Irish lords are a-leaping at the prospect of losing their red leather seats at the Palace of Westminster. Yesterday's Queen's Speech was a tricky one to stomach. Weak constitutions were advised to stay in bed, as the unwritten constitution was in for a bad week.
It is difficult to pinpoint the number of Irish hereditary peers, as many hold Irish titles but do not live here, such as John Boyle, the Earl of Cork and Orrery, who is also the Baron of Marston. There are English peers who hold Irish titles, such as Prince Andrew, Duke of York, who is also the Earl of Inverness and Killyleagh.
Besides, holders of Irish peerages are not allowed to sit in the House of Lords if they do not also hold a UK peerage. Earl Mount Charles said last night that if and when he inherits the title Marquess of Conyngham, he "would wish to exercise [his] rights and [his] vote, particularly with regard to such issues pertaining to both Ireland and Britain. The whole Sellafield issue, for example, is an area in which I think the Irish Government has not been sufficiently active.
"It does not make sense to remove a body of people from the Lords," he continued, "without a proper concept of what will replace it. The hereditary peers have provided a valuable independent element, and I would worry that Mr Blair or Mr Hague or whoever would pack the Lords with their supporters once the hereditary element was removed."
The third Baron of Kilbracken, John Raymond Godley, said that he would be very sad if he lost the right to sit in the Lords. "My opinion is that the House of Lords needs to be reformed, but properly. If the hereditary peers are removed in one go, in the meantime it will be a very strange house indeed."
