Peerages in Abeyance (Hansard, 18 December 1986)

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This Motion is consequential on the agreement by your Lordships last Tuesday to the special report of the Committee for Privileges.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty superseding the Address presented to Her Majesty's Royal Predecessor on 7th July 1927 and submitting to Her Majesty that if it is Her gracious pleasure to place some limitation on claims to peerages in abeyance, such limitation would be effected if Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to issue the following instructions to the Attorney-General:
If it should appear to the Attorney-General that a claim to a peerage in abeyance is affected by either of the following considerations:

(i) that the commencement of the existing abeyance occurred more than one hundred years before the presentation of the petition; or

(ii) that the petitioner (not being a child of the last holder of the dignity or a descendant of a parent of the last holder) represents less than one-third of the entire dignity,

he should call attention to that in his report to the Crown, and (except where the petition was presented before 7th July 1927 or where there are special circumstances or special reasons to the contrary) recommend that no further proceedings should be taken with regard to the claim; and furthermore the Attorney-General should investigate the nature of any arrangement entered into by the co-heirs to a peerage in abeyance, and if he is of the opinion that there may be grounds for doubting the propriety of any such arrangement, he should bring the circumstances to the attention of the Crown and recommend that the petition be referred to this House;
and further submitting to Her majesty that when consideration is given to whether or not Her Majesty should be advised to extend Her grace to the petitioner for a termination of an abeyance, regard should be had to the character, position, and fitness of the petitioner.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ Lord McNair
My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House for longer than is necessary, but I must admit that when I read this Motion standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord I wondered how many of your Lordships had read it to the end. I came to the last three lines with some astonishment. I am sure that the beginning is entirely to be 280 approved. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will be able to explain away my difficulty.
We are asking that the Attorney-General of the day, whoever that may be in the future, should have regard, to the character, position, and fitness of the petitioner who seeks a seat in your Lordships' House. It has always seemed to me that the only argument in favour of the hereditary system which carries any weight at all is that as hereditary Peers are randomly selected they are likely to be just as dotty and delinquent as a cross-section of the population. I find that an argument which carries some conviction.
If we are to consider character, position and fitness—three highly subjective criteria—I ask whether this is a kind of back-door reform of the composition of the House of Lords. I am absolutely certain that the noble and learned Lord would not lend himself to any such subterfuge, but it seems to me to introduce something slightly novel.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I think the noble Lord has misunderstood two points. In the first place, this relates to Peerages called out of abeyance where Her Majesty has a discretion; and in the second place, far from being novel it has been copied from the original resolution which is under amendment.

§ Lord Gisborough
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will explain the significance of the words, one-third of the entire dignity". That perhaps seems a litttle obscure.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, it would take me a rather long time. There are a few Peerages in the English Peerage, and I dare say in the Scottish Peerage too, which are held in what is called coparcenary. That is a technical term of medieval land law. It arises, for instance, in baronies by writ, of which there are still a few. If there are male heirs the Peerage descends in the ordinary way from the last holder of the Peerage to the oldest son or oldest male heir; but if there are no male heirs but a number of female heirs it is held in what is called coparcenary. The Peerage then goes into what is called abeyance until there is only one person left of all stirpes who would otherwise be entitled to be coparceners. In the case of the barony which was resurrected as a result of the recent case—I do not see the noble Baroness in the House—there were three coparceners. They came to an arrangement which was perfectly respectable, as the Committee for Privileges decided. Therefore the Peerage was called out of abeyance in favour of the noble Baroness who was introduced yesterday.
That is as short an explanation as I can give. I trust that it is sufficiently clear to my noble friend; otherwise I shall have to take a good deal longer and perhaps look up some books.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, while I question the use of the word "resurrection" in this connection, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his guidance through this maze of medievalism.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord for having introduced theology into the argument.