Life peerage (UK)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I have a couple of questions regarding British system of life peerage:

1. Life peers are now able to retire from the House of Lords. Can a life peer, that retired from the Lords, stand for the Commons?
2. Can a peer that retired from the Lords come back, or this is just one way around?
3. Life peers are always barons. Would it be possible for someone to be created a life viscount, for example, or the law allows barons only (George Thomas and William Whitelaw were created Viscounts under Thatcher, but since they had no heirs, that was a life peerage in all but name)?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Those who stand down from either a hereditary or life peerage may stand for the Commons. There are examples of hereditary peers who stepped down and then later received a life peerage. Except maybe for a Law Lord who tries to enter the Commons, I can't see where a life peer would likely try the same. All life peers are barons by law.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Those who stand down from either a hereditary or life peerage may stand for the Commons. There are examples of hereditary peers who stepped down and then later received a life peerage. Except maybe for a Law Lord who tries to enter the Commons, I can't see where a life peer would likely try the same. All life peers are barons by law.

Well, there is really no point of disclaiming one's hereditary peerage, since it doesn't automatically entitle you to sit in the Lords anymore.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Those who stand down from either a hereditary or life peerage may stand for the Commons. There are examples of hereditary peers who stepped down and then later received a life peerage. Except maybe for a Law Lord who tries to enter the Commons, I can't see where a life peer would likely try the same. All life peers are barons by law.

Well, there is really no point of disclaiming one's hereditary peerage, since it doesn't automatically entitle you to sit in the Lords anymore.

Even so, I believe the rule is that a peer cannot stand in the Commons, and if you want to be PM these days you have to be in the Commons, even if technically that's not a requirement.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Those who stand down from either a hereditary or life peerage may stand for the Commons. There are examples of hereditary peers who stepped down and then later received a life peerage. Except maybe for a Law Lord who tries to enter the Commons, I can't see where a life peer would likely try the same. All life peers are barons by law.

Well, there is really no point of disclaiming one's hereditary peerage, since it doesn't automatically entitle you to sit in the Lords anymore.

Even so, I believe the rule is that a peer cannot stand in the Commons, and if you want to be PM these days you have to be in the Commons, even if technically that's not a requirement.

Well, if you are a peer that doesn't sit in the House of Lords, you can get elected and sit in the Commons. Lord Palmerston was a Viscount but in the Peerage of Ireland, which made him free to serve in the Commons. Lord Curzon was created, on the occasion of becoming the Viceroy of India, a Baron in the Peerage of Ireland (last such creation), so he could continue to serve in the Commons after return and until he'd inherit his father's British barony. The Earl of Longford, as yet another Irish peer, wouldn't be able to sit in the Lords if not for him being earlier created a Baron in the British peerage. I believe that until 1960s Scottish peers also did not belong automatically to the Lords, so they and the Irish peers elected "representative peers".

In not sure if there was any peer elected to the Commons after 1999, though.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In not sure if there was any peer elected to the Commons after 1999, though.

Viscount Thurso was in the Lords before 1999, was MP for Caithness, Sutherland, and Easter Ross (successor to his grandfather Archibald Sinclair's old constituency) from 2001 to 2015, and was elected to sit in the Lords again as a representative hereditary peer last month. I think there are a couple of others as well.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

In not sure if there was any peer elected to the Commons after 1999, though.

Viscount Thurso was in the Lords before 1999, was MP for Caithness, Sutherland, and Easter Ross (successor to his grandfather Archibald Sinclair's old constituency) from 2001 to 2015, and was elected to sit in the Lords again as a representative hereditary peer last month. I think there are a couple of others as well.

Thanks, Nathan.

Well, today Tony Benn wouldn't have to disclain his viscouncy in order to remain in the Commons... but he probably would like to get rid off the title itself.

[Gary J]

The Crown does have a prerogative power to create life peers, who could be of any degree of the peerage. The last monarch to use this non statutory power was Queen Victoria. The House of Lords decided, in the Wensleydale peerage case in 1856, that a life peer had no right to sit in the House of Lords. Lord Wensleydale had to be given a regular hereditary peerage, so he could sit in the Lords.

Subsequent life peers have been created under statutory authority, so they did have seats in the House of Lords. These life peers have to be of the degree of a baron.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The Crown does have a prerogative power to create life peers, who could be of any degree of the peerage. The last monarch to use this non statutory power was Queen Victoria. The House of Lords decided, in the Wensleydale peerage case in 1856, that a life peer had no right to sit in the House of Lords. Lord Wensleydale had to be given a regular hereditary peerage, so he could sit in the Lords.

That's funny, because later Baroness Ravensdale had to be created life peer, so she can sit in the Lords.

And thank you for detailed response.

[Lincoln Republican]

Alec Douglas-Home, Baron Home of the Hirsel, was a British Conservative politician who served as Prime Minister from October 1963 to October 1964. He is notable for being the last Prime Minister to hold office while being a member of the House of Lords, before renouncing his peerage and taking up a seat in the House of Commons for the remainder of his premiership.

In October 1963 Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was taken ill and resigned as Prime Minister. Home was chosen to succeed him. By the 1960s it was generally considered unacceptable for a Prime Minister to sit in the House of Lords, and Home renounced his earldom and successfully stood for election to the House of Commons.

(Wiki)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Alec Douglas-Home, Baron Home of the Hirsel, was a British Conservative politician who served as Prime Minister from October 1963 to October 1964. He is notable for being the last Prime Minister to hold office while being a member of the House of Lords, before renouncing his peerage and taking up a seat in the House of Commons for the remainder of his premiership.

In October 1963 Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was taken ill and resigned as Prime Minister. Home was chosen to succeed him. By the 1960s it was generally considered unacceptable for a Prime Minister to sit in the House of Lords, and Home renounced his earldom and successfully stood for election to the House of Commons.

(Wiki)

It's interesting that between disclaiming his peerage and winning a by-election, Home was Prime Minister without sitting in either house. Pretty unprecedented, I'd say.

Viscount Hailsham also disclaimed his peerage in bid to succeed Macmillan, but did not prevail. Both Home and Hailsham later returned to the Lords as life peers.

I'm remember reading somewhere that it's still considered acceptable for a caretaker PM (like Wellington's second term) to be in the Lords, but not for a "permanent" one. Aside of other reasons (namely being a huge ass many couldn't stand), Lord Curzon was passed over for PM due to his membership in the Lords after Bonar's resignation.

Lord Halifax could very well become PM in 1940, having been favored by both the King and Chamberlain. It was believed that a special act of parliament would enable him to sit in the Commons. However, Halifax didn't want to be PM and used his peerage as a good excuse.

[Simfan34]

You could theoretically have life viscountcies, earldoms, etc., as far as I'm aware. I'm sure it's been done at least once before in the past 950 years-- not including peerages created in the knowledge that the title would die with the first holder-- but considering the primary point of life peerages is to enable their holders to sit in the Lords, they would be somewhat redundant for that purpose.

If the objective was to honor the grantee and barony was regarded as insufficient for that purpose you could always just create a normal hereditary peerage (but you would need to append a life peerage for them to sit in the Lords). The awarding of hereditary peerages seems to have stopped almost by accident-- I'm quite certain Thatcher (who resumed awarding them after Wilson stopped doing so) would have been given the customary earldom for retiring Prime Ministers (and become a Countess) if not for the fact the title would pass to her son Mark, who was by then already regarded with suspicion. They likely gave Denis Thatcher a baronetcy to compensate somewhat, which has left enough people scratching their heads, wondering when Mark Thatcher was knighted, as is. The custom was to name the title after the PM's constituency, meaning she would have been Countess of Finchley.

Alas, she never was never given an earldom, so the last non-royal to be granted a hereditary peerage remains Harold Macmillan, in 1984. Removing hereditary peers from the Lords could have conceivably made granting them easier since they no longer conferred parliamentary privileges, but they are yet to make a comeback. Which--and this should come as a surprise to absolutely no one-- is in my view a shame. I suspect Blair would, by now, be open towards accepting one if it was offered. Blair would be Earl of Sedgefield, Brown likely Earl of Kirkcaldy (where he grew up), and I'm not sure about Major, as they're already Earls of Huntingdon (17 of them, to be exact). The Spanish are still in the habit of granting titles, and that's after not having a monarchy for 50 years! (Although Franco awarded some himself; Dali was made a marquis)

What better way is there to honor one's accomplishments than to ensure they are honored for generations to come?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Actually, to say that Thatcher revived hereditary peerages would be a bit of an overstatement. Only three were granted. Viscountcies for George Thomas and William Whitelaw were essentially life peerages, since they had no heirs and titles went extinct. Macmillan was offered a customary earldom when he retired, so we may consider it a grandfather clause.

As of Prime Ministerial earldoms, not always they were named after a constituency. John Russell, Arthur Balfour and Clement Attlee took their own names (Earl Russell, Earl of Balfour and Earl Attlee respectively).  H.H. Asquith wanted to become Earl of Oxford, but due to other claimants he had to settle with "Earl of Oxford and Asquith"). Baldwin combined his last name and constituency name (Earl Baldwin of Bewdley). Eden became the Earl of Evon, while Macmillan took a name from his former constituency.

As of life peerages granted to former PMs, Thatcher was simply "Margaret Thatcher", Wilson was "Baron Wilson of Rievaulx", while only Callaghan had his barony named after a constituency ("Baron Callaghan of Cardiff").

I don't think hereditary peerages are going to revived, Lords reform of 1999 not-whitstanding. There was a significant backlash when Dennis Thatcher was created Baronet, because creating new hereditary titles was considered a thing of the past. I personally think that children should not just inherit titles without showing any merit on their own.

[Gary J]

The Crown does have a prerogative power to create life peers, who could be of any degree of the peerage. The last monarch to use this non statutory power was Queen Victoria. The House of Lords decided, in the Wensleydale peerage case in 1856, that a life peer had no right to sit in the House of Lords. Lord Wensleydale had to be given a regular hereditary peerage, so he could sit in the Lords.

That's funny, because later Baroness Ravensdale had to be created life peer, so she can sit in the Lords.

And thank you for detailed response.

The reason for Baroness Ravensdale's life peerage, under the Life Peerages Act 1958, was that female hereditary peers were not then entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. The 1958 Act permitted female members of the House of Lords for the first time. The Peerage Act 1963 let the female hereditary peers join the House.