose earnings may not amount to 10s. per week, whose dwell-
ing may be a cellar and whose contribution to taxation may
not amount to 5s. per annum. For he has no vote for a repre-
sentative in the House of Commons, where all money-bills
(imposing taxes) are introduced, and, as a member of the House
of Lords, he cannot vote for their amendment, but the Lords
must either accept them or take the (in most cases) practically
impossible course of rejecting them altogether (see p. 32).

PERSONAL ELEMENT IN HOUSE OF LORDS.

Let us take another aspect of the question. The personal
element of the House of Lords, with its effects upon the history
of the country, is a most important consideration. The English
aristocracy is, and has always been, renowned for men of
energy, 'power, eloquence, bravery and learning. At every period
of our histoty, instances are abundant where Peers have shown
themselves worthy of the position they have occupied ; instances
have been already given which might be indefinitely multi-
plied. As to the general ability of the Peers, as a body, they
are neither the drones nor imbeciles which some people call
them.

Let us take the most difficult and delicate class of work
which the country has to perform — I mean the position of
ambassador and responsible minister of the Crown.

Everyone will admit that to manage the affairs of a great
nation like our own, with its multifarious interests, where we
have to cope with the secret diplomacy of the foreigner, and
meet the cunning of the savage; to parry the polished weapons
of the civilised nations, and the craft and deceit of the un-
civilised ; the best intellect the country can produce is required
for this class of service.

And where do we find this intellect? Not amongst the
lawyers, though they are a very sharp class, for something
more than sharpness is wanted; not amongst the soldiers,
though they are brave, because something more than bravery
is required. It wants a man to be both quick and brave and
polished, with wit and learning of the very highest order;
brave enough to speak the sharp word when required, and
wise enough to know when to be silent. A war might be the
result of an indiscreet expression. The Franco-German war
of 1870 is a case in point. Let any man look round, and he

[ 91 ]

will see how few there are fit for this work. Take the ambas-
sadors. Many of the ambassadors to the chief courts of
Europe have belonged to the peerage, whilst a Large proportion
of all the other British representatives throughoul the world —
our Indian and Colonial Governors — have come from the
aristocracy. That fact speaks volumes to all who will listen
to it and weigh its significance.

Another evidence of the abilities of the Pe< is as compared
with the Commons is that about half of the members of every
Cabinet, Liberal as well as Conservative, during the last
hundred years, have been Peers — the nation's executive.

Formerly the proportion was even greater.

In 1770, the only Commoners in the Cabinet were North
and Sir E. Ilawke; all the rest were Peers.

In 1783, William Pitt was the only Commoner in his
Cabinet; all the rest were Peers. Yet more large reforms
were proposed by them than in any Cabinet since.

Again, from 1702 to 1907 there have been in this country
sixty administrations, and the different responsible officers
have been distributed as follows: —

Premiers

Lord Chancellors* ...
Chancellors of Exchequer ...
Foreign Secretaries ...
Colonial Secretaries...
War Secretaries
Admiralty Secretaries

Total 291 ... 146

i.e., the proportion of Peers to Commoners has been two to one.

If you take some offices, the proportion is much larger, —
for instance that of Foreign Secretary, which, perhaps, of all
posts, requires most tact and delicacy in its management.
There have been 56 Peers to 6 Commoners, showing, if any-
thing can show, where the brain-power lies.

Here are a few tests of the business ability, and capacity
of members of the Upper House.

Peers have been much in demand in recent years in labour

disputes and other cases as arbitrators — because of their

brain-power, their fairness, and their large grasp of business

affairs.

Lord Rosebery on the Coal Strike.

Lord Shand on the Arbitration Board.

Lord James on the Belfast and Clyde Strikes.

Lord St. Aldwyn as umpire for the Welsh Miners' Conciliation Board.

and many other instances.

ords.

Commoners

These, of course, were lords by virtue of their office.

[ 92 ]

The Chairman of almost every Royal Commission
appointed to examine into the different social, political and
labour problems of modern times, has been selected from
members of the House of Lords.

Commissions.

Elementary Education

The Aged Poor ... ...

The Vaccination Acts ...

Condition of the Blind, Deaf and Dumb ..

Welsh Land Question ... ...

The Irish Land Acts ...

The Indian Opium Trade

The Currency ...

Electric Communication with Lighthouses

Market Rights and Tolls

Horse Breeding...
Sunday Closing in Wales

Historical Manuscripts

Scottish Universities ...

Miners' Conciliation Board

Local Government Boundaries
Mining Royalties

Tithe Rent" Charge

Militia and Volunteers ...

Poor Law ...

Sewage Disposal

Motor Cars

Trade Disputes ...
Ecclesiastical Disputes

Lunacy Laws ... ...

Railways and Canals ...

Capital and Labour ...

Licensing

Local Taxation ...

Physical Training ... ...

Railway Accidents

Chairmen.
Viscount Cross, G.C.B.
Lord Aberdare, G.C.B.
Lord Herschell, G.C.B.
Lord Egerton of Tatton.
Lord Carrington, G.C.M.G.
Lord Cowper, K.G., P.C.
Lord Brassey, K.C.B.
Lord Herschell, G.C.B.
Earl of Mount Edgcumbe, P.C.
Lord Derby, K.G., P.C.
Duke of Portland, P.C.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
Lord Esher, P.C.
Lord Kinuear.
Lord Shand, P.C.
Lord Derby, K.G., P.C.
Earl of Northbrook, G.C.S.I.
Lord Basing, P.C.
Duke of Norfolk.
Lord Rothschild.
Lord Iddesleigh.
Viscount Selby.
Lord Dunedin.
Lord St. Aldwyn.
Earl Waldegrave.
Lord S. Darling.
Duke of Devonshire.
Lord Peel.
Lord Balfour.
Earl Mansfield.
Lord James.

Here is a further list showing the abilities and the past
and present political services of the Peers : —

Of the G16 members of the present House of Lords the
following- is their political and business record: —

PUBLIC SERVICES OF THE PEERS.

Have served in House of Commons

Officers of State (exclusive of Royal Household)

War Service (including over 60 in South Africa)

Service in Royal Navy

In Regular Army ...

In Yeomanry

In Militia

In Volunteer Force

Judges and Lawyers

Colonial Governors and Ministers

Civil and Diplomatic Services ...

Clergymen (exclusive of Bishops)

Mayors and County Councillors ...

The above record is ample evidence of their capacity for
political affairs, and will compare very favourably indeed —
man for man — with that of the House of Commons.

160

171

117

124

183

147

130

100

140

C 93 ]

Here are a few suggestions from this list: —

The 1G9 former members of the House of Commons must
have been sent there by the voters in L69 constituencies, and
represented, say, 1,690,000 voters. Evidently they were
thought capable and fit to represent the interests of these con-
stituencies in Parliament and to help to govern the country.
Note. — Have these 1G9 gentlemen lost their abilities since
they entered the House of Lords?

The 307 gentlemen who have served in the Army and
Navy — defending the country, ready to die for it — are not
thought worthy by the Eadicals to help to govern it.

The 26 Judges, in whose care have been the lives and
liberties of large masses of their fellow countrymen are not
thought fit to help to make laws for the guidance of the daily
conduct of His Majesty's subjects.

The 140 gentlemen, who have been elected Mayors and
County Councillors of their respective districts — chosen for.
their knowledge and capacity by the people amour/ whom they
live — are branded by the Eadicals as " noodles " or " drones,"
while

The 39 gentlemen who have been Governors and Ministers
in the various Colonies and the outlying portions of our va t
empire, and have been thought fit and capable by their
Sovereign to govern millions of our fellow subjects in every
part of the world, are not, in the opinion of the modern Radical,
fit to sit as members of our legislature in this country.

Knowledge and experience are of no value in the eyes
of a Radical. — Pull down or destroy something is what he
aims at.

The present House of Commons contains 245 Members who
have had no political experience whatever, having
been returned for the first time in 1906. The House of Lords
never had such a number of inexperienced members as this.

WORK PERFORMED BY HOUSE OF LORDS.
Besides all this intellectual and diplomatic work, the
members of the House of Lords take their full share in the
other services of the country, though the wealth and other
occupations of many of them might relieve them from any
necessity to labour. Yet, as Kingslake, the historian of the
Crimea,' says, "The English are a race of warriors born to
rule," and the old adage forcibly puts it, " An Englishman
never knows when he is beaten " ; so our aristocracy, as a body,
like the rest of their countrymen, are filled with this spirit
of activity, showing itself in their eagerness to embrace the
stirring life of soldiers or sailors, and to carry the English flag
and name to every land.

[ 94 ]

We have in the present House of Lords about 400 mem-
bers who have seen military or naval service, who, we may-
say, are devoting their best years to the service of the State,
including some 90 volunteer officers. A fact like this is
significant.

Our aristocracy, unlike that of any other country, ancient
or modern, instead of wasting their time in idleness and
extravagance, as was the fashion in other lands, making the
commoners do all the hard work, while they reaped all the
benefits, take their full share of the public burdens, and
support with their wealth and their lives the welfare of our
common country.

The activity of our nobles in the different public services
has always been a marked feature in our history. It is in
those services that they have received the training necessary
to fit them for leaders in great public emergencies. It is there
that our generals, admirals and statesmen have manifested
those qualities which distinguish the English as a nation, and
which have rendered the name of Briton synonymous with
freedom, honour, and strength.

WAR.

No one whose opinion is worth listening to would advocate
war for its own sake. Military and naval glory, except on rare
occasions, is of little service to a country. It certainly
kindles enthusiasm, which is useful, and invests the business
of war with a dash of poetry. War is nevertheless a
necessity! It is sometimes a scourge, it is always a teacher,
and its lessons have been amongst the most valuable teachings
which mankind has had to learn. Unfortunately, it is often
the only school where nations will learn. We cannot separate,
therefore, these things from humanity, and we can no more
dispense with war (under our present condition of life) than
we can with storms, earthquakes, or fires, which are also
equally destructive.

As a striking evidence and object lesson to our people,
take a glance at the devotion to duty by the Peers during the
late

WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA.— PEERS AT THE FRONT. I *

Conservatives ... ... ... 33 1

Irish Peers (not seats in the House of Lords) ... 3 /

Liberal Unionists ... ... 12 > 61

Liberals 3 I

Non-Party 10 J

Heirs to Peerages 52

Total Peers and Heirs ... 113

Note. — Four peers were killed in battle up to January, liiOl, and several
others afterwards.

[ 95 ]

MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AT THE FRONT.
Conservatives ... ... ... ... ... hi

Liberal Unionists 5

Liberals 2

Besides the above there were 30 baronets at the front,
" sharing the duty " ; also three sons of the lafe Duke of Teck
and brothers-in-law of the Prince of Wales, viz. : —

Prince Adolphus — with 17th Lancers.

Prince Francis — Capt. Royal Dragoons (served with Gen. Gatacre).

Prince Alexander — 7th Hussars in Natal ; also served in the Matabele War, also

Prince Christian Victor, nephew of the King- (died at the war).

The Duke of Norfolk.

The Duke of Westminster.

The Duke of Marlborough.

The son-in-law of the late Duke of Westminster.

Three nephews of the late Duke of Marlborough.

Four sons of Lord Wimborne.

Several sons of Lord Derby.

The son of Lord Chesham, organiser of The Imperial Yeomanry.

and many others belonging to this class, who fought, suffered
and died alongside of " Tommy Atkins," in defence of our
common country.

GENERALS AND ADMIRALS.
The courage, therefore, which has made the English a
great ruling race among the nations of the earth, has animated
its leaders, and enabled them to overcome dangers and diffi-
culties— to inspire such confidence in those they have com-
manded as has given beforehand assurance of victory. The
result is before us. The Empire over which King Edward VII.
rules is larger, more important, more wealthy, happier and
stronger than any empire which has ever existed. Darius,
Alexander, or Csesar, with all their power, could never com-
mand the hearts or lives of half the number of people who
gladly own the sway of Edward VII. In like manner as the
fame of Hannibal and Scipio were dear to the remembrance of
their respective countrymen, are our great men equally dear
to us. When we pronounce the names of Wellington, of
Nelson, of Marlborough, or Clyde, the heart of every Briton
who is worthy of the name responds to the sound, and exults
at the thought that he is of the same race with them, and has
the honour to belong to the country which gave them birth.

WARRIORS.

The following note is suggestive and illustrative: —
" The death of Lord Templetown removes one of the Crimean heroes from
the House of Lords. Among the Peers there are, however, still to be found many
who fought in the Russian war. Though the Duke of Grafton and Lord Amherst
were, like Lord Templetown. severely wounded at Inkerm?u, Lord Tredegar and
Lord Hylton took part in the famous charge of the Six Hundred. Lord Errol
was wounded at the Alma, and Lord Sinclair at the storming of the Redan. The
only relic of Waterloo in the Upper House is the venerable Earl of Albemarle

[ 96 ]

who entered the Army just before the opening of the Waterloo campaign, being
then only a boy of 16. Both Lord Wolseley and Lord Napier of Magdala have
been twice severely wounded." — Manchester Courier, Jan. 6th, 1890.

Here is further instructive testimony from a Radical

source, and Avorthy of perusal at the present time : —

" The mcst determinel enemy of the House of Lords will hardly deny that
some British Peers have done their duty right nobly in the present Egyptian cam-
paign. One — Lord St. Vincent, a most gallant and intrepid soldier — has died,
universally regretted, of his wounds received at Abu Klea. Another — Lord
Airlie, holding a responsible staff appointment as brigade-major — was wounded
iu the first fight ; but we hear of him sticking bravely to his duty, and again
wounded in the second. A third — Lord Cochrane (or, more exactly, Lord
Dundonald,as he has now succeeded to the higher title)— eminently distinguished
himself in the hard-fought engagement at Metemneh. It was with pride and
pleasure that we read of his self-sacrificing courage; how. when the square moved
forward under Sir Charles Wilson and Colonel Boscawen, a fresh and more deter-
mined onslaught was made on the zareba ; and how Lord Cochrane, calling for
volunteers, went out at their head amidst a storm of bullets and erected a flanking
redoubt, which he bravely held till the advanced guard could take refuge in it.
Here, at the head of his small and devoted band, he steadfastly met and repelled
the repeated rushes of the dogged and audacious foe. Conduct of this kind
deserves to be rewarded by the Victoria Cross. To hear of it recills the splendid
spirit which animated former bearers of the title of Cochrane in the wars of the
past." — Manchester Eeening News, Feb. 3rd, 1S85.

The following, among others, owe their peerages to their

military skill and the prowess they have manifested on the

field of battle in many a crisis of the country's history : — -

Wellington. Grafton. Alcester.

Clyde. Marlborough. Kitchener.

Sandhurst. Lucan. Amherst.

Arran. Raglan. Annesley.

Wolseley. Strathnairne. Errol.

Roberts. Napier. Westmoreland.

Albemarle. Airey.

and many others.

" Our warriors have degenerated," say some people. The

great national struggle in the Crimea showed the contrary.

That worthy pupil of Wellington, Lord Raglan, while the

difficulties of a divided command, the negligence at home,

the storms of the Black Sea, the jealousy of enemies, and the

imbecility of " red tape," all conspired to drive him to despair

and abandon the Crimea, held on like grim death, and died

himself at his post, and in harness. He was seconded by men

brave as himself — Sir Gr. Cathcart, son of a peer, gave his life

at Inkerman. Can Ave ever forget the heroism of Balaclava,

where Lords Cardigan and Lucan rode twenty yards in front.

of their handful of men, charging an army?

Was there a man dismayed .'
Not though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered ;
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs but to do and die,
Into the valley of death
They led the six hundred,

And when the poet asks —

When can their glory fade 1

[ 97 ]

a grateful nation answers NeverW Every true mail would
wish to die rather than belong to a nation which could forget
such deeds,

PHILOSOPHY AND LITERATURE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

Though the peerage has been distinguished in the science
of War, it has equally been renowned in the arts of Peace. Its
great thinkers have been equal to its great warriors. Litera-
ture and philosophy owe much to members of the English
nobility whose names are household words Avherever polite
literature, learning, and science arc known.

We have Lord Bacon, the father of modern philosophy ;
Lord Byron, one of the greatest of modern poets ; to whom we
may add the ill-fated Earl of Surrey, son of the great Admiral,
who has no superior in Early English Poetry but Chaucer.
The name of Lord Tennyson Stands supreme among modern
English poets; the late Lord Houghton and his son, Lord
■Crewe, have written verses that will live; while high on the
roll of English historians stand the names of Stanhope,
Macaulay, Stubbs, and Creighton. Well in the front rank
of English novels are those of Lord Lytton and Lord Beacons-
field ; Lord Rosebery is among our most accomplished men of
letters, while science is well represented by such names as
Kn^o, Argyll, Crawford, Rayleigh, Kelvin, and Avebury.
Men like Shaftesbury, Bridgewater, Carnarvon, and Selborne
are fit representatives of the highest philanthropy. As to
religion", nearly all the great names which live in the religious
literature of this country are those very bishops who have been,
and still are, an ornament to the distinguished company with
whom they sit, whose writings form a body of divinity un-
equalled for learning, purity, and extent. It is like a prolific
spring, at which all classes of Christians quench their thirst.
Names like Parker, Butler, Cranmer, Bloomfield, Watson,
Burnet, Jewel, and others, would honour any church, and
grace any assembly to which learning and Christian character
are the passports.

STATESMEN.

Having said so much of its authors, how shall we speak of
its patriots and statesmen? If devotion to the country's
interests be the test of a man's worth, what an array of the
greatest men we have in the British peerage ! To sketch the
lives of men like Burleigh. Chatham. Derby. Palmerston,
Beaconsfield, or Salisbury is beyond the scope of this work;
but the thoughts suggested to our minds by the mere mention
of their names, and those of Grey, Russell, Richmond, Aber-
deen, Granville, Iddesleigh. Carnarvon, Devonshire. Goscnen,

C 98 ]
St. Aldwyn, Lansdowne, or Milner, are sufficient to

convince us that the devotion of their lives and talents to their
country's service merits the gratitude of every one who is not
dead to the feeling.

CHARACTER OF ANCIENT NOBILITY.

If the above mode of looking at this subject be thought too

personal, too contracted in its scope, let us extend the view

and see how the actions of our chief aristocratic families teach

us the same lesson, namely, our national obligations to them.

A Liberal newspaper (" The Leeds Mercury ") put the matter

before its readers, some time ago, in these words : —

" There are no achievements in English history so chivalrous and splendid,
so great and free, as those performed by our ancient nobility ; their talents,
virtues, and public services command the respect and affectionate attachment of
the nation ; their territorial influence and possessions are guarantees for order
and stability in the country, and they exactly fulfil those duties in the State
which a free constitution like ours demands."

To quote one of our greatest historians : —

"The great peculiarity of the baronial estate in England, a* compared with
that of the Continent, is the absence of the idea of Caste.

'"The English lords do not answer to the nobles of France, or to the princes
or the counts of Germany.

" English nobility is merely the nobility of the hereditary councillors of
the Crown. The right to give council being involved, at one time, in the
tenure of the land, at another, in the fact of summons, at another, in the terms
of a patent.

'•The nobleman is the person who, for his life, holds the hereditary office
denoted or implied in his title.'' — Dr. STUBBS, Constitutional History of England,
vol. 2, p. 76.

Sir B. Burke also on this subject says (Introduction to the
Peerage, 1859): —

•' The Peerage of the British Empire, like its other inimitable institutions,
exists but as a link in the great chain which connects the community at large— a
link of beneficial strength and honoured antiquity ; adding to the public dignity,
binding only for the public weal, and bearing on its surface the unstained polish
of ages."

THE PERCY FAMILY.

First, then, as to the great families : Take that of Percy,

Dukes of Northumberland. Burke says: —

'• Whose nobility dates as remotely as the sovereignty of Normandy, and
whose renown is coeval with its nobility ; it has flourished in every age,
and CO-existed with every generation since. Not more famous in arms than
distinguished for its alliances, the house of Percy stands pre-eminent for the
number and rank of its families which are represented by the present Duke of
Northumberland, whose banner consequently exhibits an assemblage of nearly
nine hundred armorial ensigns, among which are those of Henry VII., several
younger branches of the royal blood, of the sovereign houses of France. Castile,
Leon, and Scotland: and of the ducal houses of Normandy and Brittany,
forming a galaxy of heraldic honours altogether unparalleled."

Another writer, speaking of this house, says:

" The house of Percy has a history to show of almcst unique grandeur. We
know of mi other uncrowned house in Euroj>e which has seven times driven back

L •>•» J

the tide of foreign invasion, and for eight hundred yean stood in the from rank
of resistance to regal tyranny. There is in the North no rival in magnificence or
social weight to that of the Percys. Throughout the great interval, 1 1UU to 1800,
nearly the ichole of our English history, there has never been a period of twenty
years during which the vote of the Percy has not been of the first importance to
the Government : scarcely a century in which the lives and lands of the house
have not been staked in defence of the popular cause."*

A Percy was at Bunnyrnede in 1210, and assisted to pro-
cure the Great Charter, and was afterwards made a guardian
of it.

Another Percy subscribed to that famous letter: sent to
the Pope (1301), in which the nobility, in the nam* of the
people of England, repudiated his (the Pope's) interference in
the affairs of this country, and declared their Sovereign to be
independent of his authority. This house has also furnished
numerous warriors and statesmen — men who loved to die in
harness — men who have laid down their lives at the call of
duty and in posts of danger.

One Percy was at Cressy (1346) ; another at Neville's
Cross (1346), where he crushed the Scots under Bruce; another
led at the terrible battle of Halidon Hill (1333); another at
Dunbar (129G). We also find a Percy, the famous Hotspur,
at Otterbourne (1388), and again at Homildon (1402), who was
finally killed at the battle of Shrewsbury (1403). Another
Percv was killed at '' Bramharu Moor" (1408); another at
" St.* Albans " (1455); and still another at " Towton " (1401).

The members of this family have also been great friends
to education and religion. The fourth Lord Percy shielded
"Wycliffe from the persecution of his relentless enemies, and
thus assisted the Beformation. Another founded three fellow-
ships in the University College, Oxford. The fourth -Duke,
who succeeded to the title in 1847, was renowned for princely
liberality. He built and endowed more churches than any
other Peer in Great Britain. He established, at his own
expense, a complete system of lifeboats along the wild north-
eastern coast, where his name was, and is still, a "household
word."

"About two years ago," says a writer in the Times news-
paper (1864), "the Duke of Northumberland, with the co-
operation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, established five
new ecclesiastical districts in the large seaport town of North
Shields, and appointed the requisite number of clergymen to
them at a cost of about £100,000." And thus the history of
this house is continued, illustrating the saying that " English-
men are renowned for deeds rather than words." May its
glory never fade !

Great Governing Familiex of England (pp. 22-2tl). By J. Sandiford
and M. Townsend.

L WO ]

THE TALBOT8.

Then there is the family of Talbot, represented by the
Earls of Pembroke, Shrewsbury, and Waterford, a family
considerably older than the Gorman Conquest, which has for
ages, in the persons of its various chiefs, stood forward as
defenders of the land of which they are citizens. They assisted
to extort. the Great Charter from the tyrant John. They fought
through the Wars of the Roses, helped on the Reformation
with their great influence, were foremost in relieving the
country from the unscrupulous James II., and ever since the
Conquest the Talbots have held a front rank in the actions
and councils of the nation. They were celebrated warriors
under Henry I., Henry II.^Henry III., Edward I., II., III.,
and Henry. IY. and V, through the most troublous period of
our history. One signed the celebrated letter to the Pope
(1301); another, the greatest General of the age, was three
times Lord-Lieuteuaut of Ireland, was Commander-in-Chief in
France (1420 to" 1425), won forty-seven battles, and fell light-
ing for his country in 1453 — a man whose name, even at this
distance of time, excites a proud sympathy in the breast of
every Englishman. He was bravery personified.

Another of this House put down the rebellion in the north,
called the Pilgrimage of Grace (1536). Another was guardian
of Mary, Queen of Scots, for fifteen years, having the character
of being the most honourable and trustworthy gentleman in
the kingdom. Another, born in 1660, a scholar and states-
man, spent £40,000 in the cause of William III., and signed
the letter of invitation for William to come and fake posses-
sion of the Throne. In short, this family has distinguished
itself in every kind of public work and place of trust — providing
Lord Chancellors, Lord-Lieutenants, Secretaries of State,
liishops, &c, and lias well merited the motto on its crest
" Prest d'aceomplir," " Ready to accomplish," for its achieve-
ments have been great.

THE LEVES0N-G0WERS.

The family of Leveson-Gower, the present representatives
of which house are the Duke of Sutherland, and the Earl of
Ellesmere, is of Anglo-Saxon origin, and became noted soon
after the Conquest ; but ii is within the last 250 years they
have made the greatest mark in our history.

Within that time they have raised themselves from simple
country baronets bo be the greatest landowners in (ircaf Britain.
They have produced many statesmen and men of ability.
One of them raised a regiment for Charles 11.; another
was killed at the battle of Tewkesbury (1471); one was
a Commissioner for the Onion of England and Scotland;

[ 10J ]

another resigned high office because he disapproved of
the American War of Independence; he also twice declined
the office of Prime Minister, and was President of the Council
under the Great Pitt, in 1783. The late Lord Granville may
he taken as a type of this family, whose chief services to the
State have been as ministers and public servants.

THE BENTINCKS.

The Duke of Portland is the chief of the house of Bentinck.
Though not an old family, as far as the British peerage is
concerned, what it lacks in age it makes up in merit, for it has
been distinguished for those qualities which have made our
aristocracy famous — courage, foresight, and administrative
ability. Its founder was the bosom friend and confidential
adviser of William III., a man whom it would be difficult to
equal in any rank of life for common sense, honesty, and
ability. His great services to the country as general and am-
bassador, in the most difficult situations, were of the utmost
value, and fully warranted the confidence reposed in him. He
was offered a bribe of £50,000 by the East India Company for
his interest, but he refused to be bought. This would never
have been known had it not been accidentally discovered as the
result of a Parliamentary inquiry. There are few men who
could resist such a bribe. Another of his family (the second
duke) was noted for literary acquirements. The next duke was
also a learned man, and was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland (1782),
was twice Prime Minister (1*783 and 1807), Home Secretary
(1794), and President of the Council (1801). A son of the fore-
going was also a distinguished and able man; was Governor of
Madras when only twenty-nine years of age, Govern* u -( icneral
of India in 1827, and no more able man ever held that dis-
tinguished position. The present Duke held office under the
Salisbury Government — 1886-1892. Other members of this
family, whose actions we have not space to particularise, have
been equally active and a"ble.

THE CLINTONS.

The next family we will notice is the Clintons, which is
now represented by the Duke of Newcastle. This family be-
came prominent in the time of Henry I. (1100-35). One was at
Runnymede, and had his lands seized by John for the share he
took in that transaction — an early sufferer in the cause of
liberty. These lands were not restored till some years after
the death of John. A Clinton fought at Halidon Hill (1333);
another at Poictiers (1356), and went through all these cam-
paigns. One was Lord High Admiral, under Edward VI.,
Mary, and Elizabeth ; and was also an able and distinguished

[ 102 ]

general. Another was Admiral and Governor-General of New
York; another was War Minister in 1854. A public writer,
speaking of this family, says: —

" A house which, for seven hundred years, has furnished a scarcely inter-
mitted succession of men, who have spent their lives in the furtherance of
England's greatness and policy."

It was the Duke of Newcastle who enabled Mr. W. E.
Gladstone to enter Parliament for the Borough of Newark in
1832.

THE HOWARDS.

Another noble family whose history is largely intermixed
with that of England is the Howards. This is probably a
Saxon family, and one of its founders is said to be that great
and brave man, " Hereward, the last of the English," whose
opposition to William the Conqueror is so striking and poetical
a feature in the history of those times. The Howards have the
distinction of being called the Premier Earls of England. They
have left their ashes on all our battlefields, and the blood of
their best and greatest men has been shed for the country.
One was killed at Bosworth (1485). Another passed some years
in the Tower, as prisoner for his fidelity to his sovereign ; but
so greatly was the ability and honour of a Howard esteemed in
those days, that he was taken from the cell and given the
command of the North of England. Four successive times was
this important post confided to him, to keep back the frequent
incursions of the Scots. He commanded at Flodden (1513),
where the Scots were completely beaten. It was a Howard
who defeated the Spanish Armada. One of this family was
killed in the French wars. Another, the seventh Duke of
Norfolk, a Protestant, refused to carry the sword of State
before James II. into the Roman Catholic Chapel. This one
joined in the invitation to William III., and assisted greatly
to place him on the throne. Services such as these are
invaluable, and even blue blood and high rank can add nothing
to them.

The present representatives of this family are the Duke
of Norfolk, Earl of Suffolk, Earl of Carlisle, Earl of Effingham.
The gifted Earl of Surrey, the poet, was also of this family.

THE SEYMOURS.

The Seymour family, whose present representatives are
flic Duke of Somerset and the Marquis of Hertford, has also
often guided the ship of State into a safe haven when
threatened by political storms. It is an old family, though
it did not become prominent until Henry VIII. 's time. Jane
became tkai monarch's third wife and the mother of

[ 103 ]

Edward VI. A Somerset was leader in all the great, national
movements at this time— took Edinburgh in 1544 — took
Boulogne, 1545- — was both a great warrior and a great states-
man — became Lord Protector under Edward VI. The English
woollen trade owes its existence to him. He was executed as
an act of revenge, by his powerful political enemies, 1552.
The sixth Duke of Somerset refused to admit the Pope'*
nuncio to an audience with James II., though commanded to
do so by the King. When Queen Anne was dying, a Somerset
forced his way into the Privy Council Chamber, and prevented
the recall of the Stuarts, thus keeping the Act of Settlement
intact, and preventing civil war. One of them in the person
of Lord Raglan, served at Waterloo, and also commanded the
British force in the Crimea — died in harness. Another, who
died in 1855, devoted his life and his purse to science; ami
another was First Lord of the Admiralty in 1864 — an active
family of able, courageous, and honourable men.

THE RUSSELLS.

Again, we have the Russell family, dating from soon after
the Conquest, though, like several other of our noble houses,
it became prominent under Henry VIII. One was with Henry
at the Field of the Cloth of Gold; and was also at the battle
of Pavia (1524). One suffered imprisonment by Mary for hi-
faith in 1554; he was afterwards liberated, and was a leader
at the battle of Zutphen (1594). Another, called the "Wise
Earl," spent £400,000 in draining the fens. One was unjustly
executed in 168o, in connection with the Rye House Plot; he
was an able man and a scholar. Another was Lord-Lieutenant
of Ireland (1756), and advocated at that time Catholic
Emancipation, which was not accomplished till 1829. The
author I have previously quoted says: —

'• No one of the great houses, except perhaps the Percys, who have -o often
saved her from invasion, has deserved better of England than that of Russell."

One Russell staked his head for the Protestant faith ; a
second his estates in successful resistance to a despot; a third
has died on the scaffold for the liberties of Englishmen ; a
fourth has materially aided in the Revolution which substi-
tuted law for the will of the sovereign; a fifth spent his life
in resisting the attempt of the House of Brunswick to rebuild
the power of the throne, and gave one of the first examples
of just religious government in Ireland ; and a sixth was twice
Prime Minister and organised and carried through Parliament
a bloodless but complete transfer of power from his own order
to the middle class. The value of a nobility to a State has been
questioned; but if a nobility be valuable, it is in families like
the Russells that its value is most conspicuously shown.

[ 104 j

THE MONTAGUES.

Another family of note in our history and a credit to our

nobility is that of Montagu, at present represented by the-

Duke of Manchester, and the Earl of Sandwich. This is a

Gorman family, and came over at the Conquest. Several of

its members have been noted for eloquence, learning, and

literature. Macaulay, speaking of Baron Halifax, who was

Chancellor of the Exchequer and also First Lord of the

Treasury, says: —

" He was a statesman and orator, and a munificent patron of learning and
literature."

One (second Earl of Manchester) led the Parliamentary
army at Marston Moor, 1644, where he defeated Prince Rupert.
Cromwell served under him. He refused his sanction to the
execution of Charles I., and retired from the public service in
consequence. Another (fourth Earl <of Manchester) took an
active part against James II., and served with distinction in
Ireland, took part in the battle of the Boyne, 1690, and was
in several other engagements. Though perhaps not occupying
a first place in the peerage, this family has served the country
well in many branches of the public service.

THE FITZWILLIAMS.

The Eitzwillianis, represented by Viscount Alilton, is
another remarkable family whose individual exploits we have
not space to detail. A writer speaks thus of them: —

"A race of strong, efficient, and thoughtful men, with a hearty sympathy
for the people around them ; redressing all visible grievances, standing always
ctt the forefront of the popular battle. A manlier or more competent race does
not distinguish the English peerage."

THE CECILS.

During the reign of Henry VIII., the Cecil family rose-
to distinction, and is now represented by the Marquis of
Exeter and the Marquis of Salisbury, whose father was
leader of the Conservative partj^ and Prime Minister
tor nearly fourteen years. The first notable man of
this family was Lord Burghley, who was for forty years
the friend and secretary of Queen Elizabeth ; the author
and chief director of that successful policy which resulted in
placing England in the front rank of the nations of Europe.
While the father was directing the affairs of the nation, his
son was actively assisting to carry them out by fighting with
the English fleet against the Spanish Armada. This son in-
herited the talents of his father, whom he succeeded as secretary
to Elizabeth, and afterwards to lames I. It was owing chiefly

[ 105 ]

to his efforts that James succeeded to the English throne with-
out bloodshed. The late Marquis of Salisbury was a good
example of the abilities of this family. A writer before quoted
says of this house : —

"The Cecils have deserved well of the people, the descendant of the man
who made Elizabeth great, having staked fortune and life on the side of liberty ;
while the family, with all its shortcomings, has consistently cared for the
greatness of England."

Without such men England could never have become
great.

Space will not permit the recital in detail of the exploits
of all even of our chief families. History itself is full of
them — is formed of them; of the Berkeleys who suffered in
purse and person for the Great Charter, and have been leaders
in all the early movements for liberty ; of the Herberts, by
whose efforts the Eevolution of 1G88 was accomplished ; of the
Somersets, descendants of "time-honoured Lancaster," the
house with a galaxy of great men: of the Manners, who have
given us illustrious members of the Senate, the Bar, and the
Church in every period since the Conquest; of the Stanleys,
a house which for bravery and eloquence and patriotism is
second to none in history; of the Marlboroughs, whose
genius has led them to the front rank both in war
and' in politics. The Greys, and Cavendishes, the Stanhopes,
and the Pagets are each worthy the position they occupy, and
their actions and pedigrees reflect lustre on their present
possessors, and have aided very materially in making England
what she is at present, viz.. the first and the freest land on
earth.

An aristocracy like ours is a glory to the nation, and the
wish of every patriotic Englishman ought to be, ''Long may it
continue to lead and adorn the country which has given it
birth, to the prosperity of which its own efforts have greatly
contributed ! "

THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

It is the fashion among our modern Radicals for political
purposes to hold up the House of Lords, and especially the
Bishops, as the enemies of political and religious freedom.

But the enlightened action of the House of Lords in
respect of the great cause of civil and religious liberty was
very conspicuous during the whole reign of Queen Anne, and
will serve as an instance of their conduct in this matter during
many other reigns.

Mr, Lecky, and many other writers, bear clear and com-
plete testimony to this fact.

[ 106 ]

Protestant Nonconformists as a body had been excluded
from all public offices by the Corporation Act of 1661 (Charles
II.), and the Test Act of 1673 (Charles II.).

Tlie only means by which they could evade the law and
qualify for office was by what was called " Occasional Con-
formity," i.e., by attending at church occasionally to receive
the Sacrament.

We are told that although it would be considered a severe
hardship in these days, yet there were many conscientious
dissenters who, while habitually adhering to Nonconformist
worship, had no scruples about occasionally communicating
according to the Anglican rite.

But this attitude did not satisfy the more extreme
members of the House of Commons.

Accordingly, in 1702, again in 1703, and still again in
1704, measures for suppressing " occasional conformity " were
brought into the House of Commons, and carried by large
majorities, but were in every case defeated in the House
of Lords, chiefly by the help and advice of the Bishops, acting
on the strong sense of justice of the temporal Peers.

Dr. Tenison, Archbishop of Canterbury, spoke strongly
and firmly against the Bill.

He said : — ■

" I think the practice of occasional conformity, as used by the dissenters, is
so far from deserving the title of ' a vile hypocrisy,' that it is the duty of all
moderate dissenters upon their own principles to do it."

So persistent were the Commons to carry this Bill against
the dissenters that they adopted a plan to " tack " it to a money
bill, in order to gain their ends, and try to checkmate the
Peers.

The Lords protested against these unworthy methods, and
rejected the Bill in 1702, and in 1703, and even the " tacked "
Bill of 1704. They thus showed their determination not to
permit any further disabilities being forced upon the dissenters
in the interest of the personal and political liberty of those
persons who were likely to be injured by the Bill.

As Earl Stanhope says: —

"The 'Tackers,' as they were termed, in their ardent zeal to strike a blow at
the dissenters, were blind to the danger of striking a blow also at the landmarks
of the Constitution."— Hist. Reign of Queen Anne, ch. 5, p. 168.

Finding tbat the Peers stood firm and remained steadfast
in their opposition to this cruel and unstatesmanlike measure,
tho Commons desisted, and for seven years did not again
try to force this unjust measure on the country.

[ K'7 ]

What was this Occasional Conformity Bill which
the Commons were so keen to pass? Here are some of its
provisions : —

"Any Officer, civil or military— or any Magistrate or Councillor of a
Corporation who, having received the Sacrament according to the Test Act of
Charles II., should during his term of office attend any conventicle or dissenting
meeting is to forfeit £10 and be incapable of holding any office or employment:
in England."

That was the kind of tyranny which the Commons
(representatives Of the people) were trying for years
to force on the country, and from which the House of Lords
saved them for more than seven years.

Is there any gratitude among the modern Dissenters? I
fear not !

After the general election of 1710, which had been fought
on these religious questions, the High Church party returned
to the House of Commons by a very large majority. The
Peers, believing as they did that the people had expressed
their wishes, did not feel justified in opposing the measure any
further, and therefore gave way when the Bill was sent up
to them in 1711.

Their attitude then — the same as it is to-day — was to give
way to the wishes of the electors on any subject when they
have been directly appealed to, and their wishes clearly ex-
pressed thereon.

After this obnoxious Act had been on the Statute Book
.seven years, it was finally repealed in 1718, and the House of
Lords took its full share in the work of repeal, led and
assisted as it was by Bishop Hoadley and Bishop Kennett,
whose speeches largely contributed to the completion of the
good work. ,

The historian Lecky says on this subject : —
" In general the services of the Peers to the cause of civil and religious
liberty at this time (George I. reign) were incontestable and the advantage of
the Upper House in this portion of our history can scarcely be questioned by
anyone who regards the Revolution and the principles it established as good." —
(Hist, of Eiuj., vol. 1, ch. 2, p. 180.)

Mr. Lecky evidently did not know the modern Badical.

Nothing can be clearer to the mind of the impartial
student of our history, and we also have the universal testi-
mony of all our great constitutional historians, whose works
do credit to their intellect and research, that our method of
government in this country by King, Lords, and Commons is
the best "system possessed by any country in the world, for
smoothness, stability, and .safe political progress.

But the modern Radical, with his destructive tendencies
and narrow prejudices, rejects and repudiates all such testi-
mony. He wishes to destroy our present well-tried system.

[ 108 ]

which has stood the test of centuries, with a view of
bringing about a system of impracticable Socialism, a state of
tyranny which would result in the loss of all personal freedom,
in which every human being would be little better than a
chattel, and be treated as one, and which would probably
culminate in complete anarchy.

SUMMARY.

SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS IN WHICH THE LORDS HAVE TAKEN
A PROMINENT PART TO ENLARGE THE LIBERTIES OF
THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND— ONE CONTINQOUS STREAM
OR OVER SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS.

1. — The grand concession of Magna Charta — wrung from
King John by the Peers, after fighting him for three
years, led by Stephen Langton (Archbishop of Canter-
bury)— being the foundation of all our subsequent
efforts for freedom.

2.— Thirty-seven Confirmations of Magna Charta —
forced from subsequent monarchs by the Peers of
England.

3. — Petition Of Right — a fuller declaration of personal
freedom — forced from Charles I. by the Peers of
England.

4. — Restoration of Charles II. by the Peers' initiative and
help. Ridding the country of Cromwell's drastic
political follies.

•3.— Habeas Corpus Act, under Charles II., giving all the
people the right of trial by jury and without any
*delay.

6. — Bill of Rights — restraining the King from keeping
soldiers, making war, levying taxes, &c, without the
consent of both houses of Parliament.

7.— The Act of Settlement— fixing clearly the title of
the Monarch to the throne of England, with the con-
ditions attached thereto, thus preventing civil war.

8.— Abolition of the Test and Corporation Acts— to
relieve Dissenters from social and political disabilities,
under Duke of Wellington, 1828.

9. — Catholic Emancipation Act— to relieve Koman
Catholics from religious intolerance and give them
religious freedom — passed by the Duke of Welling-
ton's Government, 1829.

10.— Abolition Of Slavery — largely through Lord Derby's
efforts — in 18-3'J.

[ 109 ]

11. — All the Factory and Workshop Acts for the last

60 years have not only passed the House of Lords
but in most cases the Peers and Bishops have been
among the strongest supporters of this legislation.

12.— The Education Acts of 1870, 1876, 1891, 1897, 1899,
1900, 1901, and 1902 — passed for the welfare of the
children of this country — have all been supported
and passed by the House of Lords.

13.— The Reform Bills of 1832, L867, and 1881 have each
contributed to the political freedom of Englishmen
and have each been passed by the House of Lords.

14.— The Acts for saving the lives of sailors and miners
in their dangerous occupations, and which have been
so effective for that purpose, have all been strongly
supported by the House of Lords and passed by them.

15.— The Lords have also been the firm defenders and sup-
porters of the Empire, seeing that they prevented dis-
ruption by opposing the Home Rule Bill, strengthened
the Empire by passing the Acts for the Federation
Of Canada and of Australia, the Act bringing the
Indian Empire under the sway of Queen Victoria, and
those creating responsible government in several of
our Colonies.

16. — And as Lord Rosebery, speaking of the House of Lords,
says : —
" We have a great heritage here — those who have their own honour and the

honour of their ancestor* and of their posterity to guard."

And so says every reflective and patriotic Briton who thinks
highly of his country's welfare.

CONCLUSION.

If the foregoing pages have attained their object, they will
have shown that our aristocracy is both ancient, honourable,
illustrious, and useful; that, as a body, the country is much
indebted to them — that they have often stood as a bulwark of
the nation, between the people and ruin. Their example and
influence have been more precious to the progress of this
country from barbarism to freedom than can be conveyed in
words — far before the value of material conquests, however
brilliant — for the faith, energy, and strength of the English
people could not have come to maturity, nor attained their
present growth, had it not been for that spirit of liberty which
the past actions of the Peerage have done so much to foster.

We, as a nation, have got rid, after many struggles, of that
mischievous idea, the "divine right of Kings.1' Let us not
therefore fall into the opposite and equally fatal notion, the
"" divine right of the House of Commons."

[ no ]

We have tried both systems, and find them equally bad.
The first, under the Tudors and Stuarts, when the nation was
placed under the heel of those respective despots, whose word
and whim brought ruin on thousands of our best citizens —
taking life and property with equal impunity. The last, under
the rule of a so-called Protector, at the head of a corrupt House
of Commons, whose iniquitous proceedings and oppressive
horrors murdered liberty and crushed out the life of a free
people. No ; let us keep to our well-balanced and well-tried
" Institutional Liberty." Let us jealously guard and preserve
our institutions as they exist — improving them by degrees as
the course of time and circumstances may require. For he
who has studied our Constitution most deeply will venerate it
the most : and while he vigorously extirpates abuses, and
steadily works out its vital law of growth and development, he
will religiously guard its primary institutions from the experi-
ments of the conceited theorist, and the assaults of the disloyal
destroyer.

To destroy is the sign of a weak mind, but to build up and
strengthen shows the genius of the real Statesman.

(;«orge Berridge & Co., I rinteis, in, ITpper 1 hamea StreSfc, Loudon, E.G.

3 57 *

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

This book is DUE on the last date stamped below

MAR 3 1 1947

*to 3 0 JS48
JAN3 1957

RECD LD-URO
S N°V6

19158

OCT 2 7 1969

Form l.-o

13(.-,20.-,)

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

LOS ANGELES

UCLA-Young Research Library

JN623 1907 .F46
V

L 009 522 617 1

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The House of Lords: its history, rights and uses. With a short summary of the past actions of some of our old nobility"

See other formats