The issue was not between the 670 members of the House of Commons and the 620 members of the House of Lords, nor between the Liberal Government and the Tory Opposition.  The full purport of the contest is broader and far more vital; it must be sought deeper down in the wider sphere of our social and national life.  In a word, the rising tide of democracy has broken down another barrier, and the privileges and presumptions of the aristocracy have received a shattering blow.  This aspect of the case is worth studying.

There could be no conflict of any importance between the two Houses so long as the Commons were practically nominees of the Lords.  At the end of the eighteenth century no fewer than 306 members of the House of Commons were virtually returned by the influence of 160 persons, landowners and boroughmongers, most of whom were members of the other House.  Things could work smoothly enough in these circumstances, as the two Houses represented the same interests and the same class, and the territorial aristocracy dominated without effort over a silent and subservient people.

The Reform Bill of 1832 was the real beginning of the change.  By its provisions not only was the franchise extended, but fifty-six rotten boroughs, represented by 143 members, were swept away.  There was something more in this than electoral reform.  It was the first step toward alienation between the two Houses.  There was a bitter fight at the time because the Lords foresaw that if they once lost their hold over the Commons the eventual results might be serious for them.  It was far more convenient to have a subordinate House of nominees than an independent House of possible antagonists.  The enfranchisement and emancipation of the people once inaugurated, however, were destined to proceed further.  The introduction of free education served more than anything, and is still serving, to create a self-conscious democracy fully alive to its great responsibilities, for knowledge means courage and strength.  Changes in the industrial life of the country led to organization among the workers and the formation of trade-unions.  The extension of local government brought to the front men of ability from all classes of society, and the franchise became further extended at intervals.  The House of Commons, now completely free and independent, kept in close touch with the real national awakening and reflected in its membership the changes in social development.  But the House of Lords, unlike any other institution in the country, remained unchanged and quite unaffected by outside circumstances.  Its stagnation and immobility naturally made it increasingly hostile to democratic advance.  The number of Liberal Peers or Peers who could remain Liberal under social pressure gradually diminished.  Friction caused by diversity of aim and interest became consequently more and more frequent.  There were times of reaction, times of stagnation, times when the national attention