Perfidy against the House of Lords: Cromwellian venom seeps back
Guest contributor Alexandros L. Papageorgiou takes aim at those who seek to abolish or do additional injury to our traditional seat of governance, from whichever quarter they come
‘Our fundamental belief is that the Second Chamber should be democratically elected. In the interim period, we will seek to end the hereditary principle and reduce the size of the current House of Lords as part of a wider package of constitutional reform to address the growing democratic deficit across Britain.’
Extract, Labour Party Manifesto #
‘… I think that there are all sorts of ways you can reform the House. You get three people in the room, and there are at least four different solutions proposed. I am probably alone in our group, as I would favour the abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a federal chamber within an English House of Commons … My Labour Party colleagues are less radical …’
Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury, ‘conservative’ founding member of the ‘Constitution Reform Group’ (CRG), August 2019 #
‘The idea of an unelected legislature in the 21st century is ridiculous … The argument to consign this archaic and undemocratic chamber of political has-beens to the dustbin of history is long overdue … the sooner this unaccountable financial drain is abolished, the better …’
SNP Spokesperson and comedian Tommy Sheppard, MP for Edinburgh East, December 2018 #
On 19 March, 1649, precisely forty-eight days after the assassination of King Charles I ‘The Martyr’, Roundhead vermin, comprising what Clement Walker rightly termed ‘this rump of a parliament, with corrupt maggots in it’, issued the following heinous decree:
‘The Commons of England assembled in Parliament, finding by too long experience, that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the People of England to be continued, have thought fit to Ordain and Enact, and be it Ordained and Enacted by this present Parliament, and by the Authority of the same, that from henceforth the House of Lords in Parliament, shall be and is hereby wholly abolished and taken away; And that the Lords shall not from henceforth meet or sit in the said House called The Lords House, or in any other House or Place whatsoever, as a House of Lords; nor shall Sit, Vote, Advise, Adjudge, or Determine of any matter or thing whatsoever, as a House of Lords in Parliament …’
(An Act for the Abolishing the House of Peers, ‘Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum’, 1642-1660, page 24, Volume 2, His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1911)
Thankfully, despite this and other diverse offenses, Republican tyranny proved short-lived. The Restoration of the Stuart Monarchy in 1660 did much to reverse the treasonous stigma of the past generation and, the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688, although by no means ideal, from a traditionalist point of view, can hardly be compared to the evil that emanated from the leading ideologues of the previous usurping Commonwealth.
The fundamental problem with post-Stuart era politics resided in the fact that, despite the ancient order been somewhat restored, albeit in an inherently problematic fashion, the malicious dogma of the more radical elements that had once rallied around the seditious standards of Lord Fairfax were not thoroughly extirpated following the collapse of Cromwellian dictatorship. A methodic analysis of the matter allows one to determine that the proto-Bolshevist principles of John Lilburne and his ilk, however ingeniously masqueraded as ‘social reforms’, achieved to embed themselves deep within the body of Whig principles. Thus, we may argue that overtime, it was only natural for the Whigs to be transformed from Liberals, to Labour Socialists and finally to purely unabashed Marxists. The deep-seated hatred of social echelons, religion, homogeneity and the unifying paragon of Kingship has been the diachronic tendency of a large proportion of institutions finding themselves opposed to the Tories who, until rather recently, had defended the thesmos of Crown authority, yet in a more gentlemanly like manner than their Cavalier primogenitors.
But, to the matter at hand. Since the dawn of the 20th century, chthonic forces determined to obfuscate the time-immemorial synthesis of Western societies and particularly of the English, have aimed towards the abolition of any and all hereditary systems of government that, ideally. been in their nature to espouse conservative patriotism, are the sole mechanisms that can thwart their designs. It is the authors adamant conviction that as of today, the ancient institution of the House of Lords is in equal danger to the one it faced nearly 400 years ago, if not greater, for currently, there is no relief to arrive in Dover.
The following paradigms may serve to highlight the true extend of the danger:
It is beyond any contestation that Nigel Farage has been the most prominent figure in the righteous struggle for Brexit. He is undoubtedly a most charismatic individual, possessing enormous oratory skills. His strategic thinking has often been lauded and his ability to transform vision to reality nothing short of phenomenal. There should never be any doubt as to the fact he is the Queens loyal man … and yet …
The Brexit Party manifesto, although generally containing what one may entertain as sound thesis, hides in plain sight a rather disturbing clause. The party’s obnoxious intention to promote the abolition of the House of Lords. In Farage’s own words:
‘… the sooner we get rid of it, the better …’ September 2019 #
No individual possessing logic would deny the fact that the current House of Lords is but a shadow of past glories. No ethical person would fail to realize that if order is to be restored in the Second Chamber, the return of the hereditaries would be the first step. Reforge the Lords from the ground-up is one thing … seeking to cast the entire structure to oblivion, simply because it has fallen to certain degrees of corruption and incompetence, is another. An honorable individual as Mr Farage would be expected to demand radical reformations for the House, not seeking to align himself with grotesque figures of Labour and the Scottish radical secessionists in unholy opposition to one of the most fundamental pillars of English governance. Even the explanation he provides is wholly inadequate:
‘Electoral reform, getting rid of the House of Lords, which is now full of 700 friends of Tony Blair and David Cameron … Our whole system has been corrupted … We want fundamental political change …’ May 2019 #
So, just because a thousand-year-old system has been corrupted, the only solution is to abolish it? This does not sound very rational now does it?
Hate against the House of Lords is not a tendency found solely in parties from center to far left. It is a sickness that also affects political theories one would consider populist and far-right as well. By some weird twist of fate, Nigel Farage has succumbed to the same illness that befell Sir Oswald Mosley. To some, this may appear as a gross over-exaggeration therefore allow me to explain.
Like the former broker, the renowned Baronet espoused a variety of patriotic notions. Yet, the appealing aristocrat who once enchantingly said:
‘(The Empire was not built by men who run away) it was built by the men who in dark days of England and the English Empire went out in ships on storm-tossed seas, through the torrid heat of jungles, carrying the British flag to the farthest corners of the earth, through hardship, sacrifice, ordeal to triumph.’
(The Historic Record & AV Collector Quarterly, Volumes 42-45, page 17, J. R. Wrigley, 1997)
Was the same who endorsed the apostrophic British Union of Fascists manifesto, proclaiming:
‘The present House of Lords can find no place in a modern system and will be abolished by British Union. It will be replaced by a new Second Chamber which reconciles British tradition with modern Government.’
(Oswald Mosley’s, ‘Tomorrow we Live, British Union Policy’, May 1938) #
Of course, Nigel Farage is not the only Brexiteer that harbors problematic notions on the House of Lords. The newly appointed Leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg, despite his many merits, made his own contribution to the cause espoused by the ever-increasing umbrella of politicians aiming to extinguish hereditary authority, he stated:
‘… If the House of Lords exists for anything - and that is a debatable point - but if it does, it exists to ensure that law is made in an organized, structured manner with delay between its stages …’
Conservative Party Conference, 29 September 2019 #
No Mr Mogg, the House of Lords, if functioning properly, exists to ensure that aristocrats of the highest integrity act as an obstinate and unceasing barrier against the machinations of demagogues who, absent the ‘whip’ of nobility, would seek to impose on Her Majesty's subjects, a tyranny based on international capital. The very fact that, to a significant extent, this reality has manifested ever since the House of Lords began to be corroded is proof enough.
More so, the fact that internationalism is directly opposed to any British attempts for national sovereignty is no secret. As Sir John Henry Hayes, MP for South Holland and the Deepings, so rightly put it in the House of Commons on 14 March 2019:
‘Above all else, Brexit is about reclaiming power from the globalist elite. We owe a great debt to the 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit. Not only did they bravely risk taking back control of our sovereign governance; our laws, our borders and our economy, but they exposed an arrogant self-serving elite in this nation, some of whom sit in this Chamber … Following that democratic defeat in the biggest vote for anything in British history, much of the liberal establishment has responded with stunned entitlement and deafening hysteria. The essence of the reason for that hysterical reaction is that these people are not used to be being told that they are not right. They are not used to having their sense of entitlement challenged. That sense of entitlement is not just a material thing—an advantage in terms of place and progress—it is also the self-serving entitlement that prohibits views other than their own and wants to delegitimize the opinion of the vast majority of law-abiding, patriotic, decent British people who voted for Brexit. That is the truth of it, and it needs to be said in this Chamber.’
It is quite natural for anti-Brexit characters to seek abolishing the House of Lords. What is extremely unsettling though, is that, relating to the future of the Second Chamber, staunch conservative Brexiteers find themselves in agreement with their sworn ideological enemies.
The wheels of subversion are turning. One way or another, the United Kingdome will break free of the EU within the foreseeable future. It would be strange for the nation to reclaim its long-lost freedom from the socialist autocracy of Brussels, only to see its traditional pillars of cohesion cast into the abyss by different forms of the same oppressor. If the House of Lords falls, the last bastion of the old order will be removed. Mark me, the same hyenas that will seek its destruction will then turn against the Monarchy itself.
Our elites were diminished in two world wars, whatever of the old blood defied ‘progressivism’ was swept aside from its ancient seat of power in 1999. The same miscreants that undermined the Lords and led them to this current state are the same that shout ‘corruption’ and ‘incompetence’ and use such rhetoric to seal the Chamber under the ruble of the new world order. Therefore, we must be vigilant. Lobbying dynamically and ceaselessly in favor of restructuring the Lords on the basis of the ancient foundations is the only remedy against the criminal threat of abolition.
In Conclusion, I would like to point the following: Although I am no expert on matters of UK Law, I cannot fathom by what right does the Supreme Court outweigh the authority of the Sovereign. Even if we are to consider (and that is a big if) that the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue Parliament was in the ‘grey zone’, the very fact Her Majesty gave Royal assent to his request should categorically conclude the matter. Once the Monarch speaks, once Crown judgment conferred, all dissenting voices should cease. A flock of hawkish and obscured judges, civil servants that hold their offices under the shadow of the Queen’s heraldry, ignored her dictate and declared prorogation as ‘unlawful’. The implication to this act is enormous. These bureaucrats didn’t defy the PM alone, they defied Her Majesty’s authority. I was under the impression that the Sovereign’s word was superior to that of any court, ‘Supreme’ or otherwise … in another time, these pencil pushers would have been confined to the Tower for insult against the Monarchy.
Alexandros L. Papageorgiou
Historian (Bachelor of Arts – Joint Honours, Ancient and Medieval History), University of Wales, Saint David College