# The House of Lords and the nation/Preface

PREFACE.
BY THE EARL OF CARNARVON.
I have been requested to write a few words of introduction to the following pamphlet on the House of Lords; and it is an agreeable task to bear witness to its singularly fair and truthful reasoning. There is nothing from which I materially differ, there is very much in which I cordially agree. In its moderate and argumentative style, in its complete freedom from personal abuse, unfair attack, or exaggerated statement, it presents a remarkable contrast to articles and papers which have lately been written against the House of Lords, and which, by their injustice and violence, seem to drag us back into the worst political literature of the last century.
I heartily and sincerely recommend it to the careful reading of those who desire to know the facts of a case that has been grossly misrepresented. They will find in it nothing, I believe, that is not consistent with fact, and that has not the warrant of History.
With prejudiced partisans I have no concern; but to conscientious and reasonable men, who desire to be satisfied as to the rights of the question, I would say, "Test the allegations of Radical speakers and pamphleteers by the certain facts of History, and study these facts not in the pages of Tory writers but in the deliberate conclusions of Liberal Historians, where there can be no suspicion of favour or partiality towards the House of Lords." Is it possible to make a fairer proposal? And if indeed the offer be accepted and the question studied from this point of view—of course I mean broadly and fairly, not picking out exceptional sentences or facts, or divorcing the general meaning of the writer from the context—it will, I ​think, be admitted that the reasoning of this pamphlet is amply and abundantly confirmed.
Errors of judgment, intemperate conduct, perhaps even selfish action may occasionally be traced in the parliamentary history of the House of Lords; but what body of men has there ever been, or will there be, of which this cannot be said? Unworthy members, rotten limbs which I wish we could cut off, there have been and must be, but what body of men has there ever been, or will there be, of which this cannot be said? Let him or they who are immaculate cast the first stone. If, indeed, individual cases are to be cited, it would be easy to name by the score those in the House of Lords who have with pre-eminent ability guided legislation and upheld public affairs, or, on the other hand, who have simply and conscientiously made their wealth and abilities the source of comfort and happiness to thousands who depended upon them. I believe that if, like reasonable men, and not like children, carried away by every breath of rhetoric, we look dispassionately at the whole course and conduct of the House of Lords for many generations back, the verdict will be that that House has shown often more liberality, very often more wisdom than, and always as much patriotism as the House of Commons.
The revolution of 1668 was as much due to the English aristocracy and the House of Lords as to any man or men in the country. In the early part of the 18th century it was the House of Lords which threw its shield of protection over Lord Somers, Sir Robert Walpole, and, on more than one occasion, over the Dissenters too, though it may now suit Radical politicians to ignore this. It was the House of Lords that maintained the House of Hanover, and upheld the Protestant succession. These were great events; and compared with them the events and legislation of our day will seem in the eyes of a future historian to be insignificant and petty. Again, as we consider the parliamentary history of the close of the 18th century, it is neither demagogues nor members of the House ​of Commons, but great Peers that withstood the arbitrary power of the Crown, or opposed Lord Bute and the corruption of Henry Fox. The Dukes of Richmond and Devonshire, Lord Fitzwilliam, and others, were at one time the mainstay and representatives of public liberty, and the bulwark against an overweening court and a servile minister. Go on yet one step further, to that great war when a Liberal Opposition thwarted the military conduct of the Duke of Wellington, and did their best to starve the British army abroad; and it was the House of Lords that never flinched when the honour, credit, and safety of the country were at stake. And on the conclusion of that great struggle it will not be found that the aristocratic government of England were the friends of tyranny abroad. On the contrary, their support was given to the constitutional Governments that were growing up in Europe. Misrepresentation and abuse have been heaped upon Lord Castlereagh, but modern history has brought out the fact that he was no friend to tyranny. Nor must it be forgotten that, at the end of the great war, it was that same aristocratic government that restored Sicily to the Italians, Java to the Dutch, that defended Holland under critical circumstances, and did its best, though unsuccessfully, to save Poland. It was finally no demagogue who carried the famous Reform Bill of 1832. It was an aristocratic government, at the head of which was one, than whom no greater aristocrat breathed—Lord Grey.
There are, I think, four undeniable facts which may be asserted of the House of Lords during the last half century. First, a steady growth and adaptation of the House to the social and political changes of the time may be traced. It reflects, indeed, our essentially English practice in silently and unconstrainedly adapting itself to the requirements of the day. It has thus interwoven itself, as it were, with English sentiment, and had become an integral part of the English nation. Secondly, by the general opinion of the country, and on the authority of distinguished Liberals, it may challenge, for ability ​in debate and for business power, comparison with the House of Commons. Thirdly, it remains a firm bulwark of the Crown; and, whilst a bulwark—thanks to its hereditary character—it has maintained its independence of the Crown. Fourthly, and lastly, taking all circumstances into account, there has been a remarkable and extraordinary harmony between the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
Let me only add that all this can be proved, not from the pages of Conservative writers, but from the careful conclusions of Liberal historians. I might pursue this reasoning further, and point out how untrue it is to represent the House of Lords as a mere Conservative assembly. Up to the reign of George III. the House of Lords was Whig; but with the French Revolution it changed—and why? Because it reflected the character and temper of the whole nation. At that time the whole nation was Tory. It was alarmed by the atrocities of the French Revolution, and the House of Lords reflected faithfully the temper of the nation. But after the Reform Bill of 1832, parties in the House of Lords gradually became more evenly balanced—so evenly balanced, indeed, that during the time Lord Palmerston was Prime Minister it was hard to say that the Conservative Opposition was stronger than the Liberal Government. When a vote of censure was moved by the late Lord Derby, on the occasion of the Chinese war, the Conservative Opposition were beaten by 37 votes. But, if the House of Lords is Conservative now, the reason is plain. It is the present Government that has alarmed the House, and has driven over from the Liberal to the Conservative side men who, from father to son, have been Liberal. It is that the House of Lords is reflecting now, as it did at the French Revolution, the education, the sense, the respectability, the good feeling, the intelligence of the country.
But it is objected that the House of Lords is founded on the principle of hereditary descent, and that that principle is inconsistent with the ideas of our day. Inconsistent with the ideas ​of our day! It might as well be said inconsistent with the moving principles of human nature; for it is in that hereditary principle that the appeal to many of men's highest instincts lies. A man toils not for himself, but for his son; for him he spends his life, and strength, and energy, as on him he pours out his affections; and the son, in his turn, when he succeeds to his father's place, succeeds not to his wealth and property alone, but to that which is the best part of his inheritance, to his fair fame and credit. That fair fame is the pledge of his future conduct and the earnest of good service to the State. It may be said, in Lord Bacon's words, that the Peers, if true to themselves and their duties, are "thrice servants—servants of the Sovereign or State, servants of fame, and servants of business."
But it is also on this hereditary principle that the independence of the House of Lords is founded. Take it away, and I know not what substitute can be found. Nomination? It has been repeatedly tried in our Colonies, but no colonial statesman would recommend it, except as the next best substitute for our English system, which is of course impossible there. Election? It has also been tried and it has been found even less satisfactory in its operation than nomination. A constitution analogous to that of the Senate of the United States? It is admitted that the materials do not exist in this country.
Whilst, then, I say now, as I have often said before, that I would refuse consideration to no wise or well considered proposal which would give strength or greater efficiency to our second chamber, it needs little knowledge of human nature, of History or statesmanship, to understand that they, who lightly discard the principle of hereditary descent, may find that they have cast aside that which even under the freest and most popular institutions may have a value little dreamed of by modern Liberals. Surrounded by the traditions of historic antiquity—no small merit in days of change—it maintains a visible connection between past and present England; and it adds dignity to an ancient monarchy, stability to the forms ​and substance of government, and a silent, but not ineffective protest against those less generous influences which are ever striving to assert themselves in a money making and money worshipping generation.
CARNARVON.
August 20th, 1884.