Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 12, August, 1863, No. 70 by Various

V >> Various >> Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 12, August, 1863, No. 70

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY.

A MAGAZINE OF LITERATURE, ART, AND POLITICS.

* * * * *

VOL. XII.--AUGUST, 1863.--NO. LXX.

* * * * *

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1863, by TICKNOR AND
FIELDS, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of
Massachusetts.

* * * * *

AN AMERICAN IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

Having in a former number of this magazine attempted to give some
account of the House of Commons, and to present some sketches of its
leading members,[1] I now design to introduce my readers to the House of
Lords.

[Footnote 1: _Atlantic Monthly_ for December, 1861.]

It is obviously unnecessary to repeat so much of the previous
description as applies to the general external and internal appearance
of the New Palace of Westminster. It only remains to speak of the hall
devoted to the sessions of the House of Lords. And certainly it is an
apartment deserving a more extended notice than our limits will allow.
As the finest specimen of Gothic civil architecture in the world,
perfect in its proportions, beautiful and appropriate in its
decorations, the frescoes perpetuating some of the most striking scenes
in English history, the stained glass windows representing the Kings and
Queens of the United Kingdom from the accession of William the Conqueror
down to the present reign, the niches filled with effigies of the Barons
who wrested Magna Charta from King John, the ceiling glowing with gold
and colors presenting different national symbols and devices in most
elaborate workmanship and admirable intricacy of design, it is
undeniably worthy of the high purpose to which it is dedicated.

The House of Lords also contains the throne occupied by the reigning
sovereign at the opening and prorogation of Parliament. Perhaps its more
appropriate designation would be a State-Chair. In general form and
outline it is substantially similar to the chairs in which the
sovereigns of England have for centuries been accustomed to sit at their
coronations. We need hardly add that no expense has been spared to give
to the throne such intrinsic value, and to adorn it with such emblems of
national significance, as to furnish renewed evidence of England's
unwavering loyalty to the reigning house.

In pointing out what is peculiar to the House of Lords, I am aware that
there is danger of falling into the error of stating what is already
familiar to some of my readers. And yet a traveller's narrative is not
always tiresome to the tourist who has himself visited the same
localities and witnessed the same scenes. If anxious for the "diffusion
of useful knowledge," he will cheerfully consent that the curiosity of
others, who have not shared his good fortune, should be gratified,
although it be at his expense. At the same time, he certainly has a
right to insist that the extraordinary and improbable stories told to
the too credulous _voyageur_ by some lying scoundrel of a courier or
some unprincipled _valet-de-place_ shall not be palmed upon the
unsuspecting public as genuine tales of travel and adventure.

The House of Lords is composed of lords spiritual and lords temporal. As
this body is now constituted, the lords spiritual are two archbishops,
twenty-four bishops, and four Irish representative prelates. The lords
temporal are three peers of the blood royal, twenty dukes, nineteen
marquises, one hundred and ten earls, twenty-two viscounts, two hundred
and ten barons, sixteen Scotch representative peers, and twenty-eight
Irish representative peers. There are twenty-three Scotch peers and
eighty-five Irish peers who have no seats in Parliament. The
representative peers for Scotland are elected for every Parliament,
while the representative peers for Ireland are elected for life. As has
been already intimated, this enumeration applies only to the present
House of Lords, which comprises four hundred and fifty-eight
members,--an increase of about thirty noblemen in as many years.

The persons selected from time to time for the honor of the peerage are
members of families already among the nobility, eminent barristers,
military and naval commanders who have distinguished themselves in the
service, and occasionally persons of controlling and acknowledged
importance in commercial life. Lord Macaulay is the first instance in
which this high compliment has been conferred for literary merit; and it
was well understood, when the great essayist and historian was ennobled,
that the exception in his favor was mainly due to the fact that he was
unmarried. With his untimely death the title became extinct. Lord
Overstone, formerly Mr. Loyd, and a prominent member of the banking firm
of Jones, Loyd, and Co. of London, elevated to the peerage in 1850, is
without heirs apparent or presumptive, and there is good reason to
believe that this circumstance had a material bearing upon his
well-deserved promotion. But these infrequent exceptions, these rare
concessions so ungraciously made, only prove the rigor of the rule.
Practically, to all but members of noble families, and men distinguished
for military, naval, or political services, or eminent lawyers or
clergymen, the House of Lords is unattainable. Brown may reach the
highest range of artistic excellence, he may achieve world-wide fame as
an architect, his canvas may glow with the marvellous coloring of Titian
or repeat the rare and delicate grace of Correggio, the triumphs of his
chisel may reflect honor upon England and his age; the inventive genius
of Jones, painfully elaborating, through long and suffering years of
obscure poverty, the crude conceptions of his boyhood, may confer
inestimable benefits upon his race; the scientific discoveries of
Robinson may add incalculable wealth to the resources of his nation: but
let them not dream of any other nobility than that conferred by Nature;
let them be content to live and die plain, untitled Brown, Jones, and
Robinson, or at best look forward only to the barren honors of
knighthood. Indeed, it is not too much to say that for plebeian merit
the only available avenues to the peerage are the Church and the Bar.

The proportion of law lords now in the House of Lords is unusually
large,--there being, besides Lord Westbury, the present
Lord-High-Chancellor, no fewer than six Ex-Lord-Chancellors, each
enjoying the very satisfactory pension of five thousand pounds per
annum. Lord Lyndhurst still survives at the ripe age of ninety-one; and
Lord Brougham, now in his eighty-sixth year, has made good his promise
that he would outlive Lord Campbell, and spare his friends the pain of
seeing his biography added to the lives of the Lord-Chancellors to
whom, in Lord Brougham's opinion, Lord Campbell had done such inadequate
justice.

The course of proceeding in the House of Lords differs considerably from
that pursued in the House of Commons. The Lord-High-Chancellor, seated
on the wool-sack,--a crimson cushion, innocent of any support to the
back, and by no means suggestive of comfort, or inviting deliberations
of the peers, but is never addressed by the speakers. "My lords" is the
phrase with which every peer commences his remarks.

Another peculiarity patent to the stranger is the small number usually
present at the debates. The average attendance is less than fifty, and
often one sees only fifteen or twenty peers in their seats. Two or three
leading members of the Ministry, as many prominent members of the
opposition, a bishop or two, a score of deluded, but well-meaning
gentlemen, who obstinately adhere to the unfashionable notion, that,
where great political powers are enjoyed, there are certain serious
duties to the public closely connected therewith, a few prosy and
pompous peers who believe that their constant presence is essential to
the welfare and prosperity of the kingdom,--such, I think, is a correct
classification of the ordinary attendance of noblemen at the House of
Lords.

This body possesses several obvious advantages over any other
deliberative assembly now existing. Not the least among these is the
fact that the oldest son of every peer is prepared by a careful course
of education for political and diplomatic life. Every peer, except some
of recent creation, has from childhood enjoyed all conceivable
facilities for acquiring a finished education. In giving direction to
his studies at school and at the university, special reference has been
had to his future Parliamentary career. Nothing that large wealth could
supply, or the most powerful family-influence could command, has been
spared to give to the future legislator every needed qualification for
the grave and responsible duties which he will one day be called to
assume. His ambition has been stimulated by the traditional achievements
of a long line of illustrious ancestors, and his pride has been awakened
and kept alive by the universal deference paid to his position as the
heir apparent or presumptive of a noble house.

This view is so well presented in "The Caxtons," that I need offer no
apology for making an extract from that most able and discriminating
picture of English society. "The fact is, that Lord Castleton had been
taught everything that relates to property (a knowledge that embraces
very wide circumference). It had been said to him, 'You will be an
immense proprietor: knowledge is essential to your self-preservation.
You will be puzzled, ridiculed, duped every day of your life, if you do
not make yourself acquainted with all by which property is assailed or
defended, impoverished or increased. You have a stake in the country:
you must learn all the interests of Europe, nay, of the civilized world;
for these interests react on the country, and the interests of the
country are of the greatest possible consequence to the interests of the
Marquis of Castleton.' Thus, the state of the Continent, the policy of
Metternich, the condition of the Papacy, the growth of Dissent, the
proper mode of dealing with the spirit of democracy which was the
epidemic of European monarchies, the relative proportions of the
agricultural and manufacturing population, corn-laws, currency, and the
laws that regulate wages, a criticism on the leading speakers in the
House of Commons, with some discursive observations on the importance of
fattening cattle, the introduction of flax into Ireland, emigration, the
condition of the poor: these and such-like stupendous subjects for
reflection--all branching more or less intricately from the single idea
of the Castleton property--the young lord discussed and disposed of in
half a dozen prim, poised sentences, evincing, I must say in justice, no
inconsiderable information, and a mighty solemn turn of mind. The
oddity was, that the subjects so selected and treated should not come
rather from some young barrister, or mature political economist, than
from so gorgeous a lily of the field."

But to all these preeminent advantages of early education and training
there must be added the invaluable opportunities of enlarged and
extended legislative experience in the House of Commons. If we examine
the antecedents of some of the most prominent men now in the House of
Lords, we shall discover abundant evidence of this fact. Earl Russell
was a member of the House of Commons for more than thirty years; Earl
Derby, more than twenty-five years; the Earl of Shaftesbury, for about
twenty-four years; the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Shrewsbury, and the
Duke of Rutland, for about the same period. And of the present House of
Commons more than fifty members are heirs apparent or presumptive to
existing peerages.

And then there is the further circumstance that seats in the House of
Lords are for life. Members of this body do not stand in fear of removal
by the votes of disappointed or indignant constituents. Entirely
independent of public opinion, they can defy the disapprobation of the
masses, and smile at the denunciation of the press. Undoubtedly, this
fact has a twofold bearing, and deprives the peers of that strong
incentive to active exertion and industrious legislation which the House
of Commons, looking directly to the people for support and continuance,
always possesses. Yet the advantages in point of prolonged experience
and ever increasing familiarity with the details of public business are
unquestionable.

As a matter of course, there are many noblemen upon whom these rare
facilities of education and this admirable training for public life
would seem to have been wasted. As Americans, we must be pardoned for
expressing our belief in the venerable doctrine that there is no royal
road to learning. If a peer of the realm is determined to be a dunce,
nothing in the English Constitution prevents him from being a dunce, and
"not all the blood of all the Howards" can make him a scholar or a
statesman. If, resting securely in the conviction that a nobleman does
not need to be instructed, he will not condescend to study, and does not
avail himself of his most enviable advantages, whatever may be his
social rank, his ignorance and incapacity cannot be disguised, but will
even become more odious and culpable in the view of impartial criticism
by reason of his conspicuous position and his neglect of these very
advantages.

But frequent as these instances are, it will not be for a moment
supposed that the whole peerage would justly fall under such censure.
Nor will it be thought surprising that the House of Lords contains a
considerable number of men of sterling ability, statesmen of broad and
comprehensive views, accustomed to deal with important questions of
public interest and national policy with calm, deliberate judgment, and
far-reaching sagacity. Hampered as they certainly are by a traditional
conservatism often as much at variance with sound political philosophy
as it is with the lessons of all history, and characterized as their
attitude towards foreign nations always has been by a singular want of
all generosity, still it must be confessed that their steady and
unwavering adherence to a line of conduct which has made England feared
and her power respected by every country in the world has a certain
element of dignity and manly self-reliance which compels our admiration.
And while they have been of late so frequently outwitted by the
flexible, if not tortuous, policy of Louis Napoleon, it yet remains to
be seen whether the firm and unyielding course of the English Ministry
will not in the end prove quite as successful as the more Machiavellian
management of the French Emperor.

I hardly know how to describe accurately the impression made upon the
mind of an American by his first visit to the House of Lords. What
memories haunt him of the Norman Conquest and the Crusades, of Magna
Charta and the King-Maker, of noblemen who suffered with Charles I. and
supped with Charles II., and of noblemen still later whose family-pride
looked down upon the House of Hanover, and whose banded political power
and freely lavished wealth checked the brilliant career of Napoleon, and
maintained, the supremacy of England on sea and land!

Enter, then, the House of Lords with these stirring memories, and
confess frankly to a feeling of disappointment. Here are seated a few
well-behaved gentlemen of all ages, often carelessly dressed, and almost
invariably in English morning-costume. They are sleepily discussing some
uninteresting question, and you are disposed to retire in view of the
more powerful attractions of Drury Lane or the Haymarket, or the chance
of something better worth hearing in the House of Commons. Take my
advice, and wait until the adjournment. It will not be long, and by
leaving now you may lose an important debate and the sight of some men
whose fame is bounded only by the limits of Christendom. Even now there
is a slight stir in the House. A nobleman has entered whose movements
you will do well to follow. He takes his place just at the left of the
Lord-Chancellor, but remains seated only for a moment. If you are
familiar with the pencil of Punch, you will recognize him at a glance. A
thin, wiry, yet muscular frame, a singularly marked and expressive face
and mobile features, a nose that defies description, a high cravat like
a poultice covered with a black silk bandage, clothes that seem to have
been made for a much larger man, and always a pair of old-fashioned
checked trousers,--of course, this can only be Lord Brougham. He is
eighty-five years old, and yet his physical activity would do no
injustice to a man in the prime of life. If you watch him a few moments,
you will have abundant evidence of his restless energy. While we look,
he has crossed to the opposite side of the House, and is enjoying a
hearty laugh with the Bishop of Oxford. The round, full face of
"Slippery Sam" (as he is disrespectfully called throughout England) is
beaming with appreciative delight; but before the Bishop has time to
reply, the titled humorist is on the wing again, and in an instant we
see him seated between Earl Granville and the Duke of Somerset,
conversing with all the vivacity and enthusiasm of a school-boy. In a
moment he is in motion again, and has shaken hands with half a dozen
peers. Undeterred by the supernaturally solemn countenance of the
Marquis of Normanby, he has actually addressed a joke to that dignified
fossil, and has passed on without waiting to observe its effect. A few
words with Earl Derby, a little animated talk with the Earl of
Ellenborough, and he has made the circuit of the House, everywhere
received with a welcoming smile and a kindly grasp of the hand, and
everywhere finding willing and gratified listeners. Possibly that is
pardoned to his age and eminence which would be resented as impertinence
in a younger man, but certainly he enjoys a license accorded to no one
else in this aristocratic assembly.

The dull debate of the past hour is now concluded, the House is thin,
and there are indications of immediate adjournment. Remain a little
longer, however, and your patience may possibly be richly rewarded.
There is no order in the discussion of topics, and at any moment while
the House continues in session there may spring up a debate calling out
all the ability of the leading peers in attendance. After a short pause
the quiet is broken by an aged nobleman on the opposition benches. He
rises slowly and feebly with the assistance of a cane, but his voice is
firm and his manner is forcible. That he is a man of mark is evident
from the significant silence and the deferential attention with which
his first words are received. You ask his name, and with ill-disguised
amazement at your ignorance a gentleman by your side informs you that
the speaker is Lord Lyndhurst.

Perhaps the life of no public man in England has so much of interest to
an American as that of this distinguished nobleman. Born in Boston while
we were still in a condition of colonial dependence, he has lived to see
his native land emerge from her state of vassalage, pass through a
long-protracted struggle for liberty with the most powerful nation on
earth, successfully maintain her right to be free and independent,
advance with giant strides in a career of unexampled prosperity, assume
an undisputed position as one of the great powers of Christendom, and
finally put forth the most gigantic efforts to crush a rebellion
compared with which the conspiracy of Catiline was but the impotent
uprising of an angry dwarf.

Lord Lyndhurst was called to the bar of England in 1804. It was before
the splendid forensic successes of Erskine had been rewarded by a seat
on the wool-sack, or Wellington had completed his brilliant and decisive
campaign in India, or the military glory of Napoleon had culminated at
Austerlitz, or Pitt, turning sadly from the map of Europe and saying,
"Henceforth we may close that map for half a century," had gone
broken-hearted to an early grave, or Nelson had defeated the combined
navies of France and Spain at Trafalgar. Lord Byron had not yet entered
Cambridge University, Sir Walter Scott had not published his first poem,
and Canova was still in the height of his well-earned fame. It was
before the first steamboat of Robert Fulton had vexed the quiet waters
of the Hudson, or Aaron Burr had failed in his attempted treason, or
Daniel Welter had entered upon his professional career, or Thomas
Jefferson had completed his first official term as President of the
United States.

Lord Lyndhurst's advancement to the highest honors of his profession and
to a commanding place in the councils of his adopted country was rapid
almost beyond precedent. He was appointed Solicitor-General in 1819,
Attorney-General in 1823, Master of the Rolls in 1826, and
Lord-Chancellor in 1827. He remained in this office until 1830, and
retired only to be created Lord-Chief-Baron of the Exchequer. In 1835 he
was again appointed Lord-Chancellor, and once more, for the third time,
in 1841.

The characteristic qualities of the oratory of Lord Lyndhurst, when in
his prime, were perfect coolness and self-possession, a most pleasing
and plausible manner, singular ingenuity in dealing with a difficult
question or in weakening the effect of an argument really unanswerable,
a clear and musical voice, great ease and felicity of expression, and a
wonderful command, always discreetly used, of all the weapons of irony
and invective. He is, perhaps, the only nobleman in the House of Lords
whom Lord Brougham has ever feared to encounter. All these elements of
successful oratory Lord Lyndhurst has retained to an extraordinary
degree until within a year or two.

I chanced to hear this remarkable man during an evening in the month of
July, 1859. The House of Lords was thinly attended. There had been a
short and uninteresting debate on "The Atlantic-Telegraph Bill," and an
early adjournment seemed certain. But at this juncture Lord Lyndhurst
rose, and, after adverting to the fact that he had previously given
notice of his design to draw their lordships' attention to the military
and naval defences of the country, proceeded to address the House upon
this question. It should be borne in mind that this was a period of
great and engrossing excitement in England, created by the supposed
danger of invasion by France. Volunteer rifle-companies were springing
up all over the kingdom, newspapers were filled with discussions
concerning the sufficiency of the national defences, and speculations on
the chances for and against such an armed invasion. There was,
meanwhile, a strong peace-party which earnestly deprecated all agitation
of the subject, maintained that the sentiments of the French Emperor and
the French nation were most friendly to England, and contended that to
incur largely increased expenses for additional war-preparations was
unnecessary, impolitic, and ruinously extravagant. At the head of this
party were Cobden and Bright.

It was to answer these arguments, to convince England that there was a
real and positive peril, and to urge upon Her Majesty's Government the
paramount importance of preparing to meet not only a possible, but a
probable danger, that Lord Lyndhurst addressed the House of Lords. He
began by impressing upon their lordships the fact that the policy which
he advocated was not aggressive, but strictly defensive. He reviewed the
history of previous attempts to invade England. He pointed out the
significant circumstance, that these attempts had hitherto failed mainly
by reason of the casualties to which sailing-vessels were always
exposed. He pressed upon their attention the change which
steam-navigation had recently wrought in naval warfare. He quoted the
pithy remark of Lord Palmerston, that "steam had converted the Channel
into a river, and thrown a bridge across it."

He demonstrated from recent history the facility with which France could
transport large forces by sea to distant points. Then, in tones
tremulous with emotion, he drew upon the resources of his own marvellous
memory. "I have experienced, my lords, something like a sentiment of
humiliation in going through these details. I recollect the day when
every part of the opposite coast was blockaded by an English fleet. I
remember the victory of Camperdown, and that of St. Vincent, won by Sir
J. Jervis. I do not forget the great victory of the Nile, nor, last of
all, that triumphant fight at Trafalgar, which almost annihilated the
navies of France and Spain, I contrast the position which we occupied at
that period with that which we now hold. I recollect the expulsion of
the French from Egypt, the achievement of victory after victory in
Spain, the British army established in the South of France, and then the
great battle by which that war was terminated. I cannot glance back over
that series of events without feeling some degree of humiliation when I
am called upon to state in this House the measures which I deem it to be
necessary to take in order to provide for the safety of the country."

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19