The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-01-12
KING ALONE MAY
SUMMONS PEERS
They Receive Royal Com
mand, They Have No Seat
in House OF Lords.
DYsART rs FERRY
Eccentric Earl Declares He Owns
Exclusive Ferry Rights
on Thames.

ny LA MARQUIsE DE FONT11NOY.
a lMOST every Liberal politician
N III his abuse of the House or
"a Lords. In connection with tho
general parliamentary election
now in progress. has denounced the
peers as hereditary legislators and as
entitled to a vote In Parliament, not
by the SURFACES Of their fellow
citizens, but merely by virtue OF their
ancestry. This Is not the case. 1t is
true that a man may be born a peer.
But he is not a Lord of Parliament by
conferred upo him by the sovereign
issuing a writ sunmoning him to take
part in the councils of the nation. II
no matter what the honors which he
has inherited, he cannot take his seat
in the House of Lords or vote in Par
lament until he has obtained the writ
OF summons from the King. Now. 1t Is
quite within the power of the monarch
to withhold this writ of summons. es-
pecially II in acting thus he follows
the advice Of his ministers for the
time being. Nor is there any court
through which u peer from whom the
royal writ of has been with
held can enforce his claim for adj
mission to the House of Lords. This
opinion is held by all the leading con-
st%itutional j~urists. and in 1856 Lord
Cranworth as Lord High Chancellor.
that Is TO say. the highest judicial an-
llOIibs Ola9lUS ETedliIl. Idlu IL GOWN as
law that the issuing OF a writ of
summons Is neither a right. nor q priv
ilege that can be extracted by a peer.
but a power vested in the crown.
which the latter may exercise or not
at its pleasure. This view Is confirmed
by the very phraseology OF the writ
OF summons, which is the same to-day
as hundreds of years ago.
There have been cases. though not
within the last 100 years, of the SOW
Grhs Sr,n ~ N,-ft l.,1 fsxr t1r .,rr - -..-.
mons. The most notable instance that
! can recall at the present moment is
that of the Earl of Bristol, whom
Charles I. refused to summon to Par
Lament in 1926. Ultimately Lord Bris-
tol induced his fellow-peers to "hum-
bly, beseech' His Majesty to send him
a writ OF summons, and as by that
time Charles was In difficulties with
the House of Commons and wished
to propitiate the Lords, he gave way.
thorough understanding that 1t was
an act OF grace.
No Bankrupt Sits.
There is only one statute which can
be in any way regarded as RESTRICTING
the authority of the sovereign In the
matter. namely, the law which pre-
vents the King from issuing a writ
of summons to a peer who is bank
rupt, and which likewise deprIyes the
latter of his scat and of his vote until
he has secured his discharge from
the Court of Bankruptcy.
On the other hand. a peer may be
guilty of the grossest misconduct, and
OF felony. or may develop insan-
ity. without FORGETTING his seat and
vote in the House of Lords. as long as
he has the sovereign's writ of sum
mons. His fellow-Lords of Parliament
have no power to eSpel him from their
midst. differing in this respect from
the members of the House of Com
MONS, who have in each century had
to solemnly expel fellow.
score of crime.
OF course it is the custom OF the
sovereign to issue writs of summons
to peers. and usage is about the sole
plea that could be invoked by a peer
though, as I have pointed out above
there is no court competent to deaf
with the matter, not even the House
of Lords itself. which is the highest
tribunal in the land.
according to Freeman and other hts.
torians, in the origin. the sovereign
only summoned to Parliament those
mobiles whose advice he tonsiderad
worth having at that particular time.
y It did not follow that the crown
mobiles thereafter to every other Par
lament. still less to summon his son
and grandson after him. But with
the hereditary tendency of the are. III
gradually became the custom that IL
Parliament. he and his successors NOT
only summoned the man himself. hi,t
his son and his direct heirs. This
usage Is the real foundation OF the
hereditary peerage. But IT is not
writ OF summons would break no law.
1t would be merely inconsistent with
usage.