‘Too Wild to Succeed’: The Occasional Conformity Bills and the Attempts by the House of Lords to Outlaw the Tack in the Reign of Anne*

By the late 17th century it had been largely established as a part of the ‘constitution’ that the house of commons played the leading role in proposing financial legislation and that the house of lords by convention could not amend such bills, but only accept or reject them. From the late 1670s, the practice developed of the Commons ‘tacking’ money or supply bills to other, controversial legislation, to try to ensure that the Lords would pass the whole bill. This underhand proceeding sometimes worked, but at other times the Lords amended the non‐monetary parts in such a way as to render the bill unacceptable to the Commons, but such actions sometimes resulted in the loss of financial legislation necessary for the king's government. From the 1690s, the whig‐dominated Lords attempted to ‘outlaw’ tory‐backed tacking by protesting at its unparliamentary nature. This culminated in a formal declaration by the House in 1702 of the unconstitutionality of tacking. The last major attempt at tacking took place over the Occasional Conformity Bills of 1702–4. The final bill of 1704 essentially failed, however, because of the party strengths in the Lords when the tories were outvoted by the whigs. The Lords, however, continued to condemn tacking until at least 1709.     

A Changing House: The Life Peerages Act 1958*

The year 2008 marks the 50th anniversary of the Life Peerages Act 1958. The first life peer to obtain his letters patent was Lord Fraser of Lonsdale (Sir William Jocelyn Ian Fraser) on 1 August 1958. The first life peer to be introduced in the Lords was Lord Parker of Waddington (Sir Hubert Lister Parker) on 21 October 1958. The first woman peer to receive her letters patent dated 8 August 1958 was Baroness Wootton of Abinger (Barbara Frances Wootton), and the first woman peer to take her seat in the Lords was Baroness Swanborough (Dame Stella Isaacs, marchioness of Reading), ahead of Baroness Wootton on 21 October 1958. This article gives an overview of the background to life peerages and women peers before 1958, including the importance of two peerage cases, the Wensleydale case 1856 and the Rhondda case 1922. It does so with particular reference to women and the house of lords. It also considers the passage of the act itself; the initial life peers created in 1958; final equality between men and women peers achieved by the Peerage Act 1963; and the impact of life peers on the House since 1958.     

Politicians, Parishes and Police: The Failure of the 1812 Night Watch Bill

The public outcry heard in the wake of the Ratcliffe Highway murders of December 1811 was muted by May 1812 when the 1812 Night Watch Bill died in the house of commons. Responding to the moral panic following the murder of two East End families, the home office gathered considerable information and input from the professional police magistrates and local authorities before proposing the reform of parochial night watch in much of metropolitan London. Nevertheless the bill ran into concerted opposition on grounds of practicality as well as of ideology. A close study of its trajectory through parliament illuminates the role of parliament as a broker for conflicting demands emanating from differing concepts of the public good. The failure of the Night Watch Bill adds significantly to our understanding of the genesis of legislative initiatives, calling into question whether it is possible to distinguish accurately whether particular bills originated from back- or front-bench activity as well as to our knowledge of the relationship between parliamentary activity, ministerial objectives and public opinion.     

Black Rod and the Office of Usher of the Parliament Chamber

The gentleman usher of the black rod has long been acknowledged as an officer of the house of lords. Yet he was in origin an officer of the order of the Garter with no necessary connection with parliament. This note aims to throw light on the process whereby this association came about. By 1509, the house of lords had the services of an usher of the parliament chamber, a post always held in conjunction with an office in the royal household. By 1558, this post was being exercised by one of the gentlemen ushers daily waiters, who had been granted the office of black rod as an additional perquisite in 1554. From this point it became customary for the offices of black rod, daily waiter and usher of the parliament chamber to be held by one man. This association was broken in 1620, when the then usher relinquished the office of daily waiter but retained his parliamentary functions together with the office of black rod. In 1631, a decree was promulgated annexing the office of black rod to that of one of the gentlemen ushers daily waiters but it was only from 1660 that this became fully effective.     

Heir Not Apparent: Douglas Hailsham,the Role of the House of Lords,and the Succession to the Conservative Leadership 1928–31*

The moment that Lord Curzon was passed over and Stanley Baldwin succeeded Andrew Bonar Law as prime minister in 1923 is generally regarded as a turning point in British political history. From this time it appeared that members of the house of lords were barred from leading political parties and becoming prime minister. In an age of mass democracy it was deemed unacceptable for the premier to reside in an unelected and largely emasculated chamber. This understanding is seemingly confirmed by the career of the Conservative politician, Douglas Hogg, 1st Viscount Hailsham. Notwithstanding a late entry into political life, he was regarded as a potential successor to Baldwin. His acceptance of a peerage to become lord chancellor in 1928 has been seen as the moment when Hailsham's claims to lead the Conservative party ended. But although Hailsham never became Conservative leader, his experience undermines the suggestion that peers were unable to lead political parties in inter‐war Britain. Despite his position in the Lords, his chances of succeeding Baldwin never vanished. The crisis in Baldwin's leadership after the loss of the 1929 general election and the lack of a suitable successor in the Commons created the circumstances in which leadership from the Lords by a man of Hailsham's ability could be contemplated. Hailsham's continuing prominence within the Conservative ranks and specifically his contributions to the party during the years 1929–31, together with the thoughts of high‐ranking Conservative contemporaries, make it clear that he very nearly emerged as Baldwin's successor at this time.     

Change in Order to Conserve: Explaining the Decision to Introduce the 1958 Life Peerages Act

The introduction of life peers in 1958 represented the 20th century's most significant change in the composition of the house of lords, until the removal of (most) hereditary peers in 1999. Yet the 1958 reform was introduced by a Conservative government which was under no discernible pressure to do so, least of all by its own back benchers. Yet the Conservative leadership in both houses of parliament decided to seize the initiative on house of lords reform, partly to enable the house of lords to discharge its political responsibilities more effectively, thereby preventing it from atrophying, and partly to pre-empt more extreme reform by a future Labour government. Yet having agreed to undertake such a reform, senior Conservatives encountered a range of often unforeseen constitutional and political problems, which ensured that the final reform was actually rather less comprehensive than many ministers had originally envisaged.     

The Office of Housekeeper of the House of Lords

This note illustrates one aspect of the process whereby the palace of Westminster evolved from a royal residence into the seat of parliament, explains how the housekeeper of that palace came to be associated with the house of lords and lists the holders of the office from the 16th to the 19th century.     

Resisting the Inevitable? The Parliament Act 1911

The Parliament Act 1911, limiting the veto power of the house of lords, constitutes a major piece of constitutional legislation in the United Kingdom. The vulnerability of the house of lords to major change was long‐standing and to be found in the actions of prime ministers over more than a century. The constitutional crisis leading to the passage of the act was triggered by the rejection of the budget by the Lords in 1909. However, the outcome of the crisis was by no means certain, either in terms of the provisions of the Parliament Bill or its passage. It was neither a product of a clash between peers and people or a principled debate as to the place of the second chamber in the nation's constitutional arrangements. It was the result of the stances taken on the issue that had dominated British politics since the 1880s: Irish home rule. This determined that the house of lords would be subject to change, not in terms of composition but in respect of its powers. In terms of the contemporary relevance of the act, attempts at further changes to the second chamber constitute neither history repeating itself nor unfinished business.     

The Debate in the House of Lords on 'No Peace without Spain', 7 December 1711: A New Source

The debate in the house of lords on 'No Peace without Spain' in December 1711 was the first test of the strength of the administration of Robert Harley, earl of Oxford, in the upper House. Though there are more sources for this debate than is normal for proceedings in the Lords, few can claim to be by eyewitnesses. A newly 'discovered' anonymous letter from an eyewitness found in the papers of the lord great chamberlain's office in the Parliamentary Archives gives a detailed account of this important debate.     

House of Lords Committee Accommodation and Its Use: Restoration and Renewal in the 19th and 20th Centuries*

Following the 1834 fire, the work of house of lords committees continued virtually without interruption, at first in temporary accommodation and, from 1846, in rooms in the new palace designed by Charles Barry. This article charts the history of house of lords committee activity and the varied use of its accommodation at Westminster from 1834 to the present. Major committee work immediately following the fire included an inquiry into prison reform. Barry's accommodation was scantily fitted out, and quickly needed technical and other adaptations. Committees themselves changed too, with the heaviest phase of private bill activity needed for the creation of the railways tailing off by the late 1860s. Following a low point in committee activity between 1940 and 1970 committee work has developed in fits and starts from 1971 onwards. The further expansion of committees following the Jellicoe committee report of 1992 was accommodated by the reform of private bill procedure, which helped free up committee rooms, and in October 2009, the establishment of the Supreme Court meant that the law lords no longer sat judicially in the large committee rooms 1 and 2. Since 2012, however, the further expansion of committee activity has not been matched by an increase in its accommodation.     

Geoffrey Holmes and the House of Lords Reconsidered

The publication of Geoffrey Holmes's British Politics in the Age of Anne , arguably, did more than any other volume of the period to reinvigorate interest in the house of lords in the Augustan period. The upper chamber, which had been largely overlooked by historians such as Sir Lewis Namier and Robert Walcott, had come to be regarded as a very inferior partner to the house of commons, populated by great landowners whose principal interest was to see the furtherance of their kinship networks. Holmes's work demonstrated clearly the central role of the Lords in British political life and revised radically the accepted orthodoxy that family predominated over ideology in the early 18th century. This article seeks to reassess Holmes's contribution to the study of the Lords in the light of research undertaken since the publication of British Politics and to suggest some ways in which Holmes's model, which remains broadly unassailable, might be reshaped.     

‘A Reward for so Meritorious an Action’ ? Lord Hervey's Summons to the House of Lords and Walpole's Management of the Upper Chamber (1727–42)

In 1733 Lord Hervey was summoned to the house of lords early. The move has traditionally been seen as part of an effort by Walpole to increase his ministry's strength in the upper chamber in spite of objections voiced by allies such as the duke of Newcastle. This essay seeks to reconsider the circumstances of the move and question more broadly the management of the Lords during the ‘Robinocracy’.     

Clyve Jones and Parliamentary History

The ‘constitutional revolution’ which occurred in Ireland after 1691 meant that parliamentary management became one of the prime functions of the viceroyalty. Interest focused on the Commons, where supply legislation was drafted. But the upper House, though smaller, less busy, and on the whole more easily managed, could not be ignored, since it could still cause major problems for government. The situation for the incoming ministers in 1714 was problematic, since the Lords had been a tory stronghold, and the ‘Church party’, buttressed by the bishops, remained powerful. The situation was a mirror image of Westminster in 1710, when Robert Harley's tory ministry had to cope with a whig-dominated house of lords. This essay analyses the means by which Lord Lieutenant Sunderland (1714–15), and his successors, Lords Justices Grafton and Galway, brought the Irish upper House under control, constructing a court party with some of the elements which Clyve Jones has identified as having been crucial to Harley's strategy in 1710–14: moderate or non-party men, pensioners and placemen depending on government largess, new episcopal appointments and a block creation of peerages. In Ireland it was the new peers who played the most important part. The whigs were able to make some inroads into the episcopal bench, previously a stronghold of toryism, until the issue of relief for dissenters rekindled anxiety over the maintenance of the ecclesiastical establishment, prefiguring future problems.     

Freudian Slips and Coteries of Vice: The Sexual Offences Act of 1967*

The Sexual Offences Act 1967 made the first inroads to decriminalising men's homosexual sex since buggery was made a capital offence under Henry VIII. The act was drafted at the direction of the 1957 Wolfenden report, but bore the distinct hallmark of individuals of the 1967 parliament. More complex than the dictated product of Wolfenden, and more idiosyncratic than a simple reflection of the social climate of the 1960s, the private member's bill was a Labour initiative with bipartisan support, driven in the Commons by the bizarre motivations of its sponsor, Labour member for Pontypool, Leo Abse. Contrary to popular myths about the aims of decriminalisation, Abse's crusading Freudian motivation was concerned with discouraging, more than allowing, homosexual behaviour. Similarly, ‘privacy’– the gift of the house of lords to sexual regulation – was aimed largely at curtailing men's sexual practices, along with secreting them away. Thus, while the act is typically associated with a general ideal of freedom, much parliamentary motivation concerned control and the prevention of sexual activities.     

Parliament and the Reformation of Edward VI

This article explores the ways in which parliament was used to shape the accelerating protestant reformation undertaken by successive governments under Edward VI. It underlines the significance for constitutional history of Thomas Cromwell's extraordinary promotion of England's parliament to enact the break with Rome and evangelical religious change, and the corresponding use of parliament after Cromwell's fall by conservatives to combat evangelical gains, which at first constituted an obstacle to Protector Somerset's plans. There was a steady deliberate erosion of conservative episcopal votes in the Lords through political man?uvres from 1547; nevertheless, up to late 1549, the weight of conservative opposition in the Lords (without much obvious corresponding traditionalist support in the Commons) dictated crabwise progress in legislation. The convocations of Canterbury and York played a more marginal role in religious change. Somerset's unsuccessful attempt at populist innovation in parliament was, arguably, an important element fuelling the coup against him in autumn 1549. Thereafter, events moved much more rapidly, aided by further compulsory retirements of bishops. Attention is drawn to the frustration felt by some enthusiastic evangelicals at the pace of change dictated by parliament, leading the prominent refugee, Jan ?aski, sarcastically to characterise the Edwardian Reformation in retrospect as ‘parliamentary theology’. From late 1552, divisions between clergy and nobility in the evangelical leadership over plundering of church wealth led to confusion, ill will and the disruption of further progress, even before it was obvious that King Edward was rapidly dying.     

The Dressing and Trimming of the Parliament Chamber, 1509–58

During the mid-Tudor period the royal wardrobe, situated in the parish of St Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe in the City of London, provided items on the eve of the assembly of parliament to make ready for use the Parliament Chamber, that is the house of lords. This process was called the ‘dressyng and trymmyng’ of the Parliament Chamber.     

The Speakership of the House of Lords, 1660–1832

The speakership of the house of lords was a lucrative and prestigious post, held by individuals who either as lord chancellor or lord keeper carried out a range of high-profile and demanding judicial duties. There seems to be a contradiction between this and the time-consuming but largely empty ceremonial duties appropriate to this role in the conduct of business in the theoretically self-regulating house of lords. This article suggests that the apparent insignificance of the Speaker's role was a façade that disguised the chancellor's ability to influence the conduct of business in the Lords as well as to exercise leadership and electoral influence over the membership of the Commons. Nevertheless, the precise level of power that he was able to exercise was mediated by the nature of the political infrastructure within which he operated, his own personal and political skills and his relationships with the crown and its other ministers.     

The Members of the House of Lords and the Hanoverian Succession

This essay examines what happened in August and September 1714, from the death of Queen Anne on 1 August to the swearing-in of the new privy council on 1 October, specifically from the perspective of the membership of the house of lords. It confirms that most members were present in London during this period and active in parliament, the privy council, the regency, and politics generally. Very few were absent without a good reason.