Statutes
| Date | 01 November 1963 |
| Published date | 01 November 1963 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1963.tb02235.x |
STATUTES
PEERAGE
ACT,
1968
CONSCRIPTION
to the peerage has at last been ended, and
Mr.
Anthony Wedgwood Bern’s pugnacious reluctance
l
has been
belatedly rewarded. The recommendations of the Joint Committee
on
House of Lords Reform have been implemented (with minor
modifications) by legislation, and Viscount Stansgate is
no
more.
The main provisions of the Peerage Act,
1963,
may be briefly
summarised. One who succeeds,
or
has already succeeded, to an
hereditary peerage (other than
a
peerage of Ireland) may renounce
his peerage for his lifetime by an instrument of disclaimer delivered
to
the
Lord
Chancellor. The right of disclaimer must normally be
exercised
within
twelve months after succession or after the com-
mencement of the Act, as the case may
be;
special provision is madc
for minors and for peers subject to temporary infirmity. A peer
who
succeeds after the commencement of the Act cannot disclaim
once
he has applied for a
writ
of summons to attend the Lords.
One who succeeds when serving as
a
member of the House of
Commons
or
after having been nominated as
a
candidate
at
a
parliamentary election for which a writ has already been issued is
allowed one month’s grace following his succession or election.
me he is making up his mind whether to disclaim he is exempt
from disqualification for membership of the House but is debarred
from sitting or voting. The effect of
a
disclaimer is to divest a
person
(and his wife) of all the incidents of peerage, and to preclude
the conferment of any hereditary peerage
on
him in future. He
may, however, be granted
a
life peerage. Courtesy titles remain
unaffected by the Act.
No
opportunity for relief is afforded to peers
like the Earl of
Longford
(formerly Lord Pakenham) upon whom
hereditary peerages have been
(or
will be) directly conferred and
who may subsequently wish
to
disclaim them.
In its original form the Bill was to have effect from the date
of
the next dissolution of Parliament.
An
Opposition amendment to
render the measure operative from the date of receiving the royal
assent was defeated in the Commons by
174
votes to
118;
a similar
amendment was carried in the Lords by
105
votes to
25,
and the
Government agreed to accept the Lords’ amendment. The singu-
larity of this sequence of events overshadowed the interpolation of
a
new constitutional phenomenon-a maiden speech delivered by a
Commu~list peer in the Lords.
Hardly had the words
“
la
reine le
veult
”
been pronounced in
1
See
Tapper,
Note
(1961)
24
M.L.R.
757.
2
Koted
(1963)
26
M.L.R.
288.
674
Nov.
1968
STATUTES
675
the Lords before Viscount Stansgate presented his instrument of
disclaimer to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and resumed his
capacity as Anthony Wedgwood
Benn.
He preceded by ten minutes
Lord Altrincham, now
Mr.
John Grigg.
Mr.
Malcolm St. Clair, the
Conservative Member who had been awarded the seat at Bristol
South-East when Viscount Stamgate’s re-election to the vacated
seat had been pronounced null and void, forthwith made good his
promise to resign as
soon
as the law had been changed. At the
ensuing by-election, held
on
August
20,
1968,
Mr.
Wedgwd Benn
was not opposed by official candidates
from
the Conservative or
Liberal Parties; three candidates nevertheless
stood
against
him,
and two lost their deposits, including one who announced
his
with-
drawal
from
the contest after the ballot papers had
been
printed but
still contrived
to
collect
44
votes.
The remaining provisions of the Act embodied the Committee’s
recommendations. All hereditary peeresses in their
own
right
‘(except peeresses of Ireland) are now eligible to sit in the
Lords;
so,
too, are all the hereditary peers
of
Scotland. Members
of
the
Irish peerage may now be elected to the Commons for any
consti-
tuency (including constituencies in Northern Ireland) and may vote
at parliamentary elections whether or not they are members
of
the
House of Commons, but they are disqualified for membership
of
the
Lords.
Already
it
is apparent that
only
a very small
number
of existing
peers
will
exercise their right of disclaimer within the twelve months’
period.s With the
influx
of
the former non-representative
peers
of
Scotland and hereditary peeresses the immediate effect of the
Act
is likely to enlarge the hereditary membership
of
the
Lords
by
a
dozen or two. But
it
cannot be doubted that when viewed
in
its
historical perspective the
1968
Act will
be
regarded
88
the
second
stage in the elimination
of
the hereditary principle
as
the primary
qualification
for
membership
of
the second chamber.
S.
A.
DE
Sm.
MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES
Am,
1968
THE
most important thing about this Act is the provision that
is
not
there. Readers of
this
Review
will
be aware that the principal
clause of the Matrimonial Causes and Reconciliation
Bill, as
originally introduced,
was
that providing for divorce
on
the
ground that the parties to a marriage had been separated for seven
years without proof of any matrimonial offence.
If
the respondent
objected to the dissolution, however,
it
would have
been
necessary
s
One
of
them has been Lord Home
(now
Sir
Alec
Dougl8s-Home), the new
Prime Minister.
In
the light
of
the opinions that were being generally
expressed prior to the introduction
of
the Peerage
Bill,
it
is
questionable
whether the appointment
of
8
peer
as
Prime Minister was constitutionally
roper even in the changed situation brought about by the passage
of
the
beerage
~ct.
To continue reading
Request your trial