be
substantiated nor refuted. But the only definite part of them, namely,
that Pitt's creations degraded the House of Lords, is obviously
overstrained. At no period was the tone of its debates higher than in
that of Pitt's supremacy, witness those on Warren Hastings, the disputes
with Spain and Russia, and the Great War. They have not the brilliance
of those of the Commons in the days of Burke, Fox, Pitt and Sheridan;
but they often excel them in statesmanlike qualities; and a perusal of
them reveals the fact that the ablest of the Lords were, not those of
the old governing families, which at that period showed signs of
decadence, but those for whose creation Pitt was mainly responsible.
Malmesbury, Buckingham, Grenville, Auckland, Carrington, Minto, and at a
later period, Sidmouth and Castlereagh, excelled in ability and weight
the representatives of the older nobility. Far from degrading and
weakening the peerage, Pitt strengthened it by an infusion of new blood
which was sorely needed at that time of strain and stress. Further, it
must be remembered that Burke's Economy Bill had abolished many of the
sinecures which were considered due for steady support in Parliament;
and, while at Bath in the year 1797, he admitted that his reform was
accountable for the large increase of peerages, thenceforth the chief
hope of the faithful.[626] Pitt's correspondence also shows that he
frequently repulsed the insistent claims of his supporters for titles, a
theme on which piquant letters might be adduced.

Surely, too, it is unjust to say that Pitt entirely altered the
political complexion of the Upper House. During the greater part of his
career the so-called political differences were based mainly on personal
considerations; and throughout the struggle against France, Whigs and
Tories, with the exception of a small coterie, were merged in the
national party which recognized in Pitt the saviour of British
institutions. The charge that he was largely responsible for the
friction between the two Houses after 1830 needs little notice; for that
friction was clearly due to the progress of democratic principles and
the growth of an enormous industrial community in these islands. Both of
those developments told strongly against the parity of political
influence of the two Houses of Parliament. Amidst the torpor of the
previous age the prerogatives of the Peers had gone unchallenged. After
the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolu