Peerages in the United Kingdom

The Peerage is a system of titles of nobility unique to the United Kingdom and is one part of the British honours system. The term can be used to refer to the entire body of titles in a collective sense, or to a specific title. Historically, all peers (members of the Peerage) were members of the House of Lords (subject to qualifications such as age and citizenship), but such is no longer the case, as peers who hold hereditary titles, as opposed to titles granted for life only, are no longer given automatic seats in the House.

All British honours, including peerage titles, spring from the Sovereign, who is considered the fount of honour. The Sovereign him or herself cannot belong to the Peerage as "the fountain and source of all dignities cannot hold a dignity from himself" (opinion of the House of Lords in the Buckhurst Peerage Case). If one is neither a peer nor the Sovereign, then one is a commoner. Members of a peer's family are also commoners; the British system thus fundamentally differs from the European one, where entire families, rather than individuals, were ennobled. Even members of the Royal Family who do not hold peerage titles are considered commoners.

Some members of the established Church of England are considered peers. These include the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York and twenty-four diocesan bishops who hold seats in the House of Lords. Once they cease to be members of the House, however, they cease to be peers of the realm. Normally, Lords Spiritual (as they are known) are not regarded as peers; an unqualified reference to "peer" should be taken to mean "temporal peer" (that is, a lay peer) unless the context otherwise requires.

Not all British titles are those of peerage. Baronets, though they hold inheritable titles, rank below peers, as do Knights. Even Princes and Princesses are not necessarily considered peers; many Princes, however, are granted peerages separately.

The Temporal Peers

Ranks and Titles

The various ranks of the temporal Peerage are, in descending order of rank, duke, marquess, earl, viscount and baron, whose feminine equivalents are duchess, marchioness, countess, viscountess and baroness respectively. In Scotland, however, "baron" is a feudal rank, and not one of the Peerage. The Scottish equivalent to the English barony is the "Lordship of Parliament," the male holder thereof being known as a Lord of Parliament.

The word "duke" traces its origin to the Latin word dux, meaning leader. "Marquess" comes from the Germanic word "march," referring to the border between England and either Wales or Scotland; the relationship is more evident in the feminine form, marchioness. The term "Earl" derives from the Old Norse jarl, meaning warrior or nobleman. There being no Norse feminine equivalent for the term, the word "countess" comes the , which itself derives from the Latin comes, or "count" (the equivalent of the earl in Europe). Similarly, the term "viscount" comes from the Latin vicecomes, or vice-count. Finally, "baron" comes ultimately from the Old Germanic baro, meaning freeman.

The various titles are in the form of Rank Name or Rank of Name. The name of the title can either be a place name or a surname. The precise usage depends on the rank of the peerage and on certain other general considerations. Dukes always use of. Marquesses and Earls whose titles are based on place names normally use of, while those whose titles are based on surnames normally do not. Viscounts, Barons and Lords of Parliament do not use of. However, there are several exceptions to the rule. For instance, Scottish viscomitial titles theoretically include of, though in practice, most of them drop the word. Also, of is normally not used when the place in question is outside British territory, as using of might imply that the nation has sovereignty over such a place. For instance, the title Marquess Douro is based on the River Douro in Portugal, over which the British monarch has no sovereignty or suzerainty.

Often, a territorial designation is added to the main peerage title, especially in the case of Barons and Viscounts: for instance, Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven, County Lincoln or Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, of Hindhead, County Surrey. In such cases, any designation following the first comma generally does not form a part of the main title and is dropped, leaving, in the aforementioned cases, Baroness Thatcher and Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. Often, a territorial addition prior to the comma is also dropped. References to a military victory are normally kept: for example, Earl Alexander of Tunis. Furthermore, when necessary, territorial designations may be used when multiple peerages have the same main title, except for the most senior peer, whose title remains unchanged: for example, Baron Harris, Baron Harris of High Cross and Baroness Harris of Richmond. These rules, however, have several exceptions, such as Earl Nelson rather than Earl Nelson of Trafalgar (a reference to a military victory) and Baron Grey rather than Baron Grey of Codnor (while there is a more senior peer with the same title, the Earl Grey).

It was once the case that a peer administered the place associated with his title. However, such has not been true since the Middle Ages. The only remaining peerage with associated lands controlled by the holder is the Duchy of Cornwall, which is associated with the Dukedom of Cornwall, a dukedom held by the eldest son and heir to the Sovereign.

Divisions of the Peerage

There are several distinct groupings of peerages within Britain: the Peerage of England pertains to all titles created by the Kings and Queens of England prior to the Act of Union in 1707. The Peerage of Scotland, similarly, pertains to all titles created by the Kings and Queens of Scotland before 1707. The Peerage of Ireland includes titles created for the Kingdom of Ireland before 1801, and some titles created after that year, while the Peerage of Great Britain pertains to titles created for the Kingdom of Great Britain between 1707 and 1801. Finally, the Peerage of the United Kingdom pertains to most titles created since 1801. Of these, all were entitled to sit in the House of Lords except for the peers of Ireland and Scotland, who elected some of their number to go to the Lords as representative peers for their lifetimes. (But see Peers and Parliament below.) Scottish peers could not be elected to the House of Commons, but Irish peers could be.

The Spiritual Peers

The Church of England is represented by twenty-six of its clergymen in the House of Lords. The Church of Scotland has never been represented, since it has no archbishops or bishops. There is no established church in either Northern Ireland or Wales, so those parts of the nation are not represented either. THe Lords Spiritual, while they are members of Parliament, are peers of the Kingdom, but cease to be so after they retire.

There are a total of forty-four dioceses (including two archdioceses) in England. The Diocese of Sodor and Man (the Isle of Man) and the Diocese of Gibraltar (Continental Europe) are outside the United Kingdom. Thirty dioceses fall within the Province of Canterbury, which is led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior clergyman of the Church. The remaining fourteen fall within the Province of York, which is led by the Archbishop of York, the next-most senior clergyman of the Church. Each diocese, other than the diocese of Canterbury and the diocese of York, is led in the Church by a diocesan bishop.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of London, Winchester and Durham are always peers and members of the House of Lords. Of the remaining thirty-seven bishops, the twenty-one most senior ones also serve in the House of Lords. Since their dioceses lie outside the Kingdom, however, the Bishop of Sodor and Man and the Bishop of Gibraltar may not serve in the House of Lords by virtue of their positions. The Bishop of Sodor and Man does, however, have a seat in the Legislative Council of the Isle of Man's legislature, the Tynwald.

Styles and Titles

Peers and Peeresses

Formally, an Archbishop is styled The Most Reverend and Right Honourable and a Bishop, or former Archbishop or Bishop The Right Reverend and Right Honourable if a Privy Counsellor and The Right Reverend otherwise. A Duke is styled The Most Noble, a Marquess The Most Honourable and an Earl, Viscount, Baron or Lord of Parliament The Right Honourable.

The wife of a temporal peer is known by the feminine equivalent of that peer's title; the reverse is not true for husbands of suo jure peeresses. According to a decision made by the House of Lords in Cowley (Earl) v. Cowley (Countess), divorcées may keep their title if they marry a commoner. If they marry peers, however, they cease to use the title of their ex-husband and use that of their new one.Widows of peers are also entitled to keep their styles. If the widow is also the ancestor of the present peer, then she may use the style of Dowager before to the rank and title, as in Dowager Countess of London. Only the most senior widow who is an ancestor of the present peer may use the style of Dowager. All other widows of peers, as well as divorcées thereof, whether ancestors of the present peer or not, may use their forename in conjunction with the title, as in Mary, Countess of London. Many Dowager peeresses prefer not to use the old-fashioned term "Dowager," and instead prefer this latter option.

Children of Peers

Some children of peers receive titles through social custon; such titles are known as courtesy titles. The eldest son of a Duke, Marquess or Earl may use his father's highest subsidiary title as a courtesy title. For instance, the Duke of Norfolk is also Earl of Arundel. Thus, the Duke's eldest son is by courtesy known as Earl of Arundel. The actual title used, however, may not always be the highest subsidiary title. (For circumstances when this might occur, see courtesy title.)

Courtesy titles are also given to the younger sons and daughters of some peers. Younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses prefix the style Lord to their first and last names, while all daughters of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls similarly use the style Lady.

Other children of peers are entitled to the style The Honourable. The style theoretically applies to all children of peers and is used in legal documents; if the person is also entitled to a courtesy title, he is referred to as The Honourable A B, commonly called Lord N.

Another title applied to children of peers exists only in the Peerage of Scotland. The eldest son of a Scottish peer (whether substantive or by courtesy) is known as The Master of the peer's title, as in The Master of Arbuthnott. If the parent of the individual using the title is a substantive peer, then the title Master is deemed a substantive title, but if the former is a courtesy peer, then the title of Master is considered a courtesy title. Though the eldest sons of all Scottish peers are entitled to such a rank, the eldest sons of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls generally do not use them, instead preferring a courtesy title. In the case of peerages that can be inherited by women, an eldest daughter substitutes Mistress for Master.

Forms of Address

In the second person, one addresses an Archbishop as Your Grace and a Diocesan Bishop (whether a peer or not) as My Lord. A Duke is addressed as Your Grace or Duke, and a Duchess as Your Grace or Duchess. A Marquess, Earl of Viscount is addressed as Your Lordship, My Lord or Lord London, and a peeress as Your Ladyship, My Lady or Lady London. A younger son of a Duke or Marquess is addressed as Lord John, and a younger daughter of a Duke, Marquess or Earl as Lady Jane.

In the third person, an Archbishop is referred to as The Lord Archbishop of London, The Archbishop of London or His Grace. A Diocesan Bishop (whether a peer or not) is referred to as The Lord Bishop of London or The Bishop of London. A Duke is referred to as The Duke of London or His Grace. A Marquess, Earl and Viscount is referred to as The Marquess/ Earl/ Viscount (of) London or as Lord London. Finally, a Baron or Lord of Parliament is called The Lord London or Lord London —never just The Baron London. Duchesses, Marchionesses, Countesses and Viscountesses use the feminine equivalents of the aforementioned forms. A Baroness is referred to as The Lady London or Lady London, but a Baroness in her own right may choose to be referred to instead as The Baroness London or Baroness London, while a female holder of a Lordship of Parliament is always referred to as The Lady London. A younger son of a Duke or Marquess is called The Lord John Smith, and a younger daughter of a Duke, Marquess or Earl The Lady Jane Smith.

These styles apply to both substantive peers and courtesy peers. The definite article ("the"), however, is never used in the third person when referring to courtesy peers, though, in practice, it is frequently dropped for substantive peers and children of peers.

Younger sons of peers below the rank of Marquess and daughters of peers below the rank of Earl, styled The Honourable, do not receive a special form of address due to their relation to the peer; such an individual would be simply known as Mr Smith.

Formal Styles

In formal documents, such as court documents, only the forenames and title of a peer are employed. For example, a peer named John William Smith and titled Baron London would be referred to as John William, Baron London. In the case of courtesy peers, however, the full name is used, followed by an indication of the courtesy title. For instance, a courtesy peer named George Charles Jones and titled by courtesy Earl of Exeter would be referred to as The Honourable George Charles Jones, commonly called Earl of Exeter.

In some documents, such as letters patent, the Sovereign uses certain special styles to refer to peers:

• Archbishop: The Most Reverend Father in God, Our right trusty and right entirely beloved (counsellor) John William, Archbishop of London
• Bishop: The Right Reverend Father in God, Our right trusty and well-beloved (counsellor) John William, Bishop of London
• Duke: Our right trusty and right entirely beloved cousin (and counsellor) John William, Duke of London
• Marquess: Our right trusty and entirely beloved cousin (and counsellor) John William, Marquess of London
• Earl: Our right trusty and entirely beloved cousin (and counsellor) John William, Earl of London
• Viscount: Our right trusty and well-beloved cousin (and counsellor) John William, Viscount London
• Baron: Our right trusty and well-beloved (counsellor) John William, Baron London

The phrase "counsellor" is used only if the peer is a member of the Privy Council. The term "cousin" was used originally by Henry IV, who was actually a cousin by blood or marriage to every earl in the Kingdom. Now, the term is used regardless of the relationship between the Sovereign and peer, except that those who are actually related to the Sovereign may have their relationships mentioned; the Prince Andrew, for example, would be referred to as Our right trusty and right entirely beloved son Andrew Albert Christian Edward Duke of York.

Peers have certain extended and grandiloquent titles that are used almost exclusively by heralds in extremely formal circumstances:

• Archbishop: The Most Reverend Father in God, by Divine Providence, John William, Archbishop of London
• Bishop: The Right Reverend Father in God, by Divine Permission, John William, Bishop of London
• Duke: The Most High, Potent and Noble Prince, John William, Duke of London
• Marquess: The Most Noble and Potent Prince, John William, Marquess of London
• Earl: The Most Noble and Potent Lord, John William, Earl of London
• Viscount: The Right Noble and Potent Lord, John William, Viscount London
• Baron: The Right Noble Lord, John William, Baron London

During debates of the House of Lords, peers must use certain special appellations to refer to each other:

• Archbishop: The Most Reverend Primate, the Archbishop of London
• Bishop: The Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London
• Duke: The Noble Duke, the Duke of London
• Marquess: The Noble Marquess, Lord London
• Earl: The Noble Earl, Lord London
• Viscount: The Noble Viscount, Lord London
• Baron or Lord of Parliament: The Noble Lord, Lord London
• Baroness: The Noble Baroness, Lady London
• Female holder of a Lordship of Parliament: The Noble Lady, Lady London

The term noble and gallant (instead of just noble) is used if the peer in question holds the rank of Field Marshal, Admiral of the Fleet or Marshal of the Royal Air Force, holds or previously held the office of Chief of the Defence Staff or has been awarded the Victoria Cross or the George Cross. Similarly, the term noble and learned is used if the peer holds or previously held the office of Lord Chancellor, Lord of Appeal, Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, Advocate General for Scotland or judge of a British superior court.

Heraldry, Parliament and Privileges

Coronets and robes

Thomas Thynne, 1st Marquess of Bath in Parliamentary Robes

Peers have special coronets and robes that are worn at coronations and during certain special Parliamentary occasions, such as the State Opening of Parliament. Both have special designs based on the rank of the peer.

Coronation robes of temporal peers include crimson velvet cloaks extending to the feet, open in the front and trailing behind. The robes also include a hood and a cape of miniver. The rank of the peer is demonstrated by bars of sealskin spots on the cape: Royal Dukes have six, other Dukes four, Marquesses three and a half, Earls three, Viscounts two and a half, and Barons two. The rank of peeresses (female peers and wives of male peers) is denoted differently, by the length of the train. Duchesses have four-yard trains, Marchionesses three and a half, Countesses three, Viscountesses two and a half and Baronesses and female holders of Lordships of Parliament two.

The Parliamentary robe of temporal peers is full-length, made of scarlet wool and includes a collar of white miniver fur. Miniver bars indicate the rank of the wearer as with coronation robes, save that all Dukes use four miniver bars; no distinction is made between Royal and non-royal dukes. Such robes are worn by both male and female members of the Peerage at occasions such as introductions and State Openings of Parliament.

Lords Spiritual have episcopal robes. An Archbishop or Bishop wears a black chimere (a loose sleeveless robe) over a white rochet (a close-fitting linen robe).

All of the temporal peers' coronets include a silver gilt chaplet and a base of ermine fur. Ducal coronets include eight strawberry leaves atop the chaplet. Marquesses have coronets with four strawberry leaves alternating with four silver balls. Coronets for Earls have eight strawberry leaves alternating with eight raised silver balls, while those for Viscounts have sixteen silver balls, and those for Barons have six silver balls. Peeresses use equivalent designs, but wear a circlet, which encircles the head, rather than a coronet, which rests atop the head. Coronets are only worn at the Sovereign's coronation.

Spiritual and temporal peers are entitled to certain privileges related toheraldry. An Archbishop or Bishop may display a mitre over his arms, which are impaled with those of his see. The Bishop of Durham, who formerly held the position of Prince-Bishop, may encircle the mitre with a ducal coronet. A temporal peer may display his coronet over the arms. Temporal peers, furthermore, are entitled to the use of supporters on either side of the shield. Temporal peers may also display a helm as if made of metal, in profile and with a grated visor garnished with gold.

Peers and Parliament

Formerly, qualified temporal peers of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom were entitled to writs of summons to the House of Lords. (Peers under the age of twenty-one, peers who are not citizens of the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth, bankrupts and traitors are among those who are ineligible.) The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Winchester, the Bishop of Durham and the twenty-one next most senior Church of England diocesan bishops (excluding the Bishop of Sodor and Man and the Bishop of Gibraltar, whose dioceses lie outside the United Kingdom) are entitled to seats in the House of Lords. The Church of Scotland, the other established Church in the United Kingdom, has no bishops or archbishops, and therefore no representatives in Parliament. There are no established Churches in Wales or Northern Ireland.

Under the Act of Union of 1707, Scottish peers could elect sixteen representative peers, elections being held each time a new Parliament was summoned. In 1719, the House of Lords decided Queensberry's Case, in which it ruled that Scottish peers who were also peers of Great Britain were not entitled to a seat in the House of Lords unless elected representative peers. In 1782, however, that decision was reversed in Brandon's Case. Then, in 1963, all peers of Scotland, and not just representative peers, were given the right to serve in the House of Lords. Scotland never had spiritual representative peers.

Under the Act of Union of 1801, Ireland could elect twenty-two representative peers, who served for life. In 1922, with the formation of the Irish Free State, Irish peers ceased to elect representatives, but those already elected continued to serve for life. The last of them, Francis Charles Adelbert Needham, 4th Earl of Kilmorey, died in 1961. Ireland was also entitled to four spiritual representative peers. Irish Lords Spiritual sat for a term of one session, and the seat then passed to the next bishops in rotation. Also, if a spiritual peer of Ireland was elected a representative peer or became a peer of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom, the next bishop in the rotation would become a member of Parliament. At any one time, one Archbishop and three Bishops sat in the House. Among Archbishops the order was: the Archbishop of Armagh, the Archbishop of Dublin, the Archbishop of Cashel and the Archbishop of Tuam. Among Bishops, the order was: the Bishop of Meath, the Bishop of Kildare, the Bishop of Derry, the Bishop of Raphoe, the Bishop of Limerick, Ardsert and Adgadoe, the Bishop of Dromore, the Bishop of Ephin, the Bishop of Down and Connor, the Bishop of Waterford and Lismore, the Bishop of Leighlin and Ferns, the Bishop of Cloyne, the Bishop of Cork and Ross, the Bishop of Killaloe and Kilfenora, the Bishop of Kilmore, the Bishop of Clougher, the Bishop of Ossory, the Bishop of Killala and Achonry and finally the Lord Bishop of Clonsert and Kilmacduagh. When the Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1871, Ireland ceased to be represented by spiritual peers.

In 1999, the House of Lords Act removed the right of peers to sit in Parliament by virtue of a hereditary peerage. Ninety hereditary peers, elected by their counterparts for life, were exempted from the provision. The entire House chose fifteen of those members; the remainder were elected by peers belonging to specific parties. By-elections may be held to fill the vacancies. In addition to the ninety elected peers, any hereditary peer holding the office of Earl Marshal or exercising the office of Lord Great Chamberlain (which is actually divided between multiple persons, rather than being held by a single individual) is exempt from the Act's provision.

Prior to the Union of Scotland and England, Scottish peers had a right to a seat in the Estates, the unicameral Parliament of Scotland. Similarly, Irish peers sat in the Irish House of Lords prior to Ireland's union with Great Britain. Following the creation of the Irish Free State, however, Irish peers were given no specific position in the nation's legislature, the Oireachtas.

Precedence

The Archbishop of Canterbury ranks after the Royal Family, and is followed by the Lord Chancellor and then the Archbishop of York. Then follow the Prime Minister, the Great Officers of State, the officers of the Sovereign's Household, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Ambassadors and High Commissioners. Thereafter, Dukes precede Marquesses, who precede Earls, who precede Viscounts, who precede Diocesan Bishops, who precede Barons and Lords of Parliament. Peers of certain ranks may be preceded by children of peers of higher ranks (see below).

Among Diocesan bishops, the Bishop of London has the highest precedence. He is followed by the Bishop of Winchester and then the Bishop of Durham. The remaining bishops rank in order of seniority of consecration.

Within the members of each rank of the temporal peerage, peers of England precede peers of Scotland. English and Scottish peers together precede peers of Great Britain. All of the aforementioned precede peers of Ireland created before 1801. Last come peers of Ireland created after 1801 and peers of the United Kingdom. Among peers of the same rank and Peerage, precedence is based on the creation of the title: those whose titles were created earlier precede those whose titles were created later. But in no case would a peer of a lower rank precede one of a higher rank. For example, the Duke of Fife, the last non-royal to be created a Duke, would come before the Marquess of Winchester, though the latter's title was created earlier and is in a more senior peerage (the Peerage of England). The Sovereign may, as fount of honour, vary the precedence of the peers. For example, Queen Elizabeth II granted her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, precedence immediately following her; otherwise, he would rank along with the other Dukes of the Peerage of the United Kingdom.

The place of a peer in the order for gentlemen is taken by his wife in the order for ladies, except that a Dowager peeress of a particular title precedes the present holder of the same title. Children of peers (and suo jure peeresses) also obtain a special precedence. Eldest sons of Dukes rank after Marquesses. Eldest sons of Marquesses, and immediately thereafter younger sons of Dukes, rank after Earls. Similarly, eldest sons of Earls, and then younger sons of Marquesses, rank after Viscounts. Eldest sons of Viscounts, and immediately thereafter younger sons of Earls, and immediately thereafter eldest sons of Barons, follow the Barons and officers of the Cabinet. Younger sons of Viscounts and Barons rank even lower, after Knights of the Order of the Garter and Order of the Thistle, Privy Counsellors and various judges.

In the order for ladies, the wife of a son of a temporal peer takes a place corresponding to his in the order for gentlemen. Daughters of temporal peers of a rank come immediately after wives of eldest sons of peers of that rank.

The order of precedence used to determine seating in the House of Lords chamber is governed by an Act of Parliament passed in 1539 and not by the authority of the Sovereign. Precedence as provided by the Act is similar to, but not the same as, the order outside Parliament. Lords Spiritual assume the same precedence as normal. One difference in the precedence of temporal peers relates to the positions of the Great Officers of State and the officers of the Sovereign's. Some Great Officers—the Lord Chancellor, the Lord High Treasurer, the Lord President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal—provided they are peers, rank before all other peers except those who are of the Blood Royal (no precedence is accorded if they are not peers). The positions of the other Great Officers—the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Lord High Constable, the Earl Marshal and the Lord High Admiral— and the officers of the Household—the Lord Steward and the Lord Chamberlain—are based on their respective ranks. Thus, if the Lord Steward were a Duke, he would precede all Dukes, if a Marquess, he would precede all Marquesses, and so on. If two such officers are of the same rank, the precedence of the offices (reflected by the order in which they are mentioned above) are taken into account: if the Lord Great Chamberlain and Earl Marshal were both Marquesses, then the Great Chamberlain would precede the Earl Marshal. In practice, however, the Act is meaningless, as the Lords do not actually sit according to strict precedence; instead, peers sit with their political parties.

For further information, see Precedence.

Investiture and Introduction

Prior to the seventeenth century, temporal peers were formally created and invested by the Sovereign in Parliament. The letters patent creating the peerage were read by a clerk while the Sovereign personally enrobed the peer with Parliamentary robes. In 1621, however, King James I ceased to personally invest peers; the ceremony had become inconvenient—he had conferred an unprecedented number of peerages—and embarassing—titles were often created in return for money. The golden rod that Dukes used to receive disappeared, except that during the investiture of the Prince of Wales, a golden rod is delivered as a symbol of government.

Personal investitures by the Sovereign were replaced by the ceremony of introduction. In the case of temporal peers, introduction is necessary for any newly created peer. Prior to the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999, peers by descent were not introduced, except for peers who were called up by a writ of acceleration or peers whose predecessors never sat in the House of Lords. The ceremony underwent a reform in 1998. Prior to the reforms, a procession was formed outside the Chamber:

1. The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod or his deputy
2. The Garter Principal King of Arms or another herald, holding the letters patent
3. The new peer's junior supporter
4. The new peer, holding the writ of summons
5. The new peer's senior supporter

The supporters had to be of the same dignity as the new peer: Dukes supported Dukes, Marquesses supported Marquesses and so forth. The new peer and his supporters wore parliamentary robes and special hats. The procession processed towards the Lord Chancellor, and the Garter Principal King of Arms presented the peer's letters patent, and the new peer would kneel before the Lord Chancellor and present his writ of summons. A Clerk of the House of Lords read the letters patent and the writ aloud. The peer took the Oath of Allegiance or the Solemn Affirmation and signed the Test Roll, at the top of which the same Oath was written. Thereafter, the Garter Principal King of Arms "placed" the new peer and his supporters by leading them to the Lords bench traditionally occupied by those of the new peer's rank. The peer and supporters sat, put on their hats, rose, doffed their hats, and bowed to the Lord Chancellor, and then repeat the previous ceremony twice more. After bowing to the Lord Chancellor for the third time, the entire procession left the Chamber, with the new peer shaking hands with the Lord Chancellor as he left.

In 1998, several reforms were instituted. Now, the new peer need not kneel before the Lord Chancellor and the writ of summons, though presented, is not read. Furthermore, the ceremony of placing peers and of doffing hats has been abolished.

Formerly, peers paid fees to the Garter Principal King of Arms or other herald who formed a part of the procession. In 1663, the Lords ended the practice by passing a Standing Order that reads (taking into account amendments) "No Peer shall pay any fee to any herald upon his first coming or introduction into the House."

The ceremony of introduction for Lords Spiritual has been significantly simpler, and was not affected by the 1998 reforms. The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and the Garter Principal King of Arms do not take part in the ceremony. The supporters of the Lords Spiritual are, in all cases, other Lords Spiritual; the new member and the supporters wear their clerical robes. The procession, with the junior supporter in front and the senior supporter behind the new archbishop or bishop, arrives in front of the Table of the House. The new member then submits his writ of summons, which is read by a Clerk. The Clerk then administers the Oath or Solemn Affirmation. Then, the procession progresses to the Woolsack, where the new archbishop or bishop shakes hands with the Lord Chancellor. Then, the new member immediately takes his seat on the Bishops' Benches.

Privileges

Peers used to hold several privileges, but most have been lost over time. They continue to hold the right to personal access to the sovereign, but that right has not been exercised in years. Peers are free from arrest in civil cases; they are also exempt from jury service.

Formerly, peers could be tried for felonies or for treason by the other peers of the realm. There were two methods: trial in the Lord High Steward's Court and trial in the House of Lords. The House of Lords tried the case if Parliament was in session; otherwise, trial was by the Lord High Steward's Court. In his court, the Lord High Steward was the judge, deciding on questions of law and procedure; twenty-three peers (selected by the Crown) sat as a jury, determining questions of fact. The Lord High Steward had no vote on the question of guilt. In the House of Lords, however, the High Steward was merely a chairman; the entire House could determine both questions of law and fact. In the Lords, peers voted on their honour (not under oath), starting with the most junior baron, and proceeding in order of precedence until the Lord High Steward. The office of Lord High Steward, having been left vacant in 1421, was only restored for the trials of peers (and also for trials of impeachments and the day of a new Sovereign's coronation). Often, the Lord Chancellor was appointed to serve as Lord High Steward. At the end of the trial, the High Steward would break his white staff of office, symbolising the dissolution of his office. Trial by one's peers was abolished in 1948 by the Criminal Justice Act. The last trial in the House of Lords was the Lord de Clifford's in 1936; the last in the Lord High Steward's Court was the Lord Delamere's in 1685.

The Privilege of the Peerage extends to all peers regardless of their position in relation to the House of Lords, including Scottish and Irish peers. Irish peers who were elected to the House of Commons had to give up the privilege of the peerage, including a right to trial by other peers, for the duration of their service in that House. The privilege of the peerage also extends to wives and widows of peers. Individuals who hold titles of peerage by courtesy, however, do not have such privileges. The privilege of the peerage is distinct from the parliamentary privilege, which applies to only those peers serving in the House of Lords, as well as the members of the House of Commons.

Peerage law

Hereditary Peerages

The mode of inheritance of a hereditary peerage is determined by the method of its creation. Titles may be created by writ of summons or by letters patent. The former is merely a summons of an individual to Parliament—it does not explicitly confer a peerage—and descent is always to heirs of the body, male and female. The latter method is used to explicitly create a peerage and name the dignity in question. Letters patent may be state the course of descent; normally, only male heirs are allowed to succeed to the peerage.

Generally, a peerage passes to the next holder only after the holder for the time being dies. However, Edward IV introduced a procedure known as a writ of acceleration (See Writs of summons below.)

A title becomes extinct when all possible heirs (as provided by the letters patent) have died out. A title becomes dormant if no person has claimed the title, or if no claim has been satisfactorily proven. A title goes into abeyance if there is more than one person equally qualified to be the holder. (See Writs of summons below.)

In the past, peerages were sometimes forfeit or attained under Acts of Parliament, most often for the treason of the holder. The blood of an attained peer was considered "corrupted," so his descendants could not inherit the title. If all descendants of the attained peer were to die out, however, then an heir from another branch of the family not affected by the attainder may take the title. The Forfeiture Act 1870 abolished corruption of blood; instead of losing the peerage, a peer convicted of treason would merely be disqualified from sitting in Parliament for the period of imprisonment.

The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 permitted the Crown to suspend peerages if their holders had fought against the United Kingdom during the First World War. Guilt was to be determined by a committee of the Privy Council; either House of Parliament could reject the committee's report within forty days of its presentation. In 1919, King issued an Order-in-Council suspending the dukedom of Albany (together with its subsidiary peerages, the earldom of Clarence and the barony of Arklow), the dukedom of Cumberland and Teviotdale (along with the earldom of Armagh) and the viscountcy of Taaffe (along with the barony of Ballymote). Under the Titles Deprivation Act, the successors to the peerages may petition the Crown for a reinstatement of the titles; so far, none of them have chosen to do so.

A peer may also disclaim a hereditary peerage under the Peerage Act 1963. To do so, the peer must deliver an instrument of disclaimer to the Lord Chancellor within twelve months of succeeding to the peerage, or, if under the age of twenty-one at the time of succession, within twelve months of becoming twenty-one years old. If, at the time of succession, the peer is a member of the House of Commons, then the instrument must be delivered within one month of succession. Prior to the House of Lords Act 1999, a hereditary peer could not disclaim a peerage after having applied for a writ of summons to Parliament; now, however, hereditary peers do not have the automatic right to a writ of summons to the House. Irish peerages may not be disclaimed. A peer who disclaims the peerage and his wife lose all titles, rights and privileges associated with the peerage. No further hereditary peerages may be conferred upon the person, but life peerages may be. The peerage remains without a holder until the death of the peer making the disclaimer, when it descends normally.

A title held by someone who becomes monarch is said to merge in the crown and ceases to exist, for the Sovereign cannot hold a dignity from himself. The dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay are special cases, which when not in use is said to lapse to the crown: it is construed as existing, but held by no one, during such periods. They are also special in that they are not directly inherited; they always belong to the eldest son of the monarch as heir apparent. The heir apparent uses the title of Duke of Cornwall in England, Wales and Northern Ireland until he is created Prince of Wales, which normally occurs after the Prince has become an adult. In Scotland, however, the title Duke of Rothesay is used throughout the Prince's life.

The Duchy of Lancaster is also a special case, in that the title Duke of Lancaster is not actually used. The Dukedom of Lancaster merged in the Crown when Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Lancaster became King. Nonetheless, the Duchy of Lancaster still continues to exist; it is the inherited property that belongs personally to the monarch, rather than to the Crown. The income from the Duchy forms a part of the Privy Purse.

Life Peerages

Life Peerages are always created by letters patent under two Acts of Parliament: the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. The former act permits the regular creation of baronies for life; the latter allows the Sovereign to create a life peerage and designate the holder a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. There may be up to twelve Lords of Appeal in Ordinary at one time; they may exercise the judicial functions of the House of Lords.

Prior to the passage of each act, the Crown created life peerages, most often for women. In 1856, however, it was ruled that such peerages would not entitle a peer to sit in the House of Lords; this is no longer the case under the two aforementioned acts.

Peerages created by writ of summons are presumed to be inheritable only by the recipient's heirs of the body. The House of Lords has settled such a presumption in several cases, including Grey's (Lord) Case of 1640, the Clifton Barony Case of 1673, the Vaux Peerage Case of 1837, the Braye Peerage Case of 1839 and the Hastings Peerage Case of 1841. The meaning of heir of the body is determined by common law. Essentially, descent is by the rules of male primogeniture, a mechanism whereby normally, male descendants of the peer take precedence over female descendants, with children representing their deceased ancestors, and wherein the senior line of descent always takes precedence over the junior line per each gender. These rules, however, are amended by the proviso whereby sisters (and their heirs) are considered co-heirs; seniority of the line is irrelevant when succession is through a female line. In other words, no woman inherits because she is older than her sisters. If all of the co-heirs but one die, then the surviving co-heir succeeds to the title. Otherwise, the title remains abeyant until the Sovereign "terminates" the abeyance in favour of one of the co-heirs. The termination of an abeyance is entirely at the discretion of the Crown.

Letters Patent

More often, Letters Patent are used to create peerages. Letters Patent must explicitly name the recipient of the title and specify the course of descent; the exact meaning of the term is determined by common law. Normally, the patent specifies the peer's heirs-male of the body as successors; in such a case, the rules of agnatic succession apply, meaning that succession is through the male line only. Some very old titles, like the Earldom of Arlington, may pass to heirs of the body (not just heirs-male), these follow the same rules of descent as do baronies by writ, and seem able to fall into abeyance as well. Many Scottish titles allow for passage to heirs-general of the body, in which case the rules of male primogeniture apply; they do not fall into abeyance, as under Scots law, sisters are not treated as equal co-heirs.

English and British letters patent that do not specify a course of descent are invalid, though the same is not true for the letters patent creating peers in the Peerage of Scotland. The House of Lords has ruled in certain cases that when the course of descent is not specified, or when the letters patent are lost, the title descends to heirs-male. In 1875, the House of Lords ruled on a famous case relating to the Earldom of Mar, in which they determined that the course of descent in such cases would be to heirs-male. The complicated case began in 1457 when the then King of Scots, James II, obtained a court order that gave him the lands and titles of Robert Erskine, the lawful heir to the earldom. In 1565, the Queen of Scots, Mary, either restored the title to John Erskine (the dispossessed earl's heir) or created a new earldom of Mar for him. Then, in the nineteenth century, a dispute arose between two men, the Earl of Kellie and John Goodeve-Erskine, as to whom the title belonged to. Lord Kellie was the heir-male of the ninth Earl of Mar, who had recently died, while Mr Goodeve-Erskine was his heir-general. The House of Lords heard the case and in 1875 ruled that the 1565 award of the earldom was a new creation but that the patent was lost. They furthermore determined that, since the patent was missing, the presumption must be made that the earldom could descend to heirs-male only. Therefore, Lord Kellie became Earl of Mar. Several challenged the opinion of the House of Lords, claiming that it had been based on erroneous premises. Firstly, it was charged that the grant of 1565 was a reversal of James II's unlawful act, and not a fresh creation. Secondly, it was alleged that under Scots peerage law, titles should be presumed to descend to heirs-general, not just heirs-male, when there is no evidence of a specified course of descent. In any case, the Lords' decision stood. Later, however, Parliament passed the Earldom of Mar Restitution Act, which determined that there were two earldoms of Mar: one created in 1565 and belonging to Lord Kellie, and another created earlier belonging to Mr Goodeve-Erskine. (For more details, see Earl of Mar.)

It is possible for some patents to allow for succession by someone other than a descendant. Several instances may be cited: the viscountcy of Nelson (to an elder brother and his heirs-male), the earldom of Roberts (to a daughter and her heirs-male), the barony of Amherst of Montreal (to a nephew and his heirs-male) and the dukedom of Dover (to a younger son and his heirs-male while the eldest son is still alive). In many cases, the peer in question had no sons, and the special grant was made to preclude an extinction of the peerage. But in all cases the course of descent specified in the patent must be known in common law. For instance, the Crown may not make a "shifting limitation" in the Letters Patent; in other words, the Patent may not vest the peerage in an individual and then, based on the occurrence of some event other than death (such as succession to a higher title) shift the title to another person. The doctrine was established in the Buckhurst Peerage Case (1876), in which the House of Lords deemed invalid Letters Patent aimed to keep the barony of Buckhurst separate from the earldom of De La Warr. The Patent stipulated that, if the holder of the barony ever inherited the earldom, then he would be deprived of the barony, which would instead pass to the next successor as if the deprived holder died without issue.

Also, it is necessary for English patents to include limitation "of the body," as in "heirs-male of the body." The limitation indicates that only lineal descendants of the original peer may succeed to the peerage. In some very rare instances, the limitation was left out. In the Devon Peerage Case of 1831, the House of Lords permitted an heir who was a collateral descendant of the original peer to take his seat. The precedent, however, was reversed in 1859, when the House of Lords decided in the Wiltes Peerage Case that a patent that did not include the words "of the body" would be held void.

Letters Patent are not absolute; they may be amended or revoked by Act of Parliament. For example, Parliament amended the Letters Patent creating the dukedom of Marlborough in 1706. The patent originally provided that the dukedom could be inherited by the heirs-male of the body of the first Duke, Captain-General Sir John Churchill. One son had died in infancy and the other died in 1703 from smallpox. Under Parliament's amendment to the patent, designed to allow the famous general's honour to live after him, the dukedom was allowed to pass to the Duke's daughters (in order of age) and their heirs-male.

Granting of peerages

The Sovereign may grant a peerage to any person, but, as is customary in a constitutional monarchy, the power is generally exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister only. A foreign national may be created a peer, but would not, under the Act of Settlement of 1701, have the right to sit in the House of Lords if he or she is not a citizen of a nation belonging to the Commonwealth.

In 1999, the question arose as to whether the Crown could create a peerage for the newspaper magnate Conrad Black, a Canadian citizen. The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, advised Queen Elizabeth II to confer a peerage on Mr Black; officers of the Canadian Government had granted their approval. Before it could be granted, however, the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, formally advised the Queen that she should not confer the peerage. Chrétien cited the Nickle Resolution, passed by the Canadian House of Commons in 1919. Mr Black sued Mr Chrétien for abuse of power, but the Ontario Court of Appeal declined to rule in his favour. In 2001, Mr Black renounced his Canadian citizenship and became a British citizen before being created Baron Black of Crossharbour.

One cannot necessarily conclude that Canadian citizens may not be granted honours. Theoretically, had Mr Blair insisted, the Queen would have had to grant Mr Black the peerage; in conferring peerages, the Queen acts as Queen of the United Kingdom, and not Queen of Canada. In 2001, for instance, two Canadians—the billionaire Terence Matthews and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Belfast George Bain—were granted knighthoods without consulting the Canadian Government.

Surrender of peerages

Under peerage law, a peerage lasts until it is either extinct or forfeit due to the holder's attainder. (Disclaimed and abeyant peerages do not cease to exist.) Prior to the seventeenth century, peers often surrendered titles to the monarch. For instance, Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, surrendered the earldom in the twelfth century; in 1906, when the title was claimed by one of his heirs, the House of Lords upheld the surrender. Another surrender occurred as late as 1640, when Lord Stafford surrendered his barony in return for eight hundred pounds. Later that year, however, the House of Lords adopted a resolution in relation to the attempted surrender of the barony of Grey de Ruthyn declaring "That no person that hath any Honour of him and a Peer of this Realm, may alien or transfer the Honour to any other Person" and "That no Peer of this Realm can drown or extinguish his Honour (but that it descends to his descendants), neither by Surrender, Grant, Fine, nor any other conveyance to the King." In 1676, the House reinforced the Grey de Ruthyn decision when declaring that a surrender of the Viscountcy of Purbeck was invalid.

There is an exception for peerages in the Peerage of Scotland, which used to be surrendered often under Scots law, normally in return for another title and its accompanying lands. At other times, the peerage was surrendered but then immediately regranted (the procedure being called the grant of a novadamus) with a different remainder. For instance, James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, obtained a novadamus from the Crown in order to prevent his dukedom from passing to his eldest son James, who was insane.

Peerage Disputes

The Crown, as fount of honour, may determine all petitions claiming peerages. The Sovereign, on the advice of the Attorney-General, may grant the claim or, in contentious matters, send it to the House of Lords, who in turn send it to the Select Committee for Privileges. The House of Lords appoints sixteen peers—including the Chairman of Committees—to the Committee, which sits together with any four Lords of Appeal, three of whom must be present in order for the Committee to be able to decide a case related to peerage claims. The Crown then acts on the basis of the recommendations of the Privileges Committee.

The Committee for Privileges also has a role in terminating abeyant peerages. A co-heir may petition the Crown for a termination of the abeyance; the Crown may choose to grant the petition, but if there is there is any doubt whatsoever as to the pedigree of the petitioner, the claim is normally referred to the Committee for Privileges as noted above. If the claim is unopposed, the Committee will generally award the claim. Under a decision of 1927, however, the Committee may deny a claim if the peerage has been in abeyance for more than one century, or if the petitioner holds less than one-third of the claim (an eldest son would inherit all of his parent's claim, while daughters divide their parent's claim amongst them in the absence of sons). Furthermore, the House made a Standing Order in 1954 directing that the Committee may deny a claim if the co-heirs have entered into an "improper arrangement." This rule prevents co-heirs to multiple baronies from agreeing not to contest each other's claims, thereby dividing the baronies amongst themselves.

In addition to the House of Lords, the Court of the Lord Lyon King of Arms in Scotland has a role in determining disputes relating to Scottish peerages. Theoretically, only the Lords have jurisdiction over succession to peerages, but the Lyon Court does have jurisdiction over succession to coats of arms. Under Scottish law, an individual's heir succeeds to his arms undifferenced, while other descendents may succeed to arms differenced by special marks, called cadency marks. The case before the Lyon Court involves a dispute as to who may lawfully succeed to a deceased peer's arms undifferenced—the lawful successor to the arms will normally also be the successor to the peerage.

History

Development of the Peerage

The Peerage as it is now known came into being long after the Norman Conquest. King William I sought to concentrate power in royal hands and did not desire to grant large amounts of land to his subjects, thereby making them more powerful. Generally, lands were dispensed in the form of small manors, the holders of which were known as barons, though they are not the same as the modern ones. These barons were entitled to attend the Curia Regis, or King's Court, where they could advise the Sovereign on the rule of the nation.

Normally, those who were to attend the Court were summoned through the local sheriff. Some more important magnates, however, received personal writs of summons. Slowly, the Curia Regis evolved into an independent legislative assembly known as Parliament, which was divided into two houses. The House of Commons consisted of knights and representatives of the counties and boroughs, while the House of Lords included barons, earls, archbishops, bishops, abbots and priors.

The Peerage, however, did not turn into a hereditary body suddenly. The Sovereign granted writs of summons to several persons without doing so to their heirs. Gradually, however, the custom of summoning a peer's heirs became engrained in the common law.

File:Blakprin.JPG Edward, The Black Prince Duke of Cornwall

Most peers ranked as barons, though some of the more important were earls. In 1337, Edward III made his son (Edward, the Black Prince) Duke of Cornwall and granted him precedence over all other peers. The title was to be held by the eldest sons and heirs of all future monarchs. Further dukedoms were awarded, but only within the Royal Family. The next change in the nature of the Peerage occurred in 1385 when Robert de Vere, already Earl of Oxford, was created Marquess of Dublin. Two years later, de Vere became the first non-royal to receive a dukedom, though the grant was not hereditary. Later, however, hereditary marquessates and dukedoms came to be awarded to subjects. The last rank of the Peerage, Viscount, was introduced in 1440, when John Beaumont was made Viscount Beaumont.

The Sovereign continued to create several life peerages, but none of these individuals sought to sit in Parliament by right of such peerage until the nineteenth century. In 1856, Queen Victoria wished to have a qualified judge sit in the House of Lords to aid them in hearing cases (see judicial functions of the House of Lords), but did not wish the peer's heirs to clutter up the House. Therefore, she created Sir James Parke Baron Wensleydale, but only for life. The House of Lords, however, objected that the creation did not confer upon him the right to sit in the House of Lords, and the Queen was forced to grant him a hereditary title.

Some time after the Wensleydale case, a bill was brought into the House of Lords to allow the Sovereign to create two life peers to sit as "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary", provided that they had the qualification of having been judges for at least five years. The Lords passed the bill, but the Commons failed to do so. Another life peerage bill was introduced in 1869, this time in the House of Commons. The bill sought to allow the existence of twenty-eight life peers at any one time, provided that not more than four be created in any one year. These life peerages could be awarded to peers of Scotland or Ireland without seats in the Lords, to those who served in the House of Commons for ten years, to members of the armed forces, to civil servants, to judges and to eminent artists, authors and scientists. The bill was rejected by the House of Lords at its third reading.

File:Alechome.png Sir Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home

In 1876, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act permitted the Sovereign to create two life peers, who would sit in the House of Lords as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (commonly called Law Lords). These peers would be entitled to sit and vote in the House only as long as they held other judicial offices. Eleven years later, an act allowed retired Law Lords to be members of the House for the remainder of their life. Further acts increased the number of Law Lords that may be appointed at any one time.

In 1958, the Life Peerages Act allowed the regular creation of life peerages. Life peers are barons or baronesses who are equal in every way to ordinary peer, save that their title is not inherited. In 1999 the House of Lords was reformed, so as to remove most of the hereditary peers. Since then, only ninety elected hereditaries and two hereditary office-holders remain in the House on an interim basis.

In 1963 the law was changed by the Peerage Act to permit hereditary peers to disclaim their peerages for life. This was notably used by a number of peers who wished to become members of the British House of Commons, including the Viscount Stansgate (Tony Benn), the Earl of Home (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and the Viscount Hailsham (Quintin Hogg). The latter two later returned to the Lords as life peers. The heir to a disclaimed peerage is entitled to inherit it on the death of the person who disclaimed it. Irish peerages were not included in the law, and thus cannot be disclaimed.

The number of Temporal Peers

The Peerage used to be an extremely small and exclusive institution. When Henry VII called his first Parliament in the fifteenth century, there were only twenty-nine temporal peers. The Tudor rulers made very few creations of peerages; at the death of Queen Elizabeth, there were just fifty-nine peers in the realm.

Thereafter, however, the Peerage experienced a dramatic swelling due to the generosity of the Stuart monarchs. By the time of Queen Anne's death, there were no less than one hundred and sixty-eight peers. At one point, in order to obtain a majority in the House of Lords in her favour, Queen Anne created twelve peers in one day—more than Elizabeth I had created during an entire reign that had lasted for more than half of a century.

Several peers were alarmed at the rapid increase in the size of the Peerage, fearing that their individual importance and power would decrease as the number of Peers increased. Therefore, in 1719, a bill was introduced in the House of Lords to place a limitation on the Crown's power. It sought to permit no more than six new creations, and thereafter one new creation for each other title that became extinct. It did allow, however, the Crown to bestow titles on members of the Royal Family without any such limitation. The Bill was rejected in its final stage in the Lords, but it was passed when it was re-introduced in the next year. Nonetheless, the House of Commons rejected the bill 269 to 177.

George III was especially profuse with the creation of titles, especially due to the desire of some of his Prime Ministers to obtain a majority in the House of Lords. During his twelve years in power, Lord North had about thirty new peerages created. During William Pitt the Younger's seventeen-year tenure, over one hundred and forty new peerages had been awarded.

New Creations During the Eighteenth Century

Years	Duke	Marq.	Earl	Visc.	Baron	Total
1700-1720	22	14	33	30	58	157
1721-1740	2	3	14	8	19	46
1741-1760	2	1	24	15	34	76
1761-1780	4	1	14	9	46	74
1781-1800	4	10	24	23	91	152
Total	34	29	109	85	248	505

Creations of Life Peerages^†

Prime Minister	Party	Tenure	Peers
Harold Macmillan	Conservative	1957-1963	47
Alec Douglas-Home	Conservative	1963-1964	16
Harold Wilson	Labour	1964-1970	123
Edward Heath	Conservative	1970-1974	55
Harold Wilson	Labour	1974-1976	82
James Callaghan	Labour	1976-1979	58
Margaret Thatcher	Conservative	1979-1990	200
John Major	Conservative	1990-1997	140
Tony Blair	Labour	1997-	268
Total			989

† Excludes Peerages created under
the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876

In 1801, Parliament did impose a restriction on the creation of peerages, but only in the Peerage of Ireland. Under the 1801 Act of Union combining Ireland and Great Britain into the United Kingdom, until the number of Irish peers (excluding those who also hold British or English peerages) was reduced to one-hundred, the Sovereign could not create a new Irish peerage until three previous titles became extinct. After the number of Irish peers reached one hundred, the Sovereign could create new titles as often as may have been necessary to maintain that number.

Still, there remained no restrictions on creations in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Thus, the Peerage continued to swell through the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, there were even more creations since Prime Ministers were eager to secure majorities in the House of Lords. Peerages were handed out not to honour the recipient but to give him a seat in the House of Lords.

After the passage of the Life Peerages Act 1958, hereditary peerages continued to be granted by the Conservative governments of Harold Macmillan and Sir Alec Douglas-Home. However, with the accession of the Labour government of Harold Wilson in 1964, the practice of granting hereditary peerages abruptly stopped. Since 1964, only five hereditary peerages have been granted—two for members of the royal family, and three additional creations under Margaret Thatcher's government in the mid-1980s.

The rate of creation of life peerages has not shown a consistent pattern of increase. Often, Prime Ministers create several life peerages early in their tenure to secure more seats in the House of Lords, but later reduce the number after additional seats become unnecessary. For instance, Tony Blair caused the creation of eighty-six peerages during the second half of 1997, his first year in office, but only two peers were created during 2003.

The number of Spiritual Peers

Early in England's history, Lords Spiritual—including lesser clergymen such as abbots—outnumbered Lords Temporal. Between 1536 and 1540, however, Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries, thereby removing the seats of the abbots. For the first time, Lords Spiritual formed a minority in the House of Lords.

The number of Spiritual peers has not increased significantly. Originally, all bishops could sit in the House of Lords, but following the dissolution of the monasteries, no new bishoprics were created for three centuries. There were just twenty-one Lords Spiritual in 1836 when the bishopric of Ripon and Leeds was created. The number of bishoprics continued to rise, but the Bishopric of Manchester Act of 1844 and other acts limited the number of Lords Spiritual to twenty-six. For a time, they were supplemented by four Irish bishops sitting as representative peers.

Now, of the forty-four Bishops of the Church, only twenty-six are members of the House of Lords. They comprise just under four percent of the total membership of the House.

The current state of the Peerage

In 1999 hereditary peers lost their automatic right to sit in the House of Lords. As noted above in the Peers and Parliament section, up to ninety-two hereditary peers may continue to serve in the House of Lords. This arrangement was agreed on by the Blair government as a compromise between those wishing to remove the hereditary element from the Parliament altogether and those wishing to retain the House of Lords as it was (not least the House of Lords itself, whose approval was necessary for any legislation). It is widely believed that if the Labour Party wins another term a further attempt will be made to remove all hereditary peers from the House.

Tonypandy George Thomas, 1st Viscount Tonypandy

This would remove the last of the hereditary peerage's constitutional functions, but would not amount to its abolition (as happened, for example, in Germany in 1918). The peerage would remain a legally recognised institution, its affairs regulated by royal officers such as Garter Principal King of Arms and his equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

In the past 40 years, only three new hereditary peerages have been created, but two of these were conferred on men who had no heirs (George Thomas and William Whitelaw), and are now extinct. The only hereditary peerage created in recent times for someone who is not a member of the royal family that is still extant is the Earldom of Stockton, conferred on the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. In addition, the Dukedom of York and the Earldom of Wessex have been conferred on two members of the Royal Family (The Prince Andrew and The Prince Edward respectively).

Books on the Peerage

Formerly, there were several directories of members of the peerage and their genælogies. Presently, only few remain which are recognised by the populace: the most well-known are Debrett's and Burke's. Debrett's was originally published in 1769 by John Debrett, and it still continues to be published as Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage. Burke's was first published in 1826 by John Burke, and run almost entirely by the Burke family until 1970, when the company was liquidated. In 1999, another company which had acquired the right to use the name restarted publication of Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage. Debrett's generally provides a short history of the family, while Burke's begins its narrative from the family's foundation.

See also

• List of life peers
• List of Irish representative peers
• List of Dukedoms
• List of Marquessates
• List of Earldoms
• List of Viscountcies

References

• Black v Chrétien: suing a Minister of the Crown
• Coronation and Parliamentary Robes of the British peerage
• Coronets of Members of the Royal Family and of the Peerage
• Dod's History of Parliament: The House of Lords and the Peerage
• Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition: "Peerage"
• Erskine May's Constitutional History
• The Legal Standing of the British Peerage and Baronetage in the overseas realms of the Crown
• Life Peerages Created under the Life Peerages Act 1958