value, that they are records of strongly entertained opinion, and that they can all be made to assist in the construction of the highest history, the elucidation namely of the causes, which have assisted or retarded the progress of civilisation.

The political significance of the House of Lords has been so materially modified since the first Reform Bill, that I purposed originally to carry this collection down no farther than that epoch. On reflection, however, I saw that such a plan would have led to the omission of much important material for the history of political opinion in our own time. It is perhaps to be regretted that the practice of protesting has, except on rare occasions, survived its older significance. In the present day, a protest is frequently spoken of as an absurdity. Since 1832 it has been often uttered on behalf of the conservative forces of society, and the conservative forces of society are immeasurably more powerful, in all governments which concede the ordinary rights of free speech and innocent action, than those of attack. It takes infinite labour to effect a necessary change, one I mean in which almost every one acquiesces as soon as the change is made. To protest against such a change is almost as grotesque and misplaced as to protest against a law of nature; for it is to identify oneself with the patronage of an exploded and wholly untenable fallacy, the most painfully ludicrous position in which an honest man can possibly place himself.

I do not know whether the British nation entertains a very high value for a House which is theoretically irresponsible, and is directly representative only of a very few and those limited interests. Probably it does not, for it has never in the numerous, thriving, and well-governed colonies of British origin, attempted to originate any institution even remotely resembling the House of Lords. It may be safely asserted that it never will. But the British nation, caring little for forms of government, cares infinitely for good, regular, and equitable government, and will accept any political process or institution which will effect this supreme end. Whether an ancient institution, in spite of those conservative forces of society which are so prodigiously strong, will rise to the claims of public duty, of intelligent criticism on administrative acts, and

of such high responsibilities as a perfectly disinterested jury assumes and fulfils, or will not, is a question which can easily be answered from the evidence of facts. If the answer is negative, it is very likely that the Upper House may exist for an indefinite period, but it is perfectly certain that it will not act. If the answer is affirmative, the protest of the future will be more insignificant than that of the present, because it will represent an opinion which is not worth preserving, a mere disclaimer of some conviction which the public conscience has adopted, or of some conclusion at which an enlightened expediency has irrevocably arrived.

It has been my business to prefix to each one of these documents a brief historical account of the circumstances under which the protest was penned, and the dissentient Peers expressed their objections to the vote of the majority. Since the period in which the publication of debates in Parliament has ceased to be visited with the penalties of a breach of privilege (and the punishment of the newspaper proprietor who published Lord Holland's protest of 1801, is a proof that this restraint was continued beyond the time of Wilkes), sufficient information on those circumstances has been generally procurable without difficulty from Hansard, the Annual Register, and common historical collections.

In the earlier period, however, it has often been very difficult to discover the circumstances of the case, especially when the protest is directed against some judicial decision at which the House has arrived. For some reason, the record of appeals decided in the Upper House, for the early period during which the House exercised this judicial function, is very imperfect. It is possible that, as the practice of limiting the jurisdiction of the House in cases of appeal to such Lords as have had the benefit of a legal education and judicial experience was comparatively late, the collectors of precedents set small store by the reasons which induced a majority of their Lordships, who might have had a very rough acquaintance with law, to determine on reversing or maintaining the decisions of a technically inferior court. I have therefore often been able to trace the circumstances of the protest, only after a laborious search in contemporary pamphlets.

It has also been sometimes difficult to arrive at the facts when protests have been directed against private Acts, dropped Bills, and motions made before the practice of reporting debates became general and permitted. The record of transactions in the earlier Journals is singularly jejune and formal, and seldom throws any light on the events which led to the protest.

I have abstained from all comments on these documents, beyond such statements as seemed necessary in order to make the protest intelligible. To have discussed the arguments contained in the protests would have swelled these volumes to an inconvenient bulk, for it would have involved a lengthy estimate of a very varied series of political events. But I am persuaded that no adequate comprehension of the facts, out of which the constitution of our experience has been developed, can be gathered without a careful study and judicious interpretation of these documents. There is no part of English history which has been worse written, which is so imperfectly understood, and which is so distorted by partisan comment, as that which lies between the accession of Anne and the death of George IV. During this period the protests are of the greatest value. In them can be traced the germ of all those changes which have so materially modified the British Constitution, and have so completely displaced political forces.

Down to the outbreak of the American war, protests were very numerously signed. They were generally at that period instruments by which that portion of the opposition which acted together, and was most energetic in resisting the administration of the day, expressed its united opinion. After the American war, protests are far less numerously signed, except on marked occasions. They become the record of the reasons which a small minority or even an individual had for dissenting from the policy which Parliament or the Upper House adopted.

I have annexed an index of the names appended to the protests, and another of the subjects treated in them 1. The first of these

1 The Christian names and the dates of accession to the peerage are generally taken from Burke and the reprint of Nicolas' historic English peerage, though I have oecasionally been obliged in the case of Scotch peers to consult Douglas and others.

may have a peculiar interest to those who care to study the history of English political families, and who wish to trace the persistence or fickleness with which the representatives of such families have followed the traditions of their origin. There are, if I mistake not, names which will receive additional illustration from the facts and opinions recorded in these volumes. There are curious instances of consistency and restlessness among the historical families. The houses of Russell and Cavendish have rarely swerved from the traditions of progressive opinion. Those of Egerton, Bathurst, and Finch have been as regularly their opponents. But on the other hand there are seldom two generations of Cecils, Stanhopes, Stanleys, and Berties who have thought and acted on the same lines. Some families, as I have said before, seem to have stood almost alone on political topics, as the Foxes and the Kings. If we are to be guided by what nearly everybody now allows to be wise, there has rarely been a wiser or greater statesman than Lord Holland, none who more entirely deserves the respect of Englishmen.

It was also necessary to make a somewhat elaborate index of the subjects treated in these documents. The protests are not. merely relative to a great variety of topics, but they are discontinuous comments on political questions. Besides, they are, with rare exceptions, ex parte criticisms. No one can estimate the full significance of them, unless he couples them with the study of the history with which they are connected, unless he looks at the setting of the stones, as well as at the stones themselves. I have attempted in the introductions, to give as concise an account as seemed necessary of the circumstances which evoked the protest, but I am still conscious that the work must appear fragmentary and disjointed. The object of the second index is, therefore, the supply of some further means by which the reader or student of these volumes may detect the place in the history of Public Opinion which these documents severally fill. I I may add that references to expunged protests are, like the originals, printed in italics.

In conclusion, I may suggest that there is an indirect, but

important use in publications such as this is. I am well aware that works entailing much original research, but supplying materials rather than picturesque and romantic narrative, bring their authors no profit and little fame. But they may serve two important ends. They may form a text for the teachers of history, and materials for the compilers of those lively volumes which appear so frequently at the present time, and which profess to make the English people acquainted with the progress of the race. It cannot, I presume, be doubted that the teacher would find it a convenience and advantage if he employed original documents and authoritative expressions of contemporaneous opinion, instead of the comments of those who can only express their own judgment, and who may misinterpret the facts which they discuss or criticise. The importance of such instruments of exact information is increased in the University of Oxford since that ancient corporation has decided to teach Law without history, and history without law, a divorce which is perhaps dangerously violent. Still, if a fragment only is to be studied, it would be well that the knowledge of the fragment should be accurate, and that the student should be acquainted rather with contemporary circumstances than with modern generalisations.

I am also disposed to believe that this collection will be of use to the historian. Hitherto these documents have been accessible only in the large volumes of the Lords' Journals, now more than a hundred in number. It is probable that the Journals are to be found only in the largest libraries. Besides, no little labour is required, even after the document is discovered, in collecting the facts which illustrate the subject. Now it is seldom the case. that the writers of modern history have made full use of the Lords' protests, even when the record might have given great aid to the interpretation of the facts. For example, nothing can be more lucid and accurate than the account given by Macaulay (History of England, chap. xiv) of the proceedings taken by the two Houses in the case of Oates. But I cannot help thinking that even this account would have been more exact and instructive if the writer had consulted the five protests on this subject in