Peerage

The Irish Peerage.

The Anglo-Norman conquerors of Ire land carried with them the laws and the system of tenure to which they were accustomed in England, and consequently the growth of the baronage and the establishment of parliamentary government in Ireland proceeded on parallel lines with the changes which occurred in England. Until the reign of Henry VIII. the Irish were without representation in parliament, but gradually the Irish were admitted, and by the creation of new parliamentary counties and boroughs were enabled to elect representatives. In 1613 the whole country shared in representation (Ball's Legislative Systems of Ireland). Just as James I. had added many members to the Scottish peerage, so he increased the number of Irish peers.

On the death of a representative peer of Scotland a vacancy occurs and a new election takes place, but in accordance with modern practice promotion to a United Kingdom peerage does not vacate the holder's representative position (May's Parlia mentary Practice, p. 11 n.). Scottish and Irish peers, if repre sentative, possess all the privileges of peerage and parliament en joyed by peers of the United Kingdom ; if non-representative all privileges of peerage, except the right to a writ of summons to attend parliament and to be present at and vote in the trial of peers.

Though many peers possess more than one peerage, and fre quently of more than one country, only that title is publicly used which is first in point of precedence. Every peerage descends according to the limitations prescribed in its patent of creation or its charter, and where these are non-existent (as in the case of baronies by writ) to heirs-general. (See ABEYANCE.) In dealing with English dignities it is essential to realize the difference between a mere title of honour and a peerage. The Crown, as the fountain of honour, is capable of conferring upon a subject not only any existing title of honour, but may even invent one for the purpose. So James I. instituted an order of hereditary knights which he styled baronets, and Edward VII. created the duchess of Fife "Princess Royal"—a life dignity. The dignities of prince of Wales, earl marshal and lord great chamberlain have been for centuries hereditary, and though of high court and social precedence, of themselves confer no right to a seat in the House of Lords—they are not peerages.

There is no limitation on the power of the Crown as to the number of United Kingdom peerages which may be created. As to Scotland, the Act of Union with that country operates to prevent any increase in the number of Scottish peerages, and consequently there have been no creations since 1707, with the result that the Scottish peerage, as a separate order, is gradually approaching extinction. The Irish peerage is supposed always to consist of 'co exclusively Irish peers, and the Crown (before the erection of the Irish Free State) had power to grant Irish peer ages up to the limit. When the limit was reached no more peerages might be granted until existing ones had become extinct or their holders succeeded to United Kingdom peerages. Only

seven lords of appeal in ordinary may hold office at any one time. The number of archbishops and bishops capable of sitting in the House of Lords is fixed by various statutes at 26.

Since party government became the rule, the new peerages have usually been created on the recommendation of the prime minister of the day, though the Crown, especially in considering the claims of royal blood, is believed in some instances to take its own course; and, constitutionally, such action is entirely legal. By far the greater number of peerage honours granted during the last two centuries have been rewards for political services. The roll of the lords spiritual and temporal for the session of parlia ment assembling Feb. 1928 numbered 740.

Privileges of Peerage.

As centuries have gone by and customs changed, many privileges once keenly asserted have either dropped out of use or been forgotten. The most important now in being are a seat in the House of Lords and the right to trial by peers on any charge of treason or felony. Whatever the origin of this latter right, and some date it back to Saxon times (Trial of Lord Morley, 1678, State Trials, vii. 145), Magna Carta has always been regarded as its confirmatory authority.

The peers have always strongly insisted on this privilege of trial by their own order, and several times the heirs of those wrongly condemned recovered their rights and heritage on the ground that there had been no proper trial by peers (R.D.P., v. 24). In 1442 the privilege received parliamentary confirmation (stat. 20 Henry VI. c. 9). If parliament is sitting the trial takes place before the House of Lords in full session, i.e., the court of our lord the king in parliament ; if not, then before the court of the lord high steward. The office of lord high steward was formerly hereditary, but has not been so for centuries and is now only granted pro hac vice. When necessity arises, the Crown issues a special commission naming some peer (usually the lord chancellor) lord high steward pro hac vice (Blackstone's Comm., iv. 258). When a trial takes place in full parliament a lord high steward is also appointed, but his powers there are confined to the presidency of the court, all the peers sitting as judges of law as well as of fact. Should the lord high steward be sitting as a court out of parliament, he summons a number of peers to attend as a jury, but rules alone on all points of law and practice, the peers present being judges of fact only. Which ever kind of trial is in progress, it is the invariable practice to summon all the judges to attend and advise on points of law. The distinction between the two tribunals was fully discussed and recognized in 176o (Trial of Earl Ferrers, Foster's Criminal Cases, 139). The most recent trial was that of Earl Russell for bigamy (reported 1901, A.C. 446).