Peeresses and non-representative peers of Ireland and Scotland have, with the exception of the right to sit in the House of Lords and its attendant privileges, every peerage privilege. In 1922 Sibyl Viscountess Rhondda presented a petition claiming the right to a writ of summons. The claim was heard and re-heard before the Committee for Privileges and eventually rejected. This decision has disposed of the claims of peeresses in their own right, under the existing law, to sit in the House of Lords. A widowed peeress retains her privilege of peerage while un married, but loses it if she marries a commoner (Co. Litt. 166; Cowley v. Cowley [I9oI] A.C. 45o).
The children of peers are commoners. The eldest son of a peer of the rank of earl (and above) is usually known socially by the name of his father's next peerage, but the courtesy nature of such title is clearly indicated in every public or legal docu ment, the phraseology employed being "John Smith, Esq., com monly known as Viscount Blackacre." Several cases are on record in which peers' eldest sons have actually borne courtesy titles not possessed as peerage honours by their fathers, but in asmuch as such are only accorded by courtesy, no question of peerage privilege arises. The younger sons of dukes and mar quesses by custom use the prefix "Lord" before one of their Christian names, and all the daughters of earls as well as of dukes and marquesses are entitled similarly to style themselves "Lady," on the principle that all the daughters are equal in rank and in precedence. The younger sons of earls and all of the children of viscounts and barons, including lords of appeal, use the prefix "Honourable" before one of their Christian names, but this style is one of written address and reference only. Usually, when the direct heir of a peer dies, his children are given, by the Crown, on the death of the peer, the courtesy titles and precedence they would have enjoyed had their father actually succeeded to the peerage.
An alien may be created a peer, but while remaining an alien cannot sit in the House of Lords, nor, if a Scottish or Irish peer, can he vote at elections for representative peers.
Claims to peerages are of two kinds: (I) of right, (2) of grace. In theory the Crown, as the fountain of honour, might settle any claim without reference to the House of Lords, and issue a writ of summons to its petitioner. This would not in any way prevent the House of Lords from examining the patent and writ of summons when the favoured petitioner or any heir claiming through him came to take his seat. If of opinion that the patent was illegal the House might refuse admittance, as it did in the Wensleydale case. In the case of a petitioner who has persuaded
the Crown to terminate in his favour as a co-heir the abeyance of an ancient barony and who has received his writ of summons, the matter is more difficult. The House cannot refuse to admit any person properly summoned by the Crown, as the prerogative is unlimited in point of numbers; but it can take into account the precedence of the newcomer. The Crown, therefore, unless there can be no question as to origin and pedigree, seldom terminates an abeyance without referring the matter to the House Of Lords, and invariably so refers all claims which are disputed or which involve any question of law.
The Committee for Privileges, which for peerage claims is usually constituted of the law lords and one or two other lords interested in peerage history, sits as an ordinary court of justice and follows all the rules of law and evidence. The attorney general attends as adviser to the committee and to watch the interests of the Crown. According to the nature of the case the committee reports to the House, and the House to the Crown, that the petitioner (if successful) (I) has made out his claim and is entitled to a writ of summons, or (2) has proved his co-heirship to an existing peerage, and has also proved the descent of all co-heirs that can reasonably be traced. In the first case the writ of summons is issued forthwith, but the second, being one of abeyance, is a matter for the pleasure of the Crown, which need not be exercised at all, but, if exer cised, may terminate the abeyance in favour of any one of the co-heirs.
During the parliamentary session of 1926 the House of Lords appointed a select committee to examine the history of abeyant peerages and to report on the advisability of limiting future claims. After debate on the report, the House resolved that these claims ought not to be considered where long abeyance has existed and where the claimants possess only a small fraction of the original heirship. The resolution of the House was duly reported to the Crown. The recommendation of the House does not, and, in law, cannot affect the prerogative of the Crown to terminate any abeyance, but there can be little doubt that the representations made will have due weight with the advisers of the Crown in the consideration of all future claims. The report of and evidence taken by the committee is printed as a House of Lords paper (1927). (G. EL.) See Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution (vol. I "Parlia ment" 1910 ; F. B. Palmer, Peerage Law in England (1907) ; L. W. Vernon Harcourt, His Grace the Steward and Trial of Peers (1907); L. 0. Pike, Constitutional History of the House of Lords.