THE CORONATION STONE

HL Deb 09 May 1951 vol 171 cc829-58

3.46 p.m.

LORD BRABAZON OF TARA rose to call attention to the historical associations of the Coronation Stone, to make a suggestion as to its disposal; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: I hope your Lordships will forgive me if, in these days of the dangerous present and of the forbidding future, I delay the House for a few moments in speaking about the past. To-day I have the privilege of being able to speak about a curious object —a stone; a stone of a strange shape, twenty-six inches by sixteen inches by ten-and-a-half inches; not a very valuable stone, made of what is called calcareous sandstone, to be found in most places in the world. It is the Stone of Destiny. Anybody might say at once, "Why speak about a stone because it is old? Are not all stones old?" Of course, that is true. But this one is so wrapped up with history and ceremonial and prophecy that it stands as something unique in the world.

Scientists tell us that our earth has been existing for 2,000,000,000 years. What is interesting is how short a time in our history there has been any real record of that history. If we go back more than 2,000 or 3,000 years, we cannot get anything reliable about the history of man. I know that in these times it is very fashionable to decry any old documents or any legends of the past, and even the Bible is looked upon as something quite imaginary. It is so easy to decry the evidences of the past. But I take my stand by the author of a book called Thoughts and Adventures. In that book there is an essay on Moses. The author of the book, oddly enough, is Mr. Winston Churchill. I should like to quote some words from his essay on Moses. They are as follows: We believe that the most scientific view, the most up-to-date and rationalistic conception, will find its fullest satisfaction in taking the Bible story literally. … We may be sure that all these things happened just as they were set down according to the Holy Writ. We may believe that they happened to people not very different from ourselves, and that the impressions those people received were faith-fully recorded, and have been transmitted across the centuries with far more accuracy than many of the telegraphed accounts we read of the goings-on of to-day. … Let the men of science and of learning expand their knowledge and probe with their researches every detail of the records which have been preserved to us from these dim ages. All they will do is to fortify the grand simplicity and essential accuracy of the recorded truths which have lighted so far the pilgrimage of man. Of course, that is in reference to the Bible. Just as we must pay our respects to what is in the Bible, there are other records which we must not entirely despise, or think imaginary.

All dates before Christ are very difficult to determine. The calendar was very odd, and the Bible is no great help on dates. But, so far as I can imagine, it must have been about 1900 B.C.—nearly 4,000 years ago—that Jacob, afterwards to be called Israel, had his great dream. He had this Stone as the pillow upon which he slept when he had the dream; and in the dream he received from Jehovah a promise that his descendants would be a great people and populate the whole world, and that all the nations of the world would thereby be blessed. Jacob was so impressed that he turned the Stone on end and anointed it, saying; "This Stone which I have set up for a pillow shall be God's House." And that Stone became for them an enduring witness of the great divine promise, and on his deathbed Jacob instructed Joseph to guard it well.

That Stone was looked upon as sacred by the Israelites, and was their greatest possession. Through all the wilderness and the wanderings it was taken with them. You can see on it to-day how it has been worn by the many journeys that it took on those days. At long last it found its true home in Jerusalem, in the Temple, alongside the Ark of the Covenant. Those two things were to the Israelites the two most sacred things in the world. All the Kings of the Royal House of David were crowned upon the Stone, until we come to the last King of Judea, Hezekiah. Hezekiah's history concerns us a little—for this reason. He conspired with the Egyptians to overcome Nebuchadnezzar. They were defeated, and Hezekiah was brought up before Nebuchadnezzar; both his sons were killed before him, and he had his eyes put out. That was meant to be the end of the Royal House of David. Well, Jeremiah, a prophet of those days, had always prophesied disaster for Judea if the policy of Hezekiah was continued.

It is very odd that, when one looks in the Bible and sees a catalogue of the remarkable things that were taken from the Temple and Jerusalem, there is no mention of what must have been the most valuable thing of all—namely, the Ark of the Covenant. I can quite see that Nebuchadnezzar, not knowing the history, did not think the Stone valuable; but he must have thought that the Ark of the Covenant was valuable. The Ark of the Covenant disappeared. It was obviously taken by somebody who had, first of all, a privileged position, such as Jeremiah had, and was hidden away. Whether it is hidden to-day in Palestine, or whether he took it with him and it is buried to-day on the hill of Tara, nobody knows. But it was certainly taken by Jeremiah, who also took the Stone. He left Palestine and went into Egypt, and he took with him the two daughters of Hezekiah, Tamar and Scota—and this is a most important point. Jeremiah dwelt in Egypt for some time, and then there is evidence to show that he went as far west as he could, and stopped on the way in Spain, where the younger daughter, Scota, was married. But he ended up in Ireland with the elder daughter, Tamar, and she was married to the King of Ireland of the day.

It is interesting to notice in Irish records how Jeremiah was proclaimed on arrival as the great prophet, known in Irish language as Ollam Fodla; and wrapped up with the great prophet are all the stories and legends: the "Stone wonderful" as it was referred to—"lia fail." As I have said, Princess Tamar married the King of Ireland. The King's name was Hereman, and the date was 600 B.C. All the Kings of Ireland from that date were crowned upon the Stone on Tara Hill for a thousand years, and it was not until later, in the fifth century, that Fergus, who was King of Ireland, moved into Scotland. Whether he conquered it, or just occupied it, I cannot find out, but he became the first King of Argyll. Knowing the value of having respect, and desiring to be crowned King of Scotland upon that Stone, he sent for it from Ireland, and brought it from Tara to a place called Dunstaffnage, which was his capital. There he was crowned upon it, and became King Fergus the Great.

So it went on; and in the reign of Conran, in 563 A.D., he, being the third King of Argyll, at the request of St. Colomba sent the Stone to the island which was then called Hy, and is now known as Iona. St. Colomba took a very prominent part in the early development of Christianity, and the island of Iona is always remembered and held sacred through the activities of St. Colomba in those days. Colomba died with his head upon the Stone. It remained there for 300 years. The Kings of Argyll were crowned on it until we come to MacAlpin, who became King of Scotland in the ninth century. He moved his capital from Perth, and the Stone was taken from Iona to Scone. It was therefore in Scotland for no fewer than 700 years. Finally, we come to what we might call modern days—that is, Edward I, 1296. He took the Stone to London. After the Battle of Bannockburn it should have been restored to Scotland. Whether it was in the Treaty or not is a little difficult to say, but certainly all the other regalia was restored to Scotland, though the Stone remained in England. It was not until James VI became King of England that, so to speak, it found its rightful place.

I want your Lordships to notice that in the Coronation Service no mention is ever made of the King of England: it is always to the King of Great Britain and Ireland. It is of no interest to anybody to be crowned upon this Stone unless whoever is crowned is a descendant of David, and the Kings of Scotland claim to be descended—and rightly, I maintain —from the royal line of the House of David. I draw the attention of those of your Lordships who are interested to the very mystical ceremony of the Coronation, so very analogous to the ancient Israel's coronation. I just want to put those years, in their right order: 1,300 years with Israel; 1,000 years at Tara; 900 years in Scotland, and 600 years here. Your Lordships will admit that it is a Stone with a tremendous history.

Now we come to the present day. I do not want noble Lords in this debate to talk about the recent incident of theft and sacrilege. That undoubtedly shocked many people. But when people hold fanatical views their actions can be explained, if not forgiven, and I ask your Lordships this question: If that Stone had remained in Scotland, do you think there would have been a raid by English people to get it back to England? This is a sacred Stone, and it interests us so little that not one Bishop sits upon the Episcopal Benches while we talk about one of the most sacred parts of our Coronation Service. I am Irish with English blood. I am not in any way connected with Scotland; nor have I anything to do with Scotland. And therefore I can speak entirely independently of what one might call racial prejudice. Of the Scots I have very definite opinions. I look upon them as one of the most remarkable and virile races of the world. They have an intense native patriotism. In their view, Scotland is the only country in the world; and yet, unlike so many other people who indulge in very strong national patriotism, their patriotism does not, as it does so frequently elsewhere, show itself in any warlike hate, which is the danger of tremendous national patriotism. I must say that I find this trait wholly admirable. Sometimes I wish we in England had some of that pride in ourselves in the present, such reverence of our past and such confidence in the future as is possessed by the Scots.

They claim that this Stone was taken from them and that they have a grievance. Of course, one can invent other grievances. If Ireland were a loyal subject to His Majesty, there would be a very strong case indeed for taking the Stone back to Ireland, where it had been for a thousand years. And when we think to-day of the new Israel, struggling bravely to make a new kingdom in the land where such wonderful things happened in the past, they also, if they had a King descended from the Royal House, might make a claim to have the Stone returned to them of right. Anyhow, to-day there is no King of Ireland and there is no King of Judah, so those particular claims do not arise. But were the claim to arise from Israel, I do not think anybody could resist it, because the prophecy is that it should be returned there some day. Some people say: "If you send it to Scotland it will encourage Scottish nationalism." My Lords, Scottish nationalism exists to-day; and since when has Scottish nationalism been anything but a help to Great Britain? It is 500 years since the Scots were in any way anti-British. I take the view that this realm is not England and Scotland, but Great Britain; and I speak with the double claim of having, so to speak, the wish for the Stone to be in England and a wish for it to be in Ireland. After a great deal of consideration I myself take the view—because its connection with Tara is something very dear to me—that it should go back to Scotland to-day. There it would be guarded well. I do not think for one moment that a Coronation Service should take place anywhere but in the Abbey. There can be only one Coronation—in the centre of the Empire. The idea of having two or three Coronations in different countries is absurd. But were the Stone to be in Scotland it could easily be brought up with, I am sure, the consent of all Scotland, to any Coronation, which I hope will be many, many years ahead. I think some arrangement of that sort could be agreed upon.

Some people think that we should be parted from the Stone if it went to Scotland. Why should we be parted from it? It is part of Great Britain, and I ask this about Scotland: Are they to be deprived of all the pageantry of their old great Kingdom? Everything has shifted down to London, and nothing much is left with them. This amalgamation with us has meant for them that all the traditions of Kingship and their past have dis-appeared, and I think that is hard. From the point of view of nationalism, I feel that it would be a gesture to show that it is not a question of England and Scotland, but of Great Britain alone. I hope that noble Lords who speak in this debate will look upon the matter objectively, and will not relate any decision as to the future of this Stone to any of the immediate past happenings. I feel that that would be a great mistake. I would conclude by asking the Government, in their wisdom, to make a decision upon this point; and I would entreat them, because I am sure it is the right thing to do, to send the Stone and the Chair to a place in Scotland where it will be loved, reverenced and guarded by His Majesty's most loyal and devoted Northern subjects. I beg to move for Papers.

4.10 p.m.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE

My Lords, if I have managed to hear my noble friend Lord Brabazon correctly, I rejoice to think that my views are very much the same as his. We are very fortunate at the present time in having a Union, a United Kingdom, and if there is anything in the word "union" we should be able to discuss this question quietly and calmly. I can quite understand that the English people are anxious to retain any historical relics belonging to their country. The Scottish people are similarly anxious to retain any relics belonging to theirs. I think the greatest disaster would be for any one country to try to make a "corner," or a sort of monopoly, in historical relics. That would be disastrous. We have, as I say, a Union, and we have often found that union means sharing: there cannot be unilateral arrangements on such matters as this; what applies to one country should apply to the other, too.

What is the history of this Stone of Scone, or Stone of Destiny, as it is some-times called? Very few people really know what its history is. There are Urge numbers of professors of history at different universities, many writers of history all over the country, and all kinds of experts, self-appointed and otherwise, all wrangling at the present time about the history of the Stone. Some say it was Jacob's pillow; others say it never was. Some people say it was an Irish stone; others say it never was. Some say the Kings of Scotland were crowned upon it; but I have never heard of any Scottish king who was crowned on this Stone or, indeed, on any other stone. There is a sort of mist about its past and no one seems to have the correct facts about its history. It is enough to realise that for about 600 years the Stone has been in England. But it is sufficient for us to know that it has come to be looked upon as a sort of palladium that ensures that wherever the Stone of Destiny is found a Scottish race shall reign. That is the myth that has been associated with it for 600 years. Since there is this Union of the English and the Scottish people, since the English people have kept it for 600 years, why should not we in Scotland keep it for the next 600 years? Union, as I say, means sharing, and I think the Stone should be returned to the North.

As to the exact place for its keeping, I would point out that in England it has, of course, been in the keeping of the. Church of England, in the National Church of Westminster Abbey. If we had it in Scotland why should it not be in the care of our Scottish National Church, in the same way, its resting place being in Edinburgh? We shall be having a meeting of the Scottish Church Assembly within the next three days. I, as a member of that Assembly, know that the question of the Stone is coming up for discussion almost at once. It will come before what is called the greatest and most important committee in our Assembly, which is the Committee of Church and Nation. 1 cannot, of course, tell your Lordships what their deliverance or decision will be; but I am fairly sure that the Committee of Church and Nation will suggest to the Assembly that they should put forward an offer to take over the custody of the Stone, for keeping in St. Giles's in Edinburgh.

I hope that English people will not brush this matter aside and regard it as of no importance. I would remind your Lordships that the Church Assembly is the representative gathering of the Scottish Church. It is the largest gathering of our churchmen, who hold their religious opinions as firmly as do the English people. If English people attempted to brush this matter aside there would be a great deal of trouble. Therefore, I ask all English people to give such an offer as I have suggested, if it comes, the serious, earnest and grave consideration to which it is entitled. I would remind your Lordships that His Majesty's Government is represented in the Assembly by the Lord High Commissioner, who is a member of your Lordships' House—I am speaking of the noble Viscount, Lord Cunningham of Hyndhope. There are many other important persons on this Committee, and they are not likely to put forward anything flippant or jocular. What they suggest will be serious, and should receive careful consideration.

Apart from these considerations, there are some people who say that the Stone is a symbol of the Union, and as such it must be underneath the Coronation Chair. Speaking as a Covenanter—I was the first Covenanter to sign in Edinburgh, and over 2,000,000 people have signed since— I can say that we recognise it to be a symbol. But what a dull symbol it is lying underneath the Chair, year in and year out! Nobody seems to know or care about it. It could be made so much better and so much more real a symbol. I say that this Stone should go back to Scotland. I have no doubt that when a Coronation occurred there would be keepers appointed to bring the Stone down to Westminster and put it under the Chair. Then, just before the Coronation took place, one of the first ceremonies would be that the keepers would go down the aisle of the Abbey in full public view and inspect the Chair, see that it was in order and the Stone in its place, and then return and report to the Earl Marshal that all was in order. This would take its place as a proper function at the Coronation. It would be only a small ceremony, but it would mean a great deal. It would signify the Union of Scotland and England in the crowning of their joint Sovereign, and it would let everyone know that Scotland and England were cooperating in the crowning. That would go a long way to please everybody and to stop all the wrangling that is now going on.

I have only one other comment to make. The question of the Stone has caused a good many things to be said and done which are regrettable and which everybody wishes had never been said or done. But your Lordships must remember that this act was not done by the people of Scotland; it was done by what The Times calls the "Scottish Patriots," another body altogether. They are what we call the extremists. There are very few people in Scotland who wish to seek a breaking of the Union; nobody but the extremists wants to annul the Union or anything of that sort. We all know that every great political movement, every great Party movement, is bothered with extremists. Extremists are a thorn in their flesh. When I stood for an Election, I knew how the Tariff Reformers were thorns in the flesh of poor Mr. Balfour and the Conservative Party generally. The Labour Party to-day have their extremists, their Communists. They are the thorns in their flesh. And so it was with other Governments. We have had our thorns. They were people who said and did all the things that are so disliked. All I can say is that the sooner we get our differences about this Stone settled, the better, because the longer the wrangling about the Stone goes on, the more harm will be done to all the good feeling that has existed between the English people and the Scottish people until to-day. We must get this matter settled as soon as we can. I cannot see why there should be any difference, if the old saying is right that, Where'er the Stone of Destiny is found, a Scottish race shall rub. We have in our midst a most charming and delightful Heir Presumptive to the Throne, with Scottish blood coursing through her veins. Why go on wrangling about the Stone? We shall be pleased to see this question settled.

14.23 p.m.

LORD CLYDESMUIR

My Lords, if I may intervene for a few moments only, I should like, first of all, to make it plain that I am giving my personal opinion about this matter and not trying to represent the views of the Conservative Party. Indeed, our discussion has not run on: Party lines at all. I am sure your Lordships will agree that our House has been enriched by the two delightful speeches we have heard this afternoon, the historical survey by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and his conclusions, with all of which I agree, except on one point to which I shall come in a moment, and the speech of the noble Duke breathing patriotic fire, using "patriotism" in its widest sense.

I want to begin by saying that I feel strongly that the question of the disposal of the Stone of Destiny should not be linked with that of Home Rule for Scotland. The proposals for a separate Parliament in Edinburgh and a new Constitution require separate consideration. The disposal of the Stone may be governed by sentiment and historical association, but the other question must be settled otherwise. It is one which must be tried by three tests, as I believe: What is best for Scotland? What is best for the United Kingdom? What is best for the Commonwealth and Empire as a whole? All that requires hard thinking, not overlaid by too much sentiment. There is no doubt—and here may I touch on a subject which is perhaps a little controversial—about the view that over-centralisation has recently stimulated the demand for a further devolution. One has only to live in Scotland as much as I do to realise that. When this further devolution comes to be examined, it must be examined carefully from every point of view—from the administrative point of view and from the financial point of view, which, quite properly, is always present in the minds of all Scotsmen. It must be examined closely. I will not follow this point further except to say that I should be sorry to see anything done hastily which would lessen the share of responsibility which Scotland now has for the government of the Realm as a whole, or the influence which she seeks to exert in matters affecting the British Commonwealth.

I now turn to the Stone. It is my personal belief and conviction that very many people in Scotland deplored the breaking and entering of Westminster Abbey. They were genuinely grieved about it, and were anxious and worried while the Stone was missing. That the great Shrine of the Abbey, the nation's Shrine, associated for centuries with our worship, with our joys and with our sorrows, a resting place of many of our greatest men, should be broken into was a matter of sadness and shame. I should have thought that even the most ardent Nationalist student would have thought twice before breaking open the resting place of David Livingstone, for example, and causing damage in the Abbey and damage to the Stone itself. That is my personal view. But, when I have said that, let there be no doubt that there is widespread interest in Scotland as to the future disposal of the Stone.

I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, into his earlier historical sketch, but, although the noble Duke said the point is disputed, it is certainly a matter of general acceptance that during the last 1,200 years the Scottish Kings were first crowned on it; then it was removed to England and the Kings of England were crowned on it; then, after the Union of the Crowns, the Scottish King, in the person of the King of the United Realm, was crowned on it— and long may that continue! I genuinely believe that a large majority of the people in Scotland would like to see the Stone returned to Scotland, and would like to see it rest in Scotland, on the clear understanding that it is to be brought to Westminster for Coronation ceremonies. I recognise that a decision to take that course is rendered difficult because of the violence of the act which has taken place. As a Scot, may I say that my experience is that the people of England do not react very kindly to acts of violence. It awakens a strength and a stubbornness, so I feel that the decision that the Stone should go to Scotland is rendered difficult, though not impossible. Time is a healer, and if the question is considered calmly and unhurriedly, perhaps such a course may be recommended.

May I indulge a personal view (it may not be shared by anybody else) that the Stone should be taken to Edinburgh and laid in St. Margaret's Chapel, high up in Edinburgh Castle?

LORD CALVERLEY

Hear, hear!

LORD CLYDESMUIR

St. Margaret's Chapel is the oldest building in Edinburgh. It is a lovely little church, built for a Queen and a Saint, and is nearly as old as the Abbey itself. Within the Castle Guard is surely a safe resting place for the Stone. If it could be brought there, and if there could be a clear under-standing that it would be carried, with pomp and circumstance, every piper in the garrison piping it out of Edinburgh, to Westminster for Coronation ceremonies, I believe that the majority of the people in Scotland would rejoice. I hope and believe that that rejoicing would extend South of the Border, too, because there never was a time when we should be more united in heart and in sentiment; and this is a matter of sentiment. The one point on which I would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is this: I doubt whether the Chair should go to Scotland too.

LORD CALVERLEY

Hear, hear!

LORD CLYDESMUIR

I think the Chair might be regarded as an object of English veneration, and should remain at Westminster. Subject to that point, I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. In our debate this afternoon, we are trying to view this question objectively, with no desire to stir up trouble but rather with a desire once and for all to bury an old hatchet.

4.30 p.m.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, not only for introducing this Motion, which is of great importance, as I shall presently try to explain, but for the very dignified way, if he will allow me to use that term, in which he presented the history of this famous symbol. I hope that before we conclude this debate there will be no voice of, I do not say derision, but of what I may call higher criticism about the history of this Stone. As the noble Duke reminded your Lordships, it is a matter of debate among historians and scholars; but a sacred symbol is made sacred because people believe it to be sacred, and an historical object is made historical because people believe it to be historic.

It may be said that this Stone is only a symbol; but it is symbols of this kind in the world, and not only amongst the British race (using the term in its widest sense), which stir men to great deeds, which rouse the finer feelings in them and for which, in certain circumstances, men are prepared to die. Flags, certain national songs and anthems, the sacred tree of Guernica, and symbols like this, about which there may be doubts as to the historic accuracy of their past, about which many legends may have grown up, are nevertheless believed in and revered by vast numbers of men, and that is a sentiment that we cannot afford to ignore.

I approach this matter with considerable neutrality, by reason of the fact that my forbears lost their lands in Scotland because they were some 400 years before their time in supporting the English Imperial connection. We believed that it would be better for Scotland to be ruled in one Realm with England. We were premature in our belief and we suffered accordingly. Therefore, as I say, I can view Scottish nationalism from a completely objective standpoint. But of its strength I have no doubt whatever, and I have enough knowledge of Scotland and the Scottish people to support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, on that subject. You will find this feeling strongest amongst the Scots who have been abroad, sometimes for several generations. You see the flame of Scottish nationalism burning most fiercely in the Middle Western cities of the United States on St. Andrew's Night, and in South Africa and the Argentine at some Scottish Society meeting, or at some Clan Society meeting in Canada. There, I think you will find the feeling is more powerful even than in Scotland itself. There are many Scots who will join in the doubts and agnosticisms of what I called just now the higher criticism about the origin of the Stone. Nevertheless, I believe that in their hearts the great bulk of the Scottish people would be glad to see some such solution adopted as was recommended by the three noble Lords who have so far spoken.

There is even a doubt to-day not only about the history of the Stone but also whether this was the original Stone upon which the Kings of Scotland were crowned. I suggest that after the passage of centuries these things are of no great importance. I repeat, that it is what people believe to be of historical or sentimental importance that matters. Some time ago in your Lordships' House we had a debate on the Holy Places in Jerusalem, and there was a great deal of feeling about their future and their guardianship in the new realm of Israel. I regret to say that one of my noble friends on this side of the House threw doubt on the authenticity of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. I daresay you can get some German scholar to make out a tremendous case that the Saviour was not born in Bethlehem, and even that there was not a Crucifixion. What is important is that people believe these places are holy; and in the case of the Stone of Destiny what is important is that people believe the story which was related with great skill and erudition by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who introduced this Motion.

Now, what have we to do? In this connection I congratulate the Government, at any rate upon one thing. I think the decision not to prosecute these young hotheads who committed the grievous act of sacrilege in Westminster Abbey was a wise one. I think it was higher wisdom. We would only have stirred up a great deal of ill-feeling and have made martyrs of them. Theirs was a very rash action. I believe that all respectable opinion on both sides of the Border and amongst Scots abroad has wholeheartedly condemned it. I hope also that the Government will follow that up, when they consider this question, by not taking into account that act of sacrilege, which was best punished by its universal condemnation.

Next, what has to be done in the future? I agree with the suggestion made by the three noble Lords who have already spoken. It would really cost the English nothing at all. It does not mean a great deal to them. Until this act took place, the majority of English people knew very little about the Stone. It would cost the English nothing to allow this Stone to go north of the Border. But once it is north of the Border, its actual resting place is surely a matter for the Scots to decide themselves. I do not know whether Lord Clydesmuir's suggestion is a good one or not, but I do not like the idea of its being brought south again for a Coronation, and then returned to Scotland. I do not like that idea at all. I think that once there, it should stay there. But there are those who believe that it is an essential part of the Coronation of the Kings of Britain that the Stone should be used, because many people believe that it really is a Stone of Destiny and that the legends of Jacob are perfectly true. I am the last to doubt them. I am very cautious indeed of ever doubting popular legends and traditions. The longer I study these things, the more cautious I become.

How do we get over that difficulty? Once the matter is canvassed, debated and discussed, many of the English will say, "Oh yes, but we want our Monarch crowned on that Stone." Here I speak for myself—I am open to correction. I am not trying to lay down the law at all, but I cannot see any deep objection to a double Coronation. I believe there is much to be said for the historic Coronation in Westminster Abbey and also a second Coronation in Scotland of the King as King of Scotland. It is a delicate question. It is a dynastic and constitutional question of great importance, and can be decided only after very careful consideration and consultation. Obviously it is no Party question at all.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Does the noble Lord realise that if more than one Coronation took place here, Canada, Australia and New Zealand might also seek a Coronation? I think it would be better if we stuck to one.

LORD STRABOLGI

Yes, I have thought of that as well, but I think the historic case for two Coronations, one in England and one in Scotland, is overwhelming, and I do not think there would be any serious attempt by our great Dominions overseas to secure another Coronation. I have thought of that objection. It is of course a valid one, but I believe it can be overcome and that with proper handling there would not be that demand from the Dominions. After all, the Dominions are increasing in number —there are a great many of them. I put this view forward simply as one that is worthy of consideration, and because I believe that if this were done it would give the greatest possible satisfaction in Scotland. But, whatever solution is reached, I hope that no English Peer will treat this matter—I am sure none of your Lordships intends to do so—with any lack of seriousness. I can assure your Lordships from my own personal knowledge that what Lord Clydesmuir has said about feeling in Scotland and what we have heard from the noble Duke is by no means exaggerated. Great harm can be done by brushing lightly aside the deeprooted hereditary sentiments of Scotsmen with regard to the Stone of Destiny.

4.40 p.m.

LORD BLACKFORD

My Lords, I personally feel deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara for raising this matter to-day. He treated us to a most interesting historic survey. Anything he says is always likely to be most interesting and original, and I thought his speech this afternoon was even more interesting than usual. He does not seem to have met with complete agreement from his noble Scottish friends as to the accuracy of his deductions. I myself thought he was a little bit shaky as Jeremiah was moving westwards. I should like to believe that everything he said was accurate, because it was so exceedingly attractive. As this Motion has been moved by an Irishman, perhaps I may occupy a few minutes in making one or two remarks among so many Lords who bear noble Scottish names, because I myself am half Scottish. The Scottish half of me is in full agreement with everything which has fallen from the lips of noble Lords who have so far spoken as to the best and most desirable final destiny of the Stone of Scone. I am in favour of its going back to Scotland, but exactly where it should finally rest seems to me to be a matter which might well be left to the Scots themselves.

But the English half of me is interested in the reasons which led to this debate. We should not have had this debate if there had not been an outrage upon the Stone. What gave rise to the outrage? The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lords, Lord Clydesmuir and Lord Strabolgi, all touched on that point, but they talked a lot (this was particularly so in the case of the noble Duke) about Scottish national feeling. Well, of course, Scots have always had a very strong national feeling—all over the world we have been bothered by their bagpipes and things—and we respect them for it. But, surely, we are here faced with something much different from that. This is, surely, a demand for local government, for self-government for Scotland. That was the underlying reason for the movement for Scottish Nationalism; that is the propaganda which is put forward by those who are behind what has happened in connection with the Stone. The noble Duke says that they are only extremists. That may well be so; but extremists are the spearhead of movements, and are apt in the end to achieve the objects for which they strive. For instance, the ladies who in my young days went about smashing pictures in the National Gallery, breaking shop windows in Kensington High Street, burning country houses and generally giving us a great deal of trouble, were the forerunners of a movement which eventually resulted in women getting the vote. I will not make any further comment on the exploit of the young men who were concerned in this episode of the Stone except to say this—that everyone in authority seems to have united in helping them by giving them the utmost possible publicity.

There seems to be a very definite feeling in Scotland in favour of some form of self-government. There is, apparently, widespread dissatisfaction in Scotland concerning the way in which Scottish affairs are administered from Whitehall, and there appears to be a strong demand that the present system should be altered. I think we ought not to close our eyes to that demand, and that while there is plenty of time we should set about ascertaining the depth of grievance, and how it can be remedied. So far as I know, no authoritative body of Scotsmen has ever come forward to give us information on this subject. I am told that a Committee is sitting, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Catto, inquiring into the matter. Whether that be true or not I do not know, but any- how no publicity is given to that. Committee. We know nothing of their proceedings or of any evidence that has been given before them. I understand that a demand has been put forward for a Royal Commission to inquire into this whole subject. It seems to me that that would be a very sensible course to take. If that were done we should get wide terms of reference, evidence could be called from all sides and a definite conclusion could be reached upon which the Parliament of Great Britain could judge. I think it is only right that the request which I have mentioned should be acceded to, and if it is acceded to, I feel that some good may come out of this deplorable episode in Westminster Abbey. Apart from that, further good will come if the Stone of Scone reaches a destiny which is accept-able to people in all parts of the country.

4.48 p.m.

LORD CALVERLEY

My Lords, I intervene in this debate as a parochial Englishman. I had the privilege of spending some time in Edinburgh, attending the proceedings of a Royal Commission and listening to evidence, and what struck me particularly—and here I support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford—was the underlying sense of grievance felt by responsible Scotsmen. Clearly, they deemed that they should have wider scope to develop their government and also their psychology. As an Englishman, I try to put aside all thoughts of the ballyhoo that has been aroused because of what these young and enthusiastic scamps have done. I put all that behind me, and I seek to do what I can to help to remove the sense of grievance which obviously exists amongst those who, like the noble Duke and the Covenanters generally, so strongly desire the return of the Stone.

As an Englishman I have to acknowledge that we were simply receivers of the Stone, and that, so far as I can make out, it really belongs to Scotland. Therefore I suggest that the Lord President of the Council, if he has this job entrusted to him, or possibly the Privy Council, should decree that the Stone shall remain in Scotland. I thought the suggestion with regard to St. Margaret's Chapel was a very fine one. I have been in that chapel, and the atmosphere impressed me immensely. If the Stone cannot be placed in St. Margaret's Chapel, perhaps it might be put in Holyrood Palace. There is there a Chair of State which is occupied by the Sovereign yearly. Let the Scots have the Stone, which they believe to be a Stone of Destiny. If they believe that, it will mean that they will no longer rule England from the high offices of State and municipal administration, and perhaps Englishman may have some measure of Home Rule.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, the noble Lord suggests that the Stone be kept in Holyrood Palace. Does he mean in the chapel in Holyrood Palace?

LORD CALVERLEY

I do not know the geography of the Palace. I want the Scots to have the Stone back. I want them to be greater partners of England in the future. The Scots have made a great contribution in the Union with us Englishmen. It is because we Yorkshire-men have a lot of Scottish blood in our veins that Yorkshire is the greatest county in the kingdom. But that is all by the way. My slogan is: the Stone should go back to Scotland. It should go either to Holyroodhouse or to St. Giles' Cathedral.

4.51 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, as one of the few Scotsmen taking part in this debate, I find myself asking whether it ought to take place at all. I understand that His Majesty the King is Visitor of Westminster Abbey and this matter concerns him; and if so, it does not concern us. So many of your Lordships have expressed opinions that perhaps, as I differ from nearly all those who have spoken, I may be allowed to express what I feel about it. I do not know whether I represent many Scotsmen, but I know that I represent some.

In one aspect the Stone is a trophy of war. It is a symbol of England's pride in the fact that, 650 years ago, King Edward I, with the enormous resources of England, succeeded in taking and holding down more than half of Scotland. As a Scot, I am not in the least ashamed of that. I am proud of the fact that after some time we, with our small resources, succeeded in driving him out again. I agree that it may not have been for the best interests of both countries that that happened, but far Scot-land it was a fine achievement. England's pride in so near a success only enhances the pride I feel in having beaten her, on that occasion at least, in a fair field. Those in Scotland who are really anxious to get the Stone back must have in their hearts some slight feeling of shame, which I do not in the least share, that England had been so near success in the past.

Trophies of war are not like plunder. I think the rule was laid down some years before the commencement of our era by that great man, Julius Cæsar. When he saw his own sword, captured from him, in a temple of the Gauls, and his friends suggested that he should take it away again, Cæsar refused. "No; it is dedicated," he said. By that word he prevented them from trying to take the trophy away. I should be very sorry if my country showed less greatness of mind and heart than did Julius Cæsar. The value of the Stone in legend and in history is that it is supposed to be essential, for a King of Scotland to have a fortunate reign, that he should be crowned on the Stone. It is a curious thing that after the Stone went to England the characters of the Kings of Scotland show up very well beside the personal characters of the Kings of England; and the Kings of England show up very well beside the normal generations of men. Yet it so happens that, until the Union of the Crowns, the Kings of Scotland were uniformly unfortunate in their reigns. Their best efforts were nearly always frustrated, and it was only with great difficulty and a great deal of suffering that Scotland managed to proceed along normal lines of development. For that reason I am not willing that the Kings of Scotland should dispense with this seat at their Coronation, and I should be sorry to see the Stone go back to Scotland. I have not yet acquired such confidence in British Transport to feel certain that it would always go up and down again without incident. I should rather keep it where it can perform the national function which it is supposed to perform.

There is another reason why I do not want the Stone to go back to Scotland. I do not like the way in which this demonstration of national feeling came about. I do not think that the people who took the Stone were thief-hearted, if I may express it in that way. I think it was just a youthful escapade. But we cannot watch all our national monuments; we cannot always keep a guard on them. It must have been very much easier to take the Stone away from Westminster Abbey than it would have been, for example, to take away the statue from Piccadilly Circus. The taking of the Stone was not really a wonderful achievement. I wish the people concerned had thought of that for a moment. When the three silver arrows were stolen from Holyroodhouse, angry letters were written to the newspapers saying that the people who stole the Stone could not possibly have been the people who stole the Arrows, because the second was an act of theft and the first was not. I cannot see that argument. I think it was an unfortunate thing to have happened. Had I done such a thing, I should have been happier in my own heart about the act if I had stood out and said, "I did it," and let what was to come, come. But we know that the people who took the Stone did not show themselves until they had the assurances given in another place that they would not be prosecuted. I think that must show them clearly how unfortunate the whole episode was. That is another reason why I do not wish the Stone to go back to Scotland. It cast a blight and shadow on the strong movement which exists in Scotland for some form of Home Rule.

I am going to ask your Lordships' attention while I give the real reasons for that. One point, which I have often raised in your Lordships' House, is that the way in which Scottish legislation is made is not fair to Scotland. It may take place by joint Bill or by successive Bills, and in both cases the procedure is wrong, as I will show your Lordships. In the first case, there might be an English Bill. When I get up and say that such a provision is all right for England but will not do in Scotland, I am told that I am out of order in discussing that point, and that there is to be a Scottish Bill. But later, when we have a Scottish Bill, and I raise my point, I am told that I cannot take that point, because it has all been settled; we have to follow the lines of the English Bill. Sometimes, when we have Bills for both countries, sufficient thought is not given to how they will affect Scotland.

I will give an example. In the 'thirties there was a Bill promoted jointly by the Ministries of Education and Labour. When the Bill was going through the House, I said: "That clause will not do for Scotland. You will have to enlarge it, or amend it to suit both countries." I was told that that could not be considered, and the Bill went through. I took it up with the Ministry of Labour, who had to deal with it in Scotland, and had long talks with them. I told them to make their own inquiries to see if I was telling the truth. Eventually they had to do by regulation what should have been done in the Bill. On the other hand, you have the case where there are two Bills. Take the Transport Bill: because of the English Bill we had the same twenty-five miles' radius for private transport in Scotland as in England. The effect of that has been peculiar in Scotland. There are very few towns in Scotland and they are nearly all county towns. Some of the counties in Scotland are very large, and, as a result, frequently two-thirds or nearly three-quarters of a Scottish county is cut off from its county town and in transport is from three to sixteen days away, owing to the fact that everything is done by national transport.

There is another matter on which this strong demand for Home Rule in Scotland is founded. We have a competent and able office in Scotland, which is the Scottish Office. I should like to ask whether the members of the Scottish Office are more loyal to the Civil Service and to the Treasury, as loyal as every other civil servant in all the other branches of administration, or whether their loyalty to Scotland comes first. I shall be told that loyalty to Scotland and loyalty to the Administration are the same thing, because, of course, "Mother knows best." But that is not the case, and the two are sometimes in discord. I would remind your Lordships of a Bill which was radically altered in your Lordships' House a short time ago and which was designed, I believe, in the Treasury, to save a few hundred pounds in a year. When it came to your Lordships' House, the Scottish representatives on our Front Bench and the Scottish Peers in this House objected to the Bill and said that it must be changed. We went to see the Lord Advocate, I think, and were told that the Bill would not be changed. We persisted in our opposition, and members of the Scottish Office came down from Scotland and talked to us to convince us that we were wrong. None the less, we persisted in our opposition and the Government sent the Bill to a Special Committee; and I believe that in that Special Committee the evidence on which the Bill was altered was the evidence of the very people who tried to persuade us that the first form of the Bill was correct.

It ought not to be possible for people to be subjected to conflicting loyalties of that kind. I am not for a moment saying anything against those who had to deal with the matter; in each case they were performing their proper duty. In the first place, they were trying to persuade us that the official policy was correct, and, in the second, they were giving evidence on a matter on which their own personal opinion had to be given. Those are real and solid reasons for some change in the law. I should be very sorry if that necessity were obscured for a moment by anything that recalled this unfortunate episode. For that reason, also, my feeling is that the Stone should be left where it is, at any rate for the moment.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE

My Lords, may I ask when the Royal Com-mission to which the noble Lord alluded is going to report? They have been appointed ten times, and have met seven times, and nothing has yet happened. Royal Commissions are often a convenient way of getting over nasty questions.

5.7 p.m.

LORD MACPHERSON

My Lords, I rise as a Scotsman to thank Lord Brabazon for the very able support he has given to the proposal for the Stone of Scone to be returned to Scotland, and to be brought back for use in Westminster Abbey when required on great State occasions. Unlike the last speaker, I am sure that that is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland, and, I believe, the great majority of the people of England, too. I doubt whether outside Scotland the deep feeling on this matter is fully appreciated. It did not just arise over the recent incidents about the Stone. For hundreds of years Scotsmen have resented the presence of that Stone in Westminster Abbey. It may be the result of our Scottish system of education. I remember as a boy that our history lessons consisted almost entirely of Scottish history, much of which was taken up with the efforts of the Scottish people to maintain their independence against English aggression. I well remember, too, as a boy, learning the lines referred to by the noble Duke of Montrose: Unless the fates should faithless prove, And prophet's voice be vain, Where'er this sacred Stone is found The Scottish race shall reign. But the Scottish race does not reign in London. We used to have the consolation in days gone by that Scotsmen held most of the big positions here in England. In pre-war days you generally found that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Archbishop of Canterbury was a Scotsman. One of the wonders to me is that the last two Labour Governments have done so remarkably well with hardly a Scotsman in the Cabinet. The Scots are no longer the dominant people in England; it is the Welsh who are now the dominant race.

I would heartily support the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. I think that the Stone might very well be kept in the chapel, or somewhere in Holy-rood Palace, be brought out and used on ceremonial occasions, like other parts of the Royal Regalia, and put back when finished with. I hope that this solution will be acceptable to the authorities. There are no two nations in the world such true and close friends as the Scots and the English. It would, indeed, be a gracious and friendly act if the authorities concerned would arrange for this proposal to be adopted, and I believe it would make for an even happier and more united Kingdom.

5.9 p.m.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, this debate opened on a very high note indeed, as those of us who spent some years in the House of Commons when the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was a Member would expect. He impressed many of us in those days with his originality on all questions. The noble Lord took us far back into history. It is not my intention to go so far back; indeed, I question whether it is necessary to do so at all at this moment. There have been many historical references, most of them in agreement though some were contradictory, but certainly sufficient to justify this debate to-day. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that there are associations with this Stone of Destiny, as it is called, historical, ceremonial and prophetical, which justify your Lordships in spending an hour or two dealing with it. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Blackford. Ancient history may be interesting, but I do not think it wise that we should altogether disregard recent history, because recent history must have some influence on our minds. I have no intention of spending any time upon the incident referred to in rather strong terms by some noble Lords. We may forget it; but in any event I hope that we shall not let the incident influence our decision as to what should be done with this Stone now. Not the least interesting feature of the debate was the fact that we have had the voice of Ireland, the voice of Scotland, the voice of England, and we are now to have, to some extent, the voice of Wales. I wondered sometimes whether the fact that my last connection with Scotland was my great grandfather, and that I myself was born in Wales, justified my intervention in this debate at all, but I think we had better know what is passing through the mind of Wales on the question of this Stone.

We are told not to disregard what Scotland is thinking, and to be sure to remember what England is thinking. The mover also told us that although he was not born in Ireland, he is of Irish descent. He did associate that with some English blood, and I thought I noticed more of the English than the Irish blood in the presentation of his case. Stones have played a great part in history. I cannot think of any nation in which stones have not played a part. I think the noble Lord's reference to Jacob's dream was a good indication that the Stone played a very noble part indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Blackford, had some doubts as to Lord Brabazon's reference to Jeremiah, but I do not want to deal with that aspect of the matter. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, emphasised the political aspect rather too much. He seemed to decide that this was an occasion when he could get off his chest something he had wanted to say for a long while. I know that our rules in this House are very elastic—

LORD SALTOUN

I am reluctant to interrupt the noble Lord, because he did not interrupt me, but I believe that the recent theft of the Stone has some- thing to do with the demand for Home Rule for Scotland and shows where the real roots of that demand originate.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I do not think the theft has anything to do with it, and the noble Lord spent a good deal of time telling us about this, that and the other Bill which were unrelated to this debate. The Welsh interest is a political interest, too. I have no intention of dealing with that Welsh interest. The Government do not look upon this Stone as something upon which they are going to pronounce having regard to the strong desire in Scotland for Home Rule. I do not think the history of the Stone at the moment is very important. I have read through the history of the Stone, and I am pleased to have done so. I think it was the noble? Duke, the Duke of Montrose, who told us that there were historiographers in Scotland and in England who gave us a full story of it. I have one here and it would take the best part of half-an-hour to read it to your Lordships. It is called The Stone of Destiny or Coronation Stone by Doctor Henry Meikle. His history differs from the history given to-day, but not in sufficient detail for me to spend any time on it.

I think the interest of your Lordships' House to-day rests upon the question: What do the Government intend to do with this Stone now? That is all that matters. I think the best thing I can do is to read a carefully prepared note on this question, so that there will be no misunderstanding. I noted down the opinions of noble Lords who spoke to-day, and I noticed that there were seven for Scotland—the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, was inclined to halve his "vote," and I will make it seven and a half for Scotland and only one against. It is a remarkable thing to see such unanimity in your Lordships' House, and I am quite sure that it will not go disregarded by the Government. But here is what the Government feel about the matter at the moment—I will read as slowly as I can what they have to say. It will no doubt be the general wish that the Stone should continue to be used at future Coronations of British Kings and Queens in the same way as it has been used in the past. Whether any alteration should be made in the arrangements for the custody between Coronations is a matter on which there is, no doubt, room for argument. But noble Lords will doubtless agree that the arrangements for the custody of the Stone ought not to be altered (if indeed they ought to be altered at all) without the fullest consideration and without taking into account all points of view. His Majesty's Government are certainly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for initiating an interesting discussion on this question and thus pro-viding an opportunity of hearing some expressions of opinion with regard to it.

I know the noble Lord will not expect me at this moment to make any definite answer as to his suggestion. What I do assure him and other noble Lords is that the matter is receiving consideration. Many suggestions have been and are being made—more than have been made in this House—as to its disposal. All those suggestions are under consideration, and I can give this definite promise: that the Government will consider every suggestion made to-day and, in due course, will come to a final decision. But they are most anxious—and this needs emphasising—that the recent incident should not affect any decision made. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, will feel satisfied. He has had his debate and, if I may say so, his own contribution was a masterpiece; and I am certain that it will be helpful to the Government in making up their minds as to the future of this Stone.

LORD STRABOLGI

The noble Lord speaks of a decision by the Government which is, of course, the usual way of dealing with a matter of this kind. I presume that the widest possible consultations will take place with authoritative bodies in Scotland and with the other political Parties in this country.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

In reply to that question, I think that such consultations are now taking place, and that the Joint Assembly of the Church of Scotland is taking part in them.

5.19 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, I rise not to continue the debate but to add, in a few sentences, my own opinion in con-sequence of what the noble Lord has just said on behalf of the Government. I do not think any of us will quarrel with the fact that the Government are not giving a definite decision to-day as to the advice to be tendered to His Majesty in this matter, either positive or negative. It is right that they should take into account all that has been said in this House to-day, and then deliberate and give a reply. But since they attach importance to the opinion of the House, perhaps I may be allowed to say, on behalf of most of my noble friends on these Benches, that we concur in the view expressed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and ex-pressed almost identically by the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, which is in effect that the Stone should be deposited in Scotland, but that it should be brought to England for Coronation ceremonies. It should be brought to England, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose suggested, with due reverence and ceremony, in view of the traditions that have attached to it for so many centuries.

I rejoiced to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said on behalf of the Government: that they would not be influenced, and hoped the House would not be influenced, one way or the other, by the recent incident—as in the case of the Suffragettes, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford. I remember that period very well and very painfully. The Government of that day and the public, I think, were influenced rather against the cause of women's suffrage than in favour of it by the outrages committed. I think the common feeling has been one of revulsion and protest against what has happened; but that ought not to lead to a decision which would not give first place to the essential merits of the case.

By the terms of the Motion that has been moved, this has not been a debate on the principle or the practicability of Scottish self-government; but I feel that the House ought not to delay long before it does discuss Scottish self-government. Some of us who have been thinking of putting down a Motion on the subject have been waiting because of the deliberations of the Royal Commission on English and Scottish economics and finance. We are awaiting the Report of that Commission, and I should like to ask the noble Lord on the Government Bench whether, before we rise this afternoon, he can answer the question put by the Duke of Montrose as to the date on which that Report may be expected. If it is likely to be long delayed, it may be necessary for this House to discuss Scottish self-government without waiting for the Report. On the other hand, it would obviously be desirable that the Report should be issued first, so that we may have before the House the facts which have been gathered together by the Royal Commission, together with their recommendations, before we discuss the subject at large.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, I am not able to give a definite date, but meetings are taking place frequently, and it is expected that the Report will not be long delayed.

5.22 p.m.

LORD BRABAZON OF TARA

My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord for his reply. I am too old a hand in both Houses to have expected to be given a decision to-day. But the noble Lord opposite will have seen that the general feeling in the House this afternoon has been remarkable. I hope that that will impress His Majesty's Government. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past five o'clock.