THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5058, 9 June 1877, Page 2

THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

(Continued.)

From the article referred to in “ Fraser's Magazine” we may quote the following passage : —“ The Chamber of our hereditary Legislature has certainly not been diminishing in importance during the present Parliament. An unusually large number of national measures have been originated by it ; it has been the scene of many debates of great moment and of rare excellence ; it has witnessed the rise and development of one or two Parliamentary reputations on a more striking scale than the House of Commons has known. The statesmanship, the oratory, the wisdom, and the debating power of the Peers will compare not unfavorably with the best standard of the Commons; and the consequence is that the cry for the reform (not speak of the abolition) of Hie House of Lords has entirely subsided. There is every reason to believe that in the session of Parliament which begins this month, the House of Lords will more than divide public attention with the House of Canmons.” It will be seen that this was written just before the commencement of the present session of Parliament, which was opened by the Queen in person, at a most critical juncture in the affairs of Europe. And we think that the events which have followed have fully justified in’Bieir result the anticipations of the writer. The debates in the Hou=e of Lords on the policy pursued by the English Government during the present critical state of affairs in Europe, and the criticisms to which that policy has been exposed, have been exceedingly able, and have attracted a very large share of public attention. The presence of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in their Chamber, must of course give great weight to their deliberations at this particular crisis: but besides this it may be in the recollection of our readers that the present Premier, Lord Beacousfield, the Secretary of State for India, and the Secretary of Stale for the Colonies, are all members of this august body.

“ The legislative activity of the House of Lords has also been noticeable since the advent of Lord Beaconsfield to power. Of the thirtysix measures of importance introduced to Parliament, twenty have originated in the Peers Chamber, The Bublic Worship Bill in 1871 and the Judicature Act in 1875 both owed their parentage to our hereditary legislators. During last year the abortive Oxford Reform Bill first saw the light in front of the woolsack, and was the occasion of one of the most noteworthy speeches of the session from the Archbishop of Canterbury. ... It is to be noticed also that the recent debates in the House of Lords have not only been in many cases of a high order of excellence, but that they have introduced to public notice a larger proportion of capable candidates for political eminence comparatively, if not absolutely, than bas been observed in the House of Commons elected three years ago.” The fact is that the domination which used to bo exercised by one or two individuals iu the House of Lords years ago, has passed away for the present at any rate. Lord Thurlow, Lord Eldon, the Duke of Wellington, and Lord Lyndhurst, in their several generations, exercised a dictatorial influence upon it. But that time has passed away, and young peers of talent and industry assert themselves, and come to the front, and usa their influence there, just as much as young rising members iu the House of Commons. In order to illustrate to our readers the manner in which the House of Lords is liable to be modified without any constitutional alteration, we may refer to the political life of its present leader.— 11 Thirtyseven years ago Mr. Benjamin Disraeli was an aspirant for political honors, and a novel writer. We might almost go so far as to say that he was a man about town, a fashionable dandy, and a frequenter of ladies’ drawingrooms.’ 1 Now mark the antithesis. On the evening of the 7th December, 1837, the following scene occurred on the floor of the House of Commons “In the course of another irregular and noisy debate on the legality of the Irish election petition fund, Mr. B. Disraeli (following Mr. O’Connell) made his first speech in Parliament. He contended that the subscribers to the Spottiswoode fund were men anxious to work out the Reform Act, by putting an end to the system of borough-raongering, which iu a different shape prevailed more extensively than ever.” (We may remark that this was after the passing of the celebrated Reform Bill of 1832). “The mortified feelings of these individuals should be taken into consideration before the inquiry was instituted. (Here Mr. Disraeli experienced much interruption, and repeatedly implored the House to grant him a hearing). He had something to say in vindication of her Majesty’s Government, and wished the House would give him five minutes.” (Imagine such a scene in the House of Commons). He continued: 11 X stand here, sir, not formally, but in some degree virtually, the representative of a considerable number of members of Parliament. (Bursts of laughter.) Now, why smile ? (Continued laughter.) Why envy me ! (Here the laughter became long and general.) Why should cot I have a tale to unfold to-night ? (Roars of laughter.) Do you forget.that a band of 153 members —those ingenuous and inexperienced youths to whose unsophisticated minds the Chancellor of the Exchequer, _ in those tones of winning pathos (Excessive laughter and loud cries of 1 Question.’) Now, a considerable misconception exists in the minds of many members on this side of the House as to the conduct of her Majesty’s Government with respect to these election?, and I wish to remove it.” (Our readers must bear in mind that this was a maiden speech, in order to understand the true absurdity of it.) I will not twit the noble lord opposite with opinions which are not ascribable to him, or to his more immediate supporters, but which were expressed by the more popular section of his party some few months back. About that time, sir, when the bell of our cathedral announced the death of the monarch—(Laughter) we all read then, sir—(Groans and cries of ‘ Oh!’)—we all then read—(Laughter and great interruption.) I know nothing which is to me more delightful than t" show courtesy to a new member, particularly if he happens to apceal to me from the party opposed to myself. (Hear, hear.) At that time we read that it was the death-knell of Toryism ; that the doom of that party was sealed; that their funeral obsequies were about to be consummated. We were told that with the dissolution of that much vilified Parliament which the right honorable baronet bad called together, the hopes and prospects of the Tories would be thrown for ever to the winds ; and that affairs were again to be brought exactly to what they were, at the period when the hurried Mr. Hudson rushed into the chambers of the Vatican.” (Great laughter.) If hon. gentlemen thought this fair he would submit. He would not do so to others, that was all. (laughter.) Nothing was so easy as to laugh. He wished before he sat down to show the House clearly their position. When they remembered that, in spite of the honorable and learned member for Dublin (O’Connell) and his well-disciplined band of patriots, there was a little shyness exhibited by former supporters of her Majesty’s Government ; when they recollected the ■aew loves’ and the 1 old loves,’ in which so much of passion and recrimination were mixed up, between the noble Tityrus of the Treasury Bench and the learned Daphne of Liskeard (Charles Buller) —(loud laughter)—-notwithstanding the amantiam me had resulted as he always expected in the amorts redinie'jrutlo (renewed laughter)—notwithstanding that political duels had been fought, in which more than one shot was interchanged, hut in which recourse was had to the secure arbitrament of blank cartridges—(laughter)—notwithstanding emancipated Ireland, and enslaved England, the noble lord might wave in one hand the keys of St. Peteranc! inthe other—(the shouts that followed drowned the conclusion of the sentence.) Let them see the philosophical prejudice of men. He wouldcertainlygladlyheara cheer, even though it came from the lips of a political opponent. He was not at all surprised at the reception which he had experienced. He had begun several times many things, and he had often succeeded at last. He would sit down now, hut the time would come when they would hear him, Mr, Disraeli hereupon sat down amid marks marks of great impatience, and was followed by Lord Stanley.” Such was the commencement of the career of the present Prime Minister of England, the principal adviser of his Sovereign, and the loader of the House of Lords. It is a curious thing, we may remark in passing, that lie was followed in this speech by Lord Stanley, a scion of one of the most princely families in England, and who is notwithstanding a member of the Cabinet of ■which the plain Mr. Disraeli of those days, and now Lord Beaconsiield, i-s the chief. Truly time works many changes. As we have mentioned, however, in a previous part of this paper, the atmosphere of the Blouse of Lords is very different to that of the House of Commons. In the Commons the Speaker keeps order and completely controls the House, In the Peers there is no Speaker. If the Lord Chancellor happens to be present he takes his seat upon the woolsack, hut ho cannot call another peer to order except in the name manner as any other peer. The decision of points of order is left entirely to the peers themselves, and in the event of the Lord Chancellor not being present any member can take his place, and put the question formally before the House. In speaking peers do not address the chair, as is the invariable custom in the Commons, but the House as a body. But onr space is getting limited. We would like to give, however, one further quotation, which may show how the Constitution of England is upheld by the constant amalgamation of the different classes of the people. Thirty-seven years ago Mr. Disraeli was not only an aspirant to political honors, as we have previously mentioned, but also a novelist. Now we know xbat every novelist makes use of his hooks to spread his opinions by putting into the mouth of one of his characters the ideas which he wishes to promulgate. He makes them, iu fact, a convenient mouthpiece. And in the “Young Duke” Mr. Disraeli puts into the mouth of one of his characters the following words : “ One thing is clear—that a man may speak very well in the House of Commons, and fail very completely in the House of Lords. There are two distinct styles requisite. I intend in

the course of ray career, it I have time, to give a specimen of both. In the Lower House ■Dou Juan’ may perhaps be my > m the Upper House, 1 Paradise Lost. * ornately, Mr. Disraeli has “ had time _ to achieve the object of the ambition at which he prophetically pointed thirty-seven years _agm e could go into very much greater mmutue on this subject than those iu which we have already indulged ; hut we need not now cllo more than remind our readers once again that in truth a seat iu the House of Lords is not merely acquired by birthright, hut is a great distinction, which the Crown has the power to confer upon those who have done their duty to the State. We think that its existence exercises a most salutary influence upon the government of the British Empire, and has done much, with the assistance of the other branch, iu preventing any violent measures being adopted. And wo hut think that the model which lias been furnished by the constitution of the Imperial Parliament, and from which, iu theory, the Colonial Parliaments have been constructed, has done more to lead to good government and moderation during party conflicts than could have been gained with only one Chamber elected by the populace in existence. Even democratic America recognises the great value of the Seuate, which sits, as we say, almost as a jury, and judges questions affecting very large interests ; and the beneficial effects which have accrued to the United States by its influence are acknowledged by every American statesman. It is a subject on which much more might be said ; we have only led up to it; hut we°think that with most thinking men of the present day it has come to be a pretty well recognised fact that the House of Lords is a part of the Constitution which is of permanent advantage to the State, and that the colonies which are the offspring of Great Britain will do well to model their institutions as far as possible after the example of those which we so familiarly term those of the mother country.