[46] Note 46, 231.—In Bagehot’s “English Constitution,” chap. iv., is a very brilliant and suggestive discussion of the several political as well as social functions of the House of Lords. In this chapter, p. 100, Eng. ed., is to be found a remarkable letter of Lord Wellington to Lord Derby on “managing” the House of Lords. Bagehot argues that a second or revising chamber, to perform its work well, must have “independence,” “leisure,” and “intelligence,” and that on the whole these qualities are found in large measure in the House of Lords. Though many of the lords are ignorant of political affairs, the ignorant ones generally are so good as to remain away from the House and leave matters in the hands of those who are not ignorant.
[Note 47], [p. 232].—The question of raising persons to a life peerage has often been considered in England. In 1856 Lord Wensleydale was summoned “for and during the term of his natural life,” in imitation of what had been done four hundred years before; but the measure awakened violent opposition on the part of the House of Lords, which held that the independence of the House was thereby imperilled. The House decided that although the crown had the right to create “life peers,” such peers had no right to sit and vote in the House of Peers. After this decision, Lord Wensleydale did not attempt to take his seat, until shortly afterward he was created an hereditary peer as Baron Parke.—Hansard clviii. 1457, 1469; Todd, i. 368. In this same year a committee of the House of Lords was appointed to further consider the question, and reported recommending a statute “to confer life peerages upon two persons who had served for five years as judges, and that they should sit with the Lord Chancellor, as Judges of Appeal.” A bill founded on this recommendation passed the Lords, but was thrown out by the Commons. The principle was revived, however, in the “Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876,” by which provision was made for the constant presence in the House of Lords of four “Lords of Appeal in Ordinary,” to rank as Barons. They are selected from those who have held “high judicial office” and their dignity “does not descend to their heirs.”—Amos’ “Fifty Years of the English Constitution.” 19.
[Note 48], [p. 233].—This suggestion probably had its origin in the organization of the Roman Senate, which was made up of persons appointed for life from those who had been elected to the higher offices in the state.
[Note 49], [p. 235].—The period referred to was that immediately after 1832. The reformed parliament was strongly Liberal, and several measures were proposed to alter the constitution of the House of Lords. The headlong rate of the reformers was checked by the accession of the opposite party in 1835; but O’Connell was still clamorous for reform of the Lords, and in May of 1836 he introduced a resolution to make the Upper House elective, but the motion was received with universal derision.—Martineau, “Hist. of the Peace,” iii. 552.
[Note 50], [p. 238].—After the Reform Bill of 1832 was passed it was soon evident that it would have to be supplemented. Again and again attempts were made to carry a measure that would extend the franchise on the same principles as those acted on in 1832. But the nobility and the middle classes appeared to have no further interest in reform. Meantime there were others who had thought of reform in a different method. As early as 1821 Lord Durham had proposed the establishment of electoral districts, essentially according to the custom in America. In 1859, when Derby and Disraeli were in power, Disraeli introduced a bill enlarging the suffrage and essentially modifying the methods of determining qualifications. But this, too, failed. Another reform bill was introduced by Palmerston’s government in 1860, and still another by Gladstone in 1866. But all were unsuccessful till Mr. Disraeli’s bill of 1867. This was founded on the principle that the franchise should depend on permanency of interest, rather than amount of tax paid.—McCarthy, iv., 94–117; Molesworth, iii., 303–347.
[Note 51], [p. 248].—On the question here raised, there is a great variety of opinion, but the best authorities will accept the statement of the orator as substantially correct. The most careful consideration of the question has been presented in “Six Centuries of Work and Wages,” by Professor Thorold Rogers, who has devoted many years to the subject, and is unquestionably the highest living authority. On p. 522 (Am. ed.) he says: “Through nearly three centuries the condition of the English laborer was that of plenty and hope; from perfectly intelligible causes it sunk within a century to so low a level as to make the workman practically helpless, and the lowest point was reached just about the outbreak of the great war between King and Parliament. From this time it gradually improved, till in the first half of the eighteenth century, though still far below the level of the fifteenth, it achieved comparative plenty. Then it began to sink again, and the workmen experienced the direst misery during the great continental war. Latterly, almost within our own memory and knowledge, it has experienced a slow and partial improvement, the causes of which are to be found in the liberation of industry from protective laws, in the adoption of certain principles which restrained employment in some directions, and, most of all, in the concession to laborers of the right, so long denied, of forming labor partnerships.”
[Note 52], [p. 257].—The rate of increase in the population of Great Britain is such that there need be no especial alarm. In 1879, according to the official statistics, the number of births in Great Britain and Ireland in excess of the deaths was 436,780, while in France it was only 96,647. To every 10,000 inhabitants in Great Britain the annual addition is 101, while in France it is only 96. In Germany it is 115; in the United States (largely through immigration, of course) it is 260. The number of births per 1,000 in France is annually 26; in Switzerland, 30; in Denmark, 31; in Belgium, 32; in England, 35; in Austria, 38; in Saxony, 40; and in Russia, 50.—Raoul Frary, “Le National Peril”; also “Bradstreet’s” for Oct. 27, 1883, on “Vital Statistics,” 259.
[Note 53], [p. 257].—The question most prominently before the English people at the time of the fall of Disraeli’s government in December of 1868 was the bill for disestablishing the Irish Church. This was the real issue at the election in November, and is what Disraeli called the policy of “violence.” The local reference was doubtless to the fact that Mr. Gladstone and Lord Hartington were both defeated in Lancashire as candidates for the House of Commons. Gladstone, however, accepted a seat for Greenwich.
[Note 54], [p. 258].—Lord Mayo, in consequence of his successful administration of the affairs of Ireland, was appointed by Disraeli’s Ministry Viceroy of India. He was assassinated early in 1872. His administration was such as to win the admiration of all discriminating men of all parties.
[Note 55], [p. 259].—When Mr. Gladstone came into power in 1868, one of his early measures was bill for the disendowment of the Irish State Church. The controversy over the measure was one of great earnestness, but it was finally carried and went into effect January 1, 1871. This was followed by the Irish Land Bill, which aimed to overthrow the doctrine of the landlord’s absolute and unlimited rights, and to recognize certain property of the tenant in the land. This doctrine was carried still further in the Irish Land Bill of 1882.—McCarthy, chap. lviii.