"I shall perhaps essay a speech or two in the House when I return, but I am not ambitious of a parliamentary career, which is of all things the most degrading and unthankful."
[Letter from Lord Byron to his mother, written at Constantinople, 1st July 1810]
The House of Lords was, and still is, the upper chamber of the British Government, where legislation passed in the House of Commons is scrutinised and sometimes amended before being passed to the monarch for Royal Assent. The Lords were one of the three parts of government, the other two being the House of Commons and the King.
Although hardly anyone reads Regency-set stories for the politics of the day, the House of Lords was an important influence within high society at the time.
In some years, the opening and closing of the two houses of Parliament matched closely with the beginning and end of the social season in London. The wives and families of peers and MPs accompanied their husbands to the capital and the various entertainments of the season kept them entertained, providing opportunities to mingle with other families of similar rank. So it's natural to wonder what all those Lords actually did while their wives and daughters were so busy socialising.
Where was the House of Lords?
The phrase "House of Lords" refers to the collective group of Lords rather than any building or chamber they met in.
The Lords occupied a room within the old Palace of Westminster, which sat on the banks of the Thames just south of Westminster bridge. It was also near to the east end of the Collegiate Church of St Peter—Westminster Abbey—and an area that is still called Old Palace Yard.
Before 1801, the Lords met in the Queen's Chamber within the old palace, and had done so for hundreds of years. [coloured blue on the above map] However, throughout the 18th century they struggled to accommodate both the Lords, the administrative staff and the ever-increasing number of documents generated by their work.
Following the union with Ireland and the increase in the number of Lords that would be attending, more space was needed. The Lords, therefore, moved into a room called the White Chamber, a former banqueting chamber also known as the Lesser Hall, which had previously been used by the Court of Requests. [marked in red] In 1802, it was described as "a very handsome but not a splendid room; although it is said to be prepared merely for temporary use, a new parliament house being in contemplation." Despite regular discussions about replacing the Palace of Westminster, the Lords continued meeting in this room until the fire of 1834.
The chamber was 80 feet long, 40 feet wide and 30 feet tall. (24.3m x 12.2m x 9.1m) There were six semi-circular windows—three on each long side— that were six feet tall.
"The interior was ornamented with tapestry hangings, consisting of historical figures, representing the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. They were the gift of the States of Holland to Queen Elizabeth. The tapestry was divided into compartments by a framework of stained wood, and each design was surrounded by a border containing portraits of the several gallant officers who commanded in the English fleet at that important period."
[The Royal Palace of Westminster, Old and New London: Volume 3, by Walter Thornbury pub. 1878 (British History Online)]
The King's throne stood at the southern end, surrounded by a railing. Outside the railing, MPs and other "distinguished persons" could stand to watch the house while it was in session. On the northern end of the room was another railing called the Bar of the House. Any MP delivering a message from the House of Commons would stand "below the bar". This was also the area where an MP could observe the Lords while they were debating.
The room contained various benches, where the Lords would "take their seat". The benches on the left side, as seen from the bar, accommodated all the Lords that supported whichever political party formed the Government. The Lords who supported the other side, known as the Opposition, sat on the benches to the right of the bar. Peers who did not support either party sat on the cross benches that were placed in front of the bar, facing the throne.
The Palace of Westminster that we recognise today, including the Elizabeth Tower and its famous bell (known worldwide as "Big Ben") began construction in 1840, following the 1834 fire.
Who was eligible to sit in the Lords?
"As the head of the church, the Crown virtually appoints all archbishops and bishops, who form one of the three estates of the realm, and, as "lords spiritual", hold the highest rank, after princes of the blood royal, in the House of Lords."
[A Treatise Upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, by Thomas Erskine May, pub. 1844]
Those able to take part in the business of the House of Lords were made up of three groups.
The Princes of Royal Blood were the brothers and sons of the king.
The Lords Spiritual were the upper ranks of the clergy, which comprised the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the twenty-four Bishops of the Church of England. After 1801, they added four representative Bishops of the Church of Ireland.
The Lords Temporal were all English and Welsh dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons, as long as they were over 21 years old. Scottish peers nominated sixteen of their number to sit in the house, and once Ireland became part of the United Kingdom in 1801 they chose 28 Irish peers to support Irish interests. If an Irish peer also held an English title, he sat in the house by virtue of his English peerage and did not count among the 28.
Those who did not qualify were any peer who was a minor, (under the age of 21) a lunatic or an undischarged bankrupt. Women were also excluded, even a Peeress who held the title in her own right.
If a peer was a Catholic, he would not be specifically barred from the House of Lords on the basis of his religion. Instead, he would choose not to take his place due to the anti-Catholic oath that was required by all peers upon taking their seat. Anyone refusing to take the oath was not permitted to sit, speak or vote in the House of Lords. The part of the oath particularly offensive to them may have been this, taken from the oath used during the reign of George IV:
"...I do renounce, reject, and abjure the Opinion, that Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any other Authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects, or by any Person whatsoever: And I do declare, That I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other Foreign Prince, Prelate, Person, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any Temporal or Civil Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, or Pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this Realm. I do swear, That I will defend to the utmost of my Power the Settlement of Property within this Realm, as established by the Laws: And I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any Intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by Law within this Realm: And I do solemnly swear, That I never will exercise any Privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant Religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom..."
The oath had originally been created in response to a fear that Catholic peers in the House of Lords would push for a Catholic King on the throne. In 1822, when the Roman Catholic Peer's Bill was under debate, only six Catholic peers were at that time unwilling to participate in the House business due to their refusal to take the oath. Despite this, the bill was defeated by a majority of 42 votes and the wording of the oath did not change until 1829.
How many Peers made up the House of Lords?
There was no fixed number of peers. The figure changed frequently, due to:
Existing peers dying, and whether their heirs were eligible to replace them.
Existing peerages falling into abeyance, becoming dormant or extinct.
New peerages that had been granted by the king.
Whether a new or inherited title was granted to an existing peer or someone who was not already a peer.
A peer only had one vote, regardless of how many titles he held, so if someone who held a viscountcy later inherited or was granted an earldom it would not add to the number of peers.
Before the union between England and Scotland in 1707, the House of Lords contained 168 members. The representative peers from Scotland brought this number to 184.
Stockdale's "Court & City Register", published in 1798, listed the House of Peers as containing 271 Lords Temporal, made up of 19 dukes, 11 marquises, 89 earls, 16 viscounts, 120 barons plus the 16 Scottish peers.
When Ireland became part of the new United Kingdom in 1800, that added a further 28 new members.
King George III increased the number of peers substantially, creating 121 new peers between 1760 and 1800.
"This practice of granting peerages has been more frequent during the present reign than at any former period, not less than three-fifths of the house of lords having been created, and the number is every year increased."
[Letters from England, vol 3, by Robert Southey, writing as Don Manuel Alvarez Espriella, pub. 1814]
What did the members of the House of Lords do?
"Granville is gone to vote against Reform, and G is at Spencer House. I am quite alone, very tired, have seen nobody, heard nothing..."
[Letter from Harriet, Countess Granville to her brother, the Duke of Devonshire, 10th May 1812]
As well as confirming or amending legislation suggested by the Commons, or putting forward new laws of their own, the main work of the House of Lords included being jurors in the trials of their fellow peers, passing divorce and other private bills, listening to petitions and holding debates on any subject that came before them. They also set up and attended committees to investigate matters in more depth.
One of the most famous trials held just after the Regency ended was the trial of Queen Caroline, which was technically a debate in the Lords about whether they should pass a bill allowing the king (the former Prince Regent) to divorce his wife.
Attendance wasn't compulsory. However, it was considered a duty and a responsibility for peers of the realm to contribute to the running of the country and to keep a check on the MPs in the Commons. Their discussions and deliberations were published in daily newspapers like the London Chronicle, so any Lords who did not attend could read a summarised version of the main debates over breakfast the following morning. Sessions in the House of Lords were only scheduled during weekdays.
Every peer would have had Parliamentary robes, which differed slightly depending on the title they held. In earlier times they were worn whenever the peer attended the House of Lords, but by 1814 that practice was "long discontinued" and they would generally attend the house in everyday clothes.
They would have worn their Parliamentary robes during the official opening ceremony of each session of Parliament, and during the trial of another peer. However, records suggest that no peer was tried in the House of Lords between 1776 and 1841.
Sometimes the business of the House was conducted by a small number of attendees on any particular day. The minimum requirement was "Their Lordships, or any five of them". On 17th February 1801, there were only two bishops and nine peers present, including the Lord Chancellor Lord Loughborough. Two days later, the number rose to six bishops and thirty-six peers. On 24th November 1802, one bishop and five peers, including the Lord Chancellor Lord Eldon, attended the house. A list of those present on any particular day was included in the "Journals of the House of Lords".
Some votes were held to decide whether to pass a bill to the next stage or whether to form a committee to discuss a piece of legislation in more detail. These votes only needed a majority of those in attendance at the time, and the counting began with the most recent barony, working upwards in precedence to the oldest dukedom. In April 1808, only 57 votes were cast on whether to pass the "Cotton Bill" to the next stage, and that received 44 votes in favour and 13 against.
If a peer wanted to vote on a particular matter in the House but either could not or would not attend the House on the day, they could vote by means of a Proxy. A proxy vote was where one Lord asked another Lord to submit a vote on his behalf, and it would always be someone who was voting the same way.
"In those ancient times the Lords were not obliged to make barons only their proxies in the House of Lords, as the custom now is, ... but since the first year of Henry VIII there appear in the Journals no proxies but such as were barons of parliament."
[The Constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, pub. 1802 by J Ridgeway]
I take this to mean that by the time of the Regency, any Lord who wished to vote by proxy could only ask a baron to vote on his behalf.
Proxy votes only occurred where Lords were summoned or given notice to attend in order to vote. One example was in February 1810. At the end of business on the 12th February, it was ordered that "all Lords be summoned to attend the Service of the House on Thursday, the 22nd." That was the indication that they needed to be present for a vote or arrange for a proxy.
On that day, the Lords voted on "His Majesty's Message relative to the Convention with Portugal". Those who voted "content", meaning they agreed with the message, came to 94. Of those, 42 votes were from Lords present in the room, and 52 were proxy votes. Those who voted "non-content", meaning they disagreed with the message, came to 124. Of those, 59 were from Lords who were present and 65 were proxy votes.
Of the Lords present, only 38 were barons, which suggests that they must have been able to vote as a proxy more than once on behalf of different Lords.
In 1811, there was even a debate about whether the right of proxy votes should be removed. The Lord Chancellor was reported in the newspaper as pointing out the following, which sheds a little insight on the behaviour of some Lords at this time:
"[Proxy voting] had been the practice of Parliament; in all times; and he defied any body to shew him the material difference between that, and a Noble Lord's coming in at two or three o'clock in the morning, to vote without hearing a word of a debate that lasted all night. An abuse of the right might exist; but that was no argument for destroying the right altogether. It was the right of a Noble Lord, if he chose to do so, to vote without having attended to any of the proceedings before the House."
[The House of Lords, Wednesday January 2, The London Chronicle, pub. Thursday January 24—Friday January 25th 1811]
The Lords and the Season
"Lord Sydney's Ball and Supper.
On Wednesday evening his Lordship gave a magnificent ball and supper, at his superb mansion in Grosvenor-square."
[The Morning Post, Friday 4th May 1810]
When Lord Sydney held his ball and supper, "the evening's amusements concluded with reels and Strathspeys about seven in the morning". It's no surprise, then, that Lord Sydney was not on the list of Lords who attended the house later that day.
Some Lords were political creatures, who spent almost every day of the season in the House of Lords. Others only attended the House when a subject was being discussed that particularly interested them. A few may never have attended the Lords at all.
Some of those "Lords" in Regency stories who spend every night of the season partying would be the younger sons or heirs who have not yet acceded to their father's title and estates. This gave them the freedom to socialise as much as they liked without having to worry about attending debates in the House the following morning.
There were many times when the business of the house would not have gone on long enough to stop the Lords from enjoying the social aspects of the season. However, occasionally a debate would last well into the evening, forcing them to delay or cancel their evening's plans:
"The House sat late enough to make it eleven before I had dined at the coffee-house, so I went home to bed instead of dressing for Mrs Robinson's ball."
[Letter written by Lord Minto, Pall Mall, London, 6th March 1804]
Visiting the Lords
"During very interesting debates, the space at the bar and the space on either side of the throne exhibited a living mass of human beings."
[Random Recollections of the House of Lords, from the Year 1830 to 1836, by James Grant, pub. 1836]
According to the "Picture of London for 1802", visitors or "strangers" could visit the house at any time and stand below the bar while the house was sitting. However, to gain admittance they would have to apply to the doorkeepers or provide a letter of introduction from a peer. Those wearing boots or greatcoats would not be permitted in the area behind the bar unless they were an MP. The area had no seats so any visitors would have to stand.
Towards the end of the Regency period, access to the House of Lords had changed. "Leigh's New Picture of London", pub 1818, gives the following advice to visitors:
"HOUSE OF LORDS. Considered open to well-dressed individuals; but an optional gratuity will facilitate admission. The usual sum is 3s; except on particular occasions when it will be necessary to give 8s or 10s 6d."
[Image: The Trial of Queen Caroline by Sir George Hayter via Wikimedia Commons]
[Image: cropped area showing the Palace of Westminster (edited to highlight early and later location of the House of Lords) taken from the 4th edition of Richard Horwood's map, 1819]