In the business of Government,it is only by fits and starts that they have leisure so much as to act:they have no leisure to reflect.Ignorant therefore they continue.But in what degree is this the case with the members of our House of Commons?
10.On the other hand,the members of an Aristocracy,being few,are rich:either they are members of the Aristocracy,because they are rich;or they are rich,because they are members of the Aristocracy.Being rich,they are educated:being educated,they are learned:being learned,they are knowing.They are at leisure to reflect,as well as act.They may therefore naturally be expected to become more knowing,that is more wise,as they persevere.In what degree is this the case with the members of the House of Lords more than with those of the House of Commons?The fact is,as every body sees,that either the members of the House of Commons are as much at leisure as those of the House of Lords;or,if occupied,occupied in such a way as tends to give them a more than ordinary insight into some particular department of Government.In whom shall we expect to find so much knowledge of Law as in a professed Lawyer?of Trade,as in a Merchant?
11.But holdOur Author,when he attributes to the members of an Aristocracy more wisdom than to those of a Democracy,has a reason of his own.Let us endeavour to understand it,and then apply it,as we have applied the others.In Aristocratical bodies,we are to understand there is more experience at least it is intended by some body or other there should be:which,it seems,answers the same purpose as if there was.`In Aristocracies,'says our Author,`there is more wisdom to be found,than in the other frames of Government;being composed,'continues he,`or intended to be composed,of the most experienced citizens."(71)On this ground then it is,that we are to take for granted,that the members of the House of Lords have more wisdom among them,than those of the House of Commons.It is this article of experience that,being a qualification possessed by the members of an Aristocratical body,as such,in a superior degree to that in which it can be possessed by a democratical body,is to afford us a particular ground for attributing a greater share of wisdom to the members of the upper house,than to those of the lower.
12.How it is that a member of an aristocracy,as such,is,of all things,to have attained more experience than the member of a democracy,our Author has not told us;nor what it is this experience is to consist of.Is it experience of things preparatory to,but different from,the business of governing?This should rather go by the name of knowledge.Is it experience of the business itself of governing?Let us see.For the member of the one body,as of the other,there must be a time when he first enters upon this business.They both enter upon it,suppose on the same day.Now then is it on that same day that one is more experienced in it than the other?
or is it on that day ten years?
13.Those indeed who recollect what we observed but now,(72)may answer without hesitation,on that day ten years.The reason was there given.It is neither more nor less,than that want of leisure which the bulk of the numerous members of a Democracy must necessarily labour under,more than those of an Aristocracy.But of this,what intimation is there to be collected,from any thing that has been suggested by our Author?
14.So much with respect to Aristocracies in general.It happens also by accident,that that particular branch of our own government to which he has given the name of the Aristocratical,the House of Lords,has actually greater opportunities of acquiring the qualification of experience,than that other branch,the House of Commons,to which he has given the name of the democratical.But to what is this owing?not to any thing in the characteristic natures of those two bodies,not to the one's being Aristocratical,and the other Democratical;but to a circumstance,entirely foreign and accidental,which we shall see presently.But let us observe his reasoning.
The House of Lords,he says,is an assembly that behoves to have more wisdom in it,than the House of Commons.This is the proposition.Now for the proof.The first is an Aristocratical assembly;the second a Democratical.
An Aristocratical assembly has more experience than a Democratical;and on that account more wisdom.Therefore the House of Lords,as was to be proved,has more wisdom than the House of Commons.Now,what the whole of the argument rests upon,we may observe,is this fact,that an Aristocratical assembly,as such,has more experience than a Democratical one;but this,with Aristocratical assemblies in general,we see,is not,for any reason that our Author has given us,the case.At the same time with respect to our House of Lords in particular,in comparison with the House of Commons,it does happen to be the case,owing to this simple circumstance:the members of the House of Lords,when once they begin to sit,sit on for life:those of the House of Commons only from seven years to seven years,or it may happen,less.
15.In speaking,however,in this place,of experience,I would rather be understood to mean opportunity of acquiring experience,than experience itself.For actual experience depends upon other concurrent causes.
16.It is,however,from superiority of experience alone,that our Author derives superiority of wisdom.He has,indeed,the proverb in his favour:
