PUBLIC SERVICES OF PEERS. (Hansard, 8 March 1910)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW
My Lords, I should not have troubled your Lordships with any observations upon the Return for which I beg to move if it had not been that I am afraid I must give some explanation to noble Lords opposite, though that explanation would not be required by noble Lords who sit on this side of the House. Noble Lords opposite will remember that a Committee, moved for by the noble Earl who usually sits upon the Cross Benches, Lord Rosebery, was appointed, and that they declined to take any part in it. Their intention, though it was not so at that time, is now more concentrated on the emasculation than on the reform of your Lordships' House. Therefore I may, perhaps, explain to noble Lords opposite that a Return analogous to if not identical with the one for which I am now moving, was prepared for the purpose of that Committee, and it occurred to me that it would be useful if that Return were brought up to date, reprinted, and placed in the hands of your Lordships before you proceed to discuss the Motion of which Lord Rosebery has given notice for Monday. No doubt I might have added many other categories of public service rendered by members of your Lordships' House, but I purposely refrained from doing so, because I wanted to confine it as closely as possible, while bringing it up to date, to the Return which was prepared by one of the officials of the House with great care and ability for the confidential use of the Committee. I notice that since my Motion was placed on the Paper a Motion has been put down for a further Return. I do not know whether the noble Lord in whose name that Motion stands intends to proceed with it, but I venture to hope that most of the information which he seeks will be found in the 115 Return for which I have asked. I hope your Lordships will agree to this Return on the ground that it will furnish a good deal of information which at present can only be obtained at considerable labour, and perhaps not then quite correctly, by individual members of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

§ THE EARL OF CROMER
My Lords, I should like to make a few remarks on one point of detail. I quite understand that in view of the pressure of time it is not possible now to alter this Return, but at the same time I think the public should understand that the Return is in itself defective. To begin with, it is purely official. It only records the names of those members of your Lordships' House who have been in the service of the Crown, 117 and even there Lords-Lieutenant of counties are omitted. Moreover, a considerable number of members of your Lordships' House have occupied positions, which, though not in the service of the Crown, were of considerable national importance, such as Chancellors of Universities, Governors of the Bank of England, Presidents of the Royal Society, and so on. I might instance the case of the late Lord Kelvin, who occupied a position of great national importance and was peculiarly fitted to advise your Lordships' House on many important matters, and yet his name, unless he was a Privy Councillor, would not have appeared on this Return. I think, therefore, that it ought to be clearly understood by the public that the Return is not a complete one.

§ LORD BYRON
My Lords, I trust that your Lordships will permit me to say a word on a subject in which I am afraid I have a considerable interest. I cannot count myself among those enrolled in the first part of the noble Earl's Return, but I think there may be a good deal to be said with regard to the second part, in which I must unfortunately include myself. Should this Return be forthcoming, and should it be shown that there is a number of Peers whose attendance had been rather slack, I venture to think it would be not only useless, but to a great extent misleading, unless we could have tabulated the reasons for which those noble Lords had been absent. For instance, there might be cases—my own is one—of prolonged illness, and the question of a medical certificate or something of that kind to show that a Peer had been ill for a long time, ought, I think, to be taken into consideration. I do not, of course, venture to move the rejection of this Return, but I trust that noble Lords will take into consideration all matters that have caused Peers to be periodically absent.

§ LORD BURGHCLERE
My Lords, I venture to hope that in any Return which your Lordships may grant you will not follow the advice of my noble friend behind me and tabulate our sins, or supposed sins, in the way suggested. I did not rise to make a speech, but only to make one observation and to ask a question. I should like heartily to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Cromer. I think it is obvious, if the selection of Lords of Parliament is to be settled by qualification, that 118 there must be and are many members in your Lordships' House who have done great service to the State, though not under the Crown; and it would be very valuable, if this is to be the foundation of any action on the part of this House, that those members should be included as well as noble Lords who have served the Sovereign. The question I wish to ask is why the noble Earl has chosen the three special years 1902, 1906, and 1909. There may be good reason for that. I should like to hear from the noble Earl why those three years have been specially chosen as the foundation for a Return of the attendances of Temporal Peers in your Lordships' House.

§ THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH
My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the course of the discussion, but I should like to ask whether those Peers who are not included in this Return are to be known under the general description of "wild men?"

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)
My Lords, I have no desire to offer any kind of opposition to this Return, or indeed to any Return of a similar character for which any noble Lord may ask, provided that it can be produced without too great a charge on the public funds. But from the few observations which have been made by noble Lords in different parts of the House it is impossible not to conclude that a certain difficulty which surrounds the whole matter also surrounds this Return. That is to say, if certain inferences are to be drawn from a particular Return with a view to influencing the House towards the adoption of a particular policy we may look, I think, for a demand for something like a torrent of different Returns, all intended to enforce the different points of view—and I believe they are extremely numerous—held by noble Lords on this subject. I think it is necessary, therefore, and I have no doubt the noble Earl who moved for the Return will agree in this, that the Return must be taken as simply stating certain things, and that it must not be treated as an argument in itself for any particular line of policy which the noble Earl or any other noble Lord may desire to adopt. In such conditions I confess I have no desire whatever to oppose its production.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW
Perhaps I may, with the permission of the House, reply to the question as to why the special years 1902, 1906, and 1909 were selected. The answer is that the Return is practically prepared. I have copies in my hand. They are marked "Confidential" because the Return was prepared for the Committee presided over by Lord Rosebery. Those particular years were then selected, and I have asked to have the Return reprinted for the information of your Lordships' House generally.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
Why were those years selected?

THE EARL OF ONSLOW
I don't know.