From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In the United Kingdom, a writ of summons is the Sovereign's command to an individual to attend the House of Lords. The writ also constitutes the authority for the individual to demand a seat and vote in the House.
Prior to the sixteenth century, however, the use of the writ to create titles declined. Letters patent became the preferred way to create new peerage titles, and the writ came to be used only to summon persons to Parliament. However, whenever writs were issued to persons who were not already peers, such individuals continued to become peers ipso facto.
However, one form of the writ of summons, known as the writ of acceleration, is used to promote the eldest son of a peer to the House of Lords by "accelerating" one of his father's peerages in his favour. Essentially, when a peer holds subsidiary titles, it is possible for the Sovereign to call up the peer's eldest son in right of one of those subsidiary titles. There have been ninety-five writs of acceleration issued in the history of Parliament, including four in the twentieth century. The latest writ issued was to the current Marquess of Salisbury, then known as Viscount Cranborne, who was called to Parliament in right of the barony of Cecil of Essendon, which belonged to his father, then Marquess of Salisbury. (The title "Viscount Cranborne" did not in itself give Lord Cranborne the right to sit in the House, as it was a courtesy title rather than a "real" title.) It is unlikely that writs of acceleration will be used in the future, as the House of Lords Act 1999 prevents holders of hereditary peerages, whether they became holders by inheritance or acceleration, from automatically holding a Lords seat.
In the history of the House of Lords, however, the writ has not been the sole means of summoning an individual to Parliament. Scottish representative peers, who were elected at the beginning of each Parliament by fellow Scottish peers, received no writ of summons; rather, they only presented to the House of Lords a return, issued by the Lord Clerk Register, denoting their election. Irish representative peers, however, were elected for life rather than for the duration of a single Parliament, and at the beginning of each new Parliament received a writ of summons. The elections of such representative peers ceased in 1922 in the case of Ireland (when the Irish Free State was formed) and in 1963 in the case of Scotland (when the Peerage Act granted the right to sit in the House of Lords to all Scottish peers).
After a writ has been issued, the recipient thereof is compelled to obey it, as it is the Sovereign's command. But once the recipient presents the writ to the House of Lords, they may not deny him admittance, as it is the Sovereign's prerogative to call whomsoever he or she pleases to Parliament. The House of Lords, however, have breached such a principle. One famous instance is the "Wensleydale case". The House of Lords has had for centuries several judicial functions, acting as the highest court in the realm. At many times, however, cases were heard by Lords not well-versed in the law. Queen Victoria wished to introduce judges into the House, but did not seek to swell the numbers of the peerage. Therefore, she created Sir James Parke Baron Wensleydale, but only for life, and issued him a writ of summons. The House of Lords vehemently objected to the idea that a life peer could sit in the House amongst the hereditary nobles. Some argued that, rather than being populated by noble Lords granted their peerages for public service, or their descendants, the House would be filled with life peers who were mere nominees of Government ministers.
Therefore, they referred the matter of the extraordinary creation to their Privileges Committee. On the basis of their report, the House decided that the Crown had the unquestionable right to grant Lord Wensleydale his peerage for life, but that such a peerage, and even the writ of summons issued in pursuance thereof, could not entitle him to a seat and vote in the House. The House determined that it would be unlawful for the Crown to unilaterally change the constitutional structure of Parliament, including by introducing new types of members of either House. Thus, a writ granted to an individual who was not a qualifying peer would be invalid.
The decision, however, did not negate the right of the ancient barons to sit in the House where the barony was created by writ. In those cases, the individual who received the writ ipso facto became a hereditary baron. In the Wensledyale case, however, the recipient became, by virtue of the accompanying letters patent, only a life peer, and therefore was deemed not to have been entitled to sit in the House.
Later, under the Judicature Act, the Crown was granted the authority to create a limited number of life peers to sit as Lords of Appeal and to hear judicial controversies in the House. In the twentieth century, under an act passed in 1958, all life peers became entitled to sit in the House. Ironically, hereditary peers were almost entirely replaced by life peers in 1999, when the House of Lords Act removed from hereditaries the automatic right to sit in Parliament.
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage… Accordingly, any writ of summons issued for the present Parliament in right of a hereditary peerage shall not have effect after [the present] Session..."
The complaint raised by Lord Mayhew of Twysden was that the bill would not exclude hereditary peers for the remainder of that Parliament, even though the bill provided that writs of summons already issued would be of no effect. He suggested that such writs were already of no effect, because once a peer attends the House of Lords and presents his writ, the effect of the writ is spent, and the peer immediately becomes a member of the House until Parliament is dissolved, and another Parliament called, when, of course, another writ of summons must be issued.
Lord Mayhew's counsel argued, "The purpose of a writ of summons is to bring a peer to parliament for the first time. It tells him to come and join the parliament. He then hands in the writ. It has had its effect. He is there; it is no longer needed; it does not keep him: otherwise he would have to return it daily. Once he has handed the writ in, it is his status as lord of that parliament ("a member of the House of Lords") which confers rights and duties." Counsel suggested further that there were separate punishments for failure to obey the writ by attending and for leaving before Parliament concluded without a leave of absence. The Lords on the Committee, however, sided with the Government. They rejected Lord Mayhew's argument relating to the separate penalties, and ruled that a writ did indeed have effect throughout Parliament,
One instance of a writ issued in error occurred in 1594, when Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby, died, leaving three daughters. His brother William inherited his earldom, which could only pass to heirs-male, but his baronial titles, Baron Strange of Knokyn, Baron Mohun of Dunster and Baron Stanley, which could pass to females as well as males, fell into abeyance between the late Earl's three daughters. However, William incorrectly assumed the title of Baron Strange of Knokyn. In 1628, William's eldest son James was summoned to the House of Lords as Baron Strange by a writ of acceleration. Later, however, when the mistake was discovered, it was deemed that the title of Baron Strange of Knokyn was indeed a legitimate one, and ought not to be reverted due to the error. Several individuals have sat by virtue of holding this barony created in error.
A writ of summons issued in error can, however, be negated if the Sovereign issues a writ of supersedeas. Such a writ, however, cannot be issued after the Lord has been introduced and has taken his oath of allegiance. The writ of supersedeas has not been used in recent times; in the words of the late Lord Williams of Mostyn, "it certainly has not been translated into modern English."
Writs of summons generally follow the same form. Firstly, they set out the titles of the Sovereign, and then those of the recipient. Next, they note the date for Parliament's calling and the reason for its calling. This portion of the writ differs based on whether Parliament is at the time sitting, or prorogued, or dissolved. Then, after commanding the recipient to attend, the writ indicates that the Sovereign him or herself witnesses it.
All writs commence with:
Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories Queen Head of the Commonwealth Defender of the Faith To Our right trusty and well beloved XXXX'' Chevalier Greeting
Writs issued at the time of a general election take the form:
Whereas by the advice and assent of Our Council for certain arduous and urgent affairs concerning Us the state and defence of Our United Kingdom and the Church We have ordered a certain Parliament to be holden to Our City of Westminster on the XX day of XX next ensuing and there to treat and have conference with the Prelates Great Men and Peers of Our Realm We strictly enjoining Command you upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to Us that the weightness of the said affairs and imminent perils considered (waiving all excuses) you be at the said day and place personally present with Us and with the said Prelates Great Men and Peers to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid And this as you regard Us and Our honour and the safety and defence of the said Kingdom and Church and dispatch of the said affairs in nowise do you omit Witness Ourself at Westminster the XX day of XX in the XX'' year of Our Reign.
In the case of writs issued during Parliament, the form is:
Whereas Our Parliament for arduous and urgent affairs concerning Us the state and defence of Our United Kingdom and the Church is now met at Our City of Westminster We strictly enjoining Command ...
In the case of writs issued when Parliament is prorogued, the form is:
Whereas by reason of certain arduous and urgent affairs concerning Us the State and defence of Our United Kingdom and the Church We did lately with the advice and consent of Our Council ordain Our present Parliament to be holden at Our City of Westminster on the XX day of XX in the XX year of Our Reign which Parliament hath been from that time by several adjournments and prorogations adjourned prorogued and continued to and until the XX day of XX now next ensuing at Our City aforesaid to be then there holden. We strictly enjoining Command ...
History
Writs of summons have their origin in medieval times. The Sovereign summoned to his Court several individuals. Some were summoned through the local sheriff, while important clergymen and magnates received summons directly from the King. Slowly, as Parliament developed into a bicameral legislature, it became practice to summon each member of the upper house, the House of Lords, by a personal writ of summons. Eventually, it became established doctrine that an individual who was granted a writ ipso facto became a hereditary baron.Issuance
At the commencement of each Parliament, a writ of summons is issued to each peer who has established his right to one. If a peer does have the right to receive a writ, but it is for some reason denied, then he must petition for its grant, and cannot sit in the House of Lords until the Sovereign accepts such a petition. It is, however, considered a breach of Parliamentary privilege for a crown to deny a legitimate petition for a writ of summons. In 1626, for instance, John Digby, 1st Earl of Bristol was denied a writ of summons by King Charles I; he had previously been imprisoned for high treason, without a trial. The Earl of Bristol, however, petitioned the House of Lords that it was unlawful for the writ to be denied; the Lords then referred the matter to the Committee on Privileges. The Committee reported, "after diligent search no precedent being found that any writ of summons hath been detained from any peer that is capable of sitting in the House of Parliament; and considering withal how far it may trench into the right of every member of this House, whether sitting by ancient right of inheritance or by patent, to have their writs detained: the Lords' committees are all of opinion that it will be necessary for this house humbly to beseech His Majesty that a writ of summons may be sent to this petitioner..." The King did issue the writ, but it was accompanied by a letter from the Lord Keeper, who suggested to the Earl that though the writ shall have been issued, the King's will is that the Earl not attend Parliament. The Earl of Bristol nonetheless attended, arguing that a writ issued directly by the King carries more weight than the letter of a Lord Keeper.Effect of the Writ
When the House of Lords Bill was being debated, the House of Lords referred a controversy relating to writs of summons to its Committee on Privileges. The relevant portions of the Bill were:Writs in Error
Before the House of Lords Privileges Committee in 1999, when the effects writs of summons were being discussed, lawyers proposed that the writ of summons "is so powerful that, if a person not already a peer ... receives and sits in response to a writ, he becomes a peer ipso facto even perhaps if the writ was issued in error." Form of the Writ of Summons
References
