Talk:Introduction (House of Lords)

Hereditaries
The article incorrectly claimed that only the Duke of Norfolk and, possibly, the person acting as Lord Great Chamberlain sits by virtue of heredity, so all but they are introduced. The fact is, even hereditaries who did not sit before the 1999 Act but now join by virtue of by-election are not introduced.

Contrast a life peer


 * Sir Michael George Bichard, KCB, having been created Baron Bichard, of Nailsworth in the County of Gloucestershire, for life by Letters Patent dated 24 March 2010, was introduced between Baroness Blackstone and Lord Ouseley, and took and subscribed the oath. Minutes of Proceeding, 29 March 2010.

with a pre-HoLA hereditary who later rejoined


 * Charles Alan Andrew Earl Cathcart took and subscribed the oath. Journal, 13 March 2007.

and a hereditary peer first sitting after by-election


 * Rupert Charles Lord De Mauley, having received a Writ of Summons in accordance with Standing Order 10 (Hereditary peers: by-elections) following the death of Lord Burnham, sat first in Parliament, having first taken and subscribed the oath pursuant to statute. Journal, 15 March 2005.

It would be nice if we had some way to know whether a hereditary who never sat in the Lords, like Michael Ancram, would be introduced on receiving a life peerage. A strict reading would lead to the conclusion that, yes, an introduction is necessary because such peers would not sit "by virtue of descent". On the other hand, the reason for not introducing hereditaries in the first place was that everyone knew them already. While the reason is not as strong as it once was, it applies no more strongly to by-election winners than to hereditaries who get life peerages. As far as I know, the only hereditaries to be given life peerages since passage of the Act were all created such before the end of the 1999/2000 session, so they were still sitting by virtue of descent when they took up the life peerages (the Act only took effect at the end of that session). It would have been silly to introduce members already sitting, so the obviously weren't introduced. The following was typical of the form of the Journal entries:


 * Lord Acton (Lord Acton of Bridgnorth)—Richard Gerald Lord Acton, having been created Baron Acton of Bridgnorth, of Aldenham in the County of Shropshire, for life by Letters Patent dated in the forenoon of 17th April 2000 (see appendix), took and subscribed the oath pursuant to statute. 17 April 2000.

In any event, we know there are three classes of hereditary peers who aren't introduced, and possibly a fourth, who aren't introduced: the royal officeholders, by-election winners rejoining the House, by-election winners first joining the house, and possibly hereditaries given life peerages. -Rrius (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For larks, here is the form of Journal entry used for hereditaries before the House of Lords Act:
 * Lord Moynihan—Colin Berkeley Lord Moynihan sat first in Parliament after the death of his halfbrother, Anthony Patrick Andrew Cairnes Berkeley Lord Moynihan, having first taken and subscribed the oath pursuant to statute. 8 May 1997.
 * -Rrius (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I found the answer to the Ancram question I posed. On 3 November 1999, the House of Lords resolved that "a Peer who has sat by virtue of a hereditary peerage may sit by virtue of a life peerage without introduction." If the motion doesn't make it clear enough that this was an exception, the speech of the proposer, the Attorney General, does. -Rrius (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)