Lincolnshire Voice

Some of you may be aware that a case was being sought in the courts to try and bring back the hereditary peers into the House of Lords. On Monday 23rd May a case was brought to the Royal Courts of Justice (oh the irony of that name!) by Lord Mereworth and his appointed barrister. The basis of the case was that as Lord Mereworth had become a Lord and Baron in 2002 when he inherited the title, he was entitled to sit in the House of Lords and vote as he deemed fit. If successful other peers could also then demand a writ to sit in the House of Lords.

Ms Jones, the barrister for the defence (of the government?) was aided by no less than 4 advisors sat behind with a plethora of literature ready to be used. The defence's main argument was Section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 (brought in by Blair), saying it was clear that a Hereditary Peer no longer has the right to be a member of the House of Lords. They also said that Section 5, sub-section 2 reinforces this.

Various arguments were put forward to say that this ruling should be down to Parliament and not the Judiciary.

The Barrister for Lord Mereworth argued that either Lord Mereworth was a Baron of Parliament or not - saying, he cannot be a baron, if not of Parliament. The Judge asked why? The barrister later asked does the 1999 Act shut the door on the Barons and it was argued that the Court has jurisdiction on this. EU and human rights laws were used (it has to be said, to the dismay of many in the public gallery) as an argument to say Lord Mereworths rights had been infringed.

After the case was put forward, the Judge - Justice Lewison who was appointed at the last minute and wearing a non-traditional uniform that belongs in an EU court, made his statement and we summarise some of the laws he quoted below:

Lord Mereworth should have petitioned the House as advised;
The Constitution is mostly unwritten;
Article 9, 1688 Bill of Rights - “That the Freedom of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament.”
Justice Stephenson quote, "determined by Parliament and not the Judiciary" - this was used to get round “exclusive cognisance”, (sometimes referred to as “exclusive jurisdiction” meaning that the House of Lords could conduct its own affairs without interference from the House of Commons);

After quoting a spanish case, he concluded that there was no jurisdiction in this court and therefore he decided that no case should proceed. He explained that Lord Mereworth would keep his patent to say he was a Lord and Baron only but that did not make him eligible to sit in the House of Lords and vote - (supposedly!). Lord Mereworth then had the defence costs awarded against him, which in the end amounted to £8,800. It was obvious to those in the gallery that the Judges statement had been prepared before hand and most knew the decision had already been made so it would not have mattered what was said in favour of Lord Mereworth.

The question that needs asking is, if the House of Lords is put there - by Parliament (which it is), how can there ever be any meaningful debate by the Lords, when it is nothing more than mostly rubber stamping what parliament want? Surely a case needs to be brought to say that the House of Lords Act 1999 was unconstitutional in the first place and the 1911 Act was made under duress by threatening the Lords at the time with expulsion. This is how our Constitution has been subverted over the years and allowed the above to happen!

This to me says that Parliament can do as it likes and bring in any law, that does away with any part of the tri-partite agreement in the English Constitution, i.e House of Parliament suggest the Law, House of Lords has to approve it and the Sovereign Queen has to give the Royal Assent.

This is subversion of our ancient constitution at the highest levels and we need to now stand up and say NO,we aren't having it. Either we argue for the restoration of our Constitution and Laws or we lose our ancient rights and freedoms. This case and others are not going to go away!

To end on a brighter note, an Organisation or Group WILL be formed shortly pooling much needed resources and talents together to fight against this subversion within.

Wonderful English Architecture

REVIEW OF BARON MEREWORTHS CASE

A fund put to good and proper use - now there's a thought!

LORD MEREWORTHS LETTER

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: House of Lord's Reform
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 10:37:11 +0100
From: Dominick Mereworth
To: letters@thetimes.co.uk

Sir, I was encouraged to learn from your article (Lords dig in to fight coalition reforms, May 31) that an overwhelming majority of the Lords are firmly opposed to suggested reforms of the Upper House by the Coalition Government.

On 23rd May 2011, at the High Court of Justice,Chancery Division, I appeared as a claimant in a case against the Ministry of Justice (Crown Office). My submission is that every peer has a contract with the Crown to scrutinise legislation, known as a Letters patent, issued by the monarch. Importantly, the 1999 House of Lords Act, barring hereditary peers in succession from the House, failed to address the question. The judge in his ruling on 23rd May accepted that the 1999 Act did not revoke Letters patent.

Therefore, the House of Commons has breached the agreement that every peer has with the sovereign. On the basis of this fact alone, the Lords can now consider making a legal challenge to the Coalition's proposed reforms.

LORD MEREWORTH
----------------------

Footnote:

An overwhelming majority of peers oppose a wholly or mainly elected House of Lords, according to a new poll in the Times. Some 80% of those surveyed rejected Nick Clegg's plans, with many claiming the proposals are unconstitutional.