[To THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR."]
Si,—In the article on "Payment of Members" (Spectator, March 10th) you refer to the custom of paying wages to Members, and you say that "the custom only died out It was never abolished by Act of Parliament Therefore there may still be a common law obligation on constituencies to pay their Members' wages." You then suggest that an action be brought to test the Member's right to be paid pursuant to the custom. Will you permit me to point out that one of the essential characteristics of a custom is that it should be continuous, and any interruption of the right claimed by virtue of the custom would be fatal ? An Act of Parliament is not necessary to discontinue a custom, ;Ind for it to "only die out" is sufficient.—I am, Sir, &c.,
14 John Dalton Street, Manchester. J. A. GRUNDY.
[Our correspondent is, of course, perfectly correct as regards customs that affect private individuals and private property. We think, however, that it might well be argued that as this is a custom affecting the State and Commonwealth, it must be held to be like a custom affecting the Crown,—i.e., not liable to be lost by non-user. The Lords' decision in the Wensleydale case might seem to give a denial to this conten- tion, but many lawyers have considered that decision to be bad in law, even if good in policy.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
