Brad Pearce@WaywardRabbler
The End of the Hereditary Peerage signifies the Death of Britain
England, the world's oldest polity to continuously exist in its current form, was blessed with one of history's most remarkable constitutions.
Montesquieu, writing before the American Revolution, called it the only constitution which has explicitly as its goal the liberty of the subject.
Like Rome, however, England had no great lawgiver. Instead, its constitution arose organically through a series of struggles between the King, the Nobility, and the Commons. Out of these, starting with the Magna Carta- The Great Charter-, civil rights as we understand them arose over time, as well as unmatched stability within the state.
As with how Polybius described Rome, powers were divided between the King, the Lords, and the Commons. The last of these would ultimately come to choose men to represent them, due to the impracticality of holding a forum of the general public in a large state. The Westminsterian tradition of the leaders of both parties dragging the new Speaker of the House to the front represents that there was a time when being the one chosen to address the King was a fearsome task indeed. Now, it is, with good reason, done as a joke.
The result of these three balanced powers were the blessing of stability and prosperity. Traditional customs were paramount, while common law allowed for innovation as necessary. The jealous guarding of their own rights ensured that no group became too powerful and that the liberty of each was, if not guaranteed, at least well-protected.
A personal union ultimately united England with its old enemy Scotland, creating the Great Britain which would go on to win history's greatest Empire and spread this admirable system of government to disparate lands across the world, something which quite notably only worked well among settlers primarily of British heritage.
Britain also gave us great innovations in the legal system, such as formal trials by jury, conducted in the name of the King but overseen by a neutral magistrate and judged by the people. It is from Britain that we would ultimately get the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty," among many others.
At times the balance became distorted, leading to various forms of conflict. For the past 300 years, the creeping growth of Commons power compared to the other parts has been inexorable. The office of the Prime Minister gradually developed, who now serves as the executive. The Crown first became "constitutional," and then but "symbolic," representing the power of the state while holding none of it, largely due to an unwillingness of the Monarchy to assert itself.
Soon, the "rotten boroughs" were abolished, a curious and accidental check on power which gave us Edmund Burke. Much maligned, when well-used this system allowed men too sensible to win over the masses to hold important offices of state, as part of the Commons.
Over time, the House of Lords too began to fade in prominence, in the vaunted name of democracy, but also merely a reflection that landed interests were not what they used to be, due to the rise of industrialism and the capital class. True, some industrialists bought great estates and themselves became Lords, but that was a path to honor, not to power.
With the gentry no longer having cause to fight the growth in power of the cities, the Commons decided to bring in more Commoners, and following two devastating conflicts, Britain gave way to mass immigration, and decided these freedoms and values, slowly forged in the crucible of 900 years of history, could be readily taught to men from everywhere.
Now, with the end of hereditary peerage, one of the institutions which made Great Britain great has given way to bare majoritarianism. There are no checks left. A country bursting with men whose ancestors did not live this history has no remaining mechanisms in place which protect individual rights, property, or the well-being of the state. One such recent addition to the society is already trying to curb jury trials. Freedom of speech has given way to endless prosecutions of historical residents for being mean to the nation's immigrants. One of the grand ironies of political theory is that unlimited democracy leads to unlimited despotism which does not see to the right of the individual, all the more so when the public is not of one tribe and has no inborn sense of common purpose.
It is easy to say that the King and the House of Lords are outdated and superstitious institutions, not fit for the modern world. Maybe that is true, but I don't think so. Though he be one of history's great rebels against the British Crown, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes," and this is exactly what has been done.
No one has presented a compelling reason that the King should be "ceremonial." Does it improve individual liberty? Does it make Britain more prosperous? Does it make Britain safer? Does it glorify the Lord? What crisis, besides Du Contract Social and its consequences, justified such a change? There was none, it was merely the gradual erosion of the British system.
What, now, necessitates abolishing the hereditary peerage and making the Lords yet another arm of the demos? Nothing, besides that people who hate Great Britain, its heritage, and its people, will use it to tear the nation down so that they can sit on top of the heap, all in that proud name of "Democracy."
It has been a good run, my dearest cousins, but it seems your constitution is finally entirely ruined.
Nothing good will come from this.
Mixed government is dead in Britain, and with it, surely, the Englishman's traditional liberties.
