THE CREATION OF PEERS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1089, 30 March 1911, Page 5

THE CREATION OF PEERS.

INTERESTING PAGES FROM HIS.TORY.' No Bill limiting-the Royal prerogative can be introduced in' Parliament without the consent of the King. "The prerogatives of the Crown, in connexion with the Legislature," says "May's Parliamentary Practice," "are of paramount importance. The legal existence of Parliament results from the exercise or tho royal prerogative. As 'supreme governor, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal,' the King virtually appoints the archbishops and bishops, who,-, as 'lords spiritual,' form one of the three estates of the realm. .All.titles of honour are the gift of the Crown, and thus the 'lords temporal' also, who form the remainder of the Upper House, have been created by Royal prerogative, and their number may be increased at pleasure. In early limes the to' attend Parliament depended entirely on the royal, will; but their hereditary titles long since been held to confer a right'to sit in Parliament.' .-..'.■ Limitation Defeated In 1711. •The limitation of the Royal prerogative in the creation.of peers .was proposed , by, the Stanhope Ministry nearly two hundred years ago. • In a measure introduced in. 1717 it was provided that the existing number of fhe H6use of Lords was not to be increased beyond six, unless in the case of royal princes; future, peerages were to bo limited to the granI tees and their immediate heirs; new creations were only to bo made in cases of extinction; and the sixteen representative peers of Scotland were to be replaced by twenty-five hereditary peers nominated by the King. .These provisions were carried in the House of Lords by a large majority, but were strenuously opposed by Walpole in the Commons, and it may be doubted," writes Earl Stanhope the historian, "if any harangue of so much eloquence and effect, had ever yet been delivered in the House," In opening his speech Walpole said: "Among the Romans the Temple of Fame was placed behind the Temple of Virtue, to denote that there was no coming to the Temple of Fame but through that of Virtue. But if this Bill is passed into a law, one of the most powerful incentives to virtue would be taken away, since there would be no arriving at honour but through the winding-sheet of an old decrepit lord or the grave of an extinct noble family. . ... Tho great unanimity with which .this Bill has passed the Lords ought to inspire some jealousy in the Commons; for it must be obvious that whatever the Lords gain must be acquired at the expense of the Commons, and the diminution of the regal prerogative; and that in all disputes between the Lords and the Commons, when the. House of Lords is immutable, the Commons must, sooner or later, be obliged to recede." Mainly in consequence of' Walpole's speech, the Bill was thrown out by.a majority of 92. The Only Special Creation. The only occasion on which peers were actually created in mass to carry a measure was in the reign of Queen Anne. On' December 31, J7ll, in order to secure a majority favourable to the Government, Oxford and Bolingbroke gazetted twelve new peers. Two days later they entered the House, and took their seals, and the motion in question was curried by a majority of one. What Happened in 1832. The threatened creation of peers in 1832 to secure the passing of the Reform Bill has been much quoted during the prosent controversy. The following particulars ar"' given in Molesworth's "History of the Reform Bill":-On May 17, 1832, Earl Grey and Lord Brougham waited on the King, who received them with evident ill-luimour, and, contrary to his usual practice, kept them standing during tho interview. ■ But he at once gave his consent to the creation of as many peers as the Ministry might think necessary to enable them to carry the Reform Bill through tho House of Lords, with tba understanding that his power was not

to be exercised until every means of avoiding the necessity of it had been tried—a condition which the' two lords readily agreed to, as. they and all their colleagues were extremely averse to the proposed step, and many of them would even have abandoned a great part of their Bill, if they dared, rather than have recourse to it. The Royal Promise. This having been. arranged, and it being understood that the Ministers retained their offices, the King asked, "Is there anything more?" "Sire," raid Lord Brougham, "1 have one further request lo make." "What," replied the 'King, "have I not conceded enough?" "Yes," replied the Chancellor; "1. do not wish to ask any fresh concessions of your Majesty, but simply to request you to put in writing the promise you have made us." The King was evidently irritated at a demand which seemed to imply a want of confidence in his promise, but he also felt that lie could not resist. After a moment's hesitation, he took a small pieco of paper, on which he. wrote the following words, when ho then handed to Lord Brougham: "The King grants permission to Earl Grey and to his Chancellor, Lord Brougham, to create such a number of peers as will bo sufficient to ensure the passing of the Reform Bill—first calling peers' eldest sons—Signed, William R. Windsor, May 17, 1832." The same evening Sir Herbert Taylor, who had been present at this interview, wrote the following circular note to the most active of the opposition lords: "My dear Lord,—l am honoured with his Majesty's commands to acquaint your lordship that all difficulties to the arrangements in progress will be obviated by a declaration in the House of Peers tonight, from a sufficient number of peers, that in consequent of the present state of affairs, they have come' to the resolution of dropping their opposition to the Reform Bill, so that it may pass without delay, and as nearly as possible in its present shape.—l have the honour to be, yours sincerely, Herbert Taylor." This missive proved effectual. The Bill was read a third time in the House of Lords (June i, 1832) by 10G to 22; and the royal assent was given by commission a fewdays afterwards.