House of Lords (Themiclesia)

House of Lords
Type
Type	upper house of the Parliament of Themiclesia
Term limits	hereditary
History
Founded	February 21, 1845 (1845-02-21)
Preceded by	Council of Peers
Leadership
Lord Speaker	Baronness of Kra
Structure
Seats	457
Political groups	Liberals: 146   Conservatives: 170   Progressives: 1   Green: 7   Republicans: 1   Crossbenchers: 82
Political groups	Patriarchs: 4 Chief Barons: 49 Barons: 403
Length of term	appointed by monarch on advice of prime minister for life or hereditary
Salary	compensation for attendance only
Meeting place
Kaw-men Hall

The Themiclesian House of Lords (徹侯之省, r′jêt-go-tje-srêng′) or House of Peers is the upper house of the bicameral Themiclesian parliament. It was formed in 1845 from the Council of Peers on the model of the Tyrannian House of Lords, principally to secure Conservative influence and check Reformist will during franchise reform that created the modern House of Commons. It originally oversaw legislative, executive, judicial, and royal affairs, though the latter three have been restricted. Currently, the house has 445 members and primarily exercise an advisory and cautionary role. Even though its powers are theoretically equal to the Commons, the upper house by convention only delays and amends, rather than rejects, government agenda.

The emperor summons and prorogues the House of Lords upon the advice of the prime minister. The House of Lords cannot be dissolved as it is not an elected body, but it is prorogued while the Commons is dissolved or prorogued.

Etymology

The Shinasthana name of the Themiclesian House of Lords was fixed only recently by resolution, before which statutes used a variety of terms to identify the institution. The term r′jêt-go-tje-srêng′ means "chamber of ordinary barons", which stands in contrast with the Commons, literally called the "chamber of bloodlines" (群姓之省).  The terms which had identified the upper house include "chamber beneath the gate" (門下省), "east chamber" (東省), and "chamber of lords-in-waiting" (侍中侯省). While any of these terms still exist in statutes in force today, it is customary in the Anglian language to use the term "House of Lords" to refer to the institution post-1845, though there is no such convention for the modern body's predecessors.

History

Formation

The Great Settlement of 1801 wrested power over legislation and taxation from the throne to an anti-war alliance of peers and other aristocrats. At the time, the Council of Peers, which had been a relatively informal group of hereditary peers that served at court in various roles, took on a new political significance as the forum where all peers legitimized their collective opinions. The council relied on the rule that edicts could not be promulgated until two peers countersigned it.  The rule was originally only a measure of authentication, but after the Great Settlement it enabled the peers to control the legislative process, by refusing to authenticate edicts that seemed disagreeable to them, especially of royal authorship. But in 1809 most of the peers assented that a threshold of two peers was too weak against royal power and vulnerable to defection, so henceforth only half of all peers could pass an edict.

The same process of converting an existing institution to facilitate the expression of political will also occurred on the Council of Protonotaries, whose members are elected by the gentries of the prefectures triennially. This council originally served as a secretariat, which the emperor favoured for converting his political acts into edicts, since royal secretaries were typically more dependent on royal will to obtain promotions. The alliance seized control of the secretariat, further shoring it up against royal power. With control over both councils and with a disgraced monarch, the alliance became known as the Conservative Party and governed Themiclesia without effective opposition between 1800 and 1821. Some describe this as a one-party state, but others believe the party was insufficiently entrenched to constitute a one-party state in the modern sense.

But as Themiclesian gentry became familiar with the ideals of Enlightenment and their apparent influence in Casaterra and Camia, the traditional form of election was esteemed arcane and undemocratic. Political diversity was restored in 1821 with the death of Emperor 'Ei and appointment of Lord Sghjang as Reformist prime minister, but the administration fell rapidly under both scandal and political assault from the Conservatives. Merchants sought to gain influence by bribing electors or sponsoring candidates, but due to their financial security and unaccountability once elected, it rarely was effective. Their discontent and sympathy with Reformist voices within the gentry culminated in the dockyard riots of 1841 and 1844 that compelled the gentry to allow reforms.  

The Lord of Rjai-lang proposed to grant the franchise, after the Tyrannians, to all educated and propertied males. He argued that the expanded franchise would not only settle unrest within the gentry but make it possible to tax them legitimately. The land-owning, aristocratic Conservatives were concerned such a franchise would produce a strong and long-lasting Reformist leaning in the Council. Against this, they too drew inspiration from Casaterran bicameralism to formalize a upper house that retained veto power over bills from the elected house. This chamber was framed as a strengthening reform to the Council of Peers. The matter was hotly debated across the salons of Kien-k'ang and finally passed in 1844, to come into effect the following year.

Stasis

In the first decade of the upper house's existence, party discipline was lax, as the house was comfortably Conservative in leaning. However, the Liberal leader the Lord of Rjai-ljang was also a member of this house. Gar-lang was responsible for a number of key debates in which he sometimes successfully swayed the members of the house to vote against their immediate, personal interests, appealing to future or national ones. Yet due to its natural alignment, the house was frequently at odds with the elected lower house. By the end of Rjar-lang's premiership in 1859, deadlock between the two houses had become the norm. The Liberal Party's programme to reform and invest in the military and eliminate unimportant offices in the civil service were particularly contentious, only passing the Lords by the cheap sale of public lands to peers, which was a thinly-disguised form of bribery. Since 1860, Themiclesian commons and crown lands have been wholly exhausted, leaving the Liberals nothing by which to purchase the support of the Lords. In 1862, the new Liberal leader appealed to rural tenant farmers, accusing the aristocracy of extortion and not earning their prestige and wealth. This was aimed at destabilizing rural communities that most peers relied upon for income, thereby weakening them, and inducing long-term tenants to move to cities, which would further depress labour prices. In response, the peers aligned with and funded workers unions in urban environments, militating them against the capitalist politics and provoking strikes.

Since the opening of the franchise in 1844, the House of Commons had been a Liberal stronghold, largely due to the terms of the franchise; only in the presence of contentious issues or failed Liberal promises have Conservatives ever commanded a majority there. Electors were very likely to be bourgeoisie, since only these individuals would own enough capital equipment or non-agricultural land (taxed at a much lower rate) to be enfranchised. In 1870, the Conservatives proposed to extend the franchise by halving the theshold from ten m′rjing per annum to five, which is projected to quadruple the size of the electorate. The Liberals rejected the Conservative proposal in the Commons, resolving that the franchise should be given to all men of "proven worth", which excluded peers (who did nothing to gain their worth) and the poor (who had too little worth). Thus, neither Liberals nor Conservatives supported universal franchise in this period. Instead, both parties in 1878 agreed to an extension of the franchise that maintained the current balance of power in the Commons. The new strain of Conservatism that sought to maintain the social structure by portraying the upper class as philanthropists, juxtaposed against the unrestrained capitalist, is called New Conservatism, or New Conservative Movement. This is compared to the old movement that believed the role of elected representatives was limited to assent and budget.

Function

Legislative

The primary function of the House of Lords is as a upper house in the legislative process, having the power to propose, debate, amend, and pass bills. The chamber once enjoyed all the formal authorities of the Commons—including the same rights over money bills, but this right has been curbed. The Lords in the house or committees have power to summon witnesses to acquire opinions on bills. The house has retains the theoretical power to reject a bill passed by the Commons, but the convention is that the House may not reject the Government's manifesto promises outright. This last occurred in 1936 when the House, with a Conservative majority, rejected the Liberal government's conscription bill: the Liberal government sought a second majority in an immediate general election and advised the sovereign to appoint as many new peers as is necessary to secure the bill's passage.

In modern practice, it is more common for the House to study a Government bill in detail or keep it in committee to avoid a final vote. As no party holds an absolute majority in the upper house, it is not possible to whip peers to pass a bill immediately. It remains uncertain what the constitutional convention is if the House neither passes nor rejects a Government bill, though in face of such delays at least two governments have threatened a general election, which has the effect of forcing the House to pass the bill should the government retain a majority. It is the view of many scholars that the practice of packing the house should be limited to true emergencies rather than routine political differences.

Executive

The power of the Lords over executive actions is directly inherited from its predecessor, the Councils of Peers. Under a desire to check the executive, any act of the Council of Correspondence that requires the assent of the crown were tabled at the Council of Peers, where it is given a pro forma reading and presented to the sovereign, who attended the Council in person, for approval. Generally, no debate occurs on these acts. After the Council of Peers was reconstituted as the House of Lords, this tradition continued, though after the reign of Emperor Tjang assent for executive decisions are normally delivered by a representative.

The Reductions in Formalities Act of 1975 provides that secondary legislation may be presented to the sovereign directly, without passing the House of Lords; however, both the Liberals and Conservatives have generally sought to follow this custom despite its being non-mandatory.

Judicial

Much of the House's judicial functions are exponents of those of the monarch in former eras. Starting from the 6th century, Mrangh emperors assigned some of their most trusted noblemen to review cases on appeal from the court of the Chancellor. Such cases are not necessarily difficult in juridical terms, and some are appealed with allegations of iniquity or corruption by judges. Because the Mrangh emperors were often at odds with the general bureaucracy, their willingness to hear cases was exploited by litigants not satisfied with a ruling by the Chief Justice or Chancellor, even if legally sound. Direct intervention from the throne was an uncommon occurrence, as indeed most cases that reached the Chancellor's court were appealed again. This court was distinct from most contemporaries as multiple judges were typically involved in its procedures, whereas most others had a solitary judge.

In the early 15th century, the practice of assigning cases to a group of judges to render a final judgment was continued under the Republic, and the lack of a monarch contributed to the development of judicial independence from the administrative power. After the restoration of the monarchy in 1513, the weakened throne found its best interest served by leaving controversial cases to judges and refraining from openly intervening with proceedings.  Nevertheless, royal influence in cases relevant to administration was periodically seen through sending judges on lengthy excursions, which subtly altered the inclinations of the bench. In the period of absolute rule from 1577 to 1598, the monarch's role in judicature receded

Review of capital sentences

The judicial role of the House of Lords is connected to those of its predecessors. Prior to the abolition of capital punishment in 1853, the Lords retained a veto on its use. After the Exchequer of Appeals and Home Secretary had reviewed the capital sentences meted out during the year, the list of sentences would be read, one-by-one, to the house; members would be called by name and declare either "Upon my conscience, this case is satisfactory", indicating their support for the sentence, or "Upon my conscience, this case is not satisfactory", indicating their opposition. A simple majority in the chamber was required to validate the sentence.

Scholars have asserted that, since the lords were called upon, by name, individually to give their judgment, the process somewhat restricted use of capital punishment, as few wanted to be seen as profligate with capital punishment. After abolition, this procedure became obsolete.

Impeachment

The Lords have power to try impeachments that the Commons pass but not to begin impeachment proceedings, except against the house's own members. When impeachment trial begins, the Commons command the President of Tribunes or one of his subordinates to present its arguments to the Lords. The defendant can be arrested by the Commons, if a commoner, or by the Lords, if a peer. After the defedant has been brought before the house, arguments are heard much as a normal trial. If the defendant was a commoner, he is represented by a peer and not present in person; if no peer sponsors the defendant's case, the Lord Speaker may appoint a member in his behalf.  After arguments, the members of the house act as judge of both fact and law; a simple majority is required for conviction and sentencing. Historically, the house had absolute discretion over the sentence.

After the establishment of the House in 1845, this procedure has rarely been used. But after the 1948 and 1950 impeachment trials of Lieutenant-general Kraw and Rear Admiral Tsro, respectively, the question of separation of powers came into public attention and was subject to criticism. The Limitations on Judicial Powers Act of 1953 limited the range of possible punishments to degradation, dismissal, debarrment from office, loss of franchise rights, and fines not exceeding the total value of emoluments received up to the point of impeachment; however, the same law also clarified that impeachment trial is an exception to the rule of autrefois convict, and defendants may be tried again for both criminal and civil causes, having been convicted by impeachment.

Appellate Committee

The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords remains the court of last resort for suits at law on appeal from the Court of Appeal. While appeals were formerly tried by the entire house, all members sitting as judges of law, the House of Peers Act of 1885 require that only lord justices sit as judges. Since the size of the bench in the Court of Appeal is not fixed, that of the lord justices is also variable. The bench, usually consisting of eight, decided by a vote of simple majority. The House's procedures are the same as in normal appeal trials, except both parties must be represented by counsel and be sponsored by at least one lay member of the house. In 1953, as part of the reforms to the judicial functions of the House of Lords, the lord justices were deprived of the power to vote on legislation.

Unlike some apex courts, the house had no discretion over its docket. In the 19th century, a considerable portion of the house's time was devoted to judicial proceedings, which the Act of 1885 remedied. Between 1800 and 1885, to prevent waste of legislative time, the government could impose a forfeiture on the plaintiff-in-error, in case the Lords do not overturn the judgment. The size of the forfeiture could be unreasonably high in a case in the Government wished to defeat, but the forfeiture was not considered an illegal barrier to litigation, as the forfeiture does not need to be paid beforehand. In practice, the imposition of any amount of forfeiture was invariably criticized, sometimes by the upper house itself. The house may waive the forfeiture for litigants deemed unable to pay or if the case had legitimate cause to see further deliberation, even if judgment was upheld.

The Appellate Committee occupies its own premises, the G.run Hall (侖殿, kwren-ntenh), to the northwest of the Kaw-men Hall. The Court is usually known by its seat rather than its more cumbersome institutional title. Lord justices are permitted to sit on the House's floor and participate in debate, though the prevailing rule is that they must conform to the Crossbenchers' standards of behaviour and distance themselves from partisan activity.

Judicial Council

The Judicial Council is a secondary court of last resort erected by statue in 1950. The Appellate Committee lost some of its jurisdiction to this court, mainly over questions of legal interpretation involving sub-national governments.  As the states of Estoria and Helia both possess independent judicial apparatus that include apex courts for civil and criminal causes arising under respective domestic laws, neither the Appellate Committee nor the Judicial Council hears such cases from them, but issues like the limits of the powers of devolved legislatures and the distribution of responsibilities, under the framework of their constitutional legislation, between the central and devolved governments. After 1987, the Judicial Council functions as a court of review for the newly-established Human Rights Council that hears disputes regarding civil and political rights.

The Judicial Council sits as a committee of all lord justices, though only one third of them are required to sit at the designated place to be quorate.

Membership

The membership of the House of Lords is restricted to the upper ranks of the Peerage of Themiclesia, the ordinary baron, chief baron, and patriarch. The lowest rank, that of baronet, is eligible for election to the House of Commons. There are currently 445 peers who are members of the House of Lords, which is lower than the total 1747 members of the peerage. By the House's orders, peers in their minority, those who have been away from Themiclesia for ten years or more, those financially insolvent, and those who voluntarily go on leave are not eligible to take their seats until permission has been granted by the House. Regardless of rank, each peer possesses one vote.

Inheritance

Under the Peerage Act of 1847, a title in the peerage can be inherited by eldest, legitimate offspring of the peer's body, irrespective of sex.

In order for an offspring to be legitimate, his biological parents must be legally married to each other at the point of birth. The marriage of a peer, though autonomous unlike the royal family, must be reported to the Marshal of Peers to be effective. The offspring had to be born on Themiclesian soil in order to be eligible to inherit, but this has been relaxed in 1894. If a peer has married multiple times, whether due to the death of the spouse or divorce, his offspring from the first marriage is preferred from those of subsequent marriages.

The law requires those inheriting titles to be metally sound, financially solvent, and not a convicted criminal. The House of Lords itself judges whether any inheritor is disqualified along these lines. A child is permitted to inherit a title, but he is not able to take his seat in the House until 25 years of age; if any allegation of insanity, insolvency, or criminality is made on a peer in his minority, these must be raised at the point he takes his seat. Thus, if a peer becomes legally insane at the age of 20 and but recovers by the time he is 25, he is still eligible to take his seat. If a peer is declared insane after taking his seat, he is no longer permitted to recover his seat and title, which then pass to his successor.

If a peer is convicted, usually by the House, of any crime which calls for imprisonment, his is considered to have vacated his seat, which passes to his successor. If a peer has been convicted in a different court, the House may vacate his seat by a vote. If declared insolvent, he must vacate his seat until he has satisfied his debts to creditors.

Leave

According to the rules of the House, a peer who is ill or encumbered by reason of old age must inform the House, in writing, of his absence, whereupon leave is granted as a matter of course. The peer may only return to the house with its permission, though this too is granted as a matter of course. Peers who are currently engaged in public business that prevent attendance are excused from the House for the duration of the circumstance. Peers who are neither on leave nor excused may be arrested by order of the House, though the last time this occurred was in 1856.

Proxy

If a peer cannot attend the House, he is permitted to report his absence to the House before the start of a session and give his vote to another peer. However, to ensure attendance, the House declared in 1897 that a peer can only do so if he has been present at least once during the previous session, effectively meaning a peer must attend one out of every two sessions to have a valid proxy vote. By a ruling in 1846, a proxy vote may not be proxied again to a third peer, with or without permission from the original peer, to prevent egregious and unexpected concentrations of voting power in a few peers and the disorder that entails.

Acceleration

Similar to Tyrannian practice but also rooted in domestic custom, the eldest son of a baron can also obtain a seat in the House of Lords if he already has the rank of a baronet. The sons of peers possess privileges to receive appointments, which in turn grants them a better chance of becoming titled themselves. If the sitting peer is unwell or occupied, writs of acceleration can be issued as a matter of course to give the seat to his eldest son; however, since the reform of 1845, eldest sons who possess the required rank will automatically receive a seat alongside their fathers. Thus, Lord Kam sat in the House between 1940 and 1941 until his assassination, signing his name on bills as "The Baronet Kam in lieu of the Baron of Prang" (柑君行邴矦).

If an accelerated peer precedes the principal, the seat is automatically cancelled and not inherited by the accelerated peer's heir (but the title may still be inherited and the writ re-issued if the inheritor is of the correct relationship with the principal).

Appointment

In the 19th century, governments have requested the monarch to create peers, and the monarch may also create them out of his own initiative. It is the governing convention, however, that prime ministers should not seek to pack the house on trivial matters, and the throne should not appoint peers to frustrate the government's manifesto promises. The sovereign was permitted to refuse a government's request to create peers, if he believes they are not necessary to ensure the passage of manifesto promises or primarily serve the purpose of increasing or perpetuating a minority or outgoing government's influence.

Lord L'ong-mjen, during whose premiership the upper house had a roughly equal number of Liberal and Conservative peers, made a commitment with then-Conservative leader the Lord of Krungh to appoint only four peers per year in government, so that the upper house would not "expand too quickly". This rule persisted until 1936, when the Liberal government appointed 15 peers overnight to overcome a mostly-Conservative faction that opposed war with Menghe. After this, the outgoing Conservative ministry created 22 peers in 1951 for themselves and senior bureaucrats, nominally on account of the victory in the Pan-Septentrion War.

Premises

The House of Lords possesses four main sections where its legislative and judicial functions occur, the Kaw-men Hall, the Judicial Committee complex, the Inner Court of Attendants, and the Outer Court of Attendants.

Kaw-men Hall

Central section of the House of Lords

The House of Lords is centred around the Kaw-men Hall (高門殿, kaw-men-ntenh), which holds its main chamber. The hall is to the east of the Front Hall in the Sk'ên'-ljang Palace.

The main chamber measures 56 by 28 metres. There are six rows of benches on each side of the floor. An additional nine rows of benches face the floor.  The west end of the hall is occupied by the throne, and the Speaker's chair is located at its foot. The Clerks' table is before the Speaker's chair. There are a further number of chairs on the floor, facing away from each other, for judges of the House. Unlike the House of Commons, the benches of the House of Lords have arm-rests, so it is possible to calculate there are 528 seats in the house. The arm-rests are a vestige of the baronial privilege of individual seats before the throne, whereas lesser individuals shared seats.

The east end of the chamber is the addressing area, where speakers may use podia to address the house. Adjoining to the east and west ends of the chamber are the visitors' and peers' lobby, and staircases lead to the second storey. A gallery above the peripheral benches overlooks the floor, interrupted only above the throne. The gallery is normally open to the public except during closed sessions, which the House decides by a simple majority, or ceremonies involving large number of official visitors. During the state opening and prorogation of parliament, members of the House of Commons, except those who choose to stand in the addressing area, populate the galleries. Senior civil servants and military officers share the galleries with them.

The name kaw-men means "tall gate", a reference to the diased gates of aristocratic houses, though that this name applied to the house is accidental. The hall was originally built in 525 and several times thence rebuilt. Before becoming the House's seat, it often served as the empress-dowager's bedchamber. In 1857, the hall was extensively remodelled to for better acoustics and a gallery on the second storey. Curtain walls were added to form the modern chamber, replacing the drapery that once served the same function.

The dominant colour of the chamber is red: the pillars, carpet, benches, and the throne's canopy are mainly red, while the walls are a faint pink. The ceiling is heavily plated in gold, adorned by red motifs. The chamber is also known for its rich drapery, of silk, velvet, and cloth of gold. While the red theme is common in Hadaway-style upper houses, red was also a royal colour in Themiclesia, and the chamber's dominant colour even before renovation was red.

Due to architecture, the chamber has no natural light. It was outfitted with chandeliers during the renovation of 1857, which the House's officials kept lit at all times. Floor lamps were used for additional illumination at the centre of the chamber and near pillars. In 1863, the candle chandeliers were replaced with gas lights, and in 1899 with electric lights.

Symbolisms

Voting

While the Themiclesian House of Lords was formed and reformed at least once in imitation of the Tyrannian one, some of the latter's characteristics were expressly not introduced. Amongst them, both houses of the Themiclesian parliament vocally vote with the same words (translated as "yes" and "no"). This is reflective of the early profile of the House of Commons, whose membership was only partly elected and hereditary in other cases.

Seating order

The House has two seating orders (立佽). It adopts the seniority-based order for occasions such as coronations, openings and prorogations of parliament, introductions of new peers, and deliveries of royal assent. In this order, the dukes occupy the chairs next to the throne, while the chief barons rank above barons, and both start seating from the centre rows towards the sides, with the north side being more senior than the south.  

In the debating order, peers supporting the Government sit on the Lord Speaker's left, and against it to his right, opposite of that in the Tyrannian parliament. The crossbenchers sit facing the throne on the opposite side of the house, just in front of the podium, and judges sit in front of the crossbechers. Dukes may sit next to the throne while debate occurs, but they almost never do so. In the first place, they would be behind the Lord Speaker, and he cannot easily see and call on them. In the other, they would have to speak very loudly to be heard by the other peers. In practice, dukes also sit according to party affiliations.

Notable decisions

Pledge of allegiance and national anthem

In 1961, the Liberal government introduced legislation that would have made it mandatory for public schools to teach the national anthem and a novel pledge of allegiance, and then to provide an opportunity to sing and recite them each day. The bill, however, does not explicitly require or exempt students specifically to sing or recite the same. The proposed pledge of allegiance included:

As a citizen of Themiclesia, I am aware of my accustomed rights and liberties and will affirm those of myself as well as others, from revolutions and confederacies inimical to the democratic and parliamentary form of government. Equally I am aware of my duties to obey laws and discharge obligations towards the state and will encourage others to do likewise.

The Liberal prime minister cited the recent Communist coup d'état in Maverica and argued that the pledge and anthem would ensure national consensus on fundamental rights and freedoms, which would "reduce the allure of communism" because it is considered an illiberal form of government. The House of Lords vetoed this bill after several peers, including the 9th Lord of Ran, made strong protests that such a requirement is a "major restriction of the freedom of conscience and choice", since "students should not be inculcated in the belief that their relationship with the state was regulated by the state itself, even through the institution of the sovereign parliament." The Government dropped the bill as a result, before it passed the House of Commons and create a fissure between the two chambers.

See also

• Themiclesia