Community hub
Recent from talks
Contribute something to knowledge base
Content stats: 0 posts, 0 articles, 0 media, 0 notes
Members stats: 0 subscribers, 0 contributors, 0 moderators, 0 supporters
Subscribers
Supporters
Contributors
Moderators
Hub AI
Writ of acceleration AI simulator
(@Writ of acceleration_simulator)
Hub AI
Writ of acceleration AI simulator
(@Writ of acceleration_simulator)
Writ of acceleration
A writ in acceleration, commonly called a writ of acceleration, is a type of writ of summons that enabled the eldest son and heir apparent of a peer with more than one peerage to attend the British or Irish House of Lords, using one of his father's subsidiary titles, during his father's lifetime. This procedure could be used to bring younger men into the Lords and increase the number of capable members in a house that drew on a very small pool of talent (a few dozen families in its early centuries, a few hundred in its later centuries).
The procedure of writs of acceleration was introduced by King Edward IV in the mid-15th century. It was a fairly rare occurrence, and in over 400 years only 98 writs of acceleration were issued.[citation needed] The last such writ of acceleration was issued in 1992 to the Conservative politician and close political associate of John Major, Viscount Cranborne, the eldest son and heir apparent of the 6th Marquess of Salisbury. He was summoned as Baron Cecil, and not as Viscount Cranborne, the title he used by courtesy. The procedure of writs of acceleration has not been used in practice since the House of Lords Act 1999 removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords.
A writ of acceleration was granted only if the peerage being accelerated was a subsidiary one, and not the father's highest, and if the beneficiary of the writ was the heir apparent of the actual holder of the peerages. The heir apparent was not always summoned in his courtesy title; rather, almost every person summoned to Parliament by virtue of a writ of acceleration was summoned in one of his father's baronies. For example, William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington, heir apparent of William Cavendish, 3rd Duke of Devonshire, was summoned as Baron Cavendish of Hardwick. It was not possible for heirs apparent of peers in the Peerage of Scotland and Peerage of Ireland to be given writs of acceleration after 1707 and 1801, respectively, as holders of titles in these peerages were not automatically guaranteed a seat in the Westminster House of Lords.[citation needed]
An heir apparent receiving such a writ took precedence within the House of Lords according to the peerage accelerated. For example, when Viscount Cranborne was accelerated to the barony of Cecil (created in 1603), he took precedence ahead of all barons in Parliament created after that date.[citation needed]
If an accelerated baron died before his father, the barony passed to his heirs, if any, according to the remainder governing the creation of the barony, or else to his father. For example, Charles Boyle, Viscount Dungarvan, the eldest son of the 1st Earl of Burlington, was summoned to Parliament in 1689 in his father's barony of Clifford of Lanesborough. He predeceased his father, and his son, the Earl's grandson, was granted a writ of attendance to the Lords in the barony.
Acceleration could affect the numbering of holders of peerages. In the example above, the 1st Earl of Burlington was also the 1st Baron Clifford of Lanesborough. His son Charles was, by virtue of the writ of acceleration, summoned to Parliament as Baron Clifford of Lanesborough, but predeceased his father. On the death of the 1st Earl of Burlington, Charles's son thus became the 2nd Earl of Burlington, but the 3rd Baron Clifford of Lanesborough (the accelerated barony had indeed passed to him on his father's death).[citation needed]
Several issues of writs of acceleration may be especially noted.
In 1628 James Stanley, Lord Strange, heir apparent of William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, was summoned to the House of Lords in the ancient Barony of Strange (created in 1299), a title assumed by his father. However, the House of Lords later decided that the sixth Earl's assumption of the Barony of Strange had been erroneous. Consequently, it was deemed that there were now two Baronies of Strange, the original one created in 1299 and the new one, created "accidentally" in 1628 (see Baron Strange for more information).
Writ of acceleration
A writ in acceleration, commonly called a writ of acceleration, is a type of writ of summons that enabled the eldest son and heir apparent of a peer with more than one peerage to attend the British or Irish House of Lords, using one of his father's subsidiary titles, during his father's lifetime. This procedure could be used to bring younger men into the Lords and increase the number of capable members in a house that drew on a very small pool of talent (a few dozen families in its early centuries, a few hundred in its later centuries).
The procedure of writs of acceleration was introduced by King Edward IV in the mid-15th century. It was a fairly rare occurrence, and in over 400 years only 98 writs of acceleration were issued.[citation needed] The last such writ of acceleration was issued in 1992 to the Conservative politician and close political associate of John Major, Viscount Cranborne, the eldest son and heir apparent of the 6th Marquess of Salisbury. He was summoned as Baron Cecil, and not as Viscount Cranborne, the title he used by courtesy. The procedure of writs of acceleration has not been used in practice since the House of Lords Act 1999 removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords.
A writ of acceleration was granted only if the peerage being accelerated was a subsidiary one, and not the father's highest, and if the beneficiary of the writ was the heir apparent of the actual holder of the peerages. The heir apparent was not always summoned in his courtesy title; rather, almost every person summoned to Parliament by virtue of a writ of acceleration was summoned in one of his father's baronies. For example, William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington, heir apparent of William Cavendish, 3rd Duke of Devonshire, was summoned as Baron Cavendish of Hardwick. It was not possible for heirs apparent of peers in the Peerage of Scotland and Peerage of Ireland to be given writs of acceleration after 1707 and 1801, respectively, as holders of titles in these peerages were not automatically guaranteed a seat in the Westminster House of Lords.[citation needed]
An heir apparent receiving such a writ took precedence within the House of Lords according to the peerage accelerated. For example, when Viscount Cranborne was accelerated to the barony of Cecil (created in 1603), he took precedence ahead of all barons in Parliament created after that date.[citation needed]
If an accelerated baron died before his father, the barony passed to his heirs, if any, according to the remainder governing the creation of the barony, or else to his father. For example, Charles Boyle, Viscount Dungarvan, the eldest son of the 1st Earl of Burlington, was summoned to Parliament in 1689 in his father's barony of Clifford of Lanesborough. He predeceased his father, and his son, the Earl's grandson, was granted a writ of attendance to the Lords in the barony.
Acceleration could affect the numbering of holders of peerages. In the example above, the 1st Earl of Burlington was also the 1st Baron Clifford of Lanesborough. His son Charles was, by virtue of the writ of acceleration, summoned to Parliament as Baron Clifford of Lanesborough, but predeceased his father. On the death of the 1st Earl of Burlington, Charles's son thus became the 2nd Earl of Burlington, but the 3rd Baron Clifford of Lanesborough (the accelerated barony had indeed passed to him on his father's death).[citation needed]
Several issues of writs of acceleration may be especially noted.
In 1628 James Stanley, Lord Strange, heir apparent of William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, was summoned to the House of Lords in the ancient Barony of Strange (created in 1299), a title assumed by his father. However, the House of Lords later decided that the sixth Earl's assumption of the Barony of Strange had been erroneous. Consequently, it was deemed that there were now two Baronies of Strange, the original one created in 1299 and the new one, created "accidentally" in 1628 (see Baron Strange for more information).