But the Houses need not both be of the same composition; they may be
intended as a check on one another. One being supposed democratic, the
other will naturally be constituted with a view to its being some
restraint upon the democracy. But its efficacy in this respect
wholly depends on the social support which it can command outside
the House. An assembly which does not rest on the basis of some
great power in the country is ineffectual against one which does. An
aristocratic House is only powerful in an aristocratic state of
society. The House of Lords was once the strongest power in our
Constitution, and the Commons only a checking body: but this was
when the Barons were almost the only power out of doors. I cannot
believe that, in a really democratic state of society, the House of
Lords would be of any practical value as a moderator of democracy.
When the force on one side is feeble in comparison with that on the
other, the way to give it effect is not to draw both out in line,
and muster their strength in open field over against one another. Such
tactics would ensure the utter defeat of the less powerful. It can
only act to advantage by not holding itself apart, and compelling
every one to declare himself either with or against it, but taking a
position among, rather than in opposition to, the crowd, and drawing
to itself the elements most capable of allying themselves with it on
any given point; not appearing at all as an antagonist body, to
provoke a general rally against it, but working as one of the elements
in a mixed mass, infusing its leaven, and often making what would be
the weaker part the stronger, by the addition of its influence.
Pages:
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276