Vantage the Lords. As a legislative body, the Lords have great facilities ground of for estimating the direction and strength of public opinion. Nearly every measure has been fully discussed, before they are called upon to consider it. Hence they are enabled to judge, at leisure, of its merits, its defects, and its popularity. If the people are indifferent to its merits, they can safely reject it altogether if too popular, in principle, to be so dealt with, they may qualify, and perhaps neutralise it by amendments, without any shock to public feeling. Small attendance of peers af At the same time they are able, by their debates, to exercise an extensive influence upon the convictions of the people. Sitting like a court of review upon measures originating in the Lower House, they can select from the whole armoury of debate and public discussion, the best arguments, and the most effective appeals to enlightened minds. Nor have there ever been wanting amongst their number, the first orators of their age and country. But with these means of influence, the political weight of the House of Peers has been much affected fects their by the passive indifference which it ordinarily displays political weight. to the business of legislation. The constitution of that assembly, and the social position of its members, have failed to excite the spirit and activity which mark a representative body. This is constantly made apparent by the small number of peers, who attend its deliberations. Unless great party questions have been under discussion, the House has ordinarily presented the appearance of a select committee. Three peers may wield all the authority of the House. Nay, even less than that number are competent to pass or reject a law, if their unanimity should avert a division, or notice of their imperfect constitution. Many laws have, in fact, been passed by numbers befitting a committee, rather than the whole House.1 That the judgment of so small a number should be as much respected as that of the large bodies of members who throng the House of Commons, can scarcely be expected. A quorum of three, though well suited for judicial business, and not wholly out of proportion to the entire number of its members, in the earlier periods of its history, -has become palpably inadequate for a numerous assembly. That its members are not accountable to constituents, adds to their moral responsibilities; and should suggest safeguards against the abuse of the great powers which the constitution has entrusted to them. difference The indifference of the great body of the peers to Their inpublic business, and their scant attendance, by discou- to busiraging the efforts of the more able and ambitious men ness. amongst them, further impair the influence of the Upper House. Statesmen who had distinguished themselves in the House of Commons, have complained, again and again, of the cold apathy by which their earnest oratory has been checked in the more patrician assembly. The encouragement of numbers, of ready sympathy, and of warm applause, are wanting; and the disheartened orator is fain to adapt his tone to the ungenial temperament of his audience. Thus to discourage public spirit, and devotion to the great affairs of state, cannot fail to diminish the political influence of the House of Lords. The inertness of the House of Lords has produced Their 1 On April 7th, 1854, the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill was read a third time by amajority of two in a house of twelve. On the 25th August, 1860, the Tenure and Improvement of Land (Ireland) Bill, which had occu pied weeks of discussion in the Com- another result prejudicial to its due influence in public affairs. It has generally yielded, with an indolent facility, to the domination of one or two of its own members, gifted with the strongest wills. Lord Thurlow, Lord Eldon, the Duke of Wellington, and Lord Lyndhurst, have swayed it, at different times, almost with the power of a dictator. Such men had acquired their activity and resolution in a different school from that of an hereditary chamber; and where peers by hereditary descent, like the Earl of Derby, have exercised an equal sway, they have learned how to lead and govern men, amidst the more stirring scenes of the House of Commons. Every assembly must have its leaders; but the absolute surrender of its own judgment to that of a single man,—perhaps of narrow mind, and unworthy prejudices,-cannot fail to impair its moral influence. Such, then, are the political position of the House of Lords, and the causes of its strength and weakness, as a part of the legislature. The peerage is also to be regarded in another aspect, as the head of the great community of the upper classes. It represents their interests, feelings, and aspirations. Instead of being separated from other ranks in dignified isolation, it is connected with them by all the ties of social life. It leads them in politics: in the magistracy: in local administration in works of usefulness, and charity: in the hunting-field, the banquet, and the ball-room. The increase of the peerage has naturally extended the social ramifications of the aristocracy. Six hundred families ennobled, — their children bearing titles of nobility, allied by descent or connection with the first county families, and with the wealthiest commoners of other classes, have struck their roots far and wide into the soil of English society. In every county their influence is great,-in many, paramount. The untitled landed gentry,-upheld by the conser- The landed vative law of primogeniture,-are an ancient aristo- gentry. cracy in themselves; and the main source from which the peerage has been recruited. In no other country is there such a class, at once aristocratic and - popular, and a bond of connection between the nobles and the commonalty. etage. Many of these have been distinguished by hereditary The barontitles, inferior to nobility, and conferring no political privileges; yet highly prized as a social distinction. The baronetage, like the peerage, has been considerably increased during the last century. On the accession of George III., there were about five hundred baronets1; in 1860, they had been increased to no less than eight hundred and sixty. During the sixty years of this reign, the extraordinary number of four hundred and ninety-four baronetcies were created. Of these a large number have been conferred for political services; and by far the greater part are enjoyed by men. of family and fortune. Still the taste for titles was difficult to satiate. knight The ancient and honourable dignity of knighthood Orders of was conferred unsparingly by George III. upon little hood. men for little services, until the title was well nigh degraded. After the king's escape from assassination at the hands of Margaret Nicholson, so many knighthoods were conferred on persons presenting congratulatory addresses to the Crown, that "a knight of 1 Betham's Baronetage. Gentl. Mag. lix. 398. 2 Viz., six hundred and seventyfour baronets of Great Britain, one hundred and eleven baronets of Scotland and Nova Scotia, and seventy-five of Ireland. 3 This number is from 1761 to 1821; from a paper prepared by the late Mr. Pulman, Clarencieux Kingat-Arms. Other classes sid ing with the aristo cracy. Wealth Peg Nicholson's order" became a by-word. The degradation of knighthood by the indiscriminate liberality of the Crown in granting it, continued until a recent time. Still there were not knighthoods enough; and in 1783 the king instituted the Order of St. Patrick. Scotland had its most ancient Order of the Thistle: but no order of knighthood had, until that time, been appropriated to Ireland. The Hanoverian Guelphic Order of Knighthood had also been opened to the ambition of Englishmen; and William IV., during his reign, added to its roll, a goodly company of English knights. The Order of the Bath, originally a military order, was enlarged in 1815; and again in 1847, the queen added a civil division to the order, to comprise such persons as by their personal services to the Crown, or by the performance of public duties, have merited the royal favour.1 Besides these several titled orders, may be noticed officers enjoying naval and military rank, whose numbers were extraordinarily augmented by the long war with France, and by the extension of the British possessions abroad. Men holding high offices in the state, the church, the law, the universities, and other great incorporations, have also associated their powers and influence with those of the nobility. The continual growth and accumulation of property favourable have been a source of increasing strength to the British tocracy. nobles. Wealth is, in itself, an aristocracy. It may desire to the aris to rival the nobility of a country, and even to detract from its glory. But in this land of old associations, it seeks only to enjoy the smiles and favours of the aristocracy, craves admission to its society,- aspires 1 Letters Patent, 24th May, 1847; London Gazette, p. 1951. |