_The House of Lords—Their Lordships in Session._
The new House of Lords is a superb specimen of modern art; and, in every
way, is worthy of the hereditary Senate of the British Empire. Perhaps
it is too small for full effect, and yet, if larger, it would hardily
answer the purposes of speaking and hearing. Its dimensions, however,
are symbolical of its character, as intended for the use of a very
select assembly; and would seem to indicate, moreover, (to copy once
more the manner of Fuller,) that the Whigs are not to reign forever,
seeing that if such as my Lord John Russell should long continue in
power, there would need be built a much larger hall to contain all the
broken lawyers, hack politicians, Popish Bishops, and rich Jews, who
might justly expect, from former examples, to be fitted up with
coronets, coats of arms, and patents of nobility. The like idea seems to
obtain, moreover, in the decorations of the hall, in which History is
artfully blended with Religion and Chivalry; implying, if my republican
comprehension can rightly interpret this writing on the wall, that to be
a true patrician, one must have historical antecedents, and should
represent some great fact in the annals of one’s country; and that such
antecedents, to be made honourable to an individual, must be sustained
by personal worth, and by that refined and sublimated virtue which is
called honour. Thus, for example, a Nelson or a Wellington is a nobleman
by the historic origin of his family, although of modern date; while,
with respect to “all the blood of all the Howards,” it is equally true,
that if devoid of corresponding traits of magnanimity and honesty, its
degenerate inheritor is, after all, only fit to be hooted at as a
poltroon and a villain. This principle I fully understand, American as I
am. I feel that something is due to the worthy representative of a name
illustrious in the annals of a great nation; but your mere Lord
Moneybags, or the spiritless and unprincipled shadow of a name that was
once right-honourable, are creatures with whose acquaintance I should
feel it somewhat discreditable to be bored. Every man who has moral
worth, and who respects himself accordingly, must entertain a degree of
honest contempt for such company, somewhat akin to that of good old
Johnson, in his thread-bare coat, when he wrote his inimitable letter to
Chesterfield.
However, their Lordships’ House! There is the Throne; and I defy any one
to look at the Throne of England without veneration. It is a gorgeous
seat, over which appear the royal arms, while on its right and left are
seats for the Prince Consort and the Prince of Wales. A splendid canopy
overhangs the dais on which these seats are ranged, and the dais itself
is covered with a carpet of “scarlet velvet pile, spotted with heraldic
lions and roses.” The ceiling is ribbed with massive gilded bands, and
richly bossed and set with devices in all the colours of blazonry.
Between the lofty windows are niches intended to receive the bronze
statues of the old Magna Charta Barons, while the windows themselves are
filled with stained glass, commemorative of the Kings and Queens of
England. The subordinate ornaments and furniture are all in keeping. On
the right hand of the Throne, are the seats appropriate to the Bishops,
where the Church “lifts her mitred front” before the Sovereign, and
teaches her by whom she reigns, and how she may execute judgment. But
directly in front of the Throne is the _woolsack_, covered with red
cloth, and otherwise made suitable to “the keeper of the Queen’s
conscience,” who ordinarily sits thereon. Before this are the clerks’
table and seats, and then the bar; while on either hand range the
crimson benches of the Peers. At the end of the hall is the reporters’
and strangers’ gallery, of very small dimensions, from which, however,
one gets the best view of the whole interior, and of the striking
pictures over the Throne. These are happily chosen as to subjects, and
well executed as frescoes. In the centre is the Baptism of King
Ethelbert—the symbol of a truly Christian realm: on one side is the
Black Prince receiving the Garter—a symbol of genuine chivalry; and on
the other is Henry, Prince of Wales, submitting to imprisonment for an
assault upon Judge Gascoigne—a most speaking exhibition of the
time-honoured relations subsisting between British Royalty and British
Law. It will be a wholesome thing for every future Prince of Wales to
look at this picture, before he presumes to sit down under it. It may
really have an important influence in moulding the character of future
Kings. God grant it may!
In surveying this splendid apartment, the mind naturally goes forward,
since it presents the fancy with no past history. What is to be its
future? Is this House to be the scene of a further development of vast
imperial resources? Is it to be graced by a perpetuated aristocracy,
surviving every change in society and in arts, by the force of their own
character, as furnishing a high example to mankind of “whatsoever things
are lovely and of good report?” Is this roof to resound with the voices
of high-minded men, asserting from age to age their privilege to be
foremost in defence of religion and of humanity, and to do and to suffer
for the good of their fellow-subjects, and the welfare of mankind? Is
the British Peerage to grow brighter with high moral qualities, than
with hereditary honours, and to be cherished by an enlightened spirit of
public virtue as a standard of all that is honourable, and as a pattern
of what is most excellent in the ideal of the true Christian gentleman?
Or must the sad reverse be true, and must this House be the scene of the
last act in the eventful history of England? Shall a factitious nobility
be crowded into these chief seats of the realm; men devoid of ennobling
antecedents, and not less so of honour and of worth? Shall the decay of
a mighty Empire be marked by such a House of Lords as may facilitate the
plans of the demagogue, sinking the Sovereign to a Doge, and the Church
to a State hireling, and giving to the Commons the unrestrained
privilege of revolution and anarchy? These are questions which a
well-wisher to the British Empire cannot but suggest, in view of events
which have lately taken place; and especially in view of the fact, that
the House of Lords has not unfrequently of late suffered itself to be
disgraced by breaches of Christian courtesy, not to say of common
decency, which, if multiplied in such a conspicuous place, must tend to
barbarize the world. Let us hear no more of disgraceful scenes in the
American Congress, till hereditary noblemen, who have little else to do,
can furnish mankind with a wholesome example of high legislative
decorum! For unless noblemen will reflect upon their position, and act
upon convictions of what is necessary to the credit of their rank, in a
day when true gentlemen are by no means rare, outside their glittering
circle, and even among plain republicans, they must not wonder if they
too should become as a worn-out form, or an exploded theory. Who knows
how soon this superb hall of legislation may be exhibited as the chief
memorial of their existence? If the British Peerage proves untrue to the
Church of England, and degrades itself to the bare responding of an
_Amen_ to every momentary _Credo_ of Ministers and Commons, what use of
such machinery? This palace shall be even as those of Venice. This
gorgeous interior shall be kept under the key of the mere _cicerone_,
and shown as a thing of the past to the staring traveller, as he marvels
over tarnished gilding and faded damask, and at every tread disturbs the
dust upon its floor, or breaks through cobwebs dangling from its
ceiling.
When one sees, in the writings of such a man as Dr. Arnold, confessions
of annoyance, if not of a sense of injury, from the existence of a
privileged class, to which merit must constantly give way, where
otherwise it would be entitled to precedence; and when one discovers,
even in the highest seats of British intellect and piety, a certain
deference to mere rank, which seems humiliating; and when one finds
something of the spirit of _tuft-hunting_ diffused through all classes
alike, from the Tory school-boy to the Whig Bishop; one feels indeed
that there may be arguments against the aristocratic element in society,
which have never been stated in their list of grievances by political
agitators. But, after all, in an old country like England, the
aristocracy exists, and there is no destroying it without destroying the
nation. The infernal _guillotine_ itself cannot wholly make way with it,
as France has learned to its sorrow. What then? It must be modified and
perpetuated. It must be purified, and worked in with society, as its
ornament, but not its fabric. This is what is done already in England.
The nobility, the clergy, the gentry, the literati, the professional
classes, and then the people—after all, in England they are one; “shade
unperceived and softening into shade,” and joined and knit together by
habits, tastes, alliances, and interests, in a wonderful order. Much yet
remains to be done, and will be done, to smooth down remaining
asperities between rank and rank; but the British aristocracy may be
said, even now, to be a genuine one, identified with everything great
and good in the nation, and, on the whole, presenting a wholesome
example to other classes in the State. In all probability, so virtuous
an aristocracy has never been seen elsewhere among mankind. Among them
may be found specimens of human nature, whose physical and mental
endowments, together with their moral worth, and intellectual
accomplishments, entitle them to the highest admiration of their
fellow-men. We are too well aware that side by side with such, may sit,
adorned with equal rank and titles, some wretch, whose coronet has been
purchased by infamy, and whose hereditary decorations are but the
mockery of a character, every way pestilent and detestable. The English
themselves are used to it; but it strikes a republican with amazement
that such creatures should be noble, even “by courtesy.”
To see the House, as I saw it first, empty, and for the sake of its
architecture and decoration, one gets a ticket by applying at the
adjoining office of the Lord Chamberlain, on specified days. To attend
the sessions of the House of Lords, one must possess an autograph order
by a Peer. With this I was kindly supplied, not only for one night, but
for four; the orders being given me in blanks, which I was permitted to
fill with any dates that might best suit my convenience. It so happened
that little was going on in the House of Lords while I was in London,
and I did not see it to advantage. As I heard several of its most
eminent members elsewhere, however, and frequently met with them in
society, I had less to regret than would otherwise have been the case.
In the House itself, I saw enough to familiarize me with its appearance
and manners, and the rest is easily imagined, when one has before him
the _Times’_ report of any particular scene.
Lord Truro, sitting on the woolsack, was the first object that struck me
on entering—and it was by no means a majestic one. He is a _Russell_
Chancellor, and of course no Clarendon. Shades of Somers and of Eldon,
what a figure I saw in your old seat! The sight of the Bishops, in their
robes, with the old Primate, in his wig, reminded me of Chatham’s appeal
to “that right reverend bench, and the unsullied purity of their lawn.”
Their Lordships were few in number, and among them the Bishop of Oxford
was the man of mark. I doubt if he has his equal in the House for
“thoughts that breathe and words that burn.” The Lords temporal were
lounging about their benches, hats on or off, as chanced to be, and what
little speaking I heard, was by no means such as to rouse them to
particular attention. A hesitating, stuttering, and very awkward
utterance would even seem to be the fashion in this noble House. I
looked in vain for Lord Brougham, not because I have any great respect
for him, but because one may be pardoned for trying to see such a
curiosity, when it is, possibly, just under one’s nose. He has been
vastly over-rated, and will soon be forgotten. In general, their
Lordships looked like well-bred gentlemen, and there was about them a
certain air of travel and of finish, which marks the habituated man of
the world. Some of them were plainly dressed, but others were evidently
men of fashion. One thing they ought to know and feel, and that is—that
much is given them, and much will be required of them. No doubt every
position has its qualifying disadvantages and trials; yet it must be
allowed that no station in which a human being can find himself placed
by his Creator, affords so many advantages, at the very outset, for
usefulness and happiness in life, as that of a young English Peer of
competent fortune and sound mind, with a healthful body, and a good
education. What a hint for such a man is that challenge of nature’s own
nobleman, St. Paul—_Who maketh thee to differ from another, and what
hast thou that thou didst not receive?_
An incident which created some excitement in fashionable circles,
shortly after the opening of the Crystal Palace, will illustrate one
feature of British civilization which will not be out of place in
connection with these remarks on the aristocracy. Everybody has heard of
the London Police, their admirable drill, and great efficiency. Their
impartial enforcement of the rules of the Great Exhibition was
peculiarly illustrative of these characteristics, and also of the spirit
of law and order, as paramount and inflexible in the Metropolis. No
departure from these rules was allowed to any one; and carriage after
carriage, all blazing with heraldic splendours, and filled with rank and
beauty, was forced to change its route by the simple waving of a
policeman’s finger. It so happened that a dashing young fellow, a scion
of the noble house of S——, driving his own equipage through Hyde Park,
ventured to disobey. On this the policeman seized the horse’s head, and
backed him. The hot-blooded Jehu instantly raised his whip, and struck
the policeman several violent blows over the face and head. The result
was his immediate arrest; and on being carried before the Magistrate,
young S—— found himself committed for ten days imprisonment, which he
accordingly fulfilled with exemplary submission, wearing jail-clothes,
and performing sundry penances, precisely as if he had been the humblest
offender in the land. On the same day that this happened, a cabman whom
I had engaged to take me, in a hurry, to a certain part of the town,
drove me rapidly through St. James’s Park, and was just making his
escape into the street, near Buckingham Palace, when he was stopped, in
the gate, by a policeman, and ordered instantly back, with a threat of
severe punishment should he again trespass where he knew that only
private carriages were admitted. As my time was precious, I ventured to
interpose, and exhausted every art, in vain, to induce the inexorable
policeman to allow the cab to pass on. He little knew my sincere respect
for him, and the real satisfaction I took in thus finding him “a brick
for his principles.” Finally, I offered to alight, and discharge the
cabman there; but this also the policeman respectfully forbade. “It
would never do,” he said, “to allow cabmen to take such liberties; the
cab must go back;” but then he advised me not to pay the fellow a single
penny, as he was not entitled to anything but an arrest, for exemption
from which he might be thankful. I was exceedingly annoyed, in spite of
my admiration for authority, but thought it best to submit without
further parley. Next day I heard of the fate of the Honorable Mr. S——,
and, on the whole, felt glad that I had got off so easily. Thus it seems
that law is law in London, for all classes alike; and if the stranger,
in his cab, is not permitted to violate it, he may at least console
himself with the fact that he would fare no better if he were a
home-born aristocrat in a dashing tilbury. It is this well-defined
system of society, in which every man knows his rights, and where even
privilege is limited, and as absolutely held in check as license, that
makes even humble life in England, in spite of all its burdens, a life
of liberty and contentment. Theoretical equality may exist with far less
of real independence, and we who value ourselves on self-government, are
perhaps in danger of finding ourselves without government, and too
jealous of authority to submit even to law.