The House of Lords: Society versus Character?
The House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the last bulwark, the last bastion of the Old Guard. Not only does this institution resist revolution, it is what keeps British society tethered, anchored to its mean self: it is, perhaps, the only chain that links the nation to its identity, for without its auspices, there would be no Great in Great Britain.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a State that harbours within itself some of the oldest political institutions of Christian civilisation. The greatest gifts to our World Order today, that is, mechanisms such as a Legislature that consists of single-district-members (SMD), an Executive that answers to Parliament, and a Judicial order that takes upon itself to preserve the natural rights of life, liberty, property, are creations of Britain’s social, economic, and political climates, their sacrosanct nature as sombre as the country’s weather (unyielding and wet)! It is therefore that when questions are posed by members of the social contract that constitutes the political society of Great Britain against the aristocratic chamber of Parliament, that is, the House of Lords, it is not just a matter of governance that is under doubt here: it is a question of principle, a principle that encompasses the very character of society as Britain knows it. This discourse shall deliberate upon that principle.
The recent “cry of abolition” raised by Baroness Carmen Smith, the newest Peer of the Realm from Wales, is not a new occurrence. For centuries the House of Lords has been under consistent debate and controversy, to no conclusive result. That is, until the advent of the 21st century when monarchies are no longer the norm and it is the People who are considered sovereign, not the monarch or those appointed by him through virtue of his divine power.
Indeed, it is true that the House of Lords is an ancient body, decreed by the virtue of the King’s position to serve as an advisory, a regulator, and an enforcer for His Majesty. There was indeed a time when the word of the Lord was the Law, and what he said and decreed was absolute and unquestionable, feudal privilege or no feudal privilege. This was so for these men, these most unique men, were landowners with vast estates, held commissions in both government and the military, and were often magistrates of their lands, let alone the fact that they were also members of the Upper House of Parliament.
Let it be noted that that time has passed long back.
No longer do the Dukes of St. David cover the north road with their carriages, for they presently sneak away from railway stations, smoking cigars, in broughams. No longer do the Lords hold great power in Parliament and Bureaucracy, for the dastardly reforms of Tony Blair have brought about the destruction of the old peerage system. No longer is what a Peer says the Law, for the interpretation of the same has been snatched from the Judicial committees of the House of Lords and the Privy Council and thrust into the hands of a new-fangled Supreme Court.
Indeed, it is not incorrect for Baroness Smith to demand a permanent dissolution of the House, but she asks for it for entirely the wrong reasons: it is not for the irrelevance or the undemocratic character should annihilation be demanded, rather, as a matter of fact, it must be protested for for the utter humiliation it has received at the hands of successive governments that possess within them the ulterior motive of reducing their accountability towards both His Majesty and the British people!
The central arguments posed by those who demand an abolition of the House of Lords are primarily a) the fundamental disconnect that exists between a democratic Britain and an undemocratic House, b) the unrepresentative character of this Upper House of Peers, and c) the need for the House of Lords in present-day British society.
This discourse shall move to dispel these arguments.
Analysing the first and second issues at hand, id est, the disconnect between the general population and the House and its unrepresentative character, it must be initially established that the purpose of the House of Lords is not to represent the British population or its transient interests which are inherently temporary in nature. This body was formed, by virtue of His Majesty, to represent the character of British society in a dignified manner, to act as an organ of government that is composed of the best Peers the British Realm has to offer. Reformists of the day must come to the realisation that despite all popular belief that may impugn the populace of the nation, her [Britain’s] character, which is wholly monarchist in nature, may not be trifled with for the sake of the preservation of the country’s national standing, which is, by design, a subject of dignity and therefore out of bounds for even Parliament to legislate upon. Whilst His Majesty may not be wholly representative of the British people, for that is the duty and burden of the Legislature, it is Him and His subordinate body of Peers upon whom falls the honour of formulating, and more importantly, maintaining the stature of the British nation. It is, therefore, appropriate to characterise this difference, this cleavage of jurisdiction and purpose, as something that is as clear as the distinction that exists between Plato’s Timeus and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (‘Plato vs. Aristotle: the Classic Philosophical Duel’): One is eternal, immutable (that is, the House of Lords and the national character), whilst the other is temporal and mutable (that is, the House of Commons and the British Population).
Addressing the third issue, that is, the need for the House of Lords, it would be pertinent to set first what the Peers of the Realm mean to the nation and to the most base citizen of the United Kingdom. The use of the House of Lords — or rather, of the Order of the Lords — is very great. It does not attract as much reverence as His Majesty, but by its very design, it still attracts very much. The office of an order of nobility is imposed in socio-political climates today, for the fancy of the mass of men is incredibly weak; it can see nothing without a visible symbol, and the Lords act as such a symbol. A common, clever man who may wander into the countryside with his wonderful ideas from the metropolis may be shooed away by the farmers, the cobblers, and the milkmen, but the ‘old squire’? He shall get reverence. Even after the nobility becomes insolvent, as it has, perhaps, become today, he will get five times as much respect from the common man of the nation as the newly-made rich man who sits beside him. The farmer of Great Britain, even today, will listen more attentively to the aristocrat’s nonsense than to the new man’s sense and wisdom. And therefore, it must be initially established that the Order of the Lords derive their prima facie usefulness from their very existence: for it is often these Lords, and not Members of Parliament, that invoke the trust of the common man which is then placed in the government.
The second counter-argument, which may be used to answer the question “Why require an Upper House at all?” requires some contemplation. Indeed, for any House of Parliament to receive an ultimatum that suggests “Use your powers as we would like you to use them, or you shall not use them at all,” puts a crimp on its efficiency in pursuit of its duties. An assembly under such threat cannot arrest, even if it were its intention to do so, a determined and insisting Executive. But, we must also consider the fact that there would be no need for a House of Lords that is intransigent if the transient House, that is, the Commons, were a perfect Legislature, competently representative of the nation! The current Lower chamber of Parliament is perennially extreme in its thought, passionate in speech and omits the slow and steady forms necessary for good consideration: these are traits that have been displayed more than once in the 20th century and have driven Britain to economic ruin. It is for this reason that at such times where populist sentiment overrides all amount of rational thought that the noblesse oblige of the House of Lords becomes essential, and it is not just duty that comes into picture when reviewing such obligations, it is capability also. The House of Lords, by virtue of housing some of the greatest intellectuals in the history of Mankind who possess in themselves education that is nec pluribus impar, without no equal, has the greatest merit which such a chamber can have. It is difficult for other nations such as Russia, or the United States, to establish a body of ultimate check and revision over the Legislature: why? Because they face a difficulty to find a class of respected revisers who have within them the sole interests of the nation. Great Britain, on the other hand, has no such issues. It is therefore that the British nation must capitalise upon this benefit that she possesses over her peers, for without doing so, she shall fall from the great halls of power.
It is not just the natural duties of the House of Lords that necessitate its existence. The subsidiary functions of this body are just as important as its presence in Parliament today, the essential of which is the faculty of criticising the Executive: now, whilst the latter is elected by the whims of the body politic and is subject to leaning towards a certain section of that entity, a vote bank, for continued support and re-election, the former is made of men and women who have been reared with the singular duty of governing the nation, and therefore will look out for her interests and shall therefore do so when the time is right.
It is with these evidences and arguments that the author moves to sustain that the Lords are not clerks given the right to speak, to lecture Commons and the Executive. They are men of surety of their rank, who speak as their counterparts speak and act in the same capacity as they do, if not greater. They are, without doubt, the dignified component of the efficient.
These are postulations that are self-evidentiary in nature, and define not only the ontological basis of Great Britain, but her sheer majesty in the affairs of government and administration.
