a solution of this difficulty; but the United States of America had elements to deal with which never occurred before, and never probably will occur again, because they formed their illustrious Senate from materials that were offered them by the thirty-seven States.  We gentlemen, have the House of Lords, an assembly which has historically developed and periodically adapted itself to the wants and necessities of the times.

What, gentlemen, is the first quality which is required in a second chamber?  Without doubt, independence.  What is the best foundation of independence?  Without doubt, property.  The prime minister of England has only recently told you, and I believe he spoke quite accurately, that the average income of the members of the House of Lords is 20,000 pounds per annum.  Of course there are some who have more, and some who have less; but the influence of a public assembly, so far as property is concerned, depends upon its aggregate property, which, in the present case, is a revenue of 9,000,000 pounds a year.  But, gentlemen, you must look to the nature of this property.  It is visible property, and therefore it is responsible property, which every rate-payer in the room knows to his cost.  But, gentlemen, it is not only visible property; it is, generally speaking, territorial property; and one of the elements of territorial property is, that it is representative.  Now, for illustration, suppose—­which God forbid—­there was no House of Commons, and any Englishman,—­I will take him from either end of the island,—­a Cumberland, or a Cornish man, finds himself aggrieved, the Cumbrian says:  “This conduct I experience is most unjust.  I know a Cumberland man in the House of Lords, the Earl of Carlisle or the Earl of Lonsdale; I will go to him; he will never see a Cumberland man ill-treated.”  The Cornish man will say:  “I will go to the Lord of Port Eliot; his family have sacrificed themselves before this for the liberties of Englishmen, and he will get justice done me.”

But, gentlemen, the charge against the House of Lords is that the dignities are hereditary, and we are told that if we have a House of Peers they should be peers for life.  There are great authorities in favor of this, and even my noble friend near me [Lord Derby], the other day, gave in his adhesion to a limited application of this principle.  Now, gentlemen, in the first place, let me observe that every peer is a peer for life, as he cannot be a peer after his death; but some peers for life are succeeded in their dignities by their children.  The question arises, who is most responsible—­a peer for life whose dignities are not descendible, or a peer for life whose dignities are hereditary?  Now, gentlemen, a peer for life is in a very strong position.  He says:  “Here I am; I have got power and I will exercise it.”  I have no doubt that, on the whole, a peer for life would exercise it for what he deemed was the public good.  Let