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. It was admirably said by Lord Granville, on a recent occasion: My Lords, you have power, great power,-immense power-for good; but there is one power you have not; you have not, more than the House of Commons,— more than the constitutional sovereigns of this country, more, I will add, than the despotic sovereigns of some great empires, in civilised communities, you have not the power of thwarting the national will, when properly and constitutionally expressed.'

ground of

As a legislative body, the Lords have great facilities for estimating the direction and strength of Vantagepublic opinion. Nearly every measure has the Lords. 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.

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

1 14th June, 1869, on moving second reading of Irish Church Bill. 196 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., 1656.

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 numbers, the first orators of their age and country.

Small at tendance of peers

affects

their

political

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 weight. 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 inade 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. 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.

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. See also Bentham, Political Tactics, Bowring's ed., ii. 308.

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.

to busi

ness.

The indifference of the great body of the peers to public business, and their scant attendance, Their inby discouraging the efforts of the more able difference and ambitious men amongst them, further impair the influence of the Upper House. Statesmen who have 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.

deference

The inertness of the House of Lords has produced another result prejudicial to its due influ- Their ence in public affairs. It has generally to leaders. 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.

in its sociai

relations.

Such, then, are the political position of the House The peerage 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.

Ane aristucracy.

The increase of the peerage has naturally ex-tended 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 conservative law of primogeniture, are an The landed ancient aristocracy in themselves; and the gentry. main source from which the peerage has been reeruited. In no other country is there such a class, --at once aristocratic and popular, and the bond of connection between the nobles and the commonalty.

Many of these have been distinguished by hereditary titles,-inferior to nobility, and con- The baronetferring no political privileges; yet highly age.

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 a single reign, the extraordinary number of four hundred and ninety-four baronetcies were created. Of these a large number were 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.

The ancient and honourable dignity of knighthood

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.

This number is from 1761 to 1821; from a paper prepared by the late Mr. Pulman, Clarencieux King-at-Arms.