All Quiet

Eight dozen years ago today, the guns of the Great War fell silent – the first anniversary of Armistice Day after the centennial of the beginning of that same dreadful war.

On the same day, the Emperor of Austria renounced power and the Austro-Hungarian Imperial-Royal Family moved from Schönbrunn to internal exile at Eckartsau.

Two days later, the Hungarian equivalent to the Austrian renunciation was signed at Eckartsau.

A world ended, it was the dawn of a new age, the era of Wilsonian mass democracy.

On the day 29 years later, on November 11, 1947, Winston Churchill delivered his famous dictum on democracy (also: on his supposed quote on a five minute conversation with an average voter). He did so in defense of the prerogatives of the House of Lords. The following year the first volume of Churchill's six-volume work on World War Two came out. In his assessment of World War One and its end, Churchill praised the achievements of the Habsburg monarchy and decried how World War One was a war of peoples who could not come to good terms with each other, as opposed to how the aristocrats managed affairs at the Congress of Vienna just over a hundred years earlier.

It is too the anniversary of the House of Lords Act 1999.

This seems to be a day for modern democracy. At least, the end of a dreadful war should indeed be celebrated, as a deed in itself.

Wyndham at 151

151 years ago today, George Wyndham – the “die-hard” Commons opposition leader to Parliament Act 1911 – was born.

To quote:

When [the Prime Minister] came to this point in his speech yesterday he was kind enough to say that he did not challenge the sincerity of those who believe—as we do sincerely believe—that this measure will erect a despotic Single Chamber rule, and becoming more and more impressive in his manner he wound up that portion of his speech by saying that this was the most unsubstantial nightmare that had ever affected the imagination. As his manner became more and more impressive so did the matter which he was unfolding become less and less convincing.

Randoms of March

The Mad Monarchist reflects on World War One – and on France.

Bryce Laliberte says:

Most people aren't given the ability to think for themselves because society doesn't need most people to think for themselves.

Over at The American Conservative, C. Boyden Gray, former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, visits the thinking of Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and others.

Over at Conflict & Security, Peter Banham examines the Sultanate of Oman.

Over at Royal World, Theodore Harvey says:

Egalitarianism ruins everything. A real reform would be to restore all the hereditary peers and expel the fake "life" ones.

Guns Silent

95 years ago today, the guns of the Great War fell silent – the last anniversary of Armistice Day before the centennial of the beginning of that same dreadful war.

On the same day, the Emperor of Austria renounced power and the Austro-Hungarian Imperial-Royal Family moved from Schönbrunn to internal exile at Eckartsau.

Two days prior, the German abdication had been announced.

Two days later, the Hungarian equivalent to the Austrian renunciation was signed at Eckartsau.

A world ended, it was the dawn of a new age, the era of Wilsonian mass democracy.

This eleventh of November is also the 66^th anniversary famous dictum on democracy. It is too the anniversary of the House of Lords Act 1999.

Lord Halsbury 190

A decade short of two centuries ago today, the 1^st Earl of Halsbury – a leading opponent of the Parliament Act 1911 – was born.

George Wyndham 150

150 years ago today, George Wyndham – the “die-hard” Commons opposition leader to Parliament Act 1911 – was born.

Wyndham Passing 100

A century ago today, George Wyndham, the leader of the die-hard opponents in the House of Commons of the Parliament Bill that became Parliament Act 1911, passed away.

Lords Expelled

A baker's dozen years ago today, the House of Lords Act 1999 received Royal Assent.

The documentary The Lords' Tale is brought to you:

Lords "Reform" Officially Withdrawn

Nick Clegg officially concedes defeat before the House of Commons – temporarily that is:

Apparently, Lords “reform” is important enough to Mr. Clegg to ram it down the throats of Their Lordships, Members of Parliament, and others but not important enough to debate thoroughly.

Evidently, he has the nerve to blame those who want thorough debate for filibustering because there is no time to do it properly.

This video makes the case against democratization:

Lords Again

Apparently, the issue of reforming or “reforming” the House of Lords will not proceed in “this Parliament.”

Democratist Nick Clegg concedes defeat:

No, Mr. Clegg. Absolute democracy is not a matter of course. It will be fought – and rightly so.

Over at NetRightDaily, Mr. Kevin Mooney praises the House of Lords, although committing some factual errors and inaccuracies.

More Lords

The past month was a month of apparent turbulence for the House of Lords, as it was covered at this weblog.

Just recently, the British Prime Minister apparently withdrew support of reform plans. So The Independent reports. It is quite telling though that the same news report describes a “reform” that includes ejecting the hereditary peers as “limited reform.”

Peter Hitchens followed up his previous posts with a Mail on Sunday column last month.

Bruce Anderson gives his thoughts, as he categorizes the positions on the issue as sentamentalist, restrainer, and federalist.

Mr. Anderson seems to think that restraining the House of Commons needs a democratically elected Upper House to achieve that. Given the democratist-absolutist sentiment under which we unfortunately live, he may have a big point. However, two democratically elected chambers never really restrain democracy itself, and as the past century has shown us, two democratically elected chambers in the federal legislature of those United States hasn't impressively restrained government power.

We need to restrain democracy. Here is where a lot of debaters in the Lords reform debate get it right. They speak up against tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately, they rather quickly fall off, apparently most worried about maintaining the supremacy or primacy of the elected house. Bertrand de Jouvenel wrote many years ago that the House of Lords was reduced to a debating club in 1911. It seems many want to keep it that way.

Seemingly, they also want to get rid of the last of the hereditary peers. Some even do so after, correctly, having just previously spoken up for good aspects of hereditary.

Why do they want to get rid of hereditary? They may privately be in support of the hereditary peers, but perhaps careerism or not wanting to take this particular battle makes them go with the flow and throw them out. Whatever their reasons may be, it is not particularly heroic.

A hybrid house has been put forward in the debate.

Even Rafal Heydel-Mankoo is apparently in favor of banishing the hereditaries, with a hybrid house with no hereditary component. The three equally large components would be: electees, political appointees, and civil society appointees.

Over at Res Publica's blog, Dwayne Menezes argued for hereditary peerage about one and a half years ago (in two parts). Mr. Menezes also had a proposal for a hybrid house, with three equally large components; hereditary peers and bishops, political appointees, and civil society appointees.

Reform of the House of Lords is needed. A hybrid house may be what there should be, although yours truly has great sympathy for more heredity and tradition than one third, but – for sure – eviction of the hereditary peers is not the way to go.

Where Go the Lords?

“Reform” of the House of Lords has been on the agenda this week.

This MP partly gets it right:

The Deputy Prime Minister was heckled:

The coalition's agenda suffered defeat, as The Guardian reports, and 91 “Conservative” MPs opposed.

The problem manifests itself in the manifestos of all three major British political parties, as we reflected on at The Monarchist just prior to the latest British general election.

Writes Mr. Gerald Warner over at Scotland on Sunday:

There is no need to reform the House of Lords, beyond punishing miscreants with expulsion and improving the calibre of those admitted. The chamber that urgently needs reform is the House of Commons, yet it presumes to interfere with its less reprehensible neighbour.

It is time the asinine criticisms of the Upper House were dismissed for the nonsense they are.

Over at his Mail Online blog, writes Mr. Peter Hitchens:

The key word here is ‘principled’. There has been (as he notes) some *pragmatic* opposition to the Bill, much along the lines of the campaign in Australia against the abolition of the monarchy a few years ago, under the cunning slogan ‘not *this* republic. This enabled republicans to vote against what was, even on their terms, a not-very attractive new constitution, without ceasing to regard themselves as republicans.

Mr. Hitchens goes on:

The idea that a mainly hereditary House was superior in every way (which it was, because it was entirely outside the power of the whips and had the right sort of powers for a revising chamber , that is delay and obstruction, but a veto only over major constitutional change) is now considered an absurdity by the so-called Conservative Party. As with every piece of ground this party gives up as it retreats before the social, cultural, sexual and ultimately political revolutionaries of the 1960s left, it has no understanding of, or liking for, the things it is supposed to defend. So once it has given them up, usually by running away from a fight, it never occurs to it to recapture the ground lost. It becomes, bit by bit, the image of its opponents, until it is actually part of the revolution itself.

An appointed House is in the end indefensible. On what principle is it chosen? Either you worship at the altar of 'democracy' or you defend the force of tradition and inheritance.

Further:

Here's a conservative principle, that tradition, inheritance and nobility are things which are good in themselves, coupled with a sensible scepticism about that upstart idea called ‘democracy’ – which in Parliament means that the members are chosen, controlled, rewarded and punished by a centrally-directed party machine subject to the executive.

Hitchens follows up in a later post:

The Commons might well be (in my view is ) completely under Downing Street’s thumb. But the old Lords were not. Could we say the same of an appointed House (which then seemed to be what we were going to get)? And can we say the same of an ‘elected House’, that is, one selected by the centralised party machines?

Where will the drive for democratic absolutism end?!?


Elsewhere: Royal World, The Mad Monarchist

Cross-posted at The Monarchist.

Heydel-Mankoo on the Lords

Over at his weblog Reflections of a Young Fogey, Mr. Rafal Heydel-Mankoo presents reflections on Lords reform (part 2).

Lords on Strike?

Some peers in the British upper chamber threaten to go on some sort of strike against the promised upcoming constitutional reforms. So the Daily Mail reports. There are some quite fierce democratist comments on the article.

We didn't see much real opposition to Mr. Blair's reforms, from what I recall. Are we seeing now the beginning of an opposition we haven't seen the likes of since 1911?

Lord Halsbury Passed

90 years ago today, Lord Halsbury, a die-hard opponent of House of Lords reform, passed from this world.

Democracy and Churchill

Eight squared years ago today, Winston Churchill uttered his famous words on democracy as least bad.

The House of Lords

Mr. Theodore Harvey of Royal World marks Thursday's 11^th anniversary of the the House of Lords Act.

George Wyndham

Seven score and seven years ago today, George Wyndham – the “die-hard” Commons opposition leader to Parliament Act 1911 – was born.

Lords Emasculation

A year short of a century ago today, His Britannic Majesty George V gave Royal Assent to Parliament Act 1911.

Lloyd George at the Limehouse

Ten decades and a year ago today, David Lloyd George gave his 'Limehouse Speech'.