ever. In 1835 and 1836, the Commons maintained that the principle of appropriating the surplus revenues of the Church of Ireland, was essential to the settlement of the question of Irish tithes. Yet the Lords, by their determined resistance to this principle, obliged the Commons, and the ministers who had fought their way into office by its assertion, definitively to abandon it. They exercised an unconstrained judgment in their amendments to the English Municipal Reform Bill, which the Commons were obliged reluctantly to accept. They dealt with the bills for the reform of the Irish corporations, with equal freedom. For four sessions their amendments, wholly inconsistent with the principles of legislation asserted by the Commons, led to the abandonment of those measures. And at length they forced the Commons to accept amendments, repugnant to the policy for which they had been contending. Again, they resisted, for several years, the removal of the Jewish disabilities, a measure approved by the settled judgment of the Commons and the people; and obliged the advocates of religious liberty to accept, at last, an unsatisfactory compromise. But these examples of independence are thrown into the shade by their proceedings in 1860, when, treading upon the forbidden. ground of taxation, they rejected a Bill which the Commons had passed, as part of the financial arrangements of the year, for repealing the duties upon paper. The controverted question of privilege involved in this vote, will be touched upon hereafter; but here it may be said, that the Commons have ever been most jealous of their exclusive rights, in matters of supply and taxation; and that their jealousy has been wisely respected by the Lords. But, finding a strong support in the Commons, an indifferent and inert public opinion, much encouragement from an influential portion of the press, - and a favorable state of parties, able to defy at once the government There had been times, when such defi1 Chapter VII. p. 473.

the Lords were and the Commons.

1

ance would have been resented and returned; but now the Lords, rightly estimating their own strength, and the causes by which retaliation on the part of the Commons was restrained, overruled the ministers of the Crown and the Commons, on a question of finance, and, by their single vote, continued a considerable tax upon the people. The most zealous champion of the independence of the peers, in 1832 would not then have counselled so hazardous an enterprise Still less would he have predicted that it would be successfully accomplished, within thirty years after the passing of the Reform Act.

In short, though the Lords were driven, in 1832, from an indefensible position, which they had held with too stubborn a persistence, they have since maintained their independence, and a proper weight in the legislature.

Lords.

As a legislative body, the Lords have great facilities for estimating the direction and strength of public Vantageopinion. Nearly every measure has been fully ground of the 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 neutralize it by amendments, without any shock to public feeling.

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 armory 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 by the passive indifference which it ordinarily displays to the business of leg

Small attend

affects their

political

islation. 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 ance of peers is constantly made apparent by the small number of peers, who attend its deliberations. Unless weight. great party questions have been under discussion, the House has ordinarily presented the appearance of a se lect 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 intrusted to them.

Their indiffer

ness.

The indifference of the great body of the peers to public business, and their scant attendance, by discouragence to busi- ing the efforts of the more able and ambitious men 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

1 On April 7th, 1854, the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill was read a third time by a majority of two in a house of twelve. On the 25th August, 1860, the Tenure and Improvement of Land (Ireland) Bill, which had occupied weeks of discussion in the Commons, was nearly lost by a disagreement between the Two Houses; the numbers, on a division, being seven and six.

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 in fluence of the House of Lords.

ers.

The inertness of the House of Lords has produced an other result prejudicial to its due influence in pub- Their deferlic affairs. It has generally yielded, with an indo- ence to leadlent facility, to the domination of one or two of its own members, gifted with the strongest wills. Lord Thur. low, 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 weak

-as the

relations.

The peerage ness, as a part of the legislature. The peerage in its social is also to be regarded in another aspect, head of the great community of the upper classes. It rep resents 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 ballroom.

The increase of the peerage has naturally extended the

social ramifications of the aristocracy.

The aristocracy.

Six hundred fami

lies 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 landed

age.

The untitled landed gentry,— upheld by the conservative law of primogeniture, are an ancient aristocracy gentry. 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. Many of these have been distinguished by hereditary The baronet- titles, 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 baronets; 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 ninetyfour 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.

Orders or knighthood.

1

The ancient and honorable dignity of knighthood was conferred unsparingly by George III. upon little men for little services, until the title was wellnigh degraded. After the king's escape from assassination at the hands of Margaret Nicholson, so many knighthoods were

1 Betham's Baronetage. Gentl. Mag. lix. 398.

2 Viz., six hundred and seventy-four 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 King-at-Arins.