HEREDITARY TITLES (TERMINATION). (Hansard, 8 May 1923)

§ Mr. PONSONBY
I beg to move, That, leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the termination of hereditary titles among his Majesty's subjects. This Bill was introduced nine or 10 years ago and met with considerable success. I reintroduce it now as in the interval there has been considerable proof that hereditary titles are very undesirable. Clause I of the Bill provides that any holder of a hereditary title may renounce or disclaim that title by deed poll, registered in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice just as is done now in regard to change of names. I believe there are many people who would take advantage of this 2167 arrangement. Those who have very high-sounding titles that are only an embarrassment to them would very likely wish to drop those titles. I believe that there are some Peers of ancient lineage who would be ready to drop their titles, in view of the colleagues who have been presented to them within the last few years. Then there are members of this House who would probably take advantage of this Clause—men who are very reluctant to leave this House, and yet, when the inevitable moment comes, are obliged to cross the Lobby and go to another place. There have been frequent protests about this before now. The most notable was an article that appeared in the "Nineteenth Century," in the 'nineties, written by Mr. Curzon, Mr. Brodrick and Lord Wolmer, now Lord Curzon, Lord Midleton and Lord Selborne. In referring to the heir of a peerage they said: The world supposes him to be the fortunate heir of what is called the accident of birth. He is, in reality, the hapless victim of the accident of death. He has become a peer. From this lot there is no escape. This Bill provides the escape. Clause 2 merely provides that no one shall succeed to a peerage which has been renounced, and Clause 3, which is the most important, provides that any heir or heiress to a peerage born after the passing of this Act shall not succeed to a peerage. I own that the Bill errs on the side of moderation, but it exercises no compulsion on any living person. On the contrary, it withdraws certain compulsions which at present exist. There are two aspects of the question to which I would refer briefly—the constitutional and the social. With regard to the constitutional aspect, the House will remember that in the year 1911 the Prime Minister of the day, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), told us that the reform of the House of Lords was a question that brooked no delay. Eleven or 12 years have passed since then, and I think that period is likely to be extended. While we are brooking this delay, this Bill, if it be passed into law, will help both those who are in favour of reforming the Second Chamber, because they will see it dwindling before their eyes and they will have to take steps to reform 2168 it, and also those who, like myself, would like to see the Second Chamber abolished altogether, because I believe it to be merely a useless excrescence on the Constitution. There have been recent Debates about the reform of the House of Lords, and Lord Newton not long ago showed up the deplorable state of affairs in the other place. In the year 1922, 189 Peers never attended at all, and 222 only attended under 10 times. The membership of the House is now 726, and there have been 157 Peers created since the beginning of this century. Everybody is agreed that the Peerage is becoming something utterly grotesque, and the House of Lords, in the opinion of Lord Curzon, Lord Newton and others, is far too large and should be reduced in numbers. This Bill will reduce it rapidly.
From the social point of view, since I introduced this Bill on the last occasion there has been the so-called Honours scandal brought to light, or rather it has been hushed up by the Committee that was appointed. In the Debate on the Honours scandal, my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) said: Hereditary honours are totally inconsistent with our present day democratic sentiments. I entirely agree with that point of view. When a Labour Government comes into power neither for party purposes nor for the acknowledgment of public services will it have recourse to the conferring of hereditary Honours. The Canadian Parliament have already taken steps, and they have requested the Crown not to confer any more titles on Canadians. This Bill also brings into its net the Baronets. There are over 1,000 Baronets, and I daresay there will be more weeping and gnashing of teeth in that quarter than even in the Peerage. The hereditary principle is a survival of mediævalism and is out of date. Dignity, merit and distinction are rapidly disappearing from the Peerage, and party payments, beer, and whisky are taking their places. The whole institution is now an object of ridicule, rather than of respect. My hon. Friends around me will agree that, if they are in a public meeting and things are at all solemn or quiet, the mention of a Peer always brightens the meeting, and any reference to the House of Lords will have an extraordinary influence in tickling the most solemn audience into convulsions. 2169 Hereditary titles are doomed, and this Bill affords a very simple way of beginning to get rid of them. Hereditary titles administer to vanity; they encourage corruption; they lead to snobbishness and flunkeyism; they perpetuate class difference; and, in the eyes of the majority of intelligent people, they have become ridiculous. [Laughter.] Hon. Members no doubt regard this Bill as a joke. Let me assure them that in generations to come it will be their laughter and not my introduction of the Bill that will appear ridiculous.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The "Ayes" have it.

§ Viscount CURZON
On a point of Order. Was the Question ever put? You, Sir, called on the "Ayes," but you never called on the "Noes."

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I put the Question clearly, and there was not a single "No."

§ Sir HENRY CRAIK
You asked all those in favour to say "Aye," but you never asked those against to say "No."

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Yes, I did. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] I put the Question, and I was rather surprised that there were no "Noes."

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
On a point of Order—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
If hon. Members wish to divide, they should really be rather more alert.

§ Sir H. CRAIK
I was waiting for you to call upon the "Noes."

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I looked round, and asked for the "Noes." [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There was no voice that I could hear.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
They are challenging your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I put the Question, and there was not a single "No." I therefore declared that the "Ayes" had it.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Noel Buxton, Mr. Jowett, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Thomas Johnston, Mr. Leach, and Mr. Kirkwood.