Cazes was minister; that then came a violent reaction in favour
of the monarchy and the priesthood; that then the revolutionary
party again became dominant; that there had been a change of
dynasty; and that the Chamber of Peers had ceased to be a
hereditary body. He then predicted, if I understood him rightly,
that, if we pass this bill, we shall suffer all that France has
suffered; that we shall have violent contests between extreme
parties, a revolution, and an abolition of the House of Lords. I
might, perhaps, dispute the accuracy of some parts of the noble
Lord's narrative. But I deny that his narrative, accurate or
inaccurate, is relevant. I deny that there is any analogy
between the state of France and the state of England. I deny
that there is here any great party which answers either to the
revolutionary or to the counter-revolutionary party in France. I
most emphatically deny that there is any resemblance in the
character, and that there is likely to be any resemblance in the
fate, of the two Houses of Peers. I always regarded the
hereditary Chamber established by Louis the Eighteenth as an
institution which could not last. It was not in harmony with the
state of property; it was not in harmony with the public feeling;
it had neither the strength which is derived from wealth, nor the
strength which is derived from prescription. It was despised as
plebeian by the ancient nobility. It was hated as patrician by
the democrats. It belonged neither to the old France nor to the
new France. It was a mere exotic transplanted from our island.
Here it had struck its roots deep, and having stood during ages,
was still green and vigorous. But it languished in the foreign
soil and the foreign air, and was blown down by the first storm.
It will be no such easy task to uproot the aristocracy of
England.