House. It has been supposed that the bishops' baronies arise from the tenure of their lands; the analogy, however, of other European kingdoms in early times favours the idea that the magnates of the Church were admitted to the national councils in virtue of their ecclesiastical dignities.

the

THE LORDS TEMPORAL. The Lords Temporal comprise dignities of duke, marquis, earl, viscount, and baron. The ducal title, although one of great importance in early times, was first recognised in England by the creation of the Black Prince as Duke of Cornwall by Edward III. The rank of marquess is originally derived from the office of governor and custodian of the marches or borders, and bears date as a title from the reign of Richard II. The earls derive their name from the Danish eorle, signifying "noble by birth" (May), which was used as a title of dignity prior to the Norman Conquest. After that date the alternative title of count came into use until the revival of the original title. The rank of viscount also dates back to remote times, and was used to distinguish the degree next subordinate to count. The title, however, was not conferred in England until the reign of Henry VI. The barons are the oldest dignities in the peerage, as the title is to be found in the records of the Saxon dynasties. Under the feudal system following the Conquest, they became the tenants in capite of the king, and were so summoned, as before stated, to Parliament. The oldest barony now in existence is that of Le Despencer, which dates from 1264.

THE HEREDITARY SYSTEM. The unlimited power of the Crown to add to the House of Lords has at times been looked upon as dangerous to its independence. As long, however, as a peerage is necessarily hereditary, the permanence of the creation and the necessary succession of an heir who will be wholly independent, would restrain a Sovereign or Minister from any very lavish exercise of this power. In the reign of Queen Anne, the Ministry of Harley and Bolingbroke created twelve peers at once, to overcome the opposition to the Government in the House of Lords. After the accession of the House of Hanover, this opposition became the dominant party, and proposed, by the Peerage Bill of 1719, to make such abuse of power impossible for the future, by prohibiting all future creations except on the extinction of existing peerages. This Bill was rejected by the House of Commons, as calculated to convert the House of Lords into a clan oligarchy, severed from the rest of the nation, and no similar proposal has ever been renewed. The action, however, against which it was directed has never been repeated, though threats of the kind were thrown out at the time of the Reform struggle of 1832.

The House of Lords is sometimes rather

invidiously referred to as consisting wholly of great landowners. They necessarily form its majority, and it is well that they should thus be secured an organ in the State. But among its most prominent and active members are many men who have been themselves raised to the Peerage for public services or professional eminence. Of its present members 192 have had Parliamentary experience as members of the House of Commons. It is constantly recruited from the ablest men of the time (as is shown by the fact that upwards of two-thirds of the existing peerages have been created since 1820) from the law, the army, the navy, and the professional and commercial classes; So that а

seat

in the House is a possible inheritance for the descendant of any English family. Its Constitutional position was well understood by the member of the House of Commons who said, with reference to the Peerage Bill of 1719, that while he had himself no aspiration to a Peerage, he would never bar his remote posterity from the chance of attaining to it. Those who constantly protest against any exercise of its powers in rejecting or modifying the decisions of a majority of the House of Commons, may be fairly challenged, unless they advocate the unlimited power of a single Chamber, to produce a solution of that most difficult of political problems, how to create a new Upper Chamber for the first time. The late Lord Beaconsfield's speech at Manchester in 1872 well illustrates the advantages afforded by the House of Lords, as it at present exists, and the difficulties which would attend any change. He said "For a century, ever since the establishment of the Government of the United States, all great authoritiesAmerican, German, French, Italian-have agreed in this, that a Representative Government is impossible without a Second Chamber. However anxious foreign countries have been to enjoy this advantage, that anxiety has only been equalled by the difficulty which they have found in fulfilling their object. How is a Second Chamber to be constituted? By nominees of the Sovereign power? What influence can be exercised by a Chamber of nominees? It is a proverb of general disrespect. Are they to be supplied by popular election? In what manner are they to be elected? If by the same constituency as the popular body, what claim have they, under such circumstances, to criticise or to control the decisions of that body? If they are to be elected by a more select body, qualified by a higher franchise, there immediately occurs the objection, why should the elected majority be governed by the elected minority? The United States of America were fortunate in finding a solution of this difficulty; but the United States of America had elements to deal with which never occurred before, and never probably will occur again, because they formed their illustrious Senate from the materials that were offered them by the

37 Sovereign States. We, gentlemen, have the House of Lords, an assembly which has historically developed itself in an ancient nation, and periodically adapted itself to the wants and necessities of the times."

PROCEDURE.

The usual hour of meeting of the House of Lords is at a quarter past four o'clock. It may proceed to business if at least three peers are present; but no question can be decided on a division unless thirty peers at least take part in the vote.

The stages through which a Bill has to pass in the House of Lords correspond with those in the House of Commons. But in the Upper House the first reading of a Bill is usually a matter of course; discussion is reserved for the second reading, when the principle of the Bill is decided upon. If the second reading be carried, it is not usual to raise the question again on going into Committee, or by any amendment going to the root of the matter. But a Bill which has passed the House of Commons 18 often read a second time with the understanding that large alterations are to be made in Committee, limiting the scope of the Bill, though not defeating its object. A Bill after passing the second reading, or after passing through Committee of the whole House, may be referred to a Standing Committee, as in the House of Commons. These Committees are composed of not more than 40 nor less than 20 peers, and all are nominated by the Committee of Selection. The quorum is twelve, and the procedure is the same as in a Select Committee. When a decisive majority has declared in favour of a Bill, the third reading is not often opposed, unless in consequence of something that has occurred in Committee or on the Report of Amendments. But if the majority has been so small as to leave the real opinion of the House uncertain, there is nothing irregular in a fresh trial of strength on the third reading, which sometimes results in the loss of the Bill.

The Lords' amendments on a House of Commons Bill, and vice versa, may be accepted, rejected, or modified by the other House. If the two Houses cannot agree, a Conference may be held between members on both sides. For many years, however, such Conferences have been wholly formal, no discussion taking place. Written reasons are delivered for the course adopted. The difference, therefore, must be settled by concession on one or both sides. If both parties persist in disagreement, the measure is dropped.

The Lord Chancellor (who is usually, but not of necessity a peer) presides in debates as Speaker, but without the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons as guardian of order. His position as a member of the Ministry of the day would be incompatible with that of an arbiter between parties, and as he is frequently a new member of the House, he would not necessarily have the experience of a speaker of

the House of Commons. Order is maintained by the House at large, which decides by acclamation, or, in extreme cases, by vote, as to which of two speakers be heard. By an alteration of the standing orders made in 1889, peers are at liberty to refer to each other in debate by name.

The Chairman of Committees, who is elected by the House for each Parliament, exercises full authority on points of order in Committee. The Lord Chancellor has not, as is sometimes supposed, a casting vote when the House is equally divided. His vote is taken first on every division. If the numbers be equal, he has to declare that the "Not Contents " have it, the rule being" Semper praesumitur pro negante."

Though Bills granting money to the Crown, or imposing pecuniary penalties, pass through the same stages as others, the privileges of the House of Commons have been, since 1678, held to preclude their being either originated or amended by the Lords. The older principle excluded their origination, but not their amendment. In recent times, however, the restriction has been so fully established, that in 1865 a proposed alteration by the House of Lords in the local authority which under the Cattle Plague Bill was to have power to assign pecuniary compensation for cattle slauglitered, was withdrawn on the ground of privilege. The right of rejecting a money Bill is theoretically admitted; but the rejection, in 1860, of the Paper Duty Repeal Bill by the House of Lords led in the following Session to the inclusion of all the financial measures of the year in a single Bill, which could only be accepted or rejected en bloc. This practice has since prevailed.

The House of Commons has sometimes endeavoured to force measures upon the House of Lords by "tacking extraneous matters upon a Bill of Supply, which must either be accepted, or if rejected would cause public inconvenience. This practice has always been regarded as an abuse, but was successfully resorted to under William III., in the case of a Bill revoking the grants of forfeited lands in Ireland. It was also attempted a little later with regard to an "Occasional Conformity Bill," but has been acknowledged to be unconstitutional, and is never now proposed. To mitigate some practical inconveniences in the case of Bills of a partly financial character, they are occasionally passed through the House of Lords with "red-letter clauses " explaining the pecuniary provisions intended. These clauses are struck out before the Bill leaves the House, and re-inserted in the Commons.

CREA

TION.

HEIRS-8. son; b. brother; u. uncle; n. nephew; c. cousin; g. grandson; d. daughter.

In the second column (I.) and (S.) denote Irish and Scotch peerages respectively, and a date in the same column is that of the creation

TITLE.

of the second peerage.

Sandringham Hall, Lynn.

Clarence House, St. James',
S.W.

Bagshot House, Surrey.
(Residence, Bombay.)
Claremont, Esher, Surrey.

Gmünden, Austria.

Gloucester House, Park Lane, W.

H.R.H. George W. F. C., K.G., K.T., K.P., G.C.H., 1819 G.C.B., G.C.S.I., G.C.M.G., G.C.I.E., P.C. Field Marshal Commanding in-Chief

SEE.

NAME.

BORN.

APP'D.

1883 Head Master Wellington, 1858-72; Chaplain to the Queen, Lambeth Palace, S.E.
1873-77; Canon and Chancellor of Lincoln, 1872-76;|
Bishop of Truro, 1877-83.

1863 Provost of Queen's College, Oxford; Chaplain to the Bishopthorpe Palace, York. Queen, 1860-61; Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, 1861-63.