On Monday the claim of Lord Selborne to continue to
hold his seat in the Commons after his succession to his father's honours, was raised by Mr. Labouchere calling attention to the presence of a Member who had become a Peer of the realm, and asking the Speaker whether he had any right to be within the bar. The Speaker thereon asked Lord Wolmer certain formal questions as to his position, and received as answers : " I am not a Lord of Parliament, but I am a Peer of the realm," and "I have not applied for the writ of summons, and it is not my intention at present so to apply until the House has considered whether I am still a duly elected representative of West Edinburgh." The Speaker then asked Lord Selborne to withdraw below the bar. It might have been imagined that the House, being a business assembly, would thereupon have considered the plain question, "Does the succession to a peerage vacate a seat even if the writ of summons is not issued ?" and have acted at once according to the decision. It was particularly easy for them to do so, as they had a Committee already inquiring into the whole subject of how seats are vacated, and might have easily ordered that Committee to report at once on this part of their reference. Instead, the House of Commons wandered for two days in a maze of constitutional pedantry highly charged with ill-temper, and ended by most absurdly appoint. ing a new Committee to inquire if Lord Wolmer has, since his election, succeeded to the Earldom of Selborne,—a per- fectly futile question which, when answered, leaves things exactly where they were.
Previous page
