New-York tribune., 1910-01-12
WRITS FOR PEERS
Latter 4re Not Hereditary
Legislators.

.o,o nv the Brentwood Company
eops'e levy Liberal politician IN ms
Ain r. House Of Lords in connection
aousS .ss general parliamentary eiec'ioh
Nitn -neress has denounced the peers
10" ,.-Asitarv legislators. ana as eili'ieo
e ,,.a IN Parliament not oy 1ne SUI
:. their fellow citizens, but merely
- ,irt,e Of their ancestry.
ns =. ,o+ the case. II is true that
IL =. horn peer. But he is not
- = parliament by virtue or ms nirtn.
-o'u s,--.i+v is conferred upon him by the
&c. -sIs- issuing writ sunnmoning him
- -ar. In the councils or the nation,
- matter what the honors which he
.-ts-,+ed. he cannot take his seat in
&c xTo,,ss of Lords or vote in Parliament
,-..,, he has obtained the VIII OF summons
from the King.
=. ,virhboId this writ Of summons,
..saIl,, Il in acting thus he follows the
$50 SC ministers for the time being
g., : tbere any court through which
NoI = = ,,-,,or, the royal writ of summons
-. ,rfttbeId can enforce his claim
Co. ssr,issiou 10 the House Of Lords.
80 orfnion Is held by all the leading
-.,.,,+;o,aI i11-ists and in 1856 Lord
c-s,vorth as Lord High Chancellor-that
=, - ssv the highest judicial authority OF
80 reslrl-Iaid il down as law that the
,ss,,,ng Of a writ of summons is neither
-,eb+ nor a privilege that can be exacted
10 z peer. but power vested in the
--ov-n which the latter may exercise or
ar s+ pleasure. This view is confirmed
bv the very phraseoIogy Of the writ OF sum-
mons which is the same to-day as hun
dreds OF years ago.
There have been cases. though not within
The last hundred years of the sovereign
-1thholding the writ Of summons. The
most notable instance that ! can recall at
.he present moment IS that Of the Earl OF
Bristol whom Charles I refused 70 summon
70 Parliament in 1925. Ultimately Lord
Bristol induced his fellow peers to ''hunlbly
heseech' MS ma jesty 10 send him writ Of
SUMMONS. and as by that time Charles was
f. difficulties with the House Of Commons
snd wished to propitiate the lords. he gave
way and summoned Lord Bristol, but on
the thorough understanding that it was an
sct OF grace.
There is only one statute which in any
z-ay can be regarded as restricting the au-
thorfty Of the sovereign in the matter,
namely. the law which prevents the King
from issuing a writ Of summons TO a peer
who is bankrupt. and which likewise de-
rrtves the latter Of his seat and of his
vote until he has secured his discharge
from the court OF bankruptcy.
On the other hand, peer may be guilty
Of the grcsest misconduct. and even Of
felony. OF may develop insanity. without
forfeiting his seat and vote in the House
of Lords as long as he has the sovereigns
%
lament have no power TO expel him from
he house, differing in this respect from
the members Of the House of Commons,
who have IL each century had occasion to
sclerlnly expel fellow legislators from their
chamber on the score of crime.
OF course. IL is the custom Of the sover-
eign 70 issue wrics OF summons TO peers and
usage Is about the sole plea that could be
invoked by peer who had failed TO re-
oeive his writ, though, as I have pointed
on above, there is no court competent to
deal with TIE matter. not even the House
q Lords itself, which is the highest tri-
hunsI in the land
According 70 Freeman and other histo-
rams, in the origin OF the custom the Soy
eTeign summoned TO Parliament only those
1obles whose advice he considered worth
having a. that particular time. and il .5id
izot~5alloas-EizaEsIiae crown was bound 10
s'1ll'inon each Of these mobiles thereafter TO
every other Parliament, still less to sum-
non his son and grandson after him. But
With the hereditary tendency Of the age
u gradually became the custom that II the
Aing once summoned g man TO Parlia-
nent ne and his successors not only sum
moneo The man himself. but his son and
MS direct heirs This usage is the real
foundation Of the hereditary peerage. But
u & not statutory, and the Withholding OF
WIZ OF summons would break no law
II Te'lld be merely inconsistent with usage