FOOTNOTES:

The House Determines the Qualification of its Members.

The authority of the House of Lords to determine the validity of new patents has already been referred to in connection with the Wensleydale case. It is also empowered by statute to pass upon the election of Scotch and Irish representative peers. Disputed claims to the succession of hereditary peerages, on the other hand, may be settled by the Crown on its own authority, but it is the habit at the present day to refer these likewise for decision to the Lords.[398:1]

Disqualifications.

Infants, aliens, bankrupts, and persons under sentence for grave offences, are incapable of sitting in the House of Lords;[398:2]and instances occurred in the seventeenth century of special sentence of exclusion by the House itself. But more important from a political point of view than the disqualifications for the upper chamber is the fact that a peer cannot escape from the peerage. This is sometimes a misfortune when a man, who has made his mark in the House of Commons, has an obscure greatness thrust upon him by the untimely death of his father. In such a case he loses at once and forever his seat in the House where the active warfare of politics goes on, and this although he may be a Scotch peer, who has no seat in the House of Lords. The question was debated at some length in 1895, when Lord Selborne tried to retain his seat in the Commons by omitting to apply for a writ of summons as a peer; but the Commons decided that he could not do so.[398:3]

Personal Privileges of the Peers.

Besides the liberty of speech and freedom from arrestwhich they possess in common with the members of the other House, the peers, partly in memory of their position as councillors of the Crown, partly as an aftermath of feudal conditions, retain certain personal privileges, of small political importance, but sometimes of interest to the person concerned. One of these is the right of access to the sovereign for the purpose of an audience on public affairs. Another is the right to be tried by their peers in all cases of treason or felony.[399:1]If Parliament is in session, the trial is conducted by the whole House of Lords, presided over by the Lord High Steward appointed by the Crown. If not it takes place in the court of the Lord High Steward, to which, however, all the peers are summoned.[399:2]The privilege extends to the Scotch and Irish peers, whether chosen to sit in the House of Lords or not; to the life peers; to peeresses in their own right; and to the wives and widows of peers, unless they have "disparaged" themselves by a second marriage with a commoner; but it does not extend to the bishops, or to Irish peers while members of the House of Commons.[399:3]

Functions of the House.

The House of Lords is both a coördinate branch of Parliament and a court of law. Its duties as a court of appeal will be described in another chapter with the rest of the national judicial system, and its original jurisdiction, in the trial of peers and of impeachments brought by the House of Commons, is no longer of much consequence. The evolution of the political responsibility of ministers has made impeachment a clumsy and useless device for getting rid of an official, while the greater efficiency of the criminal law has made it needless for punishing an offender; and in fact the last case where it was used was that of Lord Melville, one hundred years ago. It may be noted, however, in this connection that the House still retains the right to requirethe attendance of the judges, not only when acting in a judicial capacity, but on all occasions when it may need their advice.

Money Bills.

Since the House is a coördinate branch of the legislature, every act of Parliament requires its assent, and although in practice it is far less powerful than the House of Commons, the only subject on which the limitations of its authority can be stated with precision is that of finance. As far back as 1671 the Commons resolved "That, in all aids given to the King, by the Commons, the Rate or Tax ought not to be altered by the Lords";[400:1]and in 1678 they adopted another resolution that all bills granting supplies "ought to begin with the Commons. And that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons, to direct, limit, and appoint, in such Bills, the Ends, Purposes, Considerations, Conditions, Limitations, and Qualifications of such Grants; which ought not to be changed, or altered by the House of Lords."[400:2]The Commons have clung to this principle ever since, enforcing it by a refusal to consider bills in which the Lords have inserted or amended financial provisions; and although the Lords have never expressly admitted the claim, they have in fact submitted to it.[400:3]

Paper Duties Bill in 1860.

The upper House can, of course, reject a money bill altogether, but the history of the last case where they did so shows the futility of such a power by itself. In 1860 the ministry brought in a bill to repeal the duties on paper, which hindered the development of a cheap newspaper press, and the Lords rejected it in spite of the fact that the budget already passed imposed additional taxation to make up for the loss of revenue from paper. The next year the repeal of the paper duties was simply included in the annual tax bill, and forced through in that way. It is now the regular practice to include all the taxation in one bill, and as the peers never venture to reject as a whole either this, or any of the great measures granting supplies, it is truly said thatthe House of Lords cannot initiate or amend, and practically cannot reject, any money bill. The principle applies not only to the national receipts and expenditures, but also to local rates,[401:1]but it does not apply to revenues of the Crown or the Church, nor at the present day to penalties or fees not payable into the Exchequer.[401:2]

Tacking.

It might be supposed that the Commons could carry any piece of legislation by tacking it to a money bill. This was formerly done; but the Lords have long had a standing order forbidding such a practice, and no attempt has been made of late years to revive it.[401:3]Moreover the rule about money bills is not strictly enforced where the financial provision is merely incidental to general legislation. The Lords are free to omit such a clause altogether,[401:4]or if it is so interwoven with the rest of the measure that it cannot be treated separately, the Commons have often waived their rights and taken into consideration amendments made by the Lords.[401:5]For the sake of convenience they have gone farther still, for they suffer expedients to be used, that really evade, while recognising, their privilege. Bills are sometimes introduced in the House of Lords with financial provisions which are struck out on third reading. In the Commons these provisions are printed as ghosts, underlined or in brackets, to indicate that they are not at the moment a part of the bill, but that a motion will be made in committee to reinsert them.[401:6]What is more, the Commons have adopted a standing order that it will not insist on its privileges in the case of private, or provisional order, bills which impose tolls, or authorise rates by local authorities for local purposes.[401:7]

The rule about money bills applies only to measures actually before Parliament. It does not prevent the House ofLords from expressing an opinion upon financial matters either in debate or by resolution, or from inquiring into them by means of select committees.[402:1]In 1903, indeed, was seen the curious spectacle of the House of Lords debating freely Mr. Chamberlain's fiscal policy, while the Opposition in the Commons was striving almost in vain for an opportunity to do so.

Officers of the House of Lords.

Except when a peer is being tried the Lord Chancellor presides over the House. In practice he is always made a peer, but this is not a legal necessity, and, in fact, the woolsack, on which he sits, is commonly said not to be within the House itself. Perhaps for this very reason he has not the authority of the Speaker of the Commons in ruling upon points of order. He does not even decide which peer shall speak, but if more than one rise at once, and refuse to give way, the question who shall have the floor is decided by the House itself, if necessary by division.[402:2]Order in debate, also, is enforced not by him but by the Lords themselves. Moreover, he has no casting vote, and it is characteristic of his position that the peers do not address him, but speak to "My Lords." In short, his functions are limited to formal proceedings, and even in these he can be overruled by the House.[402:3]If a peer he can, of course, as such, take part in debate; but otherwise not. During his absence one of the deputy speakers, appointed by the Crown, takes his place, or if none of these be present the House appoints a speakerpro tempore.[402:4]

The other principal officers of the House are the Lord Chairman of Committees, chosen by the House itself, who presides in Committee of the Whole, and who, as we have seen, has great influence over private bill legislation; the Clerk of the Parliaments, who acts as Clerk of the House; the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, who acts as messengerof the House on great and formal occasions; and the Sergeant-at-Arms; all these last three being appointed by the Crown.

Quorum.

The quorum of the House is fixed at the absurdly small number of three, but this is to some extent delusive, for the presence of thirty Lords is necessary for an effectual division upon any stage of a bill. Formerly the House occasionally imposed fines upon its absent members, a practice that has fallen into disuse. The privilege of voting by proxy has also disappeared. It was abolished by standing order in 1868.[403:1]

Procedure.

The procedure upon bills is in general similar to that in the House of Commons. There are two readings, and then a Committee of the Whole, followed by a third reading; and there is the familiar rule that no member can speak more than once to the same question, except in Committee of the Whole. The chief difference from the Commons consists in the rule adopted in recent years for referring bills after the committee stage, and before report, to a standing committee appointed by the Committee of Selection.[403:2]This gives an opportunity to revise the drafting of a bill that has been battered out of shape in its passage through Parliament. As a matter of practice, however, the reference to a standing committee is usually omitted, for the Lords are quite in the habit of shortening the process of legislation by special vote of the House. The committee stage is often left out altogether; and in money bills this always is done. On the appropriation bills, indeed, there is rarely any debate, and all the stages are not infrequently taken on one day.

The Peers have Abundance of Time.

The Lords have no constituents to impress, and hence there are not so many members as in the Commons who want to take part in debate. Moreover, they are not obliged to devote a large part of their time to supply and to the budget; and as their chamber is not the place where the greatpolitical battles are fought, the Opposition does not oppose at every possible step. They can, therefore, get through their work at leisure. They make use, indeed, of select and sessional committees in much the same way as the Commons; but, having time enough to consider every bill in Committee of the Whole, they do not need time-saving machinery like the Standing Committees on Law and Trade. For the same reason, and because there is no disposition to wilful obstruction, they do not require and do not have a closure to cut off debate. Their sittings also are short. On Wednesday and Saturday they seldom meet at all, while on other days their usual hour of meeting is half-past four, and they rarely sit after dinner-time.

Their Action is Little Fettered by Rules.

On the other hand, the very fact that the fate of ministers does not hang upon their votes renders possible a much larger freedom of action than in the Commons. There is not the same need of precaution against hasty, ill-considered motions, or against votes that might embarrass the government without implying a real lack of confidence. Hence there is no restriction upon the motions that can be brought forward, save that notice must be given beforehand;[404:1]and any question to a minister may be followed by a general debate, provided again that notice of the question has been given in the orders of the day.[404:2]

[394:1]The best history of the House is Pike's "Constitutional History of the House of Lords."

[394:2]The question whether they sat by virtue of their tenure of land, or of their offices in the Church, has been a subject of some discussion.Cf.Pike, 151et seq.Anson, I., 220-22.

[395:1]And possibly with others.Cf.Anson, I., 197-200.

[395:2]At one time the House of Lords held that a Scotch peer could not be given an hereditary seat as a peer of Great Britain; but this decision was afterwards reversed. Pike, 361-62. A peer so created can still vote for representatives as a Scotch peer.Ibid., 362-63. And there has been some doubt whether, if a representative peer, he vacates his seat at once.Ibid., 362, May, 13.

[396:1]The number is now less than one hundred.

[396:2]The Bishop of Sodor and Man has a seat, but no vote.

[396:3]There are now ten English bishops who do not sit in the House of Lords.

[397:1]Cf.Pike, 369-76. Stubbs, "Const. Hist.," 5 Ed., III., 454.

[397:2]Before appointment they must have held high judicial office for two years, or have practised at the English, Scotch, or Irish bar for fifteen years.

[398:1]Pike, 285-87; Anson, I., 227-28. These cases are referred to the Committee of Privileges.

[398:2]The Act of 1870 abolished corruption of blood, so that a sentence no longer cuts off the heirs.

[398:3]Hans. 4 Ser. XXXIII., 1058et seq., 1174et seq., and 1728et seq.Cf.Rep. of Com. on Vacating of Seats, Com. Papers, 1895, X., 561.

[399:1]For misdemeanors, peers, like other persons, are tried by an ordinary jury.

[399:2]Upon conviction a peer is now liable to the same punishment as other offenders.

[399:3]For the history of the subject in general see Pike, Chs. x., xi., and for that of the bishops,Ibid., 151-68, 179-94, 219-23.

[400:1]9 Com. Journals, 235.

[400:2]9Ibid., 509.

[400:3]Cf.May, "Const. Hist.," I., Ch. viii., 444.

[401:1]May, "Parl. Prac.," 542.

[401:2]Ibid., 547, 549-50.

[401:3]Ibid., 552-53.

[401:4]Ibid., 551-52.

[401:5]Cf. Ibid., 544-46.

[401:6]For the same purpose the Lords sometimes insert a clause, in a bill or amendment, that a financial provision really essential to their plan shall not be operative, and then the Commons strike the clause out. May, 547-49.

[401:7]S.O.P.B. 226. Sometimes, also, at the request of the member in charge of a bill, the Commons consent to waive a privilege on which they might have insisted.

[402:1]May, 541.

[402:2]Ibid., 296-97.

[402:3]Ibid., 186, 307.

[402:4]A Lord Keeper of the Great Seal has the same rights to preside as the Lord Chancellor, and if the Seal be in commission the Crown appoints a Lord Speaker. May, 184-86.

[403:1]Two days' notice must be given of a motion to suspend this order. May, 350-51.

[403:2]May, 376, 377.

[404:1]May, 204, 205.

[404:2]Ibid., 206.

Effect of The Reform Act of 1832.

By sweeping away rotten boroughs, and giving representatives to new centres of industry, the Reform Act of 1832 made a great change in the position of the House of Lords; not by lessening its power—for since the Great Rebellion the Lords as a branch of the legislature has never had much power—but by the change in the composition of the House of Commons which opened a door to conflicts between the two bodies. In the old unreformed days the Lords and Commons were in general accord, because both were controlled by a territorial aristocracy whose chief members were peers. That element remained, no doubt, strong in the Commons after the Act of 1832, but it was no longer overmastering, and it had to use its authority in a more popular spirit, so that the two Houses ceased to be controlled by the same force. By bringing about this result the Reform Act drew attention to the fact that an hereditary body, however great the personal influence of its members, could not in nineteenth century England be the equal in corporate authority of a representative chamber. It became apparent that the House of Lords might on important issues differ in opinion from the House of Commons, and that in such cases an enduring desire of the nation, as expressed in the representative chamber, must prevail.

Power of the Lords Thereafter.

This did not mean that the House of Lords must submit to everything that the Commons chose to ordain; that it was to become a mere fifth wheel of the coach; on the contrary, in matters not of great importance, or on which the Commons were not thoroughly in earnest, it exercised its ownjudgment, sometimes in cases that caused no little friction between the Houses. In 1860, for example, it rejected the bill to repeal the duties on paper; in 1871 it refused to concur in the abolition of the purchase of commissions in the Army; and in 1880 it rejected the bill to compensate evicted Irish tenants. In all these cases the policy of the House of Commons was ultimately carried out; and the peers recognised fully that their action on great measures was tentative; that they must not go too far; and that if public opinion was persistent they must in the end give way. As Mr. Sidney Low well says: "The House of Lords, ever since the struggle over the great Reform Bill, has been haunted by a suspicion that it exists on sufferance."[406:1]

The House of Lords is Conservative.

From the fact that it represents, in the main, the interests of property, and especially of landed property, the House of Lords tends naturally to be conservative, in the sense that it is adverse to popular demands which appear dangerous to interests of that kind, or indeed to the established order of things; but more than this, the peerage as a mass tends from its social position in the nation to gravitate toward the political party that clings to the nobility and the Church as pillars of the state. During the half century that followed the first Reform Act, the Liberals were in power much the greater part of the time, and they created by far the larger number of peers;[406:2]yet the House of Lords remained firmly Conservative throughout; for even Liberal peers—and still more their descendants—are drawn by a steady current to the other side; a current that was accelerated, but not caused, by the Home Rule Bill.

The House is, in fact, overwhelmingly Conservative. Of the hereditary peers more than four fifths belong to theUnionist party; and the disproportion is increased by the representatives from Scotland and Ireland. In the case of Ireland this is the inevitable result of the method of choosing, because elections occur only one at a time on the death of a representative peer, and his successor is always taken from the dominant—that is, the Unionist—party. In Scotland, there being no provision for minority representation, the same result takes place, the majority electing all the sixteen peers for the Parliament from its own side; and thus the representative peers from both kingdoms, forty-four in number, are Unionists to a man.

Meaning of the Term "Conservative."

It is commonly said that the House of Lords is a conservative body which acts as a drag on hasty legislation, and holds back until the nation shows clearly that it has made up its mind. This is undoubtedly true, and if it were the whole truth the limited authority retained by the House would provoke no strong resentment in any quarter; but it is only a part of the truth. The word "conservative" has two distinct meanings in England, according as it is spelled with a small or a capital C. The first signifies an aversion to change; the second, one of the two great political parties in the state. Now, for more than a generation after the Reform Act of 1832 these two meanings of the word were not very far apart. The Conservative party was to such an extent the party of resistance to change as to make plausible, if not accurate, Macaulay's comparison of the two parties that divided the nation to the fore and hind legs of a stag, the Liberals being always in advance, and the Conservatives following their footsteps at a distance. The simile expressed one aspect of a not uncommon feeling, that the direction of the national policy rested normally with the Liberals, but that when they went too fast the Conservatives would come to power for a short time, while the country adjusted itself to its new conditions. That under these circumstances the House of Lords should act with the Conservative party, and should help them to play the part of a brake from time to time, not in order to stop, but only to slow down, the coachon a hill, was natural, and not open to serious objection. But Disraeli's constant preaching against a merely negative policy, coupled with the need of seeking for working-class support after the extension of the franchise by the Reform Act of 1867, led to the abandonment by the Tories of the attitude of resistance to change. Even if it be true that the new Tory democracy is, on the whole, less progressive than the Liberal party, it is certainly not opposed to all progress. In more than one direction, indeed, it is distinctly more favourable to change. If the stag has not become double-headed, he has, at least, learned to walk with either end in front; and this change in the Tory party has had a marked effect upon the position of the House of Lords.

The House has Become a Tool of the Conservative Party.

Although the Conservatives have outgrown their negative attitude of resistance to change, and have become an aggressive party with a positive policy, they have retained and even strengthened their control of the House of Lords. The House has not, of course, lost all volition so completely as merely to register the commands of the Unionist leaders. To some extent it has its own opinions, which are now more conservative than theirs; and even when they are in power it amends the lesser details of their bills with a good deal of freedom, sometimes making its own views prevail. In 1899, for example, it struck out of the London Local Government Bill the provision allowing women to vote for the borough councils, a change that the Commons accepted with reluctance; and in 1902 it succeeded in making amendments to the Elementary Education Bill, which threw upon the rates the burden of current repairs in the Church schools, and preserved some control by the bishops over religious instruction therein.

But while the House of Lords has a will of its own in smaller questions, on the great party struggles that rend the country it throws its weight wholly on the side of the Tories, and plays into their hands. Thus, from 1892 to 1895, and again in 1906,—the only two occasions on which the Liberals have been in office for a score of years,—the House of Lords usedits power boldly to hobble the government. That it did so to help the Unionist party, and not simply from conservative objection to change, is curiously brought out by its treatment of the principal measures of 1906. Besides the Education Bill, where the conflict of opinion lay very deep, two other government measures that aroused some feeling came to it from the Commons. One of them, the Trades Dispute Bill, which provided that a trade union should not be liable to suit for any action it might take during a strike, was certainly a radical measure, and one to which a chamber of conservative temperament might well object; but the Lords passed it without amendment. The other, the Plural Voting Bill, designed to prevent a man from voting in more than one place, involved no very profound question of principle, and made no very far-reaching change in English institutions, but was a bone of contention between the parties because it affected the chances of election in close districts. This bill the House of Lords summarily rejected.

The fact is that since the Reform Act of 1832 government by party has become highly developed; and although the differences between the principles of the two parties may be less fundamental than they were formerly, the voting in Parliament runs very much more strictly on party lines.[409:1]Politics have become more completely a battle between parties, in which it is more difficult than ever to avoid taking sides, while the combatants try to make use of every weapon within their reach. Now the very accentuation of party has made it easier for the peers to resist a Liberal ministry, because in doing so they are evidently opposing, not the people as a whole, but only a part of the people, and a part that is a majority by a very small fraction. In this way it has happened that the House of Lords, without ceasing to have an opinion of its own on other matters, has become for party purposes an instrument in the hands of the Tory leaders, who use it as a bishop or knight of their own colour on the chess-board of party politics.

Position of the House in Forcing a Referendum.

A cabinet never thinks of resigning on account of the hostility of the Lords; nor is its position directly affected by their action. Indirectly, however, it may be very seriously impaired, if the peers, claiming that the government is not really in accord with the electorate, reject important measures, and thereby challenge a dissolution of Parliament. By doing so they may reduce a ministry, that is not in a condition to dissolve, to a state of political impotence, both in fact and in the eyes of the nation. This was true of the Liberal administration in 1893-94, when the peers rejected the Home Rule Bill, and made amendments that struck at the root of the Parish Councils and Employers' Liability Bills, changing the latter in a manner so vital that the government finally withdrew the measure altogether. The Liberals protested that the House of Lords thwarted the will of the people, and ought to be ended or mended. The alliteration helped to make the phrase a catchword, but the cry excited popular enthusiasm so little that at the dissolution in 1895 the country upheld the same party as the House of Lords, and returned a large Unionist majority to Parliament.

For the Lords to appeal to the people at a moment when the people were of their party was naturally not an unpopular thing to do, and for some time after the fall of Lord Rosebery's government they rather gained than lost ground in the esteem of the public. The Conservatives, indeed, declared that the House had renewed its youth, and had become once more an important organ of the state by asserting its right to appealing from the cabinet and the majority in the Commons to the nation itself. The Lords were said to have attained the function of demanding a sort of referendum on measures of exceptional gravity; but useful as such a function might be, if in the nature of things a possible one, the existing House of Lords cannot really exercise it, because their object in doing so is essentially partisan. In attempting to appeal to the electorate, they act at the behest of one party alone. Thus in 1893 the Lords were quite ready to force the issue whether the cabinetretained the confidence of the country; but in 1905 when a series of adverse by-elections made it exceedingly doubtful whether the Conservative government had not lost its popularity, nothing was further from their intention than to cause a dissolution.

Now, a power to provoke a referendum or appeal to the people, which is always used in favour of one party and against the other, however popular it may be at a given moment, and however much it may be permanently satisfactory to the party that it helps, cannot fail in the long run to be exceedingly annoying to its rival; nor is it likely to commend itself to the great mass of thinking men as a just and statesmanlike institution. The House of Lords is a permanent handicap in favour of the Tories, which is believed to have helped them even in elections for the House of Commons. The workingmen have been told that although the Conservatives promise them less, they are better able to fulfil their promises than the Liberals who cannot control the House of Lords. These things must be borne in mind in discussing a possible reform of the upper House; but before coming to that question it will be well to look at the Lords under some other aspects—at their non-partisan activity, their treatment of private members' bills, and of private bill legislation, and at the personal influence of the leading peers.

Non-political Legislation.

So far we have considered only government bills, backed by the authority of a responsible ministry, which the upper House must treat with circumspection. The Lords do not feel the same restraint in regard to private members' bills sent to them from the Commons. These lie beyond the immediate range of party conflicts, and although they may occasionally deal with important subjects, neither the cabinet nor the parties take sides officially upon them. The Lords can, therefore, amend or reject them without fear; but it has become so difficult for a private member to get through the Commons any bill to which there is serious opposition, that this function of the upper House is not of great use.Still less vital is its power to initiate measures. In order the better to employ the time of the Commons the government introduces some of its secondary bills first in the Lords;[412:1]but measures proposed by individual peers have little chance of success. It is hard enough for a private member of the Commons to put his bill through its stages in that House, with all the sittings reserved for the purpose in the earlier part of the session; and it is even harder to pass a bill brought from the Lords at a later date. The result is that of the few private members' bills enacted each session only about one sixth originate with the peers.

Private Bill Legislation.

The relation of the House of Lords to private bill legislation is very different, for bills of that kind are in a region quite outside of politics. In their case, as already observed, the action of the Lords is, if anything, even more important than that of the Commons; and, in fact, the private bill committees of the upper House inspire in general a greater confidence, because the members are men of more experience.[412:2]While, therefore, the House of Lords occupies a subordinate place in regard to public measures of all kinds, and a position of marked inferiority in the case of government bills, in private and local legislation, which in England is of great importance, its activity is constant and highly useful.

Personal Influence of the Peers.

The personal influence of the Lords is far greater than their collective authority. With the waning of the landed gentry the respect for the old territorial aristocracy has been replaced by a veneration for titles, and this has inured to the benefit of the peerage. One sees it even in business affairs, although the Lords as a class are little qualified by experience for dealing with matters of that kind, the nobility having until recently been debarred by tradition from commercial life. One of the devices of that arch promoterHooley for inducing the public to embark in his schemes was to include a number of peers in his list of directors—guinea-pig directors, as they were called, because their most visible function was to pocket a guinea for attendance at each meeting. The Hooley revelations some years ago checked this practice; but the fact that it should have existed shows the confidence that titles were believed to inspire among a large class of investors.

The glamour of rank appears to be if anything more dazzling as one descends in the social scale; and a scion of a noble family, even when he has no landed interest at his back, is usually a strong Parliamentary candidate in a working-class constituency. The extension of the franchise has thus rather increased than diminished the influence of the nobility. The House of Commons, no doubt, makes a show of insisting that the peers shall take no part in general elections; but they are, nevertheless, active in politics and even in great electioneering organisations, particularly in those that stand, like the Primrose League, a little outside of the regular party machinery. When a general election is not in progress the leaders of the House of Lords speak constantly in public; and at the present day speeches from the platform are reported in the daily press quite as fully, and read at least as widely, as those delivered in the House of Commons. A foreigner is impressed by the popular confidence in those peers who have attained a position in the forefront of politics. There seems to be a feeling that they are raised above the scrimmage of public life; that in rank, wealth, and reputation they possess already the goal of ambition, and are beyond the reach of the temptations that beset the ordinary man.

Back to Index Next