But to all these preeminent advantages of early education and training there must be added the invaluable opportunities of enlarged and extended legislative experience in the House of Commons.  If we examine the antecedents of some of the most prominent men now in the House of Lords, we shall discover abundant evidence of this fact.  Earl Russell was a member of the House of Commons for more than thirty years; Earl Derby, more than twenty-five years; the Earl of Shaftesbury, for about twenty-four years; the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Shrewsbury, and the Duke of Rutland, for about the same period.  And of the present House of Commons more than fifty members are heirs apparent or presumptive to existing peerages.

And then there is the further circumstance that seats in the House of Lords are for life.  Members of this body do not stand in fear of removal by the votes of disappointed or indignant constituents.  Entirely independent of public opinion, they can defy the disapprobation of the masses, and smile at the denunciation of the press.  Undoubtedly, this fact has a twofold bearing, and deprives the peers of that strong incentive to active exertion and industrious legislation which the House of Commons, looking directly to the people for support and continuance, always possesses.  Yet the advantages in point of prolonged experience and ever increasing familiarity with the details of public business are unquestionable.

As a matter of course, there are many noblemen upon whom these rare facilities of education and this admirable training for public life would seem to have been wasted.  As Americans, we must be pardoned for expressing our belief in the venerable doctrine that there is no royal road to learning.  If a peer of the realm is determined to be a dunce, nothing in the English Constitution prevents him from being a dunce, and “not all the blood of all the Howards” can make him a scholar or a statesman.  If, resting securely in the conviction that a nobleman does not need to be instructed, he will not condescend to study, and does not avail himself of his most enviable advantages, whatever may be his social rank, his ignorance and incapacity cannot be disguised, but will even become more odious and culpable in the view of impartial criticism by reason of his conspicuous position and his neglect of these very advantages.

But frequent as these instances are, it will not be for a moment supposed that the whole peerage would justly fall under such censure.  Nor will it be thought surprising that the House of Lords contains a considerable number of men of sterling ability, statesmen of broad and comprehensive views, accustomed to deal with important questions of public interest and national policy with calm, deliberate judgment, and far-reaching sagacity.  Hampered as they certainly are by a traditional conservatism often as much at variance with sound political philosophy as it is with the lessons of all history, and characterized