The Boston Daily Advertiser - Saturday, May 25, 1895

CORRECTING THE EDITOR.

To the Editor of The Advertiser: It is s a stock quotation among the American press about the ignorance displayed by British newspapers when writing about American affairs, but your leading editorial this morning shows how readily and easily it is to fall into error when writing about the affairs of other countries.

It will no doubt be a great relief to you and your readers to know, that all the deductions and moralizlngs that are drawn from the text this morning about the Marquis of Queensberry being a member of the British house of lords and an hereditary legislator, are entirely wrong, for the simple reason that he is not a member of that body.

His title is a Scottish one dating prior it to the union of the two crowns, and those Scottish noblemen meet prior to every parliament and elect twelve of their number to represent them in the British house of lords, and the marquis in question is not one of the twelve.

This letter cannot be given the prominence of your editorial but in justice to those of your readers who get their ideas of British politics entirely from their newspaper, I expect you to exhibit your usual fairness and show them that when you are in error you can admit it. Robert E. May. 51 Federal st, May 23.

We have decided to print the above letter in full and verbatim, not on account of the errors of fact into which its author has fallen; for, even if they seemed to require correction in this public manner lest other readers might make similar mistakes, a very few words would suffice to clear up the whole matter. We will say frankly and at once that this seems to us to be a favorable opportunity for fulfilling a long cherished purpose to say a few words about a certain style of criticism of the public press by private readers, whose intentions are usually of the best, but who naturally and excusably fail to bring to their laudable task the requisite equipment.

First, we will deal with a minor point. Our correspondent is in error in saying of the Marquis of Queensberry that "his title is a Scottish one, dating prior to the union of the two crowns." The union of the crowns took place in the year 1603, when, at the demise of Elizabeth, James VI. of Scotland became James I. of England. The Marquis of Queensberry's principal title, that of marquis, dates from Feb. 11, 1681, when William, third Earl of Queensberry, was elevated to the marquisate. Even the inferior title of Earl of Queensberry reaches back only to June 13, 1638, when it was conferred upon Viscount Drumlanrig, who, a little more than 10 years previously, viz., on April 1, 1628, being then Williamn Douglas, ninth Baron of Drumlanrig, was raised to the Scottish peerage and created a viscount.

Thus it will be seen that in saying that the Marquis of Queensberry's title dates back "prior to the union of the the two crowns," our correspondent, who kindly, not to say patronizingly, undertakes to correct The Advertiser's "error," makes a mistake of no less that 78 years! Even allowing that he may have meant that the noble lord's pedigree as a member of the peerage dates "prior to the union of the two crowns," he is still in error by no less than a quarter of a century! It is true that the house of Queensberry traces its lineage to the early part of the 15th century, when Sir William Douglas, illegitimate son of the Earl of Douglas and Mar, was created by charter Baron of Drumlanrig, by whom the family of the present Marquis of Queensberry was founded. The precise date is unknown, as is the maternal parentage. But in Scotland a barony was not a peerage.

Let us now see whether our correspondent is more successful in the graver matters of criticism than in regard to the antiquity of the title-which really has no bearing upon the matter of our editorial, though he evidently thinks it has important bearing. The Advertiser did not say or imply that the Marquis of Queensberry is a member of the house of lords. We were careful to use the term "a member of the house of peers of the British Empire," a totally distinct thing, as anybody can learn by studying any authoritative work on the subject; for instance, the "Reports of the Lords' Committees Teaching the Diginity of a Peer of the Realm," five volumes, London, 1829. On p. 16 of the vol, 2 will be found a lucid statement of the case regarding the Scottish peerage. "The house of lords," to use the common and convenient term, strictly "the house of lords of parliament," is composed of all persons who under the constitution of the United Kingdom are entitled to seats in the upper branch of parliament, including not only members of the English peerage and certain members of the Scottish and Irish peerage, but bishops of the Established Church, who, in the strict sense, are not peers at all. According to law, as expounded by highest authority, "it is possible to be a peer without being a lord of parliament, and a lord of parliament without being a peer." According to the same authority, as to the Scottish peers, "their membership in the house (of lords) is rather suspended than taken away." Again, "a holder of a peerage is a lord of parliament in esse or in posse."

It will thus be seen that in alluding to the Marquis of Queensberry as a "member of the house of peers of the British Empire-not at all as a member of the house of lords of parliament-The Advertiser was absolutely right. The fact which seems to have been so startling a discovery to our correspondent, that Scottish peers do not sit in the upper house of parliament except when chosen for that function by the body to which they belong, is so familiar to use and probably to most of our readers, that we did not suppose there was necessity for alluding to it in the brief leading editorial of last Thursday.

"All the deductions and moralizings" in that article, instead of being "entirely wrong for the simple reason that" our correspondent failed to see their point, were entirely right, pertinent and proper. This "noble lord," this scion of a house founded in illegitimacy, this member of the peerage of the British Empire, is, to cite again the legal definition, "a lord of parliament in posse." He may at any time become a member "in esse".

Editors, like other people, are liable to fall into error, and readers of The Advertiser know well enough that unwillingness to acknowledge a mistake is not a characteristic of this newspaper. Nevertheless, it is only prudent and reasonable for readers to bear in mind that editorial writing is a profession, no less than the law, medicine or divinity, for which liberal education, technical training and incessant study covering a wide range of knowledge are required; that an editor who is fit for his place is usually, and from motivtes of the strongest self-interest, if from no higher motives, careful to have at hand full equipments in the line of authorities, and to use them to supplement his store of laboriously acquired information, when dealing with difficult topics.