HC Deb 26 November 1919 vol 121 cc1802-9
Mr. J. H. THOMAS

I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower His Majesty to accept a surrender of any Peerage."

I desire to make it perfectly clear that this Bill does not express in any sense the views either of myself or of my colleagues with regard to the future constitution of the House of Lords, nor is it simply a Bill to enable a peer, if he chooses, to sit in this House. I frankly admit that, although we are living in democratic days, there is to-day no dearth of candidates for the peerage—the right hon Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) can apply it to either side of the House—and the object of the Bill is to permit any man not only to surrender his peerage and the right to sit in the Upper House, but also all privileges attaching to membership of the Upper House. In the seventeenth century, I believe, it was not an uncommon thing to surrender the peerage, with the result that there was a famous test case, known as "The Earl of Norfolk's Case"—in which it was clearly laid down by the Law Courts—it was subsequently confirmed by the House of Lords that the peerage could not be surrendered. I have taken an extract from Pike's "Constitutional Law" dealing with that point. It reads as follows: The doctrine that a peer cannot surrender or in any other way restore any dignity at all to the sovereign is thus Lord-made law of comparatively recent growth. It seems, at first sight, to contradict the fundamental doctrine that the sovereign is the fountain of honour, as it withdraws from him the power to receive back an honour once conferred. There must of necessity be two parties to a surrender, and it appears to be hardly within the rights of any particular body so to define its own privileges as to affect other interests, and in particular those of the Crown, without the express consent of the sovereign. That opinion was never challenged, so far as I have been told, until 1895, when the present Earl Sclborne challenged the right of summons to the other House. It is true that he, backed by the present Lord Curzon and Lord Midleton, presented a Bill, which did not receive a Second Reading in this House. The object of that Bill was, clearly, not to take away all the privileges attached to a peer, but was merely limited to the right of a peer, if he so desires, to sit as a Member of this House. The difference between what one can gather was the intention of Lord Selborne and the then Lord Wolmer on that occasion and the Bill which I now ask the House to accept, is that in Clause 1 of the Bill it is provided— His Majesty may accept a surrender by any peer of any peerage held by him, and if accepted by His Majesty such surrender shall determine the peerage so surrendered, and all rights and privileges in respect thereof, including the right to receive a written summons and to sit in the House of Lords or to take part in the elections of representative peers. It will be observed that that Clause, if it becomes the law of the land, clearly prevents the possibility of getting the best of both worlds. It lays it down, first, that a peer has a clear right to say, "No, I believe I can serve my country best by remaining a Member of this House." But, concurrently with that, it also says that if he so chooses, and if he accepts that position, clearly it must not carry with it any right or privileges attaching to the other House. I submit that we have here a clearly defined, and, if I may say so, a sound constitutional position. It enables a, man to say that, in his judgment, he does not feel capable of undertaking the responsibility of sitting in the other House, and I would ask whether this House of Commons, or the Constitution of the country ought to say to a man who himself feels that he is incapable of discharging these responsibilities, who himself feels that his conscience tells him ha ought not to accept the responsibility, that he should accept it. I would say quite clearly that it is not unfair and that it is a sound constitutional position to reply, "No, if you yourself feel that you are incapable of discharging this work, certainly we are not going to compel you to do it." That is the first point involved. But there is a second, and one that is primarily responsible for this Bill. It is that there are Members of this House to day who feel that their training, their knowledge, and their whole conception of public life and public service is centred in this House. They are men who have made promises to a constituency, which constituency itself feels that it can truss them, and we ought not, because of this flaw—if I may use that phrase—in the Constitution, to deprive these men of the right and privilege of serving in this House if they so desire. It is perfectly true that I might have brought in this Bill by a mere presentation, but that would have been unfair, because the House ought clearly to understand what is the purport and object of the measure. I believe there is opposition to it—opposition on the ground that it is dealing piecemeal with the great question of the House of Lords. All I have to say is that there have been various promises of reform of the House of Lords, and if those who are opposing this Bill, and who object to deal piecemeal with the House of Lords, are desirous of helping in dealing with the House of Lords, there is nothing in this Bill which will prevent them doing it. At all events, I submit that, in asking the House to give this Bill a First. Reading, I am asking it to say that in a constitutional country like ours, where, after all, Parliament is, and should be, supreme, there ought to be nothing in the Constitution to first deprive a peer, because he is a peer, of the ordinary privileges of humble citizenship and then to prevent any citizen who wants to serve his country from serving his country in the manner he thinks best to do so.

4.0.P.M.

Mr. E. WOOD

I rise to invite the House to refuse to grant permission to the right hon. Gentleman to introduce this Bill, and I hope, if necessary, to divide the House upon it. I must say at the outset that those of us who are opposed to the action with which the right hon. Gentleman is associated, would be the first to recognise that he has treated the House of Commons with the greatest courtesy in affording it the earliest possible opportunity of expressing its views upon this question. All hon. Members present will have listened with great interest and admiration to the speech with which the right hon. Gentleman introduced this Motion. We are always accustomed in this House to listen with interest to whatever may fall from him, but to-day we have listened with an extra interest, because of the novel role in which we find the right hon. Gentleman acting. I believe there was a distinguished individual in the early Middle Ages who was known, on account of his actions against Churchmen, as the "Hammerer of the Church." I am not without hope that after the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-day he will go down to posterity as a constitutional lawyer and as a protector of the peers. I am acting as I am to-day not without considerable reluctance. In the first place, I should always be reluctant, unless it were necessary, to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. In the second place, I am bound to say that the particular individual whose case is the parent of the introduction of this Bill in one of my warm personal friends, for whose friendship I have the greatest possible regard. In the third place, I myself, perhaps, as long as the House of Lords remains as it is at present, by the natural order of events if things remain as they are, may be called upon to face compulsory severance from this House and from all those affectionate relations and sympathies one has ever had in it. Therefore I am sure the House will agree that one has every personal ground for trying to take the opposite view from what I do. Nevertheless, I feel bound to ask the House to agree with me and reject the Motion.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a very persuasive speech. He advocated as his main ground that we should aim at removing any hindrance that lies in the path of peers rendering services to their country where they best may. He has based his argument on the broad democratic ground of the right of service. With that argument I warmly associate myself, because the right of service is the greatest right which from the King to the humblest subject anyone can claim. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was better than the conclusion he invites us to support. I would deny the implication that service in the other place need be of any less value than service in this House. In the second place, I would point out that the zeal of those who, like the right hon. Gentleman, wish to remove a supposed injustice from the shoulders of peers, may lead them into some danger of finding themselves in the position of granting an additional privilege to a body of persons who are already entitled to sit in one House by granting them the option to sit in two. It is a position which required much more consideration from my right hon. Friend. He reminded us that this matter was considered by this House in more than one form twenty years ago. Without following him into the legal aspects of the matter which were then discussed and which formed the subject-matter of inquiries by Committees—any hon. Member interested can inform himself on the subject—I would say that all those inquiries went to show that this matter was one which, as soon as it was approached and investigated, was seen to raise questions much larger than merely individual questions. In my judgment, it is bound to introduce far-reaching results on the whole working of our Constitution Speaking for myself, as long as the House of Lords remains as it is, I would regret any change that made it difficult—this is bound to be the effect of this proposal— for that Chamber to draw recruits from among those who had served an apprenticeship in this House. That may be a matter of opinion.

Whether this proposal to enable the Crown—for that is, I think, its form—to, accept the surrender of peerages be right or whether it be wrong, I would emphatically state that it cannot be right that this proposal, far-reaching as I believe it to be, should be introduced, by way of a private Bill, by a private Member, of whatever distinction, really in order to meet an individual case. Indeed, in that I believe I have the support of the right hon. Gentleman himself, because at the outset of his remarks he said that this Bill did not represent either his own views or the views of those with whom he habitually associates on the question of the future constitution of the House of Lords. In fact, I believe this is—I speak under correction from my lawyer Friends—what the ancient Romans used to call privilegium. That was an attempt to introduce alterations in the general law on the ground of individual hard cases. That was always jealously resisted in the days of Rome, and I hope it will be no less jealously resisted by the House of Commons. My first objection to the proposal is that it is wrong to handle a fraction of the problem without handling all of it. Strong as that objection would be under ordinary conditions, it is redoubled because of the position in which we find ourselves at the present moment. It is not as if there were no likelihood of the whole question of the Second Chamber being one for immediate or early consideration. If undertakings mean anything in this House or out of it, this subject is one to which, as much as to any other, this Government stands pledged. I do not profess to be sanguine enough to believe that when that question is brought forward, as it must be brought forward soon, there will be found unanimity as to its right solution, yet I am satisfied that among all broad-minded and fair-minded men in the House of

Commons who look at the matter broadly, there would be substantial unanimity that when this matter is handled it must be handled as part of a single whole, and we should only prejudice the wise handling later by attempting to handle it piecemeal and without due consideration.

Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower His Majesty to accept a surrender of any peerage."

The House divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 169.

Division No. 138.] AYES. [4.10 p.m.
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. Henderson, Maj. V. L. (Tradeston, Glas) Rendall, Athelstan
Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish- Hirst, G. H. Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Briant, F. Holmes, J. Stanley Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute) Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen) Royce, William Stapleton
Carter, W. (Mansfield) Kiley, James Daniel Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Casey, T. W. Lunn, William Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Mason, Robert Seager, Sir William
Clough, R. Matthews, David Seddon, James
Clynes, Right Hon. John R. Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. Seely, Maj.-General Rt. Hon. John
Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff) Mosley, Oswald Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe) Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen) Swan, J. E. C.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles) Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath) Newman, sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark) O'Connor, T. P Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)
Finney, Samuel Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Waterson, A. E.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury) Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Galbraith, Samuel Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Grundy, T. W. Rattan, Peter Wilson TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Guest. J. (Hemsworth, York) Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple) Thomas and Mr. Griffiths.
Hallas, E. Remnant, Colonel Sir James
NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Hurd, P. A.
Alien, Colonel William James Dennis, J. W. Jephcott, A. R.
Ashley, Col. Wilfred W. Doyle, N. Grattan Johnstone, J.
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. F. W. Duncannon, Viscount Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Atkey, A. R. Elveden, Viscount Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Bagley, Captain E. A. Eyres-Monsell, Commander Kidd, James
Baird, John Lawrence Falcon, Captain M. King, Com. Douglas
Baldwin, Stanley Falie, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Fell, Sir Arthur Lane-Fox, Major G. R.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.) Forestier-Walker, L. Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Barnston, Major Harry Fraser, Major Sir Keith Lindsay, William Arthur
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Gange, E. S. Lloyd, George Butler
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Ganzoni, Captain F. C. Lordon, John William
Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor) Loseby, Captain C. E.
Bennett, T. J. Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke) Lowe, Sir F. W.
Bigland, Alfred Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Lynn, R. J.
Bird, Alfred Gilbert, James Daniel M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John M'Guffin, Samuel
Berwick, Major G. O. Glyn, Major R. M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Bowles, Colonel H. F. Goff, Sir Park McMicking, Major Gilbert
Breese, Major C. E. Grant, James Augustus Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Bridgeman, William Clive Green J. F. (Leicester) Macquisten, F. A.
Buckley, Lt.-Colonel A. Greer, Harry Magnus, Sir Philip
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Greig, Colonel James William Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Butcher, Sir J. G. Gretton, Colonel John Marriott, John Arthur R.
Campbell, J. G. D. Griggs, Sir Peter Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.
Campion, Colonel W. R. Gritten, W. G. Howard Molson, Major John Elsdale
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Hacking, Captain D. H. Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Cautley, Henry Strother Hailwood, A. Mount, William Arthur
Cayzer, Major H. R. Hennessy, Major G. Murchison, C. K.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.) Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) Murray, Hon. G. (St, Rollox)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G. Murray, William (Dumfries)
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) Hope. Lt.-Col. sir J. (Midlothian) Nail, Major Joseph
Cheyne, Sir William Watson Hope, John Deans (Berwick) Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)
Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K. Hopkins, J. W. W. Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University) Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley) Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Col. Sir J.
Curzon, Commander Viscount Houston, Robert Paterson O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.
Pinkham, Lt.-Colonel Charles Stewart, Gershom Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray Sturrock, J. Long Whitla, Sir William
Pratt, John William Surtees, Brig.-General H. C. Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Ramsden, G- T. Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead) Willey, Lt.-Col. F. v.
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler Taylor, J. (Dumbarton) Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts) Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)
Rose, Frank H. Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford) Wilson. Colonel Leslie (Reading)
Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F. Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb) Wilson-Fox, Henry
Rowlands, James Thomas-Stanford, Charles Wolmer, Viscount
Royden, Sir Thomas Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl.) Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund Townley, Maximilian G. Woods, Sir Robert
Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen) Tryori, Major George Clement Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Samuel, Right Hon. Sir H. (Norwood) Turton, Edmund Russborough Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander Walton, J. (York, Don Valley) Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston) Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Stanton, Charles Butt Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Steel, Major S. Strang Waring, Major Walter E. Wood and Major Howard.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K. Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.

Question put, and agreed to.