་ Its enlarge of strength. scarcely to be questioned that the House of Lords has gained importance, as a political institution, by its enlargement a source ment. Let us suppose, for a moment, that the jealousy of the peers had led either to such a legal restraint upon the prerogative, as that proposed in the reign of George I., or to so sparing an exercise of it, that the peerage had remained without material increase since the accession of the House of Hanover. Is it conceivable that an order so limited in number, and so exclusive in character, could have maintained its due authority in the legislature? With the instinctive aversion to change, which characterizes every close corporation, it would have opposed itself haughtily to the active and improving spirit of more popular institutions. It might even have attempted to maintain some of its more invidious privileges, which have been suffered to fall into desuetude. Hence it would necessarily have been found in opposition to the House of Commons, the press, and public opinion; while its limited and unpopular constitution would have failed to give it strength to resist the pressure of adverse forces. But the wider and more liberal constitution which it has acquired from increased numbers, and a more representative character, has saved the House of Lords from these political dangers. True to the spirit of an aristocracy, and to its theoretical uses in the state, it has been slower than the House of Commons in receiving popular impressions. It has often checked, for a time, the progressive policy of the age; yet, being accessible to the same sympathies and influences as the other House, its tardier convictions have generally been brought, without violence, into harmony with public opinion. And when measures, demanded by the national welfare, have sometimes been injuriously retarded, the great and composite qualities of the House of Lords, the eminence of its numerous members, their talents in debate, and wide local influence, — have made it too powerful to be rudely overborne by popular clamor. con institutions. Thus the expansive growth of the House of Lords, curring with the increased authority of the House And suited to of Commons, and the enlarged influence of the more popular press, appears to have been necessary for the safe development of our free institutions, in which the popular element has been continually advancing. The same cause has also tended to render the peers more independent of the influence of the Crown. To that influence they are naturally exposed: but the larger their number, and the more various their interests, the less effectually can it be exercised while the Crown is no longer able to secure their adherence by grants of land, offices, and pensions. erence to apart party. These changes in the constitution of the House of Peers must further be considered in their relations to The peerage party. The general object which successive min- viewed in refisters have had in view in creating peers, from the reward of special public services, vor their own adherents, and strengthen their Parliamentary interest. It follows that the House of Lords has undergone considerable changes, from time to time, in its political composition. This result has been the more remarkable whenever one party has enjoyed power for a great length of time. In such cases the number of creations has sometimes been sufficient to alter the balance of parties; or, if this cause alone has not sufficed, it has been aided by political conversions, the not uncommon fruit of ministerial prosperity. The votes of the bishops have also been usually recorded with that party, to whom they owed their elevation. Hence it was that, on the accession of George Entire change nections at different periods. III., - when the domination of the great Whig of party con families had lasted for nearly half a century, the House of Lords was mainly Whig. Hence it was that, on the accession of William IV., when the Tory rule - commenced under Lord Bute, strengthened by Lord North, and consolidated by Mr. Pitt- had enjoyed ascendency for even a longer period, the House of Lords was mainly Tory Danger from collisions be tween the Houses. Under such conditions as these, when a ministry, having established a sure majority in the House of Lords, this cause of is overthrown by an Opposition commanding a majority of the House of Commons, the two Houses are obviously in danger of being brought into collision. A dissolution may suddenly change the political character of the House of Commons, and transfer power from one party to another; but a change in the political character of the House of Lords, may be the work of half a century. In the case of Whig administrations since the Reform Act, the creation of a majority in the Upper House, has been a matter of peculiar difficulty. The natural sympathies of the peerage are conservative; and are strengthened by age, property, and connections. A stanch Whig, raised to the Upper House, is often found a doubting, critical, fastidious partisan, sometimes an absentee, and not unfrequently an opponent of his own party. No longer responsible to constituents for his votes, and removed from the liberal associations of a popular assembly, he gradually throws off his political allegiance; and if habit, or an affectation of consistency, still retain him upon the same side of the House, or upon the neutral "cross-benches," his son will probably be found an acknowledged member of the Opposition. Party ties, without patronage, have been slack, and easily broken. The influence While the influence of the Crown was sufficiently great to direct the policy of the country; and while a large of the Crown proportion of the members of the Lower House formerly able to reconcile were the nominees of peers, collisions between the them. two Houses, if not wholly averted, were at least easily accommodated. There had been frequent contests between them, upon matters of privilege. It was not without protracted struggles, that the Commons had established their exclusive right to grant supplies and impose taxes. The two Houses had contended violently in 1675 concerning the appellate jurisdiction of the Lords; they had contended, with not less violence, in 1704, upon the jurisdiction of the Commons, in matters of election; they had quarrelled rudely, in 1770, while insisting upon the exclusion of strangers. But upon general measures of public policy, their differences had been rare and unimportant. George III., by inducing the Lords to reject Mr. Fox's India Bill, in order to overthrow the Coalition ministry, brought them into open collision with the Commons; but harmony was soon restored between them, as the Crown succeeded, by means of a dissolution, in obtaining a large majority in the Lower House. In later times, the Lords opposed themselves to concessions to the Roman Catholics, and to amendments of the Criminal Law, which had been approved by the Commons. For several years, neither the Commons nor the people were sufficiently earnest, to enforce the adoption of those measures: but when public opinion could no longer be resisted, the Lords avoided a collision with the Commons, by acquiescing in measures of which they still disapproved. Since popular opinion has been more independently expressed by the Commons, the hazard of such collisions has been greatly increased. The Commons, deriving their authority directly from the people, have increased in power; and the influences which formerly tended to bring them into harmony with the Lords, have been impaired. Bill of 1831 The memorable events of 1831 and 1832, arising out of the measures for extending the representation of The Reform the people, exposed the authority of the House of rejected by Lords to a rude shock; and even threatened its the Lords. constitution with danger. Never since the days of Cromwell, had that noble assembly known such perils. The Whig ministry having, by a dissolution, secured a large majority of the Commons in favor of their second Reform Bill; its rejection by the Lords was still certain, if the Opposition should put forth their strength. For seventy years, the House of Lords had been recruited from the ranks of the Torv party; and was not less hostile to the Whig ministry, than to Parliament ary reform. The people had so recently pronounced their judgment in favor of the Bill, at the late election, that it now became a question, who should prevail, the Lords or the Commons ? The answer could scarcely be doubtful. The excited people, aroused by a great cause, and encouraged by bold and earnest leaders, were not likely to yield. The Lords stood alone. The king's ministers, the House of Commons, and the people were demanding that the Bill should pass. Would the Lords venture to reject it? If they should bend to the rising storm, their will indeed would be subdued, - their independent judgment set aside: but public danger would be averted. Should they brave the storm, and stand up against its fury, they could still be overcome by the royal prerogative. not Already, before the second reading, no less than sixteen new peers had been created, in order to correct, in some measure, the notorious disproportion between the two parties in that house; but a majority was still known to be adverse to the Bill. A further creation of peers, in order to insure the success of the measure, was then in contemplation; but the large number that would be required for that purpose, the extreme harshness of such a course, and the hope ill-founded that many of the peers would yield to the peril of the times, discouraged ministers from yet advising this last resource of power. The result was singular. The peers hesitated, wavered, and paused. Many of them, actuated by fear, by prudence, by policy, or by public spirit, refrained from voting. But the bishops, either less alarmed, or less sensible of the imminent danger of the occasion, mustered in unusual force. Twenty-two were present, of whom twenty-one voted against the Bill. Had they supported ministers, the Bill would have been saved: but now they had exactly turned the scale,- as Lord Grey had warned them that they might, and the Bill was lost by a majority of forty one. The House of Commons immediately supported the min |