Talk:Lord Chancellor

Older discussion

The news item from No. 10 [1] makes it clear that

Once the reforms are in place, the post of Lord Chancellor will be abolished... [my emphasis]

...so technically speaking it hasn't been abolished today (June 12). It's not yet clear to me whether Lord Falconer is Lord Chancellor, or has just been authorised to "exercise its powers". It appears that he won't use the title. --rbrwr 18:41 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps he's Lord Keeper. ;-) Sigh... as an American who is absolutely not affected by this change, I am saddened. My high tory sentiments always poking through my center-left facade, or something... john 23:35 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, BBC Radio just referred to him as "Lord Chancellor", so it seems that the job has a temporary reprieve, and I've just found this at the Number 10 website:

Asked if Lord Falconer would be known as Lord Chancellor the PMOS said that in the transition period between his taking office and the establishment of the new arrangements he would be known as Lord Chancellor. Once it was established he would be known as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. Asked if the changes meant we would be without a Lord Chancellor for the first time in a thousand years the PMOS told journalists that after the transition that would be the case. [2]

I'll change things around again when I have time --rbrwr

Of course, the PMOS was not speaking the truth when he said that this would be the first time in a thousand years Britain would be without a Lord Chancellor. There was no Lord Chancellor between April 1835 and January 1836, most recently, as the office was in commission then. I think the article's okay as it is, until the office officialy gets abolished. john 07:14 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm saddened too. More bloody destruction of one of the most historic offices in world history. As an Irishman I have to say that I think it is a disgrace. :-( Re the issue of the stuff on the Number 10 website - one of the joys of the press briefings (as someone who has received them in Ireland and once in the UK) is that they are frequently bullshit. The press aide doesn't know the answer. If he can, he will give what is called a non-reply reply which sounds like an answer but isn't. (Like CJ in The West Wing!) If it is vital to give an answer and he has been told to give an answer so that the 6'O'Clock News has something to carry, he will give a nice straight-forward soundbite, then come back later with an "opps. Was double checking that and it isn't as straight-forward I unintentionally (sic) suggested". The issue of Falconer as LC is a classic example. On the one hand, they suggested that Falconer will become the Sec. of State for Constitutional Affairs (ie, NOT Lord Chancellor), on the other they say that he wouldn't fulfil the judicial and legislative judicial functions of the Lord Chancellor (ie,. IS Lord Chancellor). Unfortunately this nonsense wasn't picked up by the media (if John Cole was still in the BBC, he would have spotted it immediately!). They drowned the journalists in acres of crap (briefings, faxes, more briefings, appointments timed to go out during news bulletins to make Tony look more 'in control' and 'presidential', large chunks of biographies, spins about changes due the next day, etc ) all in the hope that patent absurdities like that wouldn't be noticed by journalists too busy getting the OB stuff ready in a couple of minutes. Classic Labour spin, and as evidence of just how bullshitty it was, just look at who was sitting on the woolsack this morning. Why Lord Falconer, of course, whom Downing Street stated categorically yesterday would not be there. And he was being called Lord Chancellor, wearing the Lord Chancellor's gown and wig, surrounded by the Lord Chancellor's regalia, all the stuff Downing Street said wouldn't be happening.

BTW remember also - the Lord Chancellor cannot be abolished at the whim of Tony. He has to:

• consult with all the interested parties
• redirect all the executive, legislative and judicial functions
• find a new speaker for the Lords
• get the Queen's agreement on who would be her new representative in Parliament (the LC is now. If she can't do a state opening, he reads the Queen's Speech from the steps of the throne. (If he couldn't, the Prince of Wales would. But Tony has already removed him as a Hereditary out of the Lords, so Tony is going to have to do a hell of a lot of problem-solving)
• get a Bill abolishing the office through the Commons and Lords. If the Lords say 'no' (and IDS was making a big issue of the constitution today. We'll have to keep an eye on the Tory press to see if they begin to make an issue of it, having been told to do so by IDS.) it will be blocked for . . . how long is now, 3 sessions? . . . unless he opts to use the Parliamentary Act. I very much doubt if the office will be abolished by Christmas and may well still exist this time next year. And if Tony has made as much of a screw-up as it looks like he has (Scottish Office in Constitutional Affairs, Secretary of State (without a department!) in the Commons, a Sec of State for Health in a part of the UK over which he has no role as Heath minister, A Welsh office gone to Cons. Affairs, A Welsh Sect in the Commons without a Department, who is also Leader of the House/Lord Privy Seal/Official ministerial spokesman for the cabinet/etc etc etc) I think Lord Falconer has plenty of time to buy his own full-bottomed wig! He may be wearing it for months if not years to come. It is quite possible if things go wrong with Tony's very mucked up scheme that it may get bogged down in consultations for 6 months to a year, a House of Lords block followed by the Parliament Act delay for another year, add in a euro referendum, the european constitution, etc and this may be one of those things that Tony plans to do, but not yet! FearÉIREANN 04:04 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, no wonder I got confused! --rbrwr

Is there any convention for the naming of LCs? e.g.

John Smith, Lord Smith of Ely or John Patrick Smith, Lord Smith of Ely

John Smith, Lord Smith of Ely or John Smith, Lord Smith of Ely (later 1st Viscount Eastminster) or John Smith, 1st Viscount Eastminster

I can't see any pattern as to middle names. It is obviously correct to give the name of the person when he was LC, but should we bother giving later titles? ??? Andrew Yong 09:04, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Er...this is a problem with all British politician lists. I'd go with the highest title held while they were actually Lord Chancellor (on that occasion). That is to say, if he became Viscount Eastminster while he was Lord Chancellor, use that title. Otherwise, only "John Smith, Lord Smith of Ely." As far as middle names - yeah, it's a mess. Particularly confusing are those people with semi-last name middle names. Winston Leopold Spencer(-)Churchill. William George Granville Venables Vernon(-)Harcourt (currently at William Harcourt, because his father is at William Vernon Harcourt, I believe. Sigh.

The wiki naming conventions on peers was worked out quite a while ago and is quite clear. All hereditary peers should be in the form of [[personal name and surname, highest title]], If someone, while having a lower title was Lord Chancellor, simply use the pipe, ie, [[John Simmington, 4th Duke of Southchester|Lord Simmington]]. This was sorted out ages ago. FearÉIREANN 23:11, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the Lord Chancellor does in practice (except for ceremonial stuff). David.Monniaux 13:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been given some explanation as to the Lord Chancellor's effective duties, but I think things would be clearer if some kind of structure was given so as to make a difference between the important roles of the lord chancellor, and more ceremonial or rarely exercised powers. David.Monniaux 17:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

In the article it states,

"Nonetheless, ministerial threats to pass the Bill without the consent of the House of Lords (as permitted under the Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949) have been made."

However, as the Constitutional Reform Bill was introduced to Parliament in the House of Lords, the Parliament Acts can not be used to force it through if the Lords don't accept it. Quite how ministers have threatened it with the Parliament Acts I do not know - the only way I can think of is if they started all over again by introducing the bill in the Commons... ??

"Tony Blair's ministry" - is this nonsense?

"Tony Blair's ministry"? What on earth does that mean? Sorry, but it seems meaningless to me: please explain, or correct. Thanks. 82.35.17.203 01:01, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It means Tony Blair's administration or government. -- Emsworth 01:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But it does it seem to you to make sense in everyday English? In UK English in particular?? To me, it certainly does not. "Tony Blair's ministry" sounds like one ministry for which Blair would be responsible, in the sense that "David Blunkett's ministry" would be the Home Office. To me, it's desperately meaningless in UK English: though I acknowledge it may have meaning elsewhere I don't think it's right for this article. 82.35.17.203 16:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So I changed it to administration. Hope this is OK. 82.35.17.203 18:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is a shame you do not understand the word ministry. It is the normal UK term - e.g. "the second Gladstone ministry", etc. Administration is a US usage, though I accept it may be more common now. Andrew Yong 00:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lord Chancellor to not be abolished - official

On the 30th November, the Lord Chancellor submitted ammendments to the Constitutional Reform Bill which removed the 'Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs' from the Bill. All references to "the Minister" in the Bill would (if the ammendments are approved, which they almost certainly will) refer to the Lord Chancellor instead of the Secretary of State. The Telegraph today confirmed that the position of Lord Chancellor will now remain and the government are happy that as long as their other reforms are passed this will be fine.

The House of Lords have succeeded in keeping this Great Officer of State! :)

dpaajones (2nd December 2004)

Sounds good. :-)

James F. (talk) 00:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Huzzah! john k 04:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Major rewrite of this article now required?

The Constitutional Reform Bill has today been approved by both Houses of Parliament, though only with a majority of 12 in the Lords.

I think this article, as well as many others on Wiki, will now need to be updated. The Bill will very soon recieve Royal Assent and when this happens it will be law.

Anyone up for the job? ;)

I will do so soon (after it receives the Royal Assent—or, to be more precise, when the Government issues a Commencement Order). -- Emsworth 20:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Iolanthe's Lord Chancellor

Would it be appropriate to include a brief mention of the satirical Lord Chancellor in Gilbert & Sullivan's Iolanthe? Where in the article, if anywhere, could such a note be included? —Josiah Rowe 08:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Nothing could possibly be more satisfactory! Markp6

Re-write needed now

There's going to have to be some major re-writing done to this and many other pages with the already transfered judicial powers to the Lord Chief Justice and the advent of the Lord Speaker next month.

[3]

David 10:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the main template to {{update}}. Hopefully I'll get around to rewriting this when the dust is settled, however don't let that stop others. 68.39.174.238 22:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made a first pass through this, removing material that's no longer relevant and making a number of updates. Sometimes I've removed material rather than let it stand when I was doubtful about it (e.g. all the ceremonial aspects) since I thought it better to have nothing than incorrect information. A better informed person could do a better job, but this is a start. Mhardcastle 11:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why so much removal of material? Given that the office has existed for 1000 years, and until a few months ago was as described in the article previously, we shouldn't have all description of the job's former responsibilities removed. john k 20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that most of this material be restored, tense modified to past tense, and discussed in a section on something like "The Lord Chancellor before 2005". What has been removed would seem to be mostly:

1. Description of the Lord Chancellor's role as Speaker of the Lords
2. A description of the Lord Chancellor's limited use of his judicial functions in recent years
3. A long description of the Lord Chancellor's role in ceremonies.

The first and last should certainly be discussed. The latter was probably okay to weed a bit, but should probably still be covered. john k 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this. I had limited time to edit the article, so I just tried to bring it up to date. The article is already rather long, though. I have no idea about the current situation wrt the ceremonial stuff (which roles have been taken over by the Lord Speaker, for example): someone who knows needs about it to do this, as I said originally. Mhardcastle 13:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_precedence_in_Northern_Ireland states that, in Northern ireland, the Presbyterian ecclesiastic who has precedence ahead of the Lord Chancellor is the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland not the Moderator of the Church of Scotland

Aleks

"Always a peer"?

The Lord Chancellor hadn't always been a peer before today. Thomas More wasn't a peer, for instance. I believe the Lord Chancellor has always been a peer since the 17th century, but that's not the same thing. john k 13:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. Neither was (Archbishop) William Warham or Thomas (Cardinal) Wolsey. But I suppose one can't expect the supremely ahistorical New Labour to know, or care, about that. 16:24, 28 June 2007.

Surely they were peers spiritual, as Archbishop of Canterbury and Archbishop of York? john k 17:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thinking about it, I said Straw was the first non-peer since the 17th century, but Charles Yorke was Lord Chancellor in 1770, and died before his peerage patent actually came through. Ought he to count? john k

At best, the Lord Chancellor has always been associated with the House of Lords since he acted as their Speaker -- even when he wasn't a peer. Since the Blair Government divided the roles of Speaker of the House of Lords and Lord Chancellor, there is no longer even this tie. 14:31, 2 July 2007 (BST)

True enough - it would seem fair to say that Straw is the first MP to serve as Lord Chancellor. john k 14:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lord Chancellor has been the Official to deliver the annual parliament opening Queen's speech to the Queen. Now, the Lord Chancellor is not a member of the House of Lords; he will be "barred from the House of Lord's chamber"

So, who will do the delivery? 221.127.66.156 14:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw is not quite the first MP to serve as Lord Chancellor. Several commoners have been appointed and started serving in the role before being ennobled - in 1939 Sir Thomas Inskip was noted in the papers as sitting on the Woolsack before he was made Viscount Caldecote. (Technically the Woolsack - and the area immediately around it - is not part of the floor of the Lords, so a non-peer can be on it. Simon expounds on this point in his memoirs.) I'd guess that some others appointed from the Commons were sworn in before they were ennobled but can't guess off hand. It might be worth putting this in the article - I'll fish out Simon's memoirs when I'm next in the library. Timrollpickering 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Conservative plans

The Tory frontbench separates the roles of Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor. Does anyone know what the Tories intend to do with those roles in a future Tory government? -Rrius (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

'Right of prescription'

Currently there's a link to 'right of prescription' that leads to the entry for 'time immemorial'... This is more than a little confusing. Is 'right of prescription' a term for a right that is in place by longstanding convention (i.e., since time immemorial)? Could someone knowledgeable clarify this, and perhaps also modify the entry for 'time immemorial' as well? MJM74 (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Compound plurals

Am I right in thinking that the plural of Lord Chancellor is in fact "Lords Chancellor" and not "Lord Chancellors", as is used primarily through this article? I had thought it was a compound plural, like "Attorneys-General" or "Mothers-in-law", but then I noticed one of the referenced books was entitled "Lives of the Lord Chancellors and Keepers of the Great Seal of England : from the earliest times till the reign of King George IV", so now I'm unsure. Can anyone give me a definite answer? Capreolus (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lord Chancellor is primarily a Chancellor, not primarily a Lord. john k (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The usage of the article is explained in the first footnote. Mhardcastle (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Jack Straw's recent speech

An interesting speech recently made by the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/speech030309a.htm

Perhaps useful for adding information and/or references to this article? David (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice that Straw says that Christopher Hatton was a sitting MP at the time he was appointed Lord Chancellor, while our article denies that that had ever happened (see last sentence of 'Reform'). Which is right? Mhardcastle (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Difference between Lord Chancellor and Lord Keeper

I thought, from my undisciplined reading, that the main difference between a Lord Chancellor and a Lord Keeper was that the sovereign owed the Lord Chancellor a whopping big salary. Back then, appointing a man Lord Keeper for a year or so allowed the sovereign to save some money, as well as trying him out before giving him a patent sealed with the Great Seal. J S Ayer (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

date of creation?

Why does the infobox say the Lord Chancellor's postion was created in the 18th century, yet the history sections says the office goes all the way back to William the Conqueror?

Which one is right?

And should there be a clarification? It's somewhat amibiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.218.141 (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The mess is people assuming that the 1707 Act of Union saw everything recreated. Most positions and posts just carried on the same as ever. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Lord Shaftesbury

The article said until recently that Lord Shaftesbury was the last Lord Chancellor (1672-1673) who was a cleric. He wasn't a cleric; check our article on him, or the Dictionary of National Biography, or any other source. He also wasn't a lawyer, and some historian I read years ago said that Shaftesbury, although gifted with remarkable mental powers, often felt painfully his lack of technical knowledge. Did the work cited actually say that Lord Shaftesbury was the last Lord Chancellor who wasn't a lawyer? If it actually says he was a cleric, we have a problem. J S Ayer (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

His Wikipedia article says that he joined Exeter College, Oxford, in 1637, fomented a riot and left without taking a degree, entered Lincoln's Inn in 1638 and went to live in the house of the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal on marrying his daughter in 1639. Before that he had been educated by private tutors. So it looks as if his official legal education was limited to one year, but who knows how much he read on his own? NRPanikker (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Grammar

As a reminder, we have an article on commas for those unfamiliar with their use. It is true, in former ages, that we used them, in many odd places, more to indicate a pause, when reading aloud, than according to any firm, or fast, logical rule... but we read silently now. They should only be employed—in the present situation—for actual parentheticals (i.e. where the second instance is an inferior form of the first) and not on every occasion where two names of equal rank are being mentioned. If you really want the second name in the lead, accept that it's important enough that commas are inappropriate. (In fact, it obviously is important enough to not be treated as a parenthetical: it's the article's actual namespace.)

If the commas are more important for some reason, the name itself isn't important enough to be in the lead sentence and should be moved downpage somewhere. Or come up with a third name, so a serial comma is actually appropriate... Or rephrase it along the lines of "Lord Chancellor, formally known as the &c"... (This is actually the correct format per the MOS. We should lead with the article namespace wherever possible.) — LlywelynII 13:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In this case the second name *is* an inferior form of the first. An argument based on the *relative importance* of the two terms is far more of a justification than one claiming that punctuation style choices are 'grammar'. May I also suggest that you don't accuse other contributors of lying when you disagree with them? Mhardcastle (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Another grammar issue: "usually when there is a delay between an outgoing chancellor and their replacement."

This should either read "between an outgoing chancellor and his replacement" (as the vast majority of Lords Chancellor have been male) or "between outgoing chancellors and their replacements," but not the way that it is currently stated, as this mixes the singular with the plural and is incorrect. The rules of English grammar need not constantly yield to political correctness. Tpkatsa (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph on New Labour's changes in the lead

This is a response to the following note put on my talk page:

As I said in my original edit, I don't think a paragraph-long description of what turned out to be a fairly minor storm in a teacup in the context of the thousand-year history of the post is really necessary in the lead of the article, but a sentence *integrated with the existing discussion of reform* might be appropriate. Please discuss on the talk page of the article rather than reverting. Mhardcastle (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

My edit was reverted, so I took Mhardcastle's comments on board and resubmitted an edited version. This was promptly reverted with the summary: "comments on the previous edit should be addressed, not ignored..

I feel the second revert was uncalled-for. I don't think I did ignore the comments, nor do I think the reforms to the office of Lord Chancellor are a "storm in a teacup". Rather, any lead on the LC should mention New Labour's proposed abolition of the office and the fudge that followed. As with the CPS before, most lawyers welcomed the reform while regretting that the changes were neither well- planned nor better-implemented. Arrivisto (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical functions

We should clarify which of the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical functions are theoretical and which are active responsibilities of the current Lord Chancellor. It seems unlikely that the Lord Chancellor selects parish priests. It is more likely that priests are selected by the church hierarchy, even if the Lord Chancellor has a formal role of making the appointment. I have not found a source to confirm this. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• RobertBucklandQCMPspeakerapprobation.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Lord Chancellor is ranking below Lord High Stewart

Lord Chancellor is not "the highest ranking of the offices of state" as Wikipedia claims. It ranks below Lord High Stewart even though this office is vacant at the moment. The most Wikipedia can claim is that "the office of Lord Chancellor acts temporarly as the highest ranked office of state due to the current vacant status of Lord High Stewart". TommyBrunOlesen (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent capitalisation

This article is called "Lord Chancellor", with the C capitalised (the L is capitalised because the first letter of an article's title always is). But the lead section talks about the "lord chancellor". Why the inconsistency? I submit that it should usually be capitalized, because this is the form sources normally use. For example the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 consistently uses the capitalised form. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: I just tried to move this and you reverted it. The point is, you just can't have the title of the article using a different capitalisation from the aticle. One of them is wrong. It doesn't matter how long the article has been at that title, something has to change. @Surtsicna: who made the change in the article body with this edit. SpinningSpark 12:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It should all be in title case (Lord Chancellor) because it is an official title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:168B:7601:D95E:465F:7033:92E1 (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)