HC Deb 04 February 1937 vol 319 cc1805-7

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Ede

I notice that this Clause retains what I know is the historic practice, that the Sovereign attains his majority at the age of 18. It seems to me that this exceptional provision for one particular person in the State requires some justification in these days. The ordinary minor with an estate cannot attain his majority until he is 21 years of age. The ordinary citizen is not allowed to exercise the franchise until he or she is 21 years of age. A Peer of the Realm is not entitled, I understand, to take his seat in the other House until he attains the age of 21. Yet we propose that the first person in the realm shall be able to exercise all the functions of his office, and to act without restraint in so far as he is allowed to exercise a personal volition in the exercise of his office, at as early an age as 18.

Whatever may have been the justification for it in older days—when, as in the case of Richard II, there may have been great fears that the council who were managing the affairs of the nation were really depriving the Monarch of his rights, because I believe Richard II did not really function as an independent Monarch until well over 21 years of age—there can be no ground for suggesting at the present time that there is any great necessity for reposing the very delicate and important functions that remain to the Sovereign in so young a person as one 18 years of age. I would like to hear from the Home Secretary or some other Minister of the Crown whether this point has in fact been considered, and what were the reasons for suggesting that the Sovereign should be regarded as capable of acting as an adult at 18 years of age, whereas the ordinary citizen is not supposed to be capable of so acting until 21 years of age.

4.4 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon)

The hon. Gentleman raises quite an interesting question, which is redolent of history. I can assure him that in inserting the age of 18 years those responsible for the Bill have not failed to consider both precedents and the merits of the Clause so framed. I think I am right in saying that this has always been the age mentioned in a Regency Bill. As I said on the Second Reading, Queen Victoria had just reached that age when she ascended the Throne, and we all know that she exercised her duties from the beginning of her Reign. I do not think there would be any justification for departing from this traditional figure. The work which the modern Sovereign does, laborious as it is, is almost entirely work that is done on the advice of Ministers. Assuming that the Sovereign is of good physical and mental condition, which we all hope a Sovereign will continue to be henceforth, there is really nothing in the choice of the age of 18 which is unusual. I hope therefore, that the hon. Gentleman, having raised the point, will reflect that as we get older we tend to regard those younger than ourselves as too young.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Maxton

I am in opposition to the whole principle of this Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. My opposition on the Second Reading of the Bill does not justify me in conducting a fight against the Bill on the Committee stage; but here again we are faced with the dilemma that always arises when this question of the Monarchy is discussed. If the duties to be performed are responsible duties, then, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has just said, the appropriate age is the age that is recognised in all other walks of life as the age of full manhood or womanhood-21 years. An hon. Friend behind me reminds me that that is the age that one must attain before being permitted to sit in this House. If on the other hand the duties are, as has been pointed out by the Home Secretary, merely of an automatic nature, not requiring any maturity of judgment at all and only ability to write one's name in a fairly legible hand, I should imagine that even the young Heir to the Throne just now, if she had attained ordinary educational advancement, would be capable of the particular aptitude of signing her name.

I do not believe in Monarchy at all. I have said that before once or twice. I do not believe that any other institution would be run in this way. I do not believe that the captain of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club would be appointed in that way, and his duties are not so responsible. I am sorry I have not the right hon. Gentleman's attention to that point. If it is the view of the House that the institution of Monarchy is worth maintaining, if the duties are of a highly responsible nature calling for measured judgment on important occasions—it was the view expressed on Tuesday by a majority of 300 and more to one—then be serious about it, and do not tell us that the job can be held by some immature child. The institution in these recent times has had big knocks and severe dents. If it is the desire of the House of Commons further to discredit the institution the House will say that this position, which is said to be the highest in the land, can be held by a juvenile; but if the House wants really to maintain among the population the belief that this is a serious appointment, with serious duties, then the House will see that it is occupied by a person who has reached adult years.