London, May 15. The galleries of the House of Lords were
packed full yesterday afternoon before the sitting even commenced. A sensational show had been announced—Lord Ellenborough’s motion, and a regular battle between the Ins and Outs.*
In addition to this, it was piquant to see with one’s own eyes the
hereditary legislators playing the part of crusaders against the
aristocracy. The performance was a poor one. The actors kept
forgetting what parts they were playing. The play began as drama
and ended in farce. During the mock-battle not even the illusion,
the artistic illusion, was maintained. It was evident at first glance
that the noble warriors were trying reciprocally to preserve not
only themselves but even their weapons unscathed.

Insofar as the debate revolved around the criticism of the
conduct of the war up to now it failed to rise to the level of any
run-of-the mill debating club” in London, and it would be sheer
waste of time to dwell on it for a moment. We will attempt,
however, to indicate in a few strokes how the noble lords
conducted themselves as the champions of administrative reform,
as the opponents of the aristocratic monopoly of government and
as an echo of the City meetings. The right man in the right place,
cried Lord Ellenborough. And as proof that honour falls to merit,
and merit alone, he cited the fact that he (Ellenborough) and Lord

* Marx uses the English words “Ins” and “Outs” (referring to the party in the
government and the opposition).— Ed.
Here and below Marx uses the English words “debating club”.— Fd.
“ The debate in the House of Lords on May 14, 1855 was repoited in The
Times, No. 22054, May 15, 1855.— Ed.

Hardwicke sat in the Lords because their fathers had worked their
way into the House of Lords by their own merit. This seems,
on the contrary, to be precisely an instance of how men can benefit from the merits of others, namely their fathers, to secure
not merely a post for life but the dignity of a legislator of England.
And what were the merits by which the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen’s
Bench,* Ellenborough senior, and Mr. Charles Yorke, Lord
Hardwicke’s father, made their way into the House of Lords? The
story is an instructive one. The late Ellenborough, an English lawyer
and subsequently judge, managed to earn himself the reputation of a
Jeffreys en miniature in the press trials, conspiracy trials and police-spy
trials that were constantly taking place under Pitt and his successors.
Under Ellenborough’s leadership the special jury” attained a
reputation in England that even the “jurés probes et libres” “ of Louis
Philippe never possessed. That was the merit of Ellenborough senior,
and that paved his way into the House of Lords. As for Mr. Charles
Yorke, the ancestor of Lord Hardwicke, he has even outdone old
Ellenborough in the matter of merit. This Charles Yorke, the
Member for Cambridge for twenty years, was one of the chosen band
entrusted by Pitt, Perceval and Liverpool “to do the dirty work for
them”. Each of the “loyal” terror measures of that time found its
Pindar in him. In every petition against the openly practised sale of
seats in the House of Commons, he discerned “Jacobin machinations”. Every motion opposing the shameless system of sinecures, at
a time when pauperism was coming into being in England, was
denounced by Charles Yorke as an attack on the “blessed comforts of
our sacred religion”. And on what occasion did this Charles Yorke
celebrate his Ascension to the House of Lords? In 1810 the
Walcheren expedition '* had produced similar effects in England as
the Crimean expedition did in 1855. Lord Porchester tabled a
motion in the House of Commons to set up a committee of
investigation. Charles Yorke opposed it violently, he spoke of plots,
the stirring up of discontent, etc. Nevertheless, Porchester’s motion
was carried. But then Yorke decided to withhold the inquiry findings
from the public, insisting, on the basis of an old and absurd
parliamentary privilege, that the public galleries be cleared of
listeners and reporters. This was done. A Mr. Gale Jones, the

Marx uses the English term.— Ed.

Marx uses the English words “special jury”.— Ed.
“Honest and free juries.” — Ed.

Marx uses the English phrase.— Ed.

ano

A Sitting of the House of Lords 19]

chairman of a London debating club, then published an advertisement announcing that the subject to be discussed at the next meeting
of the club would be the infringement of the freedom of the press
and Charles Yorke’s gross insult to public opinion. Charles Yorke
promptly had Gale Jones summoned before the House of Commons
for libel of a Member and breach of “parliamentary privilege”,
whence, in contravention of all English laws, he was immediately
dispatched to Newgate Prison, without inquiry or reference to a
judge, “to be confined there as long as it should please the
Commons”. While performing these heroic deeds, Charles Yorke
assumed great airs of independence. He claimed to be acting only as
an upright “country squire”, as a “friend of the King”, as a “loyal
anti-Jacobin”. Not three weeks had elapsed since his closing of the
gallery before it became known that meanwhile he had presented his
account to the Perceval ministry and obtained a lifetime sinecure as
Teller of the Exchequer* (similar to “The Guardian of the Green
Wax”), i. e. a life emolument of £2,700 per annum. On accepting
this sinecure Charles Yorke had to submit himself to his constituents
in Cambridge for re-election. At the election meeting he was greeted
by booes and hisses, rotten apples and eggs, and was forced to run
for it. As compensation for this indignity Perceval elevated him to
the peerage. Thus it was that Charles Yorke was transformed into a
lord, and thus, Lord Ellenborough informs Lord Palmerston, merit
must be able to make its way in a well-ordered economy. Discounting
this extremely naive and characteristic lapsus linguae,” Ellenborough—who bears an unmistakable likeness to the Knight of the
Doleful Countenance‘—adhered more to the phraseology of the
City meetings.

His friend Derby strove to restrict even the purely rhetorical
concession. He rejected the rumour that he had allied himself with
Layard. He whose entire talent consists of discretion, accused
Layard of indiscretion. There was, he said, a lot of truth in the
views of the City men, but they had proceeded to draw
extravagant (!!) conclusions. A minister had to seek his colleagues
in Parliament, and not merely in Parliament but in the party to
which he belongs, and not merely in this party but within the
circle of men in his party possessing parliamentary influence.

“ Marx uses the English term.— Ed.
Pp Slip of the tongue.— Fd.
“ Don Quixote.— Ed.

Within this circle ability should, of course, be decisive, and this
had hitherto often been neglected. The fault, Derby claimed, lay
in the parliamentary reform of 1831. The “rotten places’, “the
rotten boroughs”,* had been expunged, and it was precisely these
rotten boroughs’ that had furnished the sound statesmen of
England. They had enabled influential men to introduce talented
but impecunious young people into Parliament and thence into
the service of the state. Thus even according to Lord Derby no
administrative reform is possible without parliamentary reform—
but, a parliamentary reform in the opposite sense, restoration of
the “rotten boroughs”. Derby’s complaint does not seem entirely
justified if one considers that 85 seats in the House of Commons
still belong to some 60 little ‘rotten boroughs” (in England alone),
none of which have more than 500 inhabitants, with some electing
two members.

Lord Panmure, on behalf of the ministry, brought the Lords
debate back to the real point. You want, he stuttered, to exploit
the cry outside the walls of Parliament in order to declaim us out
of office and put yourselves in. Why did Derby not form a
ministry three months ago when charged to do so by the Queen?
Ah, replied Derby with a smirk, three months ago! Things have
changed in the last three months. Three months ago Lord
Palmerston was l’homme a la mode,” the great and indispensable
statesman. Palmerston has discredited himself, and now it’s our
turn.

The debate in the House of Lords has shown that neither side
possesses the stuff that men are made of. As to the House of
Commons, Ellenborough rightly observed that it has become
insipid, that it has lost its credit and that political influence is no
longer to be sought within the House, but outside it.

The debates in the Lords clearly showed the mala fides of the
aristocratic opposition, which intends to conjure away the
bourgeois movement and simultaneously to use it as a batteringram against the ministry. In a subsequent letter we shall have the
opportunity of similarly demonstrating the mala fides of the City
reformers towards the working class, with whom they intend to
play just as the aristocratic opposition does with them. From this
one may draw the conclusion that the present movement in

7 ", Here and below Marx uses the English phrase.— Ed.
ae popular man.— Ed.
“ Insincerity.— Ed.

England is extremely complex and, as we have indicated earlier,*
simultaneously contains two antithetical and hostile movements.

Marked with the sign x time

@ See this volume, pp. 186-88.— Ed.