Lords Sitting of 6 July 1938

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
CANTERBURY GAS AND WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
FIRE BRIGADES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
IMPERIAL TELEGRAPHS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
WELSH CHURCH (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHOLDERTON AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CALNE WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

MINISTERS' RIGHT OF SPEECH IN PARLIAMENT.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD had given Notice that he would call attention to the advantages that would ensue from Cabinet Ministers being able to address either House of Parliament, and move to resolve, That His Majesty's Government be requested to investigate the question. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the subject which I am venturing to bring before your Lordships this afternoon has, I believe, been ventilated in this House on previous occasions, but not, I understand, for some considerable time. For some time past it has appeared to a number of people, both inside and outside Parliament, that a certain greater measure of elasticity in our arrangements, whereby Ministers of the Crown, and particularly Cabinet Ministers, might be enabled to address the other legislative chamber of which they are not themselves members, would be an advantage to the general conduct of public affairs; and a few incidents which have taken place within the last few weeks induced me to put this Motion down to-day for consideration by your Lordships in the most general terms.
The first reason was the attack that was made some little time ago upon the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. Now whether there was or was not any reason why the noble Viscount should be abused for his conduct of the Air Ministry, is not what we have to discuss this afternoon, and on that the noble Viscount was able to put up a very adequate defence. But what to my mind was serious was that there seemed to be an attack directed against him on the ground that, being a member of your Lordships' House, he was not in a position to be used as a perpetual Aunt Sally by the irresponsible Opposition in another place. This complaint is one which has grown more frequent in certain circles of late and, as I think I have pointed out to your Lordships before, there is a tendency in certain quarters to assume that no really great office should be held by a member of your Lordships' House, simply because in those circumstances the holder of such an office is not able to be cross-examined at length by the elected representatives of the people. This view is not one which I share, nor would it be shared, I think, by the majority of your Lordships; but the fact remains that
580
there has been an increasing pressure to make it difficult for members of your Lordships' House to hold the highest positions in our hierarchy.
At the present time there is no constitutional reason whatever why the Prime Minister should not be a Peer, but there is no doubt that were a new Prime Minister chosen who was a Peer there would be a very considerable clamour raised among certain elements in the country, simply because it would not be possible for him to be perpetually asked questions in another place and to state his policy at length there. This, I submit, is not a very satisfactory state of affairs because, although it is the hope of us all that our present Prime Minister may continue in his office for many years, a time will undoubtedly come when he will have to be replaced. It might then very probably be that the most suitable person next to hold the office of Prime Minister would be a member of your Lordships' House, and, as I have said, it would be a matter of considerable difficulty to get general assent for his being chosen for such a position. It has also been shown that other high offices are subject in lesser degree to the same apparent disqualification in the minds of certain people. Moreover, we now come to the second incident of which I spoke, and that was when your Lordships' House was deprived within the space of a few days of two of its most venerable and valued members, and it happened that the heirs of both those Peers held office under the Crown, one of them being a Cabinet Minister. That one of these should have given up his office simply and solely because of his succession to a Peerage does not seem to me to be in the national interest, and I would therefore submit to your Lordships that it would be well worth while to hold an investigation to see whether some system could not be devised whereby members of either House could speak in the other House if and when occasion demanded.
I do not propose to elaborate the various systems that hold good in other Parliaments in the world, nor do I wish to suggest a really firm and decided plan for use in this country. To do so would, I think, be entirely premature, but, as I am asking only for investigation, and

581
not for action to be taken, I hope very much that the Government will see fit to accept the Motion and to appoint a small Committee to investigate the problem. By so doing neither I nor anyone else would in any way consider that he was expressing himself in favour of the principle; all that he would be doing would be to recognise, what I think a great many people now believe, that there is ground for investigation. The way in which such a proposal could be put into effect would of course require very careful study indeed. It might be that on the Order Paper of another place there would be put down a Motion "That this House requests the presence of the Secretary of State for X during the debate upon Y Bill to-day," and that some similar Motion, mutatis mutandis, could be put upon the Order Paper of your Lordships' House. It is not likely that that would lead to any dispute between the two Houses, because it is obvious that the Motion would be put down by the Government of the day in agreement with the Opposition, after consultation through the usual channels.
But anything more unfair than a system which is likely to deprive this country of the services of an administrator simply because he happens to be a member of your Lordships' House or to succeed to a Peerage during his term of office could, I think, hardly be imagined. Surely it would be of great advantage if a Parliamentary career in another place need not be summarily interrupted simply because of the death of a member of your Lordships' House, who might be a very distant relation of the Minister who would be affected by his demise. In these circumstances I think that the position is worth investigation, and I hope therefore that His Majesty's Government will accept my Motion. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That His Majesty's Government should investigate the question of the advantages that would ensue from Cabinet Ministers being able to address either House of Parliament.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, your Lordships will agree with me in saying that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has performed a service in ventilating this very important subject on the Motion he has just moved. I want to make it perfectly clear that the particular proposal
582
which the noble Earl has tabled has not been considered by the Party for whom I have the honour to speak on this occasion. We shape our policy at our annual Party conferences and, as your Lordships are aware, we have a policy with regard to your Lordships' House; but this particular proposal has not been discussed by the Party, and therefore I am not in a position to give a Party opinion upon it. It would be right, however, if I mentioned again in your Lordships' House what our policy is with regard to the House of Lords. It can be summed up in one word: it is abolition. At the same time we recognise that when next we assume office we shall have many urgent matters to deal with, and I do not think that will be one of the first of them. I certainly can speak for the majority of my colleagues in both Houses when I say that we shall not be quite so rash as to seek a constitutional crisis so early in what I hope will be a long term of office.
Having said that, may I make a few observations with regard to the matter brought forward by Lord Mansfield? Supposing this reform, with which I personally agree, were carried through—perhaps I may be allowed this observation—with the present Government in office, the other place would gain on the exchange. Your Lordships have a certain ground for grievance in that, for example, we have no Defence Minister now in your Lordships' House, and Defence matters are rightly very present in the minds of the whole public. Yet we have amongst the Peers a good many noblemen of long and eminent service in the Defence Forces, and with great knowledge and experience, who are admirably equipped to raise direct with one or other of the Minister of Defence matters of which they have such a wide and valuable knowledge. On the other hand, the other place has a grievance in that the most important portfolio, I suggest, in the Government is held by a member of your Lordships' House. I refer to the portfolio of Education. All social reformers and all men of progressive mind realise that the President of the Board of Education, holding in his hands the destinies and the future of the youth of the country, is far the most important Minister in the State, and because he is a member of your Lordships' House the

583
other place has no opportunity of hearing him at first hand.
In connection with that, I see the statement made elsewhere that if this reform were carried through it would be rather bad luck on promising young politicians in another place who are able to win their spurs because their titular chiefs are in the House of Lords. I really think there is very little in that. Where these young politicians win their spurs is not in office—that is where they lose them—it is in debate in Opposition. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, if he will allow me to say so, made his reputation, not as the holder of office under the Crown in another place, but as a brilliant debater from the Back Benches. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, won his position in the House of Commons, not as a Minister, but as a debater. There is, as I say, very little in that argument, and old Parliamentarians present in your Lordships' House to-day would so far bear me out. An Under-Secretary has to read from his brief, and has to be a man of very great talent indeed to avoid making the mistakes which usually ruin his political career as regards office in the future. I could mention many cases.
If I may draw attention to another grievance your Lordships' House has under the present system, we have here many eminent agriculturists and many Peers who take a great and personal interest in farming and all that pertains to husbandry. I dare say at the present moment nothing would please them better than the opportunity of cross-examining the Prime Minister on recent statements of his. My noble friend Lord Addison is about to table a Motion drawing attention to this recent declaration of Government policy with regard to agriculture, and it will be no doubt very adequately answered by one of the noble Lords opposite; but that is not quite the same thing. We should like to have the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture himself here. I do not see any reason, if this system works, as far as I know, perfectly well in the French Parliament, where a Minister can address either the Senate or the Chamber of Deputies, why we should not have the same thing here. Speaking for myself, and I know for my noble friend Lord Snell, we should be delighted to get the Prime Minister here
584
to ask him pertinent questions on many aspects of Government policy.
May I also make this observation? The problem of your Lordships' House from the point of view of the Labour Party is becoming more acute every year with the passage of time. My noble friend leads a number of eminent Peers who take the Labour Whip, but as years pass they become no younger, and they are not able to attend here so often. We have been recently reinforced, thanks to a Royal Coronation, by my noble friend Lord Addison, and I do not know what we should have done without him in this present year. He has, after all, a great knowledge of a number of Ministries in the State. He has been Minister of Agriculture, he has been Minister of Munitions, he has been Minister of Health, and, apart from my noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton, he is the only one of us who has specialised in agricultural questions. As I say, the question I have mentioned is becoming more acute with the passage of years, and the proposal of the noble Earl would, I believe, be of assistance to a Labour Government during that time which must elapse before we put our long-range policy with regard to your Lordships' House into operation.
Now I will just touch on one or two practical difficulties, though I do not want to go into them at any length because I understand the noble Marquess, who speaks for the Liberal Party and has more experience of these matters, is going to draw attention to them also. The noble Earl did not tell us from where the Minister from another place who would come here to expound Government policy would address the House. I presume he would stand at the Bar. I do not see any difficulty about that. If Mr. Speaker can stand at the Bar and hear a Royal Commission read, and for other business, I do not see any reason why a Cabinet Minister should not also stand at the Bar. The alternative would be on the steps of the Throne, where every Privy Councillor is entitled to sit during the proceedings of your Lordships' House. Then he is technically outside the House. I presume this has been considered by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. The Judges of the High Court have the right, I believe, to sit on the Woolsack, and the last occasion when I saw learned judges sitting there was when

585
we had a trial of one of our colleagues. But from where would they address the House? I think these are practical questions that should be considered.
Another practical difficulty is this. In the future we may have more women Ministers. We have had one woman Cabinet Minister already, my right honourable friend Miss Bondfield, and we have had Under-Secretaries in another place who are women. So far your Lordships have not admitted Peeresses in their own right to this House, but if a Minister who is a woman is to have the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House on the Department for which she is responsible under the Crown, the case is enormously strengthened for Peeresses in their own right being allowed to take their seats here. I do not know if the noble Earl has considered that question. But these are, after all, matters that can be got over if the will is there.
With regard to what fell from the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, about the misfortunes of the present Duke of Devonshire and the present Lord Harlech, I must confess to having great sympathy also with those two Peers. A member of your Lordships' House who comes here voluntarily, if I may so express it, has no complaint if he suffers under the disabilities of being a member of your Lordships' House. He has certain advantages. He cannot be unseated; he has not to fight elections. At the same time he has certain disadvantages, referred to by Lord Mansfield. But, after all, he comes here with his eyes open, whereas the Peer who inherits does, I think, get the worst of both worlds. He may be debarred from seeking office because, through no fault of his own, through the ordinary processes of nature he becomes a member of your Lordships' House, and I think it is against public policy that because of an accident of birth a man should be precluded from holding an office for which he is otherwise well fitted. For these reasons I think that the Government should, if I may so suggest, give sympathetic attention to this Motion. Here I am speaking entirely for myself. I have expressed the view of the Labour Party of which your Lordships are well aware with regard to the whole question of the reform of this House, but as an interim policy I can see a great deal to support the Motion so ably and so briefly moved by the noble Earl.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships all feel that the noble Earl who moved this Resolution, Lord Mansfield, has every claim to do so, having taken an active and valuable part in debates both in another place and here. The proposition of course is by no means a new one, and it has, at any rate at first sight, considerable attraction. It seems to be thoroughly businesslike, and it appears to place the two Houses on an equal footing. At the same time, whenever it has been discussed in the past, serious objections have been raised to it. The first, and I think the most important, is the extra burden which it would be likely to throw upon Ministers of the Crown. That was always a weighty argument, and it has gained extra weight nowadays when the invention of labour-saving systems appears to have doubled or trebled the work of everybody engaged in any kind of business.
There is the further objection, which was somewhat pooh-poohed by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in his most, if I may say so, delightful speech—that of the disappointing effect upon Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in not being allowed to stand on their own legs in the other place. There, on this point, I differ with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, because I think there is some reality in that objection. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, would I am sure, if he were here, testify to the value of the apprenticeship which he served in another place, an apprenticeship which is now, in turn, being very acceptably served by Lord Cranborne, his son. Then there was Lord Curzon. Lord Curzon's knowledge of foreign affairs and his travels in India and in the Far East were both stimulated by his experience as Under-Secretary in another place. But I think the most remarkable case was that of the late Lord Grey of Fallodon. Lord Grey was not a man who by his temperament or his experience was likely to be greatly tempted towards foreign affairs and European politics, and if, when he was Under-Secretary, it had been found necessary that his chief, Lord Rosebery, should always go down to the House of Commons when important matters were raised there, I think it is very possible that Sir Edward Grey, as he then was, would never have acquired the interest, experience and knowledge of foreign affairs which afterwards pointed him out

587
as the most obvious Foreign Secretary when his Party came into power.
To my mind the real difficulty and objection to this proposal is the total difference that exists between the practice and the atmosphere of the two Houses. As we know very well, and there is no need to elaborate it, our whole system of order differs absolutely from that which obtains in another place, and a great many of the most admirable speeches that I have heard made in this House have had no kind of relevancy whatever to the subject under discussion on the Paper. In the other place the Speaker would of course at once be up and quench such a speech altogether.
Possible analogies brought from other countries have been mentioned by both noble Lords. There is obviously no analogy from the United States, because as your Lordships all know Cabinet Ministers there do not sit either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. France has been mentioned and I have several times been able to talk over the difference in practice in the two countries with French Ministers. All those with whom I have spoken have expressed a kind of despairing envy of our practice here. It is quite true that on some rather rare occasions they go to the Chamber in which they do not themselves sit and engage in a regular debate, but what they most complain of is the appearances that they have to make before such Standing Committees as those on Foreign Affairs and Finance, who have the right to call any Minister before them and catechise and cross-examine them in the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, hopes one of these fine days to treat the Prime Minister. It may easily happen in France that the Minister of Finance has to appear before the Standing Committee on that subject in the Senate and explain and defend the provisions of his Budget. I do not think that any of the most affectionate admirers of your Lordships' House in another place would desire to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought up here to explain and defend the provisions of the annual Budget. If that possibility had existed some years ago, on an occasion which I very well remember, our proceedings that year would have been even more exciting than they actually were.
588
What I am not quite certain about, either from the opening words of the noble Earl—clear and distinct though they were—or from the comments from the Front Opposition Bench, is what exactly it is proposed should happen. If it is merely a question of a Minister coming from one House to the other to make the kind of statement of which we have had instances during this Session—identical statements in the two Houses—we are quite happy to hear it made, if it is on foreign affairs, by the noble Viscount opposite, and in other cases by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. There would be no conceivable advantage in a Minister coming from another place to address us. If on the other hand the Minister coming up here or going down from here to another place actually had to take part in debate, and might possibly have to take an active part on important Amendments in Committee on a Bill, the whole position would be entirely changed and the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would solve itself because he would obviously then have to sit among his colleagues on the Bench on which they were sitting.
I confess that so far as this House is concerned I do not think your Lordships would in any way be gainers by the transaction. When the Coal Bill was going through its many days of discussion here everybody would have been very glad to see the President of the Board of Trade, but we do not feel, and cannot feel, that the arguments of the Government would have been more forcibly presented than they were by the noble Earl opposite and the noble and learned Lord then on the Woolsack. On the other hand, I am afraid a good many of your Lordships might get very much the worst of it. I am afraid the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, would be perpetually sent for from another place in order that the foreign policy of the Government might be explained by him, as well as by, or in substitution for, the Prime Minister. Then the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned with enthusiasm the position of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Education. I think most of his time would be spent in running backwards and forwards up and down the Lobbies answering any number of questions put to him in another place about central schools, the school age and the five hundred other questions which excite

589
educational enthusiasts. I cannot help feeling that in those respects your Lordships' House would be very heavy losers on the transaction.
That, I think, helps to explain the attitude which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, took up with so much good humour and with absolute candour on behalf of himself and his friends regarding your Lordships' House. It explains it, I think, because the undoubted effect of the adoption of this principle and system, if it were adopted on anything but a purely nominal and almost fictitious scale, would be to make people ask what is the particular advantage of having two Houses of Parliament. That question is answered at once by the noble Lord and his friends, who consider that the creation of a single Chamber is the proper solution of Parliamentary problems. That being so—and it seems to me to be pretty clear that it is so—I cannot believe that His Majesty's Government will be disposed to smile very benevolently on the Resolution moved by the noble Earl, in spite, as I said in my first observations, of the somewhat superficial attractiveness which might at first sight recommend it to a good many of your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships listened to the speech we have just heard with great satisfaction. No one speaks in your Lordships' House with longer or greater experience than the noble Marquess who has just addressed us, and, having regard to his experience on both sides of the House, we can well ponder over what he has told us. But I am quite sure that when he occupied the position of Leader of this House he certainly was well qualified to address your Lordships on all those subjects which might come under his actual authority, and that he was also supported by other Ministers who could do exactly the same thing. My noble friend Lord Mansfield has raised this matter in an inquiring frame of mind. He is anxious that it should be discussed, and that is not only the right way to introduce this subject into your Lordships' House, but it is certainly the best way in which we shall be able to obtain your Lordships' opinions on the matter.
The noble Lord who spoke from the Benches opposite seemed to have some sort of agreement with my noble friend
590
behind me. But as his desire is for the total abolition of your Lordships' House I somehow feel that there may be some sinister significance in this Motion, which may in the end carry out the desires of the noble Lord. This is a matter which requires investigation and fully probing, so that we may understand exactly what it means. I am sure that in your Lordships' House I occupy an entirely unique position as having by right addressed three legislative assemblies in two days, and I am not satisfied that the system by which I was able to do that is altogether a beneficial one. In relation to your Lordships' House I do not know that I have any desire to alter the system which is in existence at the present moment, for the reason which applies to so many systems in this country: that it works very well. I feel that the division of Ministers in another place and in this House puts before both legislative assemblies the full information which they require and which is necessary for the discussion of those matters which come before them.
The noble Lord did not elaborate the ideas which he had in his mind, and I do not know whether he suggests that a Minister from one House could go to the other and deliver a Second Reading speech, or whether he thinks that the Minister should also take a further part in the discussion by giving his authoritative views during a Committee stage. A difficulty might arise when in another place the majority might not be on the overwhelming scale on which it is at the present moment. I do not know what the noble Lord on the opposite Front Bench thinks about that. I expect that in those days to which he looks forward, when the Socialist Party will be in office for some considerable time, the majority may not be a very large one, which means that when the Division Bell rings in another place the Minister, in the middle of a Second Reading speech, will have to adjourn this House to go and vote. That suggests a situation which may make one of the points which will show to your Lordships that this is a system which has very few advantages and a great many disadvantages. I am not sure that my noble friend thinks that it would be a good plan to follow. It exists in other countries, and I have not heard, nor have I been able to investigate the matter closely enough to find out, whether those

591
arrangements have been followed with good results.
My noble friend referred also to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. That is a matter which gives me an opportunity of saying what is in my mind on that particular subject. I have always felt that when a particular office was essentially in the public eye, and also when at the same time it was a spending Department, that office should be held in another place. In such circumstances I am sure that a Minister in this House is labouring under considerable difficulty when he endeavours to discharge his Ministerial duty in this instead of another place. We know quite well that the authority rests in the Cabinet Minister, and it is obvious that his representative, however efficient and however good he may be, does not carry the same weight when he is called upon to discuss matters connected with his Department in another House. But I am not sure that by an adjustment of the Ministerial offices those difficulties cannot be overcome.
I feel that in regard to offices like the Air Ministry and the Exchequer certainly, and other great offices under the Crown, it would not be very difficult to arrive at an opinion as to which of them should be held in this House and which in, another place. Your Lordships are aware that there is a certain quota by which a certain number of Secretaries of State have to be in this House, and I believe the quota also extends to the numbers of Under-Secretaries. I should have thought it was quite easy to allocate those offices to this House and to another place in a way which would fit in with the desires of both Houses and that those which commanded at the time the particular attention of the people of the country could be allocated in their proper spheres.
This is one of those questions which come up at different times. It really touches on what we call the reform of the House of Lords. The noble Marquess who has just spoken has told us, not in the form of a caveat but in one of those humorous ways for which he is so well known, that in your Lordships' House we assume and take to ourselves a jurisdiction of wandering over a very wide field. Therefore I feel that when this discussion is raised on a particular
592
point, remembering my House of Commons training, I have no right to wander into the ramifications of the reform of your Lordships' House, although there are a great many things to be said about it; and as I am not so anxious that it should be changed in any way I am not hoping that a debate of that kind will come on. But when I have said that I feel that there are no advantages whatsoever in this interchange of Ministers coming to your Lordships' House or going to another place and expressing their views, I think I have taken up the position, with all due deference to my noble friend who sits behind me, which I want to occupy in relation to this question.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I have always greatly admired the zeal and initiative which have been shown by my noble friend who started this debate in relation to the business of your Lordships' House, a zeal and initiative which I wish were imitated by more of his contemporaries than is the case. But I do feel myself strongly in this matter that his remedy is worse than the disease. It is said that it would be an advantage if a Minister, at his own choice and at his own convenience, were to explain his policy in a different House from that in which he sits. But we have often heard in legislation that the effect of "may" is in practice the same as that of "shall," and I feel that if this plan were once adopted it would not be on the initiative of the Minister, but on the initiative probably of the Opposition in the other House to that in which the Minister sits, that the decision would lie. The noble Earl spoke as if this procedure were to be initiated by a formal Motion of desire for the attendance of a certain Minister in the other House, and he rather implied that that would be only on the Government's initiative. That, I think, would not be what would happen in practice. I was for twenty-six years in the House of Commons and continually adjournments of the debate were moved on the ground that the Minister, himself a member of the House of Commons, was not there and that he left the reply to his Under-Secretary, or perhaps to a Junior Lord of the Treasury. I am quite certain that that is what would happen if this plan were adopted or put into operation.

593
The noble Marquess, who really covered the ground to a very great extent, said it would not be a case of the Minister coming to the Bar of one Chamber or the other. That would not in the least satisfy the Opposition of the day. They would insist that he should come and answer questions in the first instance, and would insist not only that he should listen to the debate which followed but, if necessary, reply to it, and the pressure would be such that the Minister would, I think, be bound to accede to it. Every time that a burning subject was under discussion and the Minister was not able to be in his place, because he belonged to another House, there would be in the other place somewhat ribald cries of "Send for him." Then a member of the Opposition would move that the debate be adjourned, and in practice the Minister would have, as the noble Marquess said, to go from one House to the other when summoned. I submit that that would be absolutely crushing not only to the physique of the Minister but to the ordinary despatch of public business. We are extremely pleased to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, shows no outward and visible sign of the strain to which he has been subjected, but if he had to go to the other House whenever a demand for his presence came about, I do not believe that his or any other constitution could stand up to it. It is true that this does happen in France, but as the average tenure of office in France appears to be not more than six months it would not appear likely that the strain is enough to kill them.
Then there is the other point about the Under-Secretaries. Surely it is a good thing that an Under-Secretary should learn responsibility, and he will not learn it to anything like the same degree if the major subjects of his Department are left over for the attendance of his chief. I think it is an excellent thing that a junior Minister should be in a different House from his chief. Thus he is able to learn how to face responsibility in a way which he could not otherwise do, and he is afforded most valuable training. Also, if this plan were in operation, and he were a weak man, he would be only too likely to give some indeterminate answer, which would be taken advantage of to demand the presence of his chief. Of course, in other countries there are
594
different theories as to what is the position of a Minister. In France he need not belong to either House, although I believe that only in certain offices is that the case in practice. Still, he need not be himself a member of the House that he is addressing. He is in quite a different position from Ministers here, and I do see that there is great force in what the noble Marquess said, that it would be exceedingly difficult for a member of either House, especially if he has spent very considerable time in one House, to adapt himself to the procedure and still more the atmosphere of the other House.
Lastly there is, I think, a tendency in this country, as elsewhere, for the Legislature to do more than check—there is a tendency for it to try to direct the course of the Executive. There is a demand from time to time made in the House of Commons that these very Standing Committees to which the noble Marquess referred should be set up, and if this plan were put into operation the very next demand would be that the Minister should have to attend these Committees. The noble Marquess has had a unique opportunity of studying the working of this system from his long and distinguished Ambassadorship at Paris, but I have heard something about it from another source. Quite early in the War I remember Sir Austen Chamberlain telling me that he had been in consultation with one or two French Ministers, and that at the very crisis of the War they were summoned to attend Committees when they ought to have been straining every nerve in the work of their Departments. When he asked them, "When do you do your work?" the reply was "Dans les intervalles." To answer cross-examination in the Committees was their chief task. I think much of the scandal of the disclosures which ruined the Nivelle offensive in 1917 was due to the leakage through the Committees which were investigating the proposed campaign.
I do not know whether your Lordships are acquainted with the work of Mr. Bodley on the working of the French Constitution, but he enlarged on this very tendency to interfere with the Executive. He writes:
"We have seen that in the most centralised departments of the Government the power is exercised less by its titular head than by Deputies or Senators, who have acquired an

595
irregular authority in controlling the bureaucratic machine outside their corporate capacity as Members of Parliament."
That is a thing which we ought to avoid with all our power, and I am afraid that this particular suggestion, if adopted, would be the thin end of the wedge which might extend this tendency to ourselves. I fully endorse the extreme inconvenience sometimes of a Minister not being able to make his case, on a matter of emergency, to another place. The only thing I can suggest is that the Minister himself, so far as is possible in the formation of a Government, should have at least the recommendation as to who should speak for him in the House in which he does not sit. That, I think, would mitigate what is an inconvenience, and occasionally a grave inconvenience, but I think that to adopt this plan would involve much graver inconvenience to the Parliamentary system and machinery of Government which now exists.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the noble Earl who initiated this debate has just received three very considerable douches of cold water—from the noble Marquess who speaks with such great authority from the Liberal Benches, from the noble Marquess opposite, and from the noble Lord who has just sat down. Indeed, the only support which he has so far been so fortunate as to receive is that from the noble Lord who sits on the Front Opposition Bench, and I agree with the noble Marquess that there is something rather sinister about that support, and that the noble Earl might have done better without it. The only thing that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said with which I found myself in cordial agreement was when he gave your Lordships a catalogue of the virtues of the noble Lord who sits beside him. Among other offices, he held the distinguished offices of Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Health, and I think he showed a robust common sense in the matter of coal a few days ago which certainly made me appreciate his presence in your Lordships' House.
The only reason why I venture to say a word is that I think none of the noble Lords who have criticised the noble Earl's proposal has directed his attention to what I thought was the most important part of the noble Earl's Speech. I do not think these matters of physical strain,
596
of the education of Under-Secretaries, and of the possible interference with the Executive, all of which have been held out by noble Lords who have spoken as great objections, really can be weighed in the scale beside the other matter to which the noble Earl drew attention and to which none of the three noble Lords referred. That was the possibility that the day may come when the most suitable person to hold the office of Prime Minister will be a member of your Lordships' House. We are living in times of great crises. We seem to have nothing but crises in these days, and it is not at all difficult to foresee circumstances when the selection of the right man as Prime Minister may be a deciding factor in the fate of this country. I do not think that is putting it too high. We are a democracy, and we have got to carry the public opinion of our people with us. Circumstances may very easily arise when there is only one man in the country who as Leader of the Government will command sufficient public confidence to carry a united country with him in the policy which may be necessary. If that situation does not arise soon, it will arise in the distant future, and I do think it is an essential thing that a change in our unwritten Constitution should be brought about by which a member of your Lordships' House, if he is the right man, should be able to be Prime Minister of this country.
That was a point to which the noble Earl referred specifically, and I think with great force, and that to me is by far the most important question underlying this Motion. I believe all the other matters are subsidiary and capable of arrangement, but that question may one day be paramount, and I think that we ought to be looking ahead and making such arrangements as will meet that contingency. It may be objected that that is a matter which touches, as the noble Marquess said, the reform of your Lordships' House. So be it. I have always thought that the reform of your Lordships' House was a thing which had better come piecemeal. I am quite certain we shall never agree on any great plan of comprehensive reform, but a piecemeal reform, such as has always happened to the institutions of this country—gradual changes evolved as circumstances dictate—is the way in which the reform of your Lordships' House ought to came about.

597
This change which is proposed may be a small part in the reform of your Lordships House, but it is a matter to which we ought to be directing our attention, and I venture to hope that the Leader of the House, if he is going to reply to this Motion, will not endorse this douche of cold water, but will at all events indicate to the noble Earl that there is a possibility of these great and important matters being taken into account.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I think that your Lordships must be grateful to the noble Earl for having raised this subject this afternoon. After hearing the views of the noble Lords who have addressed the House already, and enjoying the advantage of the advice of the two noble Marquesses, both of whom have been Leaders of your Lordships' House, I find myself in complete agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, said, and also with the view of the noble Marquesses, Lord Crewe and Lord Londonderry, that the great disadvantage which this proposal would entail would be the tremendous amount of extra work which would be thrown upon the unfortunate Ministers. I think that everybody who has sat on the Front Ministerial Bench, or on the same bench in another place, would say that already a very large proportion of a Minister's time is spent in answering the criticisms of members of whichever House he happens to belong to, and that it would entail almost an intolerable addition to his work if he had not only to answer for his doings in your Lordships' House or in another place, but in the other House to which he did not belong as well.
It must be remembered that Ministers are the executive officers of the Crown and of Parliament. Their principal business is to administer their Departments, and not to answer criticisms—although that of course is part of their business—of the way in which they carry on their work. If they have to do it twice over it seems to me that their work in their Departments would suffer very much indeed. If I may take a very humble illustration, perhaps the most important minister of a household is the cook. He may serve a bad dinner, and it may be very desirable for the mistress of the house to send for the cook and have an explanation; but it would be very different if the master of
598
the house had to send for the cook and duplicate what had been said by the lady of the house already. I cannot see any advantage in a double reproof, but many disadvantages. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh and the noble Earl both mentioned the case of the Prime Minister. I imagine that there is no man in this country who has more work to do than the Prime Minister; certainly the present Prime Minister does more work than anybody else in this country. He also has on his shoulders the business of having to defend his policy in one House, but if he had to do it in both it would become an intolerable burden.
The method by which this idea would be carried out has been touched upon, and it has been suggested that Ministers from another place should address your Lordships, either from the Bar or from the steps of the Throne. I hope that will never come about, because I think it would be entirely useless, since I do not think your Lordships would hear from either end of the House what they said. Perhaps some other means could be discovered by which they could more usefully address your Lordships if this proposal went through. But the real point which has been raised, I think by nearly every noble Lord who has spoken is, How much are you going to demand from the unfortunate Minister in another place? Is he to come here and address your Lordships on every subject that concerns his Department? Is he to stand at the Table there and conduct the whole of an important Bill through Committee? If he is, I do not see how he could possibly do the work. If he were asked to do such a thing it seems to me that the whole of his Department would suffer very badly.
But if the proposal were to be accepted, would either House ever agree that he should not do so? Would it not be said, "Well, why should he not explain his views in Committee just as much as on the Second Reading? Why should he not carry the Bill through in the same way as in the House of which he is actually a member?" I feel certain that is what would be demanded, and if it were not acceded to the House whose wishes were disregarded in that way would feel aggrieved, so that I think more harm than good would be done. One point that I do not think has been mentioned is this. In this House we do not take very long over the Finance Bill. We

599
negative the Committee stage, but we are not bound to do so. We could have a Committee stage, and under this proposal could have the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting on that Bench, and on every clause he might be cross-examined severely and made to answer all questions. Really, in practice, I think this proposal would lead to the very gravest difficulties.
I want to touch upon another subject, and that is the effect which such a proposal would have upon your Lordships' House as a whole. At the present time there are a certain number of Ministers who are bound to be members of this House. It is a statutory minimum, not a statutory maximum, and if this proposal were accepted, and this enormous amount of extra work were placed upon the Ministers' shoulders, you would find that the Ministerial members of another place would tend to take Peerages and become members of your Lordships' House where, at any rate, the pressure of Divisions and late sittings is not so great as in another place. The result would be that we should have a galaxy of talent on the Front Government Bench, but there would be very few of those who had not been fortunate enough to graduate as members of the House of Commons who would succeed in becoming members of the Government. This would be a very grave misfortune for your Lordships' House, because in this House we depend upon a number of the younger members to do the ordinary day-to-day work of the House.
Our membership consists, roughly speaking, of two categories. First, there are those who are not regular attendants at the House, but who are greatly eminent in the professions which they adorn or have adorned and who are ready to come here and give their expert views upon any subject which may be their own. We have probably in your Lordships' House experts in more professions and callings than any other Parliamentary institution in the world, and it is of the greatest advantage that these great experts should be members of Parliament and be able to come here and give their views. But you cannot expect such men to come here and do the ordinary day-to-day work of the House. We in this House are admirably served by the type of Peer who does the ordinary
600
work of the House—younger men who come here, serve on Private Bill Committees, and do all the ordinary duties which fall to a member of Parliament. But I rather doubt, if such a man is never to get a chance of sitting upon the Front Government Bench, whether he would be as keen to do the ordinary work of the House as he is to-day.
It has to be remembered that your Lordships' House differs from another place. In another place a man may be a private member all his life and yet have a full and useful political career, but it is not easy to fill a whole-time position as a private member of your Lordships' House. The vast majority of your Lordships who are politically minded and desire to serve your Lordships' House regularly would look forward, at any rate with mild hope, to participating as a member of the Government, and we should lose the services of a large number of noble Lords if that possibility were to become even more remote than it is at present. For that reason I consider that it would be a grave disadvantage if this proposal were to be adopted. We have had the question of the Under-Secretaries mentioned, and we have been told that it would be a great misfortune if Under-Secretaries were debarred from conducting the business of their Departments in the House in which they sit if they happened to be the only representative of the Department in that House. With this I most cordially agree. I believe, in the tendency of the present age, that responsibility is given to a man far too late in life. It is far too concentrated. Very often one sees that a man who succeeds to responsibility late in life is rather nervous of his position. He has not had enough experience of responsibility as a young man to do full justice to himself. The earlier a man has to shoulder the burden, the better job he makes of it. In the future government of this country early responsibility is a most desirable thing to aim at.
I sincerely hope we shall enable members of your Lordships' House—and of course the same thing applies to the other House—to attain that responsibility as they have done in the past. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, mentioned the case of the late Lord Grey. I was one of Lord Grey's private secretaries while

601
he was at the Foreign Office, and I remember him very well. Though he did not actually say it to me, I always gathered from him that it was his opinion that the experience which he gained as Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons while Lord Rosebery was Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords, was one that stood him in the greatest stead when he became Foreign Secretary, an office which he filled for eleven years. There must be many noble Lords who have had similar experience. The experience of responsibility which they have had early in life has stood them in good stead in later life. I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer, but I hope you will not adopt this Motion and that we shall be allowed to continue in the future as we have done in the past.
Lord RENNELL: My Lords, the Resolution of the noble Earl who sits beside me is one which it would not be honest in me not to support because I have more than once, owing to my experience in foreign countries in which I have lived so long, more than once contemplated putting forward a Resolution on somewhat similar lines. We are no longer unprepared in your Lordships' House for the advocacy, at any rate from this side of the House, of ideas that might have seemed to our fathers quite revolutionary. There has, in fact, been somewhat of a reversal of the old Party characteristics of late years, because it seems to me that the Conservatives are always those who are now most prepared to bring forward progressive measures, while the old Liberals are apt to remain rather Diehards, galvanised in their fidelity to principles which served their turn admirably some years ago but may be now rather out of date; and the Socialist Party at moments appear to be almost emulous of what in my younger days were known as "jingoes."
What I rise to say is that in many, certainly in most, of the countries in which I have lived and which have two Parliamentary Chambers, the faculty exists for Ministers to address either House; and there certainly have been occasions in my memory and experience where the acceptance or rejection of a Government Bill hung in the balance and where the fact that the responsible Minister, or at any rate the Prime Minister,
602
had this faculty was able to turn the scale. At the same time I anticipated, and it has happened, that objection would be made that attendance in Parliament is only a part of the Ministerial duties, and I certainly expected the argument to be advanced that it would not be practicable or desirable to add to their obligations. Therefore, my support of this Resolution would be with certain reservations. The faculty of addressing both Houses on exceptional occasions should be restricted to the Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State, and of these I should myself be inclined to go even further and include only the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
That the Prime Minister should have the faculty—certain Prime Ministers in particular—of making the weight of his personality felt through both Houses on really important issues, it seems to me difficult to contest. It certainly would not be contested in any other country, I think, but this. In the United States, however, Ministers are not necessarily also Members of Parliament. So also, while I recognise that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should have the relative security which is afforded by his sitting in your Lordships' House against being harassed by questions often put forward purely for partisan motives, and sometimes with very little regard for the unfortunate effect they will produce in other countries, I do feel that occasions may arise where his prestige and influence could be advantageously exercised on grave issues in both Houses. That is the reason why I support the Resolution, not necessarily in its widest terms but merely in the limited form in which it has been put forward, that the matter is worthy of investigation. It certainly would have seemed a most extraordinary thing in most of the countries in which I have lived that the Prime Minister should not be able with his own weight of personality and character to impress himself on both Houses of the Legislature.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, for some reason that I confess is to me obscure my noble friend beside me (Earl Stanhope) has invited me to reply to this debate, and on a matter of this sort even if his argument fails to convince he still enjoys the authority to command. Accordingly it falls to me to take part in a debate that has produced,

603
as I am sure your Lordships will agree, a series of most refreshing, suggestive and stimulating speeches based upon both ripe experience and mature reflection on the part of all the noble Lords who have taken part in it. I am, in virtue of those speeches to which I have had the privilege of listening along with all others of your Lordships' House, grateful therefore to the noble Earl for having introduced this subject and been the means of eliciting those contributions to debate. As the noble Marquess opposite said, it is not a new subject in the sense, as he reminded us, that it has been not infrequently discussed on a good many previous occasions, and it may be that if the Party of which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Strabolgi) is so distinguished a coadjutor does not succeed in making its entry upon that long term of office quite as early as he would anticipate, there will be yet further opportunities during the coming years of discussing this and the kindred question affecting the composition of the House of Lords.
In the course of some research that I had occasion to make in preparation for this debate, I reminded myself of what is not quite so irrelevant as it appears, how in the middle of the eighteenth century William Pitt the Elder, at the age of thirty-three, was able to speak with justice of what he termed the "atrocious crime of being a young man" in the political life of his day; but when, at the age of fifty-eight, he who had earned the title of the Great Commoner was forced by ill health to enter your Lordships' House as Lord Chatham, he became acquainted with another and yet more grievous disability than the mere fact of youth. It was, I think, the ancestor of our present Leader in this House, Lord Chesterfield, who, when Lord Chatham accepted a Peerage, wrote to his son and said in words that are familiar to many of your Lordships:
"He has had a fall upstairs and has done himself so much hurt that he will never be able to stand on his legs again."
I suppose in a political sense that was true. He never did, in that from that moment the great popularity he had enjoyed as the Great Commoner vanished and his influence waned. I suppose if Lord Chatham were here to-day he would be inclined to omit youth from the catalogue of political crimes and to sympathise
604
with those of your Lordships who have expressed the feeling that in this place we all suffer under the atrocious crime of being a Peer of the Realm.
The noble Earl who introduced the debate directed our attention, quite properly and quite naturally, to the recent resignations that we have witnessed, not unconnected with the main question of this Motion, of my noble friend Lord Swinton and my noble friend Lord Harlech, and if either the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, or the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, had been here to-day he might, I think, have reminded your Lordships of the effort they made many years ago to alter the constitutional impact of the law upon themselves when it became operative in their own case. Incidentally, I may interject in passing, the noble Lord opposite remarked upon the fact, which is of course true, that there is no Defence Minister in your Lordships' House at the present time, and that that must be considered to be a disability of His Majesty's Government's representation in this place. That is quite true, but at the same time he will not forget that we are happy to enjoy the presence of several Ministers in the Cabinet who have been at the various Defence Offices and also that defence questions have their spokesmen in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona. It is true, as the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, and, I think Lord Balfour said, that this question is to some extent bound up with the larger questions on which speakers have not generally touched this afternoon—the question of the reform of your Lordships' House and also the question of life Peers, to which I am not sure whether the noble Lord opposite alluded.
LORD STRABOLGI: Not to-night, but I did on a previous occasion.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I do not wish to travel over that ground this afternoon, although I, of course with every one of your Lordships, recognise it as important. I recognise also with the noble Marquess opposite that the proposal which the noble Earl has made is one which is superficially very attractive. It offers to Peers an opportunity of which they might desire to avail themselves, and it does serve to remove the artificial handicap of which I spoke just now. But I think those have great reason also on their side who, while admitting that

605
there may be an advantage in making it possible for each House of Parliament to hear the Minister that is directly responsible, and that there may also be an advantage, as I think my noble friend Lord Rankeillour said, in making it possible for each Minister to make his own case to each House, yet think that there are very grave practical difficulties, some of which, perhaps most of which, have been touched upon this afternoon. Reference has been made to the practice of other Governments, and without attempting to be exhaustive I believe I am right in saying that the main countries where this practice prevails in the Constitution are Eire, the Union of South Africa, Northern Ireland and France. Reference has been made here to Northern Ireland and France. I believe that the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, who made a speech just now, at the time he was Leader of the Senate of Northern Ireland introduced a great project of educational reform in the Lower House, but I am advised that the use of this power under that Constitution is exceptional. In France, as the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, told us, this power is in constant use, so constant as to lead French Ministers—I think his phrase was—to look with almost despairing envy across the Channel.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think the noble Viscount means that it is not often used in Northern Ireland. It is proper to use it, but it is not often used.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: That is not only what l mean, but what I endeavoured to say, and I think did say. If I did not say so I am obliged for the correction. I draw this conclusion, that from the practice of the two countries it is at least clear, when we consider the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Craigavon, has enjoyed quasi-permanence of office for seventeen years, and contrast that with the tenure of office in France, that whatever be the merits or the demerits of the practice it has nothing to do, one way or the other, with the longevity of Governments and it has no life-giving property as such for Governments. The practical difficulties have been very forcibly expressed. I do not think it is right to under-estimate, and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, meant to underestimate, the great physical strain that it
606
would place upon Ministers who have to administer heavy offices if at the same time they had to meet the claims of both Houses of Parliament. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, examined whether it was intended that this power if it were given would be used merely for formal statements or to take part in debates. I fully agree with his conclusion that if it were merely for formal statement it would be of little value, and if it were to take part in debates it would mean a very substantial addition to Ministerial burdens.
I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, is right when he says it certainly would not be a matter that would depend on the initiative of the Minister. I also would emphasize my view on this, that it would not only be a question of debates, but, having regard to how greatly the policy of Governments is expressed and to some degree formed by questions and so on in another place, I am quite sure that if the practice were adopted you would find Ministers with offices that happen to be in the public eye not only pressed to take part in debates but also to be there to answer questions. I thought it might interest your Lordships if in order to make the picture a little more concrete—I must own I did this from self interest—I were to tell you the degree of attention accorded to the Foreign Office during the last few months in Parliament. Your Lordships' House, since the beginning of this year, has had eight debates on foreign affairs. That is very moderate. Another place has had, since the beginning of the year, twenty-four debates on foreign affairs and has asked of the Foreign Office 1,010 questions, not counting supplementary questions. As there may be one, two, three or four supplementary questions asked, anyone who is a moderate mathematician can do the sum. The conclusion I draw is that, though it may be a very good argument for the Foreign Minister being in the House of Commons, or for the Foreign Minister being a Member of your Lordships' House, it is certainly an argument against his being expected to be in both Houses. That is a very firm and clear conclusion in my own mind.
May I say another thing? I think we should all feel in both Houses that it is of great importance that the first announcement of important news should be in Parliament, and it is important to the self respect of both Houses that the state-

607
ment should be simultaneous. That might raise the minor difficulty of the impossibility of the Minister who might be expected to make the statement making it in both places, but I am afraid that human nature and politics being what they are it is certain if a choice had to be made that political equilibrium would tend to tilt the choice in favour of another place. That would not be good for your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, expressed with great vigour his sense of the importance, if it were possible, of securing that the way was open for the choice of one of the members of your Lordships' House to be Prime Minister if it were thought to be desirable. That may or may not be a good plan, but with all respect to him and to those who share that view, I do not think that the mere fact of affording the Prime Minister of the day the right to go and make a speech in another place would have much effect one way or the other. If that question ever arises it would, I suggest, be decided on quite other and I think wider grounds.
That brings me, if I may make them, to two or three general observations which I want to make before I sit down. I have a feeling, without underrating the force of what has been said by my noble friend who introduced the debate and the noble Lord who spoke last, that there is something inimical in the idea to the whole historical evolution of our Constitution as we have watched it grow. I cannot help rather feeling—but perhaps this will be labelled as unduly reactionary—that on the whole I would rather see us preferring to remain ourselves than trying to imitate someone else whom we are not naturally. With all the knowledge of the ills I have I cannot help feeling that I prefer the ills I know to the other ills that I do not know. That is one general observation. Another is that Ministerial policy is of course not the policy of individual Ministers. It is the policy of a Government and it is a corporate responsibility. Ministers must be sure if they can of the support of their colleagues, and when corporate policy is decided any member of the Cabinet must be prepared to justify it to either House.
Thirdly, I think that each House of Parliament has a collective and very distinctive individuality of its own, quite irrespective of Party ties. I think that
608
that something is more subtle than we always appreciate, or perhaps than we can always analyse, and I venture to think that that atmosphere, that difference of atmosphere, would, as the noble Marquess said, make itself very powerfully felt upon any alien Minister descending upon a House to which he did not belong, with the consequence that he would not easily find himself at home in the House that he was expected to address. Therefore I am not at all sure that it follows that the Government policy would be so well expounded by an alien visitor to another place, whatever the courtesy with which he would no doubt be received. I think there is some force in the Under-Secretary argument. I am sure your Lordships have to look no further than to my noble friend the Paymaster-General in this House, who would not have had an opportunity of delighting even Lord Balfour of Burleigh on the subject of the Coal Bill if Captain Crookshank had occupied a seat in this House.
It is, of course, true that day by day the burden of Government work is always growing more heavy, and it is a very many-sided duty that rests on Ministers to-day, with which many of your Lordships are quite familiar. I do not believe that to increase the burden would add to efficiency, and I gravely doubt whether it is necessary from the point of view of the reasons that have been adduced in the course of the debate to-day. I would therefore hope that your Lordships would not wish to add a straw to the camel's back—if it is respectful to call any of your Lordships' wishes a straw, or any Minister a camel! I would hope that my noble friend who introduced the debate would be willing to treat this discussion, for the immediate purpose, as the kind of inquiry that he had partly in view, and that he would accept it from me that members of the Government, not less than any other members of your Lordships' House, will of course have this question and this possibility constantly in their minds, along with all the other possibilities of reforming your Lordships' House, and that he would not press us to grant or to promise a formal inquiry, which at the present time we should find it difficult to do.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said that he wished your Lordships'

609
House to be abolished. Surely one of the strongest arguments against that course is that only your Lordships' House in the whole world can produce a debate such as that to which we have listened this afternoon, and which is of a kind which happens very frequently in this House. As I occupied only a few minutes in introducing my Motion, perhaps your Lordships will be good enough to accord me a very few minutes more in answering a few of the criticisms that have been made. It is one of the privileges of youth to be allowed to differ respectfully from its elders and betters. It may have been that in his youth even Lord Rankeillour did not always consider that Mr. Balfour was entirely right, and it may even have been that the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, was on occasions a little doubtful of the sagacity of Mr. Gladstone. I am not suggesting heresy when I say that, but such things are possible.
Lord Strabolgi raised various points of what I think he admitted were detail as to where and how guests addressing another House would speak. Into that I do riot wish to go. Both Lord Crewe and Lord Rankeillour raised the question of toe French Standing Committees. I would respectfully point out that they have no part in my scheme and were not mentioned in my introductory speech. Then there is the question of the extra work, which I think is really the most important one. I think it has been assumed, possibly without sufficient reason, that the proposal wIr.ch I have suggested would entail Ministers flying from one House to another until the soles of their feet almost became red-hot. That is a somewhat unnecessary assumption. I do not imagine that if this ever came to pass it would be done other than under stringent conditions which would not make the attendance of any Minister in what has been described as an "alien House" anything like as burdensome as has been suggested.
The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, made one observation with which I am afraid I must disagree very strongly. He suggested, if I understood him rightly, that there should be a sort of watertight compartments introduced which would practically make it certain that no Minister in charge of one of the great spending Departments could ever be a member of your Lordships' House. With this I must say I disagree very strongly
610
indeed. I do not think it would be at all conducive to the carrying-on of good work in the Government of this country that we should have any such system of watertight compartments, or that any Minister should be debarred from having as its main representative a member of either House. As regards the question of the training of Tinder-Secretaries, I respectfully say that I feel that the importance of this question has been somewhat exaggerated. In the very limited attendance of Ministers in an alien House, which was my original idea, Under-Secretaries would only lose a very small percentage of the chances they have at present—certainly not enough to jeopardise their careers.
There was one observation by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, which I do not think I can have understood properly, because what I thought he meant was that a very large number of members of your Lordships' House attend daily with an eye to the possibility that they may some day become occupants of the Front Bench. That is not really fair, I think, to a great many of your Lordships. I know personally a considerable number who come here solely out of a sense of duty, and of whom a great many could not possibly, even if they were offered a position in the Government, afford to take it, because they are engaged in various businesses. Therefore I feel that the suggestion, although no doubt unintentional, was a little unfair in imputing political ambitions to so many of your Lordships who attend regularly day by day.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who really put his finger upon the main point of the debate—at least the point which I was trying to bring out and with which most of the other noble Lords who spoke did not deal. That is the unfairness, on the one hand, of any man being debarred from high office under the Crown simply because he chanced to be a member of your Lordships' House; and on the other hand the grave dangers that might, and very probably will, arise in the future simply because it may be regarded as impossible that a member of your Lordships House should occupy the position of Prime Minister or indeed, it might be, some other great office. I do not feel that this danger is quite sufficiently appreciated and, while I am very grateful indeed for the number of noble

611
Lords, especially many of great experience, who have taken part in the debate, I must plead the arrogance of youth for remaining unconvinced by the weighty opinions of my elders and betters. Having said this, I will only add that I do not think it is the last time that the subject will be raised in your Lordships' House. I believe that it will become in the future of an even greater importance than that which some of your Lordships grant it at the present time. With those observations I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ROAD HAULAGE WAGES (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I beg to move that this Report be now received, and in making this Motion I would refer to the discussion on the Committee stage during which my noble friend Earl Howe, who I regret is not here to-day, drew attention to Clause 9, which I promised to reconsider. He suggested that a further conference might be held between the persons concerned with the operation of the proviso of the clause. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that that conference has taken place, with the result that the organisations with which my noble friends are chiefly concerned, and other organisations of employers, have fallen into line and are prepared to accept the figure of ten per cent. which is laid down in the Bill, and to which my noble friends rather took exception. I would like on this occasion, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour, to pay a tribute to the organisations for the good will with which they participated in these conferences and their helpful cooperation. The subject is a difficult one, and the settlement which has been reached reflects great credit on all those concerned. I need hardly add that my right honourable friend himself is in full accord with the decision reached. I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.
First Schedule:

CONSTITUTION AND PROCEEDINGS OF ROAD HAULAGE WAGES BOARDS.
Constitution of Central Board.
(2) Of the representative members other than those appointed from among members of the area boards, one-half shall be persons who in the opinion of the Minister represent employers of workers to whom Part I of this Act applies and one-half shall be persons who in his opinion represent such workers, and before determining the number of such representative members and before appointing any such members the Minister shall consult any organisations appearing to him to represent such employers and workers respectively.
LORD WALERAN LORD WALERAN moved, in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 1, to leave out "before appointing any such members the Minister shall consult any organisations" and insert "the Minister shall appoint representative members on the nomination of organisations." The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends Lord Sandhurst and Earl Howe, I beg to move this Amendment. Your Lordships will remember that Lord Templemore, speaking on June 29, gave an assurance that he would undertake to look into this matter, and I shall be very grateful to hear that he has been able to do so.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 22, leave out from ("and") to ("appearing") in line 23, and insert ("the Minister shall appoint representative members on the nomination of organisations").—(Lord Waleran.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. I did undertake to look into this matter. I said then that if my noble friend would withdraw his Amendment I would look into the matter between then and the Report stage, and see whether we could put in any words to allay the apprehensions of Lord Howe and his friends. This matter has been very carefully considered, and I am afraid that I can only repeat the assurance which has been already given in another place, that the Minister will consult the organisations and pay due regard to everything they say, and as far as possible adopt what they say. My noble friend will remember that I said on the Committee stage that the Minister would be prepared to follow the advice of the organisations and their

613
views to the fullest possible extent. Further than that I am afraid my right honourable friend cannot go. The Government do not see their way to put fuller words into the Bill, and I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD WALERAN: Having heard what the noble Lord has to say, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule:

PROCEDURE IN RELATION TO PROPOSALS OF CENTRAL BOARD FOR FIXING REMUNERATION.
2. After considering any report sent to it by an area board within the said period of twenty-eight days the Central Board may, if it thinks fit, amend the proposals, and shall give such notice of the proposals as may be prescribed for the purpose of informing, so far as practicable, all persons who will be thereby affected, and the notice shall specify the place where copies of the proposals may be obtained and of the time (which shall not be less than twenty-one days) within which any objection made with respect to the proposals by or on behalf of the persons affected must be sent to the Central Board.
LORD WALERAN LORD WALERAN moved, in paragraph 2, after "shall," where that word occurs for the first time, to insert "give notice of the amendments to the area board concerned and shall also." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment, as I think my noble friend Lord Howe said in Committee, is to put the area boards on the same footing as all other persons affected, and to entitle them to receive notice of amendments made by the Central Board to their proposals. I understand that Lord Templemore is in a position to let us know what is the decision of the Minister.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 33, after ("shall") insert ("give notice of the amendments to the area, board concerned and shall also").—(Lord Waleran.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I can only refer the noble Lord to the First Schedule, and especially the last part of sub-paragraph (3), in which the Minister is required to consult the area boards. I have said that he will follow their views and advice to the fullest possible extent. Further than that I am afraid I cannot go.
LORD WALERAN: Having heard what the noble Lord has said, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Schedule [Definitions of road haulage workers and road haulage work]:
LORD WALERAN LORD WALERAN moved, after paragraph 2, to insert:
"3. The Industrial Court shall be empowered to determine grades of employment in which road haulage work is a small part of the work of the worker and to exclude such worker from the provisions of the Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again on behalf of my noble friends I would like to ask Lord Templemore if, after his assurance given on June 29 last, he has anything further to say which will appease our anxiety in the matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 18, insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Waleran.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I do not know whether it will appease the anxiety of the noble Lord, but I can only repeat what I said on the Amendment in the Committee stage. This Amendment would empower the Industrial Court to exclude from the provisions of the Act certain workers who are only employed on road haulage work for a small part of their time. The Amendment does not define "grade of employment" or "road haulage" work. The effect of the Amendment would be that either Part I of the Bill could not operate until the Industrial Court had produced an adequate definition of the scope of its powers, or, alternatively, the employers and workers and the Central and Area Boards under Part I of the Bill and C licence holders under Part II of the Bill, would have to proceed hypothetically and be exposed to the risk of acting ultra vires.
In order if I can to allay the fears of my noble friends, I should like to explain exactly what the scope of the Bill is. The people to whom this measure is going to apply include the "travelling staff." The Minister explained on the Second Reading in another place that while the Baillie Committee's recommendations related solely to drivers and statutory attendants, which I think Lord Howe quoted the other day, the decision to include "all the travelling staff who accompany a vehicle, either to attend to it or

615
to its load," was made after careful consideration and consultation with organisations of employers and workers. The decision to cover the work of the travelling staff was undertaken because the mates, van boys and workers who travel on a vehicle for the purpose of attending to the transport of the goods are as much in need of protection, and as much a part of road transport, as are the workers who attend to the vehicle. For instance, the work of a "driver" is seldom confined to driving. He normally attends to the vehicle in other ways, and to its load, including loading, unloading, collecting and delivering. Indeed, under the Road and Rail Traffic Acts "driving time" includes all time spent on or in connection with a vehicle or its load.
The drivers are often accompanied by other workers who may or may not be "statutory attendants," but in the great majority of cases they will share with the driver some part of his duties of attending to the vehicle and its load. The variety of circumstances in which these workers are employed is so great that the only satisfactory way of limiting the definition of them is that adopted in the Third Schedule of defining "road haulage work," and making the scope depend on the outstanding criterion of travelling on or accompanying the vehicle. The term "statutory attendant" would be a most unsatisfactory term to employ in the definition, because a statutory attendant is only required to be in attendance while the vehicle is "on the highway," although in almost every case the occupation of a worker who is a statutory attendant necessarily involves work while the vehicle is off the highway, for example, while it is being loaded or unloaded. Further, the expression "statutory attendant" does not define an occupation because a statutory attendant is merely a second man who is required by law to accompany a vehicle which is drawing a trailer; and a statutory attendant may be a second fully-qualified driver, or merely an attendant with no other qualification and no other work. It should be noted that the definition does not cover any of the work done by a person who does not travel on a vehicle or by a person who is not required to travel on a vehicle for the purpose of loading, unloading, collection, delivery,
616
and so forth. Accordingly it should be clear that the examples which my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Sandhurst quoted the other day, of billposters, window cleaners, and cellarmen, do not come under the Bill.
It is important to bear this in mind since the definition in the Bill is itself a compromise between the views of those who wish such workers to be included and those who wish the Bill to be even narrower in scope than it is. This compromise was made after careful consideration and consultation, and in the view of the Government it is just, and it is most undesirable to disturb it. I should like to add that a road-mender, gasfitter, billposter, or window cleaner, who travels on a vehicle with his materials and tools for the purpose of following his occupation, is excluded, but if he travels for the main purpose of doing road haulage he is included in respect of the time he spends on road haulage work, but not for time spent on other work. After this somewhat long and complicated explanation, which I only give to satisfy my noble friend, I hope he will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Temple-more very much for the trouble he has taken, and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

INHERITANCE (FAMILY PROVISION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.

  LEE CONSERVANCY CATCHMENT BOARD BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Wolverton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Merthyr: Read, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at six o'clock.