in England, and consequently the growth of the baronage and the establishment of parliamentary government in Ireland proceeded on parallel lines with the changes which occurred in England. Until the reign of Henry VIII. Irish Peerage. the Irish were without representation in parliament, but gradually the Irish were admitted, and by the creation of new parliamentary counties and boroughs were enabled to elect representatives. In 1613 the whole country shared in representation (Ball's Legislative Systems of Ireland). just as James I. had added many members to the Scottish peerage, so he increased the number of Irish peers.
In 1800 the Union of Great Britain and Ireland abolished the parliament of Ireland By the Act of Union the Irish peers became entitled to elect twenty-eight of their number to represent them in the House of Lords. The election is for life, and only those peers are entitled to vote at elections of representative peers who have proved their right of succession to the satisfaction of the lord chancellor, who issues his notice to that effect after each individual proof. The names of such peers are added to the voting-roll of the peerage, and when voting papers are distributed—the Irish peers do not meet for election purposes as do those of Scotland—they are sent only to those peers who have proved their right to vote. If any claim to the right to vote is rejected by the lord chancellor the claimant must prove his case before the Committee for Privileges (barony of Graves, 1907). When an Irish peer has been elected a representative peer he receives, as a matter of course, a writ of summons at the beginning of each parliament. The great bulk of the Irish peerage owes its existence to creations during the last two centuries, only seven of the existing peerages dating back beyond the 17th century; of the rest twenty-two were created during the year of Union, and thirty-three have been added since that date. Some hundred or more years ago ministers found the Irish peerage a useful means of political reward, in that it was possible to bestow a title of honour, with all its social prestige, and yet not to increase the numbers of the House of Lords
On the death of a representative peer of Scotland or Ireland a vacancy occurs and a new election takes place, but in accordance with modern practice promotion to a United Kingdom peerage does not vacate the holder's representative position (Mays Parliamentary Practice, p. 11 n.). Scottish and Irish peers if representative, possess all the privileges of peerage and parliament enjoyed by peers of the United Kingdom; if non-representative all privileges of peerage, except the right to a writ of summons to attend parliament and to be present at and vote in the trial of peers. A Scottish peer, if non-representative, is in the anomalous position of being disabled from serving his country in either house of parliament, but an Irish peer may sit for any House of Commons constituency out of Ireland, though while a member of the Commons his peerage privileges abate.
Though many peers possess more than one peerage, and frequently of more than one country, only that title is publicly used which is first in point of precedence. It was once argued that whenever a barony by writ came into the possession of a person already a peer of higher rank, the higher peerage “attracted” or overshadowed the lower, which thenceforth followed the course of descent of the dignity which had attracted it. This doctrine is now exploded and cannot be regarded as applying to any case except that of the Crown (Baronies of Fitzwalter, 1660, and De Ros, 1666; Collins's Claims, 168, 261). Every peerage descends according to the limitations prescribed in its patent of creation or its charter, and where these are non-existent (as in the case of baronies by writ) to heirs-general. (See Abeyance)
In dealing with English dignities it is essential to realize
the difference between a mere title of honour and a peerage.
The Crown as the fountain of honour is capable of conferring
upon a subject not only any existing title of honour, but
may even invent one for the purpose So James I instituted
an order of hereditary knights which he termed baronets,
and Edward VII. created the duchess of Fife “Princess
Royal”—a life dignity. The dignities of prince of Wales,
earl marshal and lord great chamberlain have been
Creations must be according
to law.
for centuries hereditary, and though of high court and
social precedence, of themselves confer no right to
a seat in the House of Lords—they are not peerages.
The grant of a peerage is a very different matter, its holder
becomes thereby a member of the Upper House of Parliament,
and therefore the prerogative of the Crown in creating
such an office of honour must be exercised strictly in
accordance with the law of the land. The Crown's prerogative
is limited in several directions. The course of descent must be
known to the law; and so, in the first place, it follows that a peer
cannot be created for life with a denial of succession to his
descendants (unless it be as one of the lords of appeal in ordinary
under the acts of 1876 and 1887). The courses of descent of
modern patents are invariably so marked out as ultimately
to fix the peerage in some male line according to the custom of
primogeniture, though the immediate successor of the first holder
may be a woman or even a stranger in blood. The following
instances may be cited; Amabell, Baroness Lucas, was in 1816
created Countess de Grey with a limitation to the heirs-male of
her sister; a nephew afterwards succeeded her and the earldom
is now held by the marquess of Ripon. Other courses of descent
known to the law are as follows: Fee simple, which probably
operates as if to heirs-general, earldoms of Oxford (1155) and
Norfolk (1135), both probably now in abeyance; and Bedford
(1367), extinct; to a second son, the eldest being alive, dukedom
of Dover (1708), extinct, and earldom of Cromartie (1861) called
out of abeyance in 1895; a son-in-law and his heirs-male by the
daughter of the first grantee, earldom of Northumberland (1747);
to an elder daughter and her heirs-male, earldom of Roberts
(1901); to an elder or younger brother and his heirs-male,
viscount of Kitchener (1902) and barony of Grimthorpe (1886).
It is, however, not lawful for the Crown to make what is called
a shifting limitation to a peerage, i.e. one which might vest a
peerage in an individual, and then on a certain event happening
(e.g. his succession to a peerage of higher rank) shift it from him
to the representative of some other line. Such a limitation
was held illegal in the Buckhurst case (1864). A peerage may
not be limited to the grantee and “his heirs-male for ever.”
Such a grant was that of the earldom of Wiltes in 1398. The
original grantee died without issue, but left a male heir-at-law,
whose descendants in 1869 claimed the earldom, but the original
limitation was held invalid.
There is no limitation on the power of the Crown as to the number of United Kingdom peerages which may be created. As to Scotland, the Act of Union with that country operates to prevent any increase in the number of Scottish peerages, and consequently there have been no creations since 1707, with the result that the Scottish peerage, as a separate order, is gradually approaching extinction. The Irish peerage is supposed always to consist of one hundred exclusively Irish peers, and the Crown has power to grant Irish peerages up to the limit. When the limit is reached no more peerages, may be granted until existing ones become extinct or their holders succeed to United Kingdom peerages. Only four lords of appeal in ordinary may hold office at any one time. The number of archbishops and bishops capable of sitting in the House of Lords is fixed by various statutes at twenty-six, but, as pointed out previously, the spiritual lords are not now regarded as peers.
Since party government became the rule, the new peerages have usually been created on the recommendation of the prime minister of the day, though the Crown, especially in considering the claims of royal blood, is believed in some instances to take its own course; and constitutionally such action is entirely legal. By far the Growth in Numbers. greater number of peerage honours granted during the last two centuries have been rewards for political services. Usually these services are well known, but there exists several instances in which the reasons for conferring the honour have not been quite clear. Until the reign of George III. the peerage was
