The other contrast between 1970 and 1998 occurs with hereditary honours. In 1970 it looked as if all future peerages would be for life only, at any rate as far as anybody was concerned other than members of the royal family. Although the last such had been conferred only six years earlier, in 1964, a socialist government had been in power ever since, Harold Wilson had announced that his administration would confer no more of them and the spirit of the 1960s generally was unsympathetic to such a supposedly archaic institution. In the late 1990s the position is by no means so clear.

There have been four hereditary creations for commoners since 1970: the Earldom of Stockton in 1984, the Viscountcies of Whitelaw and Tonypandy in 1983 and the Thatcher baronetcy in 1991, all conferred with limitation to heirs male of the body of the grantee. True, only the first and last of these look likely to survive. And even back in 1983 neither Lords Tonypandy nor Whitelaw looked likely to beget sons. But their peerages were still hereditary ones. Life peerages of higher rank than that of baron had been conferred in the past, for instance the Marquessate and then Dukedom conferred on the 9th Earl of Oxford (see SAINT ALBANS, D), though it is not clear that Oxford sat in Parliament under such titles as opposed to doing so in right of his earldom. But remedial legislation could have taken care of any such problems, just as it had when setting up the modern life peerage system in 1958.

The Viscountcy of Tonypandy expired in 1997 with its grantee. That of Whitelaw looks likely to expire with its grantee since he has only daughters. It may here be observed that the limitation to heirs male of the body of the grantee only was a curiously restrictive one given that (a) a peerage creation as recent as Mountbatten of Burma in 1947 had been conferred with a limitation that included the grantee's actual daughters as well as any sons he might have; (b) the spirit of the 1980s was much more sensitive to feminist sentiment than it was inimical to inherited assets so that to overlook Lord Whitelaw's daughters was courting criticism in that quarter; and (c) the Prime Minister at the time was a woman.

But the crucial aspect of these creations is that they have set, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say have revived, a precedent. Lord Tonypandy was a prominent Speaker of the House of Commons. Future Speakers of equal lustre may reasonably feel it is their right to bespeak a hereditary viscountcy too, just as they would have done earlier in the 20th century (see for example DUNROSSIL) or in the 19th century when it was a more regular prize for someone who had climbed that far (see for instance the section on the Viscountcy of Canterbury in the article RUTLAND, D).

Lord Whitelaw had been his party's Chief Whip then one of its elders and was by 1983 a loyal lieutenant to its current leader. In state as opposed to party terms he had held several very senior Cabinet posts. But as with Lord Tonypandy there is no reason to suppose someone equally distinguished may not arise in future political life, in which case he or she could cite Lord Whitelaw's precedent as an argument for being ennobled on equally exalted and extended terms. It is not a unique precedent, but it is much more recent than the viscountcies which only 20 to 30 years earlier in the 20th century went by custom to former ministers of Cabinet rank (see for example the articles BLAKENHAM, BOYD OF MERTON, CHANDOS, ECCLES, HEAD, INGLEBY, MILLS, MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY, STUART OF FINDHORN and TENBY), a custom which had fallen into disuse after the early 1960s.

Lastly and most significantly, Harold Macmillan resuscitated in 1984 the convention that a former Prime Minister is entitled to an Earldom. Attlee, Macmillan's predecessor as Prime Minister by only six years, and a socialist to boot, had taken one. Churchill had presumably been offered one - indeed as we know from the memoirs of Sir Jock Colville (see COLVILLE OF CULROSS, V) had been offered a dukedom - but had turned it down. Eden had been given one in 1961; Macmillan's immediate successor Sir Alec Douglas-Home had had an earldom already, which he had renounced but which was to be taken up by his successor on his death (see HOME, E). Sir Edward Heath was (and is) still in the House of Commons so the matter had not yet arisen, or not publicly. Even the two Labour Prime Ministers after Macmillan had both taken peerages, though they were life baronies.

The prospects for future hereditary creations looked good, then. Enthusiasts for that system may have been disheartened when in 1992, a couple of years after her resignation, Lady Thatcher (as she was by then) took only a life barony. But her husband had been created a baronet the year before, so even that rank was seen to be extant and as a general principle the convention of settling a specifically hereditary title on the family of an ex-Prime Minister had been perpetuated. In precedent terms it may come to pass that husbands of other female Prime Ministers are deemed to have a right to a baronetcy. Then again, the next female Prime Minister may prove less self-effacing than Lady Thatcher and on retiring argue that she is entitled to become a (presumably hereditary) countess in her own right. The feminist movement, which is every bit as strong in the late 1990s as it was in the early 1980s, has not addressed this particular issue, but it would be strange if it acquiesced in a woman's being treated as less deserving than a man.

With the departure of Mrs Thatcher from the premiership the modest revival of hereditary titles was suspended. In the seven and a half years in office of her successor over 150 life peers were made but no hereditary ones. That was not a particularly large number compared with the past. The Macmillan and Home administrations had been responsible for 65, but they had also recommended 48 hereditary peerages. Harold Wilson had been responsible for 141 between 1964 and 1970 and he and James Callaghan between them for another 139 in the years 1974 to 1979. That establishes the all-time record, since modern life peerages were introduced, for a period of government by a single party where the change of prime minister (if any) is mid-term, of 280 in 131 months, or about one a fortnight on average. Edward Heath had confined himself to 46 in his three and a half years as Prime Minister between June 1970 and February 1974. Mrs Thatcher had been responsible for more than 150 too, but over a longer period than her immediate successor.

Despite the 18 years of Conservative power from 1979 to 1997, the fairly generous creation of life peers was not a one-sided party-political policy. Opposition supporters had frequently been ennobled, whichever party was in power, ever since the modern life peerage was introduced in 1958, and continued so to be even when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister. After the 1997 election the new Labour Prime Minister made 68 in his first eight months alone. It is true that some of these were resignation honours ‘inherited' from his Conservative predecessor, but then that is equally true of previous Prime Ministers so that in the long run the number of creations for any administration balances out. A further 39 had been created by late summer 1998.

The upshot is that the House of Lords has for over 30 years become substantially fuller of prime ministerial nominees than is generally recognised - even before the withdrawal of voting and sitting rights of hereditaries which became imminent following the Labour victory of 1997. What saves the life element from being the repository of nominations by the Prime Minister in power, a sort of chamber packed with a nomenklatura under a presidential-style patronage system, is that a substantial minority come from previous Prime Ministers and potential future ones, that is to say, the leaders of the other principal parties. Moreover, once ennobled, life peers have a habit of defying their original party's dictates. In practice, therefore, it seems unlikely that the principle of House of Lords independence could ever come under serious threat, even if nominations were wholly to replace selection by birth. Just as this edition was going to press it was in fact reported that a substantial membership of a reformed House of Lords would be by election. Even that could raise problems, for instance in making it harder to select Government ministers from purely appointive members, as the life peers are now. After all, they would not have been chosen directly by the people. Democratic legitimacy would rest with the elective members, rather as it is thought to do now with life peers in contrast to the hereditary element.

It is not our policy at Burke's Peerage & Baronetage to comment on the party political aspects of the impending deprivation of hereditary peers' sitting and voting rights in the House of Lords. But it is a topic of legitimate non-party political comment. First, serious historians now broadly agree that an early writ of summons to the council of the realm which evolved into the Upper House of Parliament was probably issued to a man for his life time only. The hereditary nature of the composition of the House of Lords developed later. Accordingly it could be argued that a return to temporary membership only, perhaps for the rest of the appointee's life, perhaps not even for that long, is a return to the original concept of the institution rather than a radical innovation. Second, there are two specialised points that need clarification and which have not yet been discussed publicly, namely what machinery there will be, once the hereditary peerage as a body is no longer summoned to Parliament, for (a) terminating the abeyance or dormancy (see Thomas Woodcock's essay and GLOSSARY for respective definitions) of a peerage and (b) deciding who is the rightful heir to a title in the case of a disputed succession.

This sort of problem crops up right down to the present time. The abeyance in the Barony of Grey (of Codnor) in the English Peerage was terminated in 1989. The dormancies in the Scottish Viscountcy of Oxfuird and Scottish Lordship of Parliament of Borthwick were both resolved in 1986; that in the Baronetcy of St John-Mildmay in 1997. The machinery for coping with Scottish titles is the Lord Lyon Court. It will not be affected by the proposed changes in the composition of the House of Lords and should continue to be capable of deciding any future problem involving titles in the Scottish peerage, for example the dormancy in the Earldom of Breadalbane and Holland, which occurred in 1995 on the death without issue of its 10th holder. The Baronetage has its official roll, maintained by the Home Office, and it was under that body's aegis that the dormancy in the St John-Mildmay baronetcy was terminated recently, as the claimant had satisfied the criteria for inclusion on that roll.

The abeyance in the Barony of Grey (of Codnor) is a different matter. It was terminated following a recommendation to the Crown by the House of Lords Privileges Committee followed in turn by the issue of a writ of summons to Parliament to the man who had established his claim. How, if at all, would that abeyance be terminated in future? Another old title in the Peerage of England, the Barony of Audley, fell into abeyance on the death in mid-1997 of the 25th Lord, who left three daughters and coheiresses. Considerable official time and energy have in the past been spent resolving the question of who if anyone is entitled to succeed to such titles. Can it be guaranteed in future? If not, can some adequate machinery be substituted for the old one?

It might seem that the impending deprivation of hereditary peers of their sitting and voting rights in the House of Lords is the final blow to the revived conferring of hereditary titles, even given the Indian summer of the 1983-91 period. That, it is submitted, may be a superficial view. Who in the 1960s could have foreseen the hereditary creations of the future, more than a quarter of a century away? The impending severance in 1998 of any connection between hereditary titles and the composition of the Upper House arguably strengthens rather than weakens the case for continuing to confer what will then become purely prestigious honours. The principle of selecting legislators by birth (as opposed to the argument for retaining the present system because it does a good job, which is quite a different line of reasoning) is now regarded as indefensible. But there can be much less objection to not just the retention of hereditary honours (which is under no official threat whatsoever at present) but their continued creation - always provided they are not fortified by privileges that run counter to democracy.

After all, no proposal has been made to abolish hereditary posts such as the King's or Queen's Champion, Earl Marshal or Lord High Constable of Scotland, which are largely ceremonial. Moreover inherited wealth, which confers far more power than any title, is not up for abolition. And the Government has specifically said that the hereditary monarchy is not under threat, because it does not legislate, is in fact part of the picturesque rather than the efficient machinery of the Constitution. But pageantry is indivisible. If it is acceptable, even desirable, in the apparatus surrounding the head of state such as the Knights of the Garter, the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms and the Royal Company of Archers, then it can be little less so, if at all, among the heads of families who tend to provide the membership of such bodies, namely those who hold baronetcies and hereditary peerages.

Once sitting and voting rights in the House of Lords have been withdrawn from hereditary peers they will as a body wield no more political power than the monarchy - perhaps (as a body) less. Since they will retain their titles they will presumably enjoy the same social prestige as Irish peers do now or as Scottish peers did before 1963 who had not been elected as representatives in the House of Lords of their group and had no United Kingdom, Great Britain or English peerage. In practice it is extremely doubtful whether the sort of person who was impressed by titles made any distinction before 1963 between a peer with a seat in the House of Lords and one without. It is still more doubtful now, when ignorance about the peerage is still wider, even if the only peers still excluded wholesale are the Irish creations (see also Charles Lysaght's essay).

When a former politician goes into the City to make money it is expected that he will be allowed to leave a good part of any fortune he makes to his children. Why should he not, if sufficiently distinguished, be ennobled and allowed to perpetuate the memory of his career in his descendants - as he once used to be? Why should not some of the millionaires who now get given only life peerages, so that their heirs may learn to administer the family fortunes with the same eye towards a suitably opulent style of living allied to restrained taste and qualified by a sense of what is due to the community in public service that at its best characterised the hereditary peerage, however recent the individual creation, in the 19th and 20th centuries?

Why, if it comes to that, should not some of the millionaires who do not even get life peerages? Sir Elton John, for instance, who has already been thought sufficiently respectable to deserve the accolade of Christian chivalry which once even Sir Guy de Beauchamp (see WARWICK, BROOKE and, E) and Sir Philip Sidney (see DE L'ISLE, V) were not too proud to accept, already comports himself like one of history's more colourful Whig noblemen. If hereditary rank and wealth were once again closely allied, the prestige of the former could well revive by acquiring some of the latter's lustre. The peerage thus predominantly infused with great riches might become again what it originally was, representative of the most economically powerful in the land.

The body of life peers could then revert to something like the French Ancien Régime noblesse de robe, a body of worthy men and women of public affairs: academics, doctors, educationists, judges, middle and upper management, social workers, still-active politicians. The equivalent of the noblesse d'epée would be the golden but officially apolitical caste of hereditaries, the price of whose revived prestige would be that they distributed largesse in as conspicuous and glorious a manner possible.

The way in which the orthodoxy of the 1960s was reversed in the 1980s and early 1990s is a reminder of how evanescent the present climate of opinion could prove to be in regard to hereditary honours for persons who are non-royal. In the first Elizabethan Era hereditary peerage creations were few and the baronetage did not yet exist. In the following century the former proliferated and an entirely new order of hereditary titles, the baronets, was invented to supplement the older one. Some similar pattern might well recur as between the last third of this century and the whole of the next. It would be short-sighted to assume that the hereditary principle will never stage a comeback, particularly as the hereditary transmission of property and the headship of state itself remain not just untouched but enjoy wide support.