The Peer 1719. Lords, in which sat twenty-six bishops to make laws for Presbyterian Scotland. But if some injustice was then done to the Scottish peerage, it has since been amply redressed, as will be seen hereafter. This rapid increase of the peerage had been regarded age Bill of with much jealousy by that privileged body, whose individual dignity and power were proportionately diminished. Early in the reign of George I., several new creations further aroused the apprehensions of the peers; and, in 1719, partly to gratify their lordships, -but more, perhaps, to further party objects 1,- a bill was brought into the House of Lords by the Duke of Somerset, proposing an extraordinary limitation of the royal prerogative, to which the king himself was induced to signify his consent. The Crown was to be restrained from the creation of more than six beyond the existing number of one hundred and seventy-eight peerages, the power being still reserved of creating a new peerage whenever a peerage should become extinct; and instead of sixteen representative peers of Scotland, it was proposed that twenty-five hereditary peers should have seats in the House of Lords. This bill soon reached a third reading; but not until it had raised so much dissatisfaction in the House of Commons and the country, that its promoters thought it prudent to abandon it.2 In the next session, however, another bill was introduced, by the Duke of Buckingham, and sent down to the Commons; where, after an effectual exposure of its unconstitutional character, -especially by Sir Richard Steele, and Sir Robert Walpole, it was rejected by a majority of two hundred and sixty-nine 1 The Prince of Wales was supposed not to be friendly to the Whig party then in power, which was said to be the reason why Lord Sunder land persuaded the king to consent to the bill. 2 Parl. Hist. vii. 589–594. Coxe's Life of Walpole, i. 116. voices, against one hundred and seventy-seven.' It was, in truth, an audacious attempt to limit the prerogative of the Crown, and discourage the granting of just rewards to merit, for the sake of perpetuating a close aristocratic body,-independent of the Crown and irresponsible to the people. ting in 1760. The first two kings of the House of Hanover con- Number of tinued to make additions to the peerage, which on the peers sitaccession of George III. amounted to one hundred and seventy-four. Of this number, thirteen minors, and twelve Roman Catholics were incapable of sitting and voting in Parliament.2 Great as had been the additions to the peerage since the reign of Queen Elizabeth, they were destined to be far exceeded in this and succeeding reigns. The creation of peers, having become an expedient for increasing the influence of the Crown, and the strength of parties, was freely resorted to by successive ministers. In the first ten years of this reign forty-two peers were created, or raised to a higher order in the peerage.3 Profuse creations in the reign of George III. by Lord Lord North was liberal in the creation of peers, with Creations a view to strengthen his own position, and carry out North, the policy of the court. In 1776, before the continued arrears of the Civil List were again brought before Parliament, ten new peers were created, one baron was raised to the dignity of a viscount, and three were promoted to earldoms. During his administration, he created or promoted about thirty British peers." In Ireland, he 1 Parl. Hist.vii. 606-627. Coxe's Life of Walpole, i. 117-125; ii. 551. Sir Robert Walpole also opposed the measure in a pamphlet entitled, "The Thoughts of a Member of the Lower House in relation to a project for restraining and limiting the power of the Crown in the future creation of Peers." Steele likewise opposed it in "The Plebeian," while 2 Court and City Register for 3 Beatson's Political Index, i. 133. 257. 5 Beatson's Political Index, i. 137. Creations Restriction pro in 1789. distributed honours still more liberally. In 1777 he created eighteen barons, and raised seven barons and five viscounts to higher dignities in the peerage. Mr. Pitt dispensed honours with greater profusion by Mr.Pitt. than any former minister. During the first five years of his administration, he had created nearly fifty peers 1. The influence he had himself derived from thus gratifying his supporters, suggested to him the precaution of restricting the regent in the exercise of this prerogative. This restriction he proposed to extend to the entire period posed upon of the regency, which, however, he trusted would be of the Regent, short duration. Having created peers to consolidate his own power, he was unwilling to leave the same instrument in the hands of his opponents. Had his proposal taken effect, such a restraint,-extending over the whole regency, was open to many of the objections which are admitted to apply to the more extensive limitation contemplated in 1719. It was said by Mr. Pitt that the exercise of the prerogative was required to reward merit, to recruit the peerage from the great landowners and other opulent classes, and to render the Crown independent of factious combinations amongst the existing peers,2 All these grounds were as applicable to the regency as to any other time; while the fact of a powerful minister having recently made so large an addition to the House of Lords from his own party, was the strongest argument against the proposed restriction. To tie up the hands of the regent, was to perpetuate the power of the minister. A similar regency of condition was afterwards imposed upon the regent in Restric tion during the 1811. 1 In the debates uponthe Regency, Mr. Fox said forty-two, and Mr. Sheridan forty-eight. From Beatson's Political Index (i. 140.) the latter statement appears to be strictly accurate. Parl. Hist. xxvii. 967, &c. 2 His speech on the 16th Jan., 1789, is so imperfectly reported, that his reasoning can only be gathered from the context of the debate, in which his observations are adverted to, 1810; but, being limited to one year, was exposed to less objection. creations In 1792, when Mr. Pitt had been eight years in Continued power, he had created between sixty and seventy peers', by Mr. Pitt. the greater part of whom owed their elevation to the parliamentary support which they had themselves given to the minister, or to their interest in returning members to the House of Commons. He created and promoted no less than thirty-five peers, within the space of two years, in 1796 and 1797.2 And, in 1801, he had created or promoted, during the seventeen years of his administration, upwards of one hundred and forty peers, sitting by hereditary right. He also introduced as members of that body, in 1801, the Irish representative peers and bishops. tative peers The peerage of Ireland, on the union of that country, Represenwas dealt with, in some measure, upon different prin- te ciples from that of Scotland. The principle of representation was followed; twenty-eight representative peers being admitted to seats in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. But they were elected, not for the Parliament only, as in Scotland, but for life. Again, no Scottish peers could be created after the Union; but the peerage of Scotland was perpetuated, as an ancient and exclusive aristocracy. It was otherwise with Ireland. It was admitted that the peerage of that country was too numerous, and ought gradually to be diminished; and with this view, the royal prerogative was so far re 1 Mr. Sheridan's speech on Parliamentary Reform, April 30th, 1792. Mr. Courtenay, speaking in 1792, said: "It had been a matter of complaint that twenty-eight peers had been made in the reign of George I., which, it was argued, would destroy the balance of power in the other branches of the constitution." But Pitt "had created three times as 2 Beatson's PoliticalIndex, i. 147. Permission to Irish in the stricted, that one Irish peer only can be created, whenever three Irish peerages, in existence at the time of the Union,-have become extinct. But the object of this provision being ultimately to reduce the number of Irish peers, - not having hereditary seats in Parliament, to one hundred, it was also provided that when such reduction had been effected, one new Irish peerage may be created as often as a peerage becomes extinct, or as often as an Irish peer becomes entitled by descent or creation, to a peerage of the United Kingdom. Another peculiar arrangement, made on the Union of peers to sit Ireland, was the permission granted to Irish peers of sitting in the House of Commons for any place in Great Commons. Britain,-a privilege of which they have extensively availed themselves.' House of Irish representative bishops. Peerages At the same time, an addition of four lords spiritual was made to the House of Lords, to represent the episcopal body of Ireland, and to sit by rotation of sessions; of whom an archbishop of the Church in Ireland is always to be one. At the Union there were twenty bishoprics and archbishoprics of the Church in Ireland; but provision was made in 1833, by the Church Temporalities Act, for the reduction of that number to ten.2 Since the Union, further additions have continually been made to the peerage of the United Kingdom; 1 By the Reform Bill of 1860, it was proposed to extend this privilege to places in Ireland, as well as Great Britain. In "A Letter to the Earl of Listowel, M. P. for St. Alban's, by a Joint of the Tail,'" 1841, the position of his lordship as a peer of Ireland and a member of the House of Commons, was thus adverted to: "A peer, and in your own rightand yet a peer without rights! Possessor of a name, of a dignity having no better reality than in a sound.... True, you are at this moment a legislator, but by no right of birth, and only as a commoner; and, again, as representative for an English town, not for one in Ireland. However great your stake in that country, you could not, though fifty places were held open for you, accept one your marrowless dignity gliding ghost-like in, to forbid the proffered seat." 2 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 37, schedule B. |