was

enthusiastically loyal orator1 at Nottingham called on the lieges to rally round their sovereign 'like the barons at Runnymede.' This style of rallying discontinued after the wars of the Roses, which made sad havoc amongst the peerage. Only twenty-nine temporal peers were summoned to the first Parliament of Henry VII. They numbered 59 at the death of Elizabeth, 139 the year after the Restoration, 168 at the death of Queen Anne, exclusive of the 16 representative peers of Scotland, 174 at the accession of George III. In the first ten years of his reign forty-two peers were created, or raised to a higher order in the peerage. Lord North created or promoted about thirty. In 1801, when Mr. Pitt temporarily left office, he had created or promoted 140 British peers.2 The House of Lords now consists of nearly five hundred members, including the episcopal bench and the representative peers; yet the augmentation has hardly kept pace with the increase of wealth and population.

The silken barons, who replaced the iron barons, were most of them the creatures of the Crown, and the House of Lords could hardly be said to possess an independent existence or will of its own till after the Great Rebellion. When it began to play a leading part in government and legislation, its leaning towards the Crown was influenced by the frequent attendance of the King at its sittings. Charles the Second used to say they were as good as a comedy.

In describing the debate (November 20, 1680) on the Bill for dissolving his Majesty's marriage with

1 The late Nathaniel Goldsmid, an Oxonian and barrister of some note in his time, much esteemed by his friends. He was also reported to have declaimed against the heroes of the July Revolution as a set of cowardly fellows, who, instead of standing manfully in front of their barricades, slink behind them.' But this flight has likewise been attributed to a more distinguished person who still adorns the legislature.

2 Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament.' By Sir T. Erskine May, K.C.B.

Catharine of Portugal, on the ground of her barrenness, Barillon writes: One of the peers represented that the remedy of divorce was very uncertain, it not being sure that the King would have children by another wife. Upon this Shaftesbury rose, and pointing to the King, who is almost always by the fireplace, said: "Can it be doubted from the King's mien that he is in a condition to have children? He is not more than fifty. I know people who are more than sixty and do not despair of progeny." All the House burst out laughing, and the King laughed with the rest.' There is a French maxim old enough to have been in Shaftesbury's mind-That a man marrying at seventy has a fair chance of progeny, and marrying at eighty is quite sure.'

Duke of have for Codsfish, The Lord

Charles was standing by the fire during a debate on the Declaration of Indulgence, when the York whispered to him: What a rogue you a Lord Chancellor.' And the King replied: what a fool you have for a Lord Treasurer.' Chancellor was Shaftesbury, and the Lord Treasurer Clifford.

The first day Shaftesbury presided as Lord Chancellor, he gave occasion to a scene by telling the Duke of York, who had taken his seat on the right hand of the throne, that his proper place, as only heir presumptive, was on the left. The Duke submitted with an exceedingly bad grace, exclaiming: My Lord, you are a rascal and a villain.' To which Shaftesbury calmly replied: 'I am much obliged to your royal highness for not calling me likewise a coward and a papist.' A curious scene in the Lords is recorded by Pepys as occurring in 1667:

'Thence I up to the Lords' House to enquire for my Lord Bellasis, and there hear how at a conference this morning between the two Houses, my Lord Buckingham leaning rudely over my Lord Marquis Dorchester, my Lord Dor

chester removed his elbow. Duke of Buckingham asked him whether he was uneasy. Dorchester replied, "Yes; and that he durst not do this were he anywhere else." Buckingham replied, "Yes, he would, and that he was a better man than himself." Dorchester said that he lyed. With this Buckingham struck off his hat, and took him by his periwigg, and pulled it aside, and held him. My Lord Chamberlain and others interposed, and upon coming into the House, the Lords did order them both to the Tower, whither they are to go this afternoon. . . This day's work will bring the Lieutenant of the Tower 3501.'

The royal practice of attending the sittings of the Lords is thus described by Burnet, writing of 1669:

'To prevent all trouble from the Lords, the King was advised to go and be present at all their debates. Lord Lauderdale valued himself to me on this advice, which he said he gave. At first the King sat decently on the throne, though even this was a great restraint on the freedom of debate; which had some effect for awhile. Though afterwards many of the Lords seemed to speak with more boldness, because they said one heard it to whom they had no other access but in that place, and they took the more liberty because what they said could not be reported wrong. The King, who was often weary of time, and did not know how to get round the day, liked the going to the House as a pleasant diversion. So he went constantly, and he quickly left the throne and stood by the fire, which drew a crowd about him, that broke all the decency of that House. For before that time every Lord sat regularly in his place, but the King's coming broke the order of their sittings, as became

senators.

'The King's going thither had a much worse effect. Thus he became a common solicitor, not only in public affairs, but even in private matters of justice. He would in a little time have gone round the House and spoken to every man that he thought worth speaking to, and he was apt to do that upon the solicitation of any of the Ladies in favour, or of any that had credit.'

It would appear that when their Lordships were sit

ting in their judicial capacity, they were exposed to a species of direct influence not less dangerous than that of the Crown. In the debate of October 20, 1675, Lord Shaftesbury said :

Pray, my Lords, forgive me if on this occasion I put you in mind of committee dinners, and the scandal of it-those ladies that attended all causes. It was come to that pass that men even hired or borrowed of their friends handsome sisters or daughters to deliver their petitions. But for all this, I must say that your judgments have been sacred, unless in one or two causes, and those we owe most to that bench (the episcopal) from whom we now apprehend the most danger.'

We learn from the Parliamentary Debates' that on Friday, January 12, 1711, 'the House of Lords having adjourned, to give time for the presentation of an address, resumed as soon as the Queen (who designed to hear the debate incognito) was come to the House.' Meagre as is the report of the ensuing debate, it was obviously a spirited and highly interesting one, in which Lord Somers, Lord Cowper, Lord Halifax, Lord Nottingham, the Duke of Argyll, the Duke of Leeds, Lord Godolphin, the Duke of Marlborough, and Lord Peterborough took part. Much of it turned on the distinction between Ministry' and Cabinet Council,' terms then confessedly ambiguous. The Duke of Argyll said: He thought all Ministers were of the Cabinet Council, but that all the Cabinet Council were not Ministers.' Lord Peterborough argued that the word "Cabinet Council" was indeed too copious, for they disposed of all: they fingered the money: they meddled with the war: they meddled with things they did not understand: so that sometimes there was no "Minister" in the Cabinet Council.'

Few things in our history,' says Macaulay, 'are more curious than the origin and growth of the power now possessed by the Cabinet. During many years

old-fashioned politicians continued to regard the Cabinet as an unconstitutional and dangerous Board. Nevertheless, it constantly became more and more important. It at length drew to itself the chief executive power, and has now been regarded during several generations as an essential part of our polity. Yet, strange to say, it still continues to be altogether unknown to the law!' 1 Stranger still, neither Macaulay nor any one else has been able to specify the period when the Cabinet was first nominated by the Prime Minister or constituted as now. William III. was his own prime minister. The sudden and critical appearance of the Dukes of Argyll and Somerset in Queen Anne's last Council, when they were thanked by the Lord Treasurer (Shrewsbury) for coming uninvited, is well known. They came as Privy Councillors. No Prime Minister was formally nominated at the accession of George I. A new Privy Council (consisting only of 33 members) was formed, of which Lord Nottingham was declared president; and the chief conduct of affairs was left to a cabinet council or junto, composed of the Duke of Marlborough, the Earls of Nottingham and Sunderland, the Lords Halifax, Townshend, and Somers, and General Stanhope. Walpole, who was to lead the House of Commons, and who gradually became the most influential member of the administration, was not even a member of this junto.

Smollett, in his opening chapter on the reign of George II., distinctly states that the supreme direction of affairs was not yet engrossed by a single Minister.' Lord Townshend had the principal control (subject to royal interference) of foreign affairs, whilst Walpole was paramount at home. It was by personal influence rather than by official right as Premier, that Walpole obtained the monopoly of power, which he consolidated by a well-organised system of corruption. Henry 1 History,' c. ii.