Lords Sitting of 4 February 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Earl of Oxford and Asquith—Took the Oath.

GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY (CREMATORIUM) BILL [H.L.]
2.36 p.m.
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

LIFE PEERS BILL [H.L.]
2.37 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Amendment moved by Earl Jowitt to the Motion moved yesterday by Viscount Simon, "That the Bill be now read a second time." The Amendment was as follows: Leave out all the words after "That" and insert:
"this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which purports to alter the constitution of this House in any one particular without any consideration of such wider changes as Her Majesty's Government have suggested should be the subject of discussion between the Parties."
LORD BALFOUR OP BURLEIGH: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that up to the present we have had a remarkable debate. Yesterday was marked by an announcement which I felt showed a remarkable coincidence. My noble friend Lord Swinton, who is leading the House, in the absence of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who we greatly regret is not here to-day, announced that invitations to the Conference, which we had heard was in the offing, had in fact been issued. Had your Lordships been capable of being electrified, I suppose that that announcement would have electrified you. I think also that in any other Second Chamber in any other part of the world that announcement might well have put an end to the proceedings in the debate on my noble friend's Bill. But not so in your Lordships' House. How fortunate that it was not so, for as the afternoon went on we listened to what I
200
thought were some remarkable speeches. The point that struck me, as I listened to them all, was that in every speech I found points with which I agreed and points with which I disagreed. And perhaps that fact illustrates as well as anything could the difficulties of the subject of the reform of your Lordships' House.
I must go back for a moment to 1911. We are fortunate in having with us two noble Viscounts who took a part, in another place, in the events of 1911. I myself was not a Member of your Lord ships' House, but I was old enough to take an intelligent interest, I hope, in the proceedings, and I have a vivid recollection of the events which occurred in that year. If your Lordships will forgive me for being personal. I may tell you that I have added up the number of years during which I have had the privilege of sitting in your Lordships' House and I was surprised to find that it is now more than thirty. Where I have spent all those years I cannot imagine, but I was astonished to find that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for that period, which is three-quarters of the not inconsiderable period which has passed since 1911. Therefore, I have had some considerable time for reflection, from the point of view of your Lordships' House, on the problem which we are discussing to-day, which I think I may fairly say is the reform of your Lordships' House in general.
You all know that the 1911 Parliament Act dealt only with the powers and not with the composition of the House. The first point I want to make is that the settlement of 1911was a settlement by agreement. I do not deny that there was a good deal of dust and heat before the agreement was arrived at, but it was, in the event, a settlement by agreement. When we examine the contents of the Division lists we find, as was only right and proper, that the Bench of Bishops had a remarkable part in bringing about that agreement. The point I want to make in respect to 1911 is that nobody foresaw in 1911 what a fundamental change that Act would bring about. The result of that Act completely changed through the years your Lordships' approach to matters of legislation coming from another House.
It is not denied, and I need not pause to labour it, that in the years from 1945

201
to 1950 your Lordships acted with wisdom and restraint. I pay my tribute to our noble Leader Lord Salisbury and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and to noble Lords on the other side of the House, who contributed to that happy result. The point I would stress, however, is that your Lordships' House acted in that way without having undergone any change in its composition since 1911. I think that is too often for gotten. We were told at that time that a change in its composition "brooks no delay." It did not happen. Yet your Lordships succeeded, in the years from 1945 to 1950, in acting in the best traditions of the best Second Chamber. Do not forget that our House is the oldest part of our constitutional machinery, with the single exception of the Monarchy. We have a tremendous value in our tradition and in our history. I believe that every Member coming into the House becomes conscious of that. I do not think that any noble Lord coming from another place, or from elsewhere, can be long in your Lordships' House without recognising that there is an accumulated value in the tradition and history of the House, which we must all seek to preserve.
If your Lordships' House is of value and has acted in a manner which has been beneficial to the national interest, we must admit that some part of the credit of that, at all events, must accrue to the hereditary principle. I am not going to labour the point, because several noble Lords made it yesterday, but I know of no way other than by the hereditary principle by which it would be possible to get a suitable influx of younger Members into your Lordships' House. The element of youth in our debates is important, and we must preserve it. The fact that this House has become what it is, suggests to me that further essential change may be smaller than some noble Lords think, and smaller than is generally imagined. I have said that there has been a fundamental change in the approach of your Lordships' House to our problems. I think it is true to say also that there has been a fundamental change in the attitude of the Party opposite to the House of Lords. There was a time when the extreme Left Wing would certainly have wished to abolish the House of Lords. But now, I think, the need for a wise and impartial Second Chamber is
202
generally recognised. That is a considerable change, too.
I pass at once to say a word or two about the two complaints which noble Lords opposite have against the character of your Lordships' House: they are, of course, the hereditary character of this House, and the fact, as they put it, that there is a permanent Conservative majority. On the first of those points, I was interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Moran said yesterday. He reminded your Lordships, as I have in the past, of the fact that of noble Lords who take part in our debates and carry out the current work of the House, no less than 50 percent. are Peers of first creation; that is to say, they are people who are here for no hereditary reason at all. That being so, it is inaccurate to say that the composition of this House is overwhelmingly hereditary. I was interested to note, also, that my noble friend Lord Moran made that an argument against this Bill. I believe he is wrong when he says that there are only a few persons who would accept Life Peerages. I could name members of both political Parties—not ardent partisans, but men who have political affiliations—who would be valuable Members of your Lordships' House, but who are excluded because they are not willing to accept what is now the burden of a hereditary Peerage. So much for the hereditary character of your Lordships' House.
I turn now to something which I venture to say is more difficult, and about which I believe there is more misunderstanding—namely, this so-called permanent Conservative majority. I would ask your Lordships to remember that the word "conservative" can be spelt both with a capital "C" and a small "c," and that it may mean two rather different things. My noble friend Lord Mansfield mentioned yesterday that at a certain moment the late Lord Salisbury, whose devotion to the cause of House of Lords reform we all know, did him the honour of including him in certain discussions and considerations about a possible reform. I think I can at this date, without indiscretion, tell your Lordships that I too was privileged to be consulted by the late Lord Salisbury towards the end of the last war. I have looked up the names of noble Lords who were concerned, and of the leaders of the Labour Party who were concerned, and to my regret I find that the great majority are no longer with us.

203
But I can tell your Lordships that the late Lord Salisbury told me that, after conversations with those responsible Labour leaders—they were, I think, mainly members of the Coalition Government during the war— they had agreed with him that, whatever happened to the House of Lords, assuming that satisfactory reform could be carried out, the Second Chamber must always retain a conservative character with a small "c." That is a fact which noble Lords opposite must realise.
The House of Lords must be able to act with wisdom and impartiality; and, of course, it must be recognised by the country as acting with wisdom and impartiality. Noble Lords opposite must realise that the equality of Parties in this House must never mean equality of ardent political partisans. There could be nothing more fatal than that to the character of your Lordships' House as a wise and impartial Second Chamber, for this reason: that it would inevitably thereby challenge the authority of another place. Party battles must he fought in another place, and here we must act with wisdom and impartiality, having regard to the interests of the nation and the peculiar characteristics of our Constitution. That is why we must have a Second Chamber, because another place, under the sway of some emotion or other, could wreck everything by a one-clause Bill. I do beg noble Lords opposite to remember, when they talk about the permanent Conservative majority here, that if they would write the word with a small "c" and not a capital "C," then they are only naming the indispensable characteristic for an adequate Second Chamber, having regard to the Constitution under which we work.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? He has appealed to noble Lords on this side of the House on two occasions. Will he explain to the House why it is that the small "c" always turns it self into a capital "C" every time the Division bell rings? Surely, in the course of years, we on this side must be right sometimes. Why is it that no noble Lord on the other side of the House has ever, to my knowledge—unless it has been a very exceptional case—appeared in the same Division Lobby as we have?
LORD TEYNHAM: May I intervene? Before the war, in 1938, I moved in your Lordships' House two Amendments on which the Government were defeated.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am obliged to my noble friend for his intervention. Going back over the years, I can remember frequent cases When I also have moved, and I am happy to say carried, Amendments against the Government. In fact, if I may be personal, I must tell your Lordships that I once did a terrible thing when I was sitting on the Front Bench as Junior Whip: I voted against the Government. And the awful thing was that die Government were defeated by sixteen votes to fifteen.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Which year was that?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: At a guess I should say that it was 1924. I may tell your Lordships that the late Lord Salisbury gave me the most severe "telling-off" I have ever had, not because I had voted against the Government—which as a Back-Bencher I might have done— but because I had done so when I had the privilege of sitting on the Front Bench. And that, of course, is a thing which is not done. I quite agree that it was a gross error. I was young at the time, and I offer every excuse for my conduct. I may say that it was on a matter of social reform about which I felt very keenly, and noble Lords will be interested in the sequel. Of course, the matter went back to another place, and they saw to it that the decision of the Lords was reversed. I do not think the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, upsets me very much. After all, as people get older they do become moreconservative—with a small "c"—and if they did not, they would not possess the wisdom and impartiality which is an essential characteristic of your Lordships' House.
I propose now to make two points about the 1949 Parliament Act. The first is that, in contrast to the 1911 Act, the 1949 Act was an imposed settlement.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: How can the noble Lord say that the 1911 settlement was a settlement by agreement? Would he say that the Battle of Waterloo was a settlement by agreement?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not accept the noble Viscount's analogy. The 1911 settlement was in fact a settlement by agreement because it was passed by your Lordships' House. The Battle of Waterloo was not passed by the French, but the 1911 settlement was actually passed, with the help of the Bishops and others. The noble Viscount knows the history as well as I do. He knows that a great number of Peers abstained, but a sufficient number of Conservatives supported the Government to pass it. It was accepted, and in that respect it was different from the 1949 Act. That was the first point in which, to my mind, the 1949 Act offended, because, as I have said, to get a permanent settlement in this matter we must have an agreement.
My second point about the 1949 Act is rather different. In my humble opinion, it was really unconstitutional, for this reason. There were two General Elections in 1910, and the second of them was really ad referendum the Parliament Act. That was why that second Election was held. The Parliament Bill was put before the country almost as a single issue, and when the Government were returned with the same majority they proceeded to introduce their Bill. But one Amendment was made. It occurred to somebody that it would be improper to use the Parliament Act machinery to extend the life of Parliament. Your Lordships recollect that the life of Parliament was cut down from seven to five years, and it was agreed that it would be highly wrong that the machinery of the Parliament Act should be used to extend the life of Parliament. Consequently, an Amendment was proposed and a new clause was inserted to prevent Parliament from using the machinery of the 1911 Act to extend its own life. I venture to say that if anybody had imagined that there would ever be a Government so unprincipled—forgive the word—as to use that machinery to shorten the period of delay, then, of course, there would have been another clause in the 1911 Act to prevent noble Lords opposite from doing that very thing. Such a clause was not there, and they did it; but it was not in my view a fair or proper use of the Act.
I venture to repeat that any settlement, to be permanent, must be by agreement; and, if noble Lords opposite will
206
forgive my saying so, one of the difficulties of the present situation is that noble Lords opposite and their Party speak with two voices. How often have we heard the noble and learned Earl who leads the Party opposite pay tribute to your Lordships' House! I do not know whether he has used these words, but the sense of his remarks is "the wisdom with which the House of Lords has handled legislation coming from another place." We have been very grateful to him for what he has said. We have listened with great interest. But in the country the Labour Party all too often forget any virtues of the House of Lords and concentrate on defects—defects which, I am sure your Lordships agree, to a very large extent no longer exist. With the deepest respect, I make the suggestion to the noble and learned Earl opposite who leads the Labour Party, that the greatest contribution—or, at least, a very great contribution—that he could make to reform the House of Lords would be to go up and down the country and tell the constituencies, in just the same language as he uses in the House of Lords, his opinion of the way in which the House handled the legislation from 1945 to 1950. That really would be a tremendous contribution.
I believe that there is greater agreement on this matter among sensible people than might be thought from the arguments we hear. If I may say so, extremists on both sides in this matter are dangerous. May we look ahead just for one moment and consider what will happen in the event of the Conference not being successful? I am afraid that we cannot take it for granted that the Conference will be successful: there is a possibility that it may not. Therefore it is, to me at all events, a consolation that the course which your Lordships are taking to-day will leave this Bill upon our Order Paper. With the greatest respect to my noble friend who is leading the House, he is not correct in saying, as he did yesterday, that what we are doing is to adjourn the Bill sine die. If that were the case the Bill would be dead. But, as I understand it, if after our debate to-day events take their promised course, the Bill will appear on the Order Paper of the House of Lords under the heading of "Bills awaiting Second Reading." That is very important, and I hope that,

207
in the event of the Conference not succeeding, your Lordships will be willing to return to consideration of this Bill, which I believe has much greater merits than might appear at first sight.
3.1 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I intervene in this debate with considerable diffidence. I have been here a very short time only—just a little longer than the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, had when he voted against his own Party. I have not yet had time to become a conservative, either with a capital "C" or a small "c." Perhaps I have one advantage: that I can still look at the question of the House of Lords with some objectivity; I have not become so deeply steeped in the tradition of this House as to make me blind to its faults and defects, as might be the case with some other noble Lords.
I think that this is a time when we can all speak frankly about the position of the House of Lords and how we feel about it; and we are very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, who introduced this debate, for having given us the opportunity of hearing so many really outstanding speeches on this important subject. We are also obliged to him for having given us the opportunity of hearing the decision of Her Majesty's Government to convene a Conference possibly some weeks earlier than we might otherwise have had it. I have no doubt at all that the announcement made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that invitations were actually sent out yesterday, was the direct result of this debate—but I see nothing wrong with that: I think it was helpful to this House to know that the invitations had gone out, and to be able to discuss this question in that context.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): As a matter of historical accuracy (and I do not think I am breaking any confidence in saying this) I should say that the decision that invitations should be issued as soon as the House reassembled was taken weeks ago—I mean just when Parliament was adjourning. It was therefore quite natural that when the Prime Minister came back from America a decision which the Government had taken weeks
208
ago should be put into effect. That is what happened, in fact.
LORD SILKIN: I was giving the noble Viscount the benefit of any doubt. But let us say that it was a coincidence that the announcement should have been made on the very day that this debate opened; and it is important because it enables us to discuss this matter in a wider context than would otherwise have been the case.
Both Lord Simon and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and also other noble Lords, have frequently reiterated the statement made by Mr. Asquith in 1911 to the effect that reform of the House of Lords brooked no delay. We have tended to take this statement for granted and to regard the reform of the House of Lords as a matter of extreme urgency—so urgent that even a matter of days was of importance. I have given some thought to it, and I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that, on the whole, there have been no constitutional problems since the Parliament Act of 1911, except when there was a Labour Government. It is only on these occasions when this House is in a position to act in an awkward manner. At other times, the House merely acts in accordance with the wishes of the Government of the day.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There are exceptions.
LORD SILKIN: Well, I know there was the exception in 1938 which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham; and there was the exception mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which occurred in 1924, when he was a very young Member of the House. But. I think it is true to say that this House, when there is a Conservative Government, normally reflects the wishes of the Conservative Government and does not vote against the wishes of its own Party. I freely admit that during the period of Labour Government this House conducted itself with wisdom and restraint and that it did not seek to override the wishes of the electorate. I do not remember any occasion other than the Parliament Bill of 1947 when a Second Reading was re fused to a Labour measure; and I do not remember any wrecking Amendment that was persisted in—there may have been some passed, but at any rate they were

209
not persisted in against the wishes of the Labour Government. Therefore, I would say that there was no Constitutional difficulty in the years 1945 to 1951, when this question could have been put to the test: they were the only years when it was possible to put it to the test. One might therefore ask, "Why interfere with a system which has worked well, and which is working well? Why consider any reform at all, and what is the case for reform?"
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Why did your Party introduce their Bill in 1947?
LORD SILKIN: I was not expressing my own opinion. I was merely saying that that might be argued, but I am going to show why I think it is wrong. I think it is wrong for a number of reasons. While it is true, as I say, that no constitutional crises have arisen, I think, nevertheless, that it is grossly unfair that any Party in this country should be dependent for the carrying out of its policy entirely upon the good behaviour of another Party. I think it is entirely wrong that a Labour Government should depend for the carrying out of its programme upon the question of whether or not this House decides to give it a fair run.
It is true, as I say, that during the period of the five or six years in question there was no serious complaint. I think, however, that a Labour Government (or a Liberal Government for that matter) is entitled to rely quite as definitely upon being able to carry out its policy as is a Conservative Government. That has not been the case; and undoubtedly a Labour Government has to be much more conservative in the measures that it introduces, and much more conciliatory—not that I think that those are bad qualities—than a Conservative Government similarly placed. And while this House may have worked reasonably well during the intervening period of forty-two years since the Parliament Act was passed, we are living in dynamic times. Conditions are changing and changing very rapidly. It is a very different world that we are in to-day as compared with the world in 1911. So far as the functions of this House are concerned, they are very much more complex, very much more difficult, requiring much more skill, knowledge, training and ability than they did in 1911. Whereas it might have been true in 1911 that the mere accident of
210
birth enabled a person to be a legislator, that is certainly not true to-day. To-day, a person is no more a legislator because he is the son of his father than he is an analytical chemist or a policeman. It is a duty which requires great skill and a considerable amount of training, and I think that the time has long since gone by when one could assume that a person could walk into this House without any training at all and carry out the extremely difficult duties that are required of him.
Moreover, there is the other question, that changing times have brought about great changes in economic conditions. In 1911 it was still true that, by and large, noble Lords were possessed of independent means and could give to this House the time that was necessary, without any serious burden upon their livelihood. To-day, this is becoming increasingly less true. There are still a certain number of noble Lords who have independent means but, more and more, noble Lords are here either with a pension, which in practice means—I hope I am not being disrespectful—that they have expended the greater part of their useful life before they come here, or they are people who have to earn their livelihood and at considerable sacrifice devote a certain amount of their time to coming to this House. I would say that such persons represent a decreasing number and, as time goes on, it will be more and more difficult to get for the service of this House either men who are able to give the time (they cannot, because of the need they have to earn their livelihood) or men of the necessary quality and experience to carry out the duties that are required of them.
So the time has come when change is required, and we have to consider very seriously what is to be the future of this House. I think every speaker so far has recognised that the question of the powers of this House is inextricably intermingled with the question of its constitution. It is impossible to consider one without the other. It has been assumed by most speakers that this House must be an inferior House, that it must be subordinate to the other place, and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has just said, in effect it is to be largely a House which carries out in an administrative way the policy which has been settled in another place. I would not necessarily accept that view. It may

211
be so, but I would not take it for granted when we are considering the reform of this Chamber. I would not take it for granted that this House has to be subordinate to another place. It may have to have different duties. There can be no question of competition or rivalry between the two Houses, but I see no reason at all why, with a reformed House, this House should not be as important and as influential in its way as the other place, although functioning rather differently. I could, on a proper occasion, make one or two suggestions as to the duties which this House might undertake, duties which would in no way conflict with the dignity or importance of the other place but which would, nevertheless, be as important as those carried out in another Chamber.
However, as I say, the question of powers and the question of composition have to be considered together. They cannot be considered in isolation. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, took the view that, on the whole, the composition of this House was all right. He said that there were many Peers of first creation and that half the work of this House is carried out by Peers of first creation. That may be so. If it is so, of course it is a reflection on and some criticism of the hereditary system, because the Peers of first creation are greatly outnumbered by the hereditary Peers. I would not challenge the noble Lord's figures, but the fact remains that, when it comes to a Division, it is not only the noble Lords who have spoken who count but the persons who were referred to yesterday by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailshum, as the "backwoodsmen."
Incidentally, in passing, I should like to say a word about the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. He is not here. He lashed out rather violently on all sides, somewhat indiscriminately, because with one blow he hit at his own leader and with another blow he lashed out at this side of the House. He lashed out side ways and behind him at the "backwoodsmen"—in fact, he dealt blows all round. He almost describe himself as a "backwoodsman." I personally have no objection to "backwoodsmen." He described them as bores, people who come here and bore the House. I would not agree with him. I think they come
212
here and give us a breath of fresh air, the atmosphere of the moors and the heather. But I would say to the noble Viscount, who I regret is not here, because I should have liked to say it to him personally, two things. First, when he has lashed out like that in all directions, it would not be a bad idea for him to listen and hear the replies. I think that when one is talking about form and sincerity—because the noble Viscount was impugning the sincerity of both sides of the House—it might have been a good idea for him to turn up to-day to hear what other people have to say about his own observations. There is this to be said about the "backwoodsmen"; they may bore people in the tea room (I do not say that they do, but that is the view of the noble Viscount), but at least they do not make speeches. I think it is only right that this should be said, and I re peat (I would say it equally if the noble Viscount were here) I consider that a noble Lord who turns up merely to hear himself and nobody else speak is doing little service to this House. After all, one of the important things about this House is not only to speak yourself but to hear what other people have to say.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Would the noble Lord forgive me for one moment? I suspect that the noble Viscount to whom he is referring is earning his living.
LORD SILKIN: I have no doubt that that is so; and there are other noble Lords here who could be earning their living, too. But I do say that, if he comes here and makes a violent attack, and particularly makes an attack on the sincerity of this side of the House as well as on that of his own side, then whether he is earning his living or not the noble Viscount ought to have the grace to come here to listen to the debate and hear the reply. I do not complain that the noble Viscount is not here very often: I quite understand that he has to earn his living. But I do personally resent it when noble Lords come merely when they are making a speech, then walk out immediately afterwards, and are not seen again until they make their next speech.
EARL WINTERTON: I think that in justice to my noble friend Lord Hailsham it should be pointed out that the statement which the noble Lord opposite has made is inaccurate. The noble Viscount

213
did not walk out immediately after making his speech; he remained here for the whole of the debate.
LORD SILKIN: I will not carry the matter any further. I shall be within the recollection of a number of noble Lords as to whether or not that is accurate. I took particular care to make quite sure of my facts before I stated them. The irony is that the noble Viscount attacked the sincerity of both sides. It is no part of my business to defend noble Lords opposite—they are quite capable of defending themselves, particularly against one of their own supporters. But I strongly resent an attack on the sincerity of those who sit on this side of the Chamber. We regard this as a very serious question, and I think that every one who has spoken, and everyone who has considered the question, has considered it in all sincerity. We are none the less sincere if we venture to disagree with the noble Viscount. We cannot always agree with him. I thought it right to make that digression because it is not the first time that this sort of thing has occurred.
I want now to come for a few moments to the subject of the Bill itself. The Bill provides for the appointment of not more than ten Life Peers each year. In that context, I want to remind the House of the Conference in 1948, and about what was agreed as the heads to be submitted ad referendum to the followers of the three respective Parties. These heads were agreed by the representatives them selves. I do not want to quote them all but I think it right to quote some of them. First, we have this:
"The revised constitution of the House of Lords should be such as to secure as far as practicable that a permanent majority is not assured for any one political Party."
There is nothing there about a capital "C" or a small "c." At present we on this side take the view that a permanent majority is secured for one Party, but not for the other. It was agreed here that this should not be the case. If in fact those who support that idea take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, then of course this is meaningless. It must mean that some action will be taken to ensure that both sides have an equal chance when matters come up for consideration.
214
Then there is the second head, which says:
"The present right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber."
I take that to mean the abolition of the hereditary system, so far as membership of this House is concerned. Again the noble Lord shakes his head, but if it is not to be based solely on heredity—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: "Solely."
LORD SILKIN: Yes, solely.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is not an abolition of the hereditary principle.
LORD SILKIN: I take it to mean that. I take it to mean that a noble Lord should have the right to be elected or appointed to sit in this House, but should not sit here merely by virtue of his being a Peer. If it does not mean that, what does it mean?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have not the Paper in front of me, but I think that if the noble Lord reads on he will see that individuals can be selected either from the hereditary Peerage or from outside it. That is exactly what my noble friend was saying. I venture to interrupt because I was a party to the negotiations, so that I think I know not only what was said but what was agreed.
LORD SILKIN: I do not disagree with what the noble Viscount is saying. Is it not really that no Peer shall have the right to sit in this House?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: What the noble Lord said—I am sure he did not intend to say it—was that we meant to abolish completely the hereditary principle. We did not. What we said was that heredity by itself should not confer the right to sit. The words were very carefully stated.
LORD SILKIN: That seems to be a distinction without a difference. Does it not mean that the membership of the House of Lords ought to consist of selected Members of this House: other noble Lords might not be selected? I will not argue as to whether that means the abolition of the hereditary system. I take it to mean abolition, but if the noble Viscount says that it does not,

215
all right. At any rate, it is a drastic change in the composition of this House. Another head was:
"Women should be capable of being appointed Lords of Parliament in like manner as men."
That again is a revolution. The noble and learned Viscount who introduced this Bill said that this was the last place to which women were not admitted. I think he has forgotten his old University, the Cambridge Union and, last but not least, the Athenæum. I imagine that the Athenæum will change when women become members of your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Oxford University has for a long time accepted women as members.
LORD SILKIN: If that is the case, I have been misinformed by my noble friend Lord Pakenham.
There is also this head:
"In order that persons without private means should not be excluded, some remuneration would be payable to members of the Second Chamber."
Then, following that:
"Peers who were not Lords of Parliament should be entitled to stand for election to the House of Commons."
And then there is a provision for disqualifying from sitting in this House members who are no longer performing their duties here. I point out all these things because they were substantially agreed between all the Parties, and together they constitute drastic changes of the composition of this House. It is true that there was disagreement about the powers of this House. May I say that I think it is a little disingenuous to say that we disagreed over a period of three months? Literally, it may have been true, it might have been true that we disagreed about a period of three days, if it had come to that. The real point was that the Labour Party took the view that it was possible for a House of Lords, constituted as it is, to frustrate all legislation after the third year—in other words, to nullify anything that a Labour Government might do in its fourth or fifth years.
The argument we advanced was that it should he possible for a Labour Government to carry through its legislation, whether in its fourth year or not. That is where the period of the days came in.
216
The odd days made all the difference as to whether the fourth year should be an effective year or not. I admit that if it came about that neither Party had a permanent majority in this House, this question of being able to frustrate legislation would become of relatively less importance: each period would be treated in exactly the same way. But as things stand, this was a very important matter.
I say frankly to the noble and learned Viscount that, in my view, against this background of drastic changes which were virtually agreed to by all Parties, his Bill really is a very tiny matter. It is no solution to the problem at all. It does not go one tithe of the way all the Parties have agreed to go, and, in my opinion, it will not make much difference to this House whether the change proposed in the Bill is made or not. We already have a number of Life Peers and the addition of not more than ten—some noble Lords would wish it to be fewer than ten, and the noble and learned Viscount has said that he would be quite prepared to entertain an Amendment on that pointߞwould make little difference to the constitution of this House. In the course of thirty years, at the maximum, there would be created 300 Life Peers. But by that time at least half of them would be no longer with us, and at the end of the period of thirty years, assuming that ten were created every years, we should still have 850 Peers, or thereabouts, such as we have to-day, and 150 Life Peers. And the Bill makes no contribution towards dealing with the other problems with which we were confronted at the Conference. I really cannot think it is worth while for this House to proceed with a measure which makes no contribution towards a solution of these problems.
Finally, I want to say a word about the Conference. I have no authority to speak for my Party on the question of the action that will be taken with regard to it. Moreover, one does not normally decide to accept, or reject, an invitation until one has seen it. I am, therefore, not in a position to comment upon it. If I may express a personal view, it is that I hope that, if there are no strings to the invitation, it will be accepted, and accepted in the spirit of both sides being desirous of reaching a solution. Whether or not it would be wiser to start off on the basis of what has already been agreed, and endeavour to bridge this narrow gulf, I

217
do not know. My own opinion, on the whole, is that it would be wiser to start all over again.
Apart from the fact that five years will have elapsed since the former Conference, I feel that we ought to think again about this question of powers. We ought not to assume that this House is going to have in future merely the existing powers and nothing more, or that all is satisfactory as regards the powers, except for the power of this House to interfere with legislation after the fourth year. I should much rather start all over again, and see whether we cannot arrive at some agreement which will meet the points that have been set out very clearly in the White Paper on the Conference, overcome the difficulties that have evolved during the years, and create a House which is suitable for modern requirements, a House of eminent men and women and of young people. Noble Lords were quite right in saying that we must find some way of introducing young people into this House. We want to solve these problems as well as the problem of the powers of this House. I think this would be an opportunity for fresh, clear, honest, objective thinking. And if, then, we are able to reach an agreement I think the delay will have been well worth while, and we shall have rendered a very great service to posterity.
3.47 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, some people in this House, or, at any rate, some outside, may have thought that after the first four speeches yesterday there was not much more to be said, because, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who always addresses us with such clarity, told us, there were only three courses that we could take. One course is to agree to the Second Reading, another is to reject the Bill, and a third is to adjourn the debate. Nobody, now, wants the Bill to be passed on this occasion—not even, I understand, the noble and learned Viscount who introduced it. It seems to me that it would make little difference whether we were to adjourn the discussion or whether we were to kill the Bill at the conclusion of the debate to-day. I feel that whatever happens to the Bill to-day, ultimately, if anything is done, it must be by means of a Government measure. I do not think that a measure of this sort, altering the constitution of
218
this House or, indeed, of the other place, is a proper one (I do not use the word in any offensive sense) to be proposed by anyone, however eminent, other than the Government of the day. Let us think what this means. If the Bill were to go to another place it would have to be taken charge of there by a Private Member, unless the Government of the day accepted it. So, clearly, whatever happens, if anything is done on this measure, at some stage it will have to be a Government measure— this Bill or some other substituted in its place.
I was interested in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to which we have just listened, and particularly interested, in the fact that he did not think this House need necessarily be restricted to its present powers. That I understood to be the point he was making towards the end of his speech. I think there is a great deal of misconception about there being a permanent Conservative majority—whether you spell Conservative with a large "C" or a small "c"—in this House. I do not know what other condition there could be. Should we try always to have a Second Chamber with a majority of the same complexion as the majority in the other place? I think that that would be wrong. Let us realise that the larger proportion of the House consists of noble Lords who have achieved political eminence as members of one Party or another in another place, and that the more political in character the House becomes, the less impartial is it likely to be. If a noble Lord comes here because his great-great-grandfather was a great Liberal statesman in his day, it does not follow that that noble Lord, though he may have Conservative tendencies, could not have a fairly independent mind. It may not be apparent, but in the Conservative Party, as in every Party, a certain amount is always done behind the scenes to meet reasonable objections. Perhaps noble Lords opposite will not believe that, but it is so.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, thought that, although we did behave ourselves between 1945 and 1950, the composition of this House had made the Government of the day more circumspect and conciliatory. That is what a Government always ought to be, of whichever political Party they are, so that their Acts remain permanently on the Statute Book and are not so revolutionary, either backwards

219
or forwards, as to cause their successors immediately to repeal what has been done.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I made the point that this applied only to the Labour Party and not to the other side.
LORD LLEWELLIN: It made the Labour Party more conciliatory and circumspect and would not make the Conservative Party so? There is more need in the one case than in the other. That would be my short answer to that point.
May I now come to a few observations on the measures before us? I do not suppose that any one has any objection to Life peerages. It is only by chance that Life Peerages have not been in existence for years. We have our Life Peers. I see here one or two noble and learned Lords who sit in this House because of their legal and judicial eminence. To them we gladly and grate fully leave our functions as the final and supreme Court, and we are indebted to them for the way in which they do that work. Noble Lords will know of many eminent men who might well have come to this House had they been able to take Life Peerages and not embarrass their sons by making them hereditary Peers.
It struck me yesterday that several noble Lords were in error when they talked about the Lords Spiritual as Life Peers. They are nothing of the sort: they are ex-officio Peers. Noble Lords may remember that when a former Archbishop of Canterbury resigned, in order to enable him to continue to sit in this House he was given a Peerage and became Lord Davidson. I remember a much loved Bishop of my diocese, Bishop Lovett, saying to me that when he was a Bishop and entitled to sit in the House he was so busy in his diocese that he could hardly ever come to our Sittings, and then, when he retired and had a few years more of active life and would have been able to come to the House and take part in our debates, his membership ceased. I hope that, whatever we do we shall keep the Lords Spiritual as part or the membership of our House. I should like to see representatives of other Churches in your Lordships'House—say the Cardinal Archbishop, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and the leaders of the Free
220
Churches. I should like to see them equally represented as ex-officio Peers I and I believe they would add value to our debates.
But when it comes to the question of Peeresses! The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said this was so settled a question that he need not argue it at all, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, referred to it as a Committee point. It is nothing of the sort. It is a matter which I believe we should consider most carefully. I hope I shall not he thought to be ungallant when I say that, after sitting for many years in an other place with women Members, like other noble Lords, I do not chink that the results of the deliberations there were altered one jet or tittle by, having, ladies there. One of the difficulties I find about political women, as perhaps I may term them, is that they are inclined to be "bossy." We cannot afford to be bossy in your Lordships' House. We are not "bossy" and do not let us introduce a "bossy" element into the House.
My second point is that many of these ladies—I will not mention names, but noble Lords who were in another place with me will know of whom I am thinking—had a tremendous number of bees in their bonnets. It was easy enough in another place, where Mr. Speaker can rule Members out of order, to prevent those bees buzzing out irrelevantly; but there are difficulties in this House. It is probably because of the judicial character of your Lordships' House that we have a quorum so low as three Members. Have your Lordships ever considered what happens in a quorum of three? One has to be the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, or one of his deputies; the second is the speaker, and the third has to be the noble Lord who would have to count out the House, but the fact that he makes up the quorum makes such a counting out impossible. Control could not be exercised in that way. The only thing that could be done would be for the noble Lord to move that the noble Lady be no longer heard. That has been done to noble Lords in your Lordships' House, but not very often. It might be thought very ungallant to do so in the case of a noble Lady and, looking around the House, I do not see many noble Lords here who would be bold enough and ungallant enough to take that course.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord that in that some what unlikely event occurring, if the third Member walked out, there would no longer be a quorum.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I fancy that in the other place—it may not be so here—there has to be somebody to draw attention to the fact that there is no quorum. That is not usually done from the Chair, and it certainly would not be done by the man speaking. Of course, if the noble and learned Lord sitting on the Woolsack could get up and call his own attention to the fact that there was not a quorum, that might solve the particular problem. But I am sure your Lordships realise that a certain difficulty does arise in that regard.
I come now to the contents of this Bill. I should not consider merely a Committee point the question of whether or not ladies should be included in your Lordships' House. So long as we have a hereditary element, it seems to me that it would be quite wrong, in logic and in justice, when we are excluding Peeresses in their own right, to allow women Life Peers. This is rather a wider question, and one not to be passed lightly over. When it comes to the question of criticism of this House from outside, let us realise that in these democratic days we shall never be free from criticism unless we have some elective qualification. Whatever else may be done in theory, that is our only defence. It would probably be possible to set up an extremely good House of Lords, members being elected by the same electorate, on a regional basis, with proportional representation, but having some such qualification as being a Privy Counsellor, an ex-Governor or Governor-General, an Admiral, General or Air Marshal, Chairman of the Trades Union Congress, or something of that sort. But the House of Commons, whichever Party were in the ascendancy in that place, would never agree to such a course. We should then be the stronger House: we should rather resemble the Senate in the Congress of the United States, which is certainly as strong as the House of Representatives.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, yesterday referred to the fact that, although every Englishman is said to love a Lord, he had not found that to
222
be the universal feeling since he had inherited a Peerage—perhaps he dissipated a little of the love for him in this House by his speech yesterday, but that is another matter. I would say to him that that does not apply only to hereditary Peers. I happen to be a Peer of first creation, and I have found things exactly the same as has the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. It is not everyone who loves a Peer of the first creation, and it is not everyone who is impressed because this or that Prime Minister has recommended to the Monarchy that XY should become a Peer.
LORD CALVERLEY: Hear, hear!
LORD LLEWELLIN: That does not necessarily impress, I suspect, the hard headed people of Yorkshire, as the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, happens to come from there. What we have to think of is what best we can do. It will not necessarily bring more kudos to this House to get rid entirely of the hereditary element in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that these heads in this White Paper were agreed by all Parties. But that is not the case. They were agreed between the Leaders of the Parties as matters which they would take back and put to their Parties. I must say that I am not at all in favour of paragraph 5 (3)—and here I speak as a non-hereditary Peer. That paragraph says:
"The present right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber."
Why am I particularly against that? Because this House would then become a House of old men. Many young hereditary Peers have done good work in this House. I am glad to see a number of them on the Government Front Bench to-day, but they have played a valuable part on both sides of the House. Those young men could not become members of this House under this scheme. Perhaps the only one would be the noble and gallant Lord the Secretary of State for Air, who might have qualified with heredity plus a Victoria Cross. Otherwise they must wait until they have worked their way up; so, under this scheme, we should become a House of old men.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That really was not the intention. I am rather embarrassed by all these discussions of what took place, but we did not mean at all that in order to become a Member of the House a man must have been an Admiral, a General, or the holder of some such rank. The idea was that a number of Peers, who would be Life Peers, should be chosen, and that they might be chosen either from commoners or from Members of this House. I would say that the natural people to look to are the Members of this House. It was very much present to our minds that we did not want a house of old men, and that there should be the chanceߞas, indeed, it was the intention—of selecting young men.
LORD LLEWELLIN:If the qualifications referred to in this White Paper cover a young man, then I am perfectly satisfied. But I thought it was a qualification that a man must have served his country in industry, in the trade union movement, or in other spheres, for a number of years before he would be considered as a Member of your Lordships' House. I am glad to be corrected if I am wrong.
I now come to paragraph 5 (9) of the White Paper. Nobody has paid a great deal of attention to this item. The Bill we are discussing merely enables your Lordships' House to be added to; it does nothing about the 800-odd people who already compose the House. I am not throwing any stones at noble Lords who do not attend this House: some of them are too old to come. One must remember that in the other place to get re-elected you must be young enough to stamp up and down your constituency and make speeches. Here, Members are Members for life, and a considerable proportion are elderly gentlemen, who probably at one time in their lives attended your Lordships' House very regularly but who are now incapable of doing so. That might be the fate of every one of us in your Lordships' House. Others are too ill; others have to earn their living away from London; others are in the Services; some may be serving their country overseas in Governor-Generalships or Governorships or something of that sort. I sometimes think that it is very fortunate that they do not
224
all attend. This place would be indescribably crowded if the 840 of us all attended at one time. And I do not know what would be done, at any rate about the catering department. Therefore, I am not throwing any stones at those people.
I believe, however, that if a noble Lord has not attended for some time, we in this House might, of our own volition, do something about it. I believe that we could well amend Standing Orders or make a new Standing Order, because just as in the future magistrates will be asked to undergo some training and sit in courts before they take part in deciding cases, I believe it is right that those who are going to vote in this House should keep in touch with what is going on and should not be able at the last minute to come down and vote. We might well have a Standing Order prohibiting any noble Lord from voting unless he has sat a certain number of times in the previous Session of this House. I throw out that suggestion for what it is worth. It is a way in which we could get rid of one of the embarrassing things that is said about your Lordships' House. There are some who may say or feel that this would be encroaching on the Royal Prerogative. It is only reinforcing what the Monarch has commanded all of us to do. I would remind your Lordships of the Writ of Summons to Parliament. It says:
"… considering the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending (waiving all excuses) you be personally present…to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid."
We should not be running contrary to the Royal Prerogative; we should be backing up the Command that Her Majesty and her predecessors have given to each one of us. I suggest that this proposal should be seriously considered. If it were adopted we should find that the numbers who could attend and vote might automatically be reduced to some 400 people—not on the basis of a ballot, but on the test of whether the person has been in a position to come here and attend to his duties and give his counsel. We are indebted to the noble and learned Viscount who introduced this Bill for giving us an opportunity of discussing these important points before they come up to the Conference, in which I hope all Parties will now take part.

EAST COAST FLOOD DISASTER
4.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, may I intervene to make to the House a statement which has been made in another place about the latest position with regard to the floods? This is the statement which the Home Secretary has made:
"The latest information in my possession is that 242 people have lost their lives in this catastrophe, but it is not yet possible to estimate accurately the number of those missing. The Regional Emergency Committees have been instructed to make the best arrangements possible for establishing information centres locally where inquiries can he made. Individuals who have left their homes and have gone to another area can help by reporting their addresses to the police of their own home area.
"Repair work on the breaches is continuing and my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has taken steps to secure the co-operation not only of the Service authorities but of civil engineering experts from other areas, and is also enlisting the help of consultants in this special field. Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts that are being made, the damage is so extensive that it will not he possible to complete all the work by the time of the next high tides beginning on February 14, and there are areas of special difficulty where the defences are still under water. I can assure the House that everything possible will be done, but the country must be prepared for the possibility of further flooding in some areas at the next high tides. In order to prevent any further loss of life, and to minimise the risk of disease, residents who have had to leave their homes should satisfy themselves by local inquiries that it is safe for them to return before they do so.
"There have been criticisms in certain quarters that no adequate warning was given to the public in the areas concerned, but I would remind the House that this country has been fortunate in not having suffered any ordeal of this kind in this century, and no Government in that time has thought it necessary to organise a public warning system for this
226
purpose. I have, however, given instructions that the question of devising a warning system should be explored as a matter of urgency, and I hope to be able to make a statement soon. There are, of course, obvious difficulties in deciding what areas should be warned and the time at which the warning should be given."

LIFE PEERS BILL [H.L.]
4.7 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, the Bill of my noble friend Lord Simon had a fairly rough handling yesterday in your Lordships' House, and now it stands under sentence of death or a period of preventive detention. Although yesterday the Bill was given a little attention in the matter of merits claimed for it, it has had none to-day, and the debate has resolved itself into a debate on Command Paper 7380. Whatever may be the fate of my noble friend's Bill, if it is to be martyred on the altar of constitutional procedure, it will, I think, always stand out that it was the Bill which caused this debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has just said. I feel that this debate has been one of very great importance. After all, if it had not been for this Bill, what one may call the ordinary rank and file of your Lordships' House would never have expressed in debate any opinion on their re-constitution, and I suppose it is only natural that they have some anxiety about it. Some of us may be wondering whether, when the selection of Peers who are to become Lords of Parliament is made, existing Members of your Lordships' House will be divided into the sheep and the goats—the goats to be sacrificed and the sheep to remain—or whether there is to be some form of Coronation ballot to decide who at some future date is to be removed from your Lordships' precincts.
I feel that there has been a great deal of value in the debate, even to the Leaders of our three Parties in the House, in the contributions from those whom they are going to lead; and I feel that when they do meet they will be in no sense disadvantaged by what has been said in the debate to-day. We have not only been able to give them our views but we have been able, almost for the

227
first time, to obtain the sense of each other's thoughts on this very important subject. I am sure that we wish those three Leaders, for whom we have such respect—and perhaps more than respect—success in the work which they are going to do for this House, work which is so very important.
As one who has had no Parliamentary training, other than my fifteen years in your Lordships'House—during which time I have gained a certain amount of wisdom from others—I have great hesitation in stepping into the deep waters of constitutional reform. There is, however, one suggestion that I wish to make to-day and for which, in all humility. I would ask your Lordships' kind indulgence. What do we all want our House to be? We want it, of course, to remain what it is—a great administrative body of the utmost value to our national life. But surely we should also like it to he a great advisory body to the nation as a whole on all great issues. That, to my mind, would go even further to fulfil our Parliamentary function than anything that has been proposed. We all know—it has been expressed in this House by many eloquent speeches during this debate—the value of our administrative work in this House and of the system of working, and also the splendid way in which we are led by our Front Benches. We know that we have made good use of our powers, such as they are, and that we have been able to use our powers of delay in a manner which has been to the great advantage of the nation and has enabled the elector to obtain a more balanced view of many difficult problems.
And yet, if one were to ask the average citizen in this country what he thought about the House of Lords, we all know what he would probably answer. He would probably say. "Well, you work very well but you vote very badly. We know, long before your ship, loaded with its Bill, comes above the horizon, exactly what course it is going to steer. You are too partisan." Command Paper 7380 has done its best to correct that view, but it is not clear to me, from that Paper, what steps are proposed. Is it possible so to construct this House that it will be more representative of the electorate as a whole than it is at the present time?
228
If we could do that, then we might hope that, whatever majority decisions are given in this House, they would be decisions that would be endorsed by the electorate. The proposals in Command Paper, however, do not seem to me to venture so far. As far as they go, they seem to be very good: the principle behind them is good. I share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that we shall have in our future House a fair proportion of hereditary Peers, for, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, I believe that there is something in heredity. I have found in many walks of life that when a family has continued to follow one profession it has profited by it, and that the profession also has profited by it. I believe that our hereditary Peers have made the House what it is; and one cannot but feel that not only have they produced great Parliamentarians but that in their early lives they must have been deeply impressed by the responsibilities which might ultimately come to them.
There does not seem to be the slightest doubt that the Command Paper fore shadows that a Peer, before his father dies, may do any work he likes or may enter the House of Commons if he can, and remain there, if he can, for the rest of his life; but that, if he does not do this, he is eligible with others to he selected as a Lord of Parliament. That seems to me the best way. But if, as the Command Paper says, the Parties in your Lordships' House are to be as nearly as possible equalised in number, what is going to happen, one wonders, when we go into the Division Lobbies? I presume that something is proposed to fill that gap, but I do not find any explanation of what it may be. Presumably it is assumed that there will be a large number of distinguished people who will be Lords of Parliament but who will not belong to any particular Party. Otherwise, every new Peer created will merely add to relative Party strength—which would be quite useless. So it seems to me that it must be contemplated that we should have in this House some centre Party which will have some influence on the Divisions among the three equal groups of Party Peers. I do not know whether that is so; perhaps that is only because of my ignorance or my lamentable misreading of the Command Paper. But

229
at any rate I have not seen anything about this point.
Assuming that something of that kind is intended, I would call your Lordships' attention to this fact. I think that what the House lacks in representation is what I would call a fourth political Party in the State. I am thinking of those men and women, particularly women, voters, who may be what are sometimes described as "wobblers" or just highly patriotic citizens—people who think before they vote on each occasion; who vote differently at nearly every Election, and who represent an incalculable element which cannot be represented in the House of Commons, because no Independent candidate, since he has no Party backing, has any chance to-day in any constituency. The existence of this fourth political group seems to me to be the reason for the tremendous turn over of votes which one sometimes sees at a General Election, a turnover which on previous occasions has been quite un expected but which certainly has not been due to there having been a change by Party supporters of their Party allegiance or Party feeling. If that by no means unimportant central Party, who might well look to this House for guidance and who are not directly represented in another place, came into being, and if our Chamber were composed not only with less partisanship but also more like the electorate in principle, so as to include such a Party in our organisation, then I feel that we should represent the country and the electorate far more closely than does the other place. I believe that it would have an immense effect upon the electorate if women Life Peers had a place in your Lordships' House, because, after all, the women's vote is as great as the men's, or nearly so. It would be appreciated in the country that this House had a sufficient number of the other sex able to represent the women in that fourth Party, who I am sure are quite considerable in numbers.
I would say, in conclusion, that it is obvious that anyone elevated to the Peerage will have a Party leaning. It is quite impossible to say to any man, whether he is a distinguished scientist, an Admiral of the Fleet or anybody else—"Admiral of the Fleet" came naturally to my thoughts; I am sorry—"Would you like to be made a Peer, a Lord of Parliament? What are your politics?" You cannot say that to him.
230
Nor can you say, "We want to make you a Lord of Parliament. Will you become an Independent?" You cannot do that, of course, and you can no more select your centre Party in this House in that way than you can fly. But what you can do is to make it quite clear to that person that he need have no Party affiliations; that just because he happens to be made a Peer when the Conservative Party are in power he need not owe allegiance to the Conservative Party—or vice versa if the Labour Party are in power. If that can be done, there is no reason why your Lordships' House should not consist of a very desirable body of people, of great experience and authority, who would balance the political Parties and enable decisions to be made very much in accord with what the electorate would wish if the matter went to the country. With this other composition of the House, more nearly representing in principle the voting power of the country even than another place, this House could give a lead to the electorate. We should be trusted as a great advisory body, and the country would never wish to lessen our powers or our responsibilities.
4.23 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, does not feel sufficiently strong to address your Lordships on this subject. I should very much have liked to hear him. I do not propose to say a great deal on the Bill before your Lordships, but I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that, if anything is to be done, it should be done by the Government themselves and not by any private Member. I agree also with my noble friend that it would be a mistake to introduce Peeresses as Life Peeresses in this House. I should like to ask the Government for this information. I do not think that if the talks that are to take place should fail, the Bill now before us should take precedence over other equally desirable alterations in the constitution of your Lordships' House. It seems to me wrong that any particular suggestions should, by the fact of their being adjourned, take precedence over a proper and full consideration of this whole subject.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Perhaps I may relieve the noble Lord's mind at once. I had hoped that I had made it quite

231
clear yesterday that the Government very much hope that the Conference will not only meet but will succeed in producing an agreed solution. If so, well and good. But, if it fails to agree or, still worse, if it fails to meet, the Government must have time to consider their whole position and what, if any, proposals they will wish to make. It was to meet every possible contingency that the Government felt that this Bill ought to go into cold storage, at any rate for the time being, so that it should not take precedence over a more comprehensive measure of any kind.
LORD SALTOUN: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. There is one small suggestion that I should like to make which is less drastic than the very difficult one made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, about voting. I think it would be easy for your Lordships' House to pass a Standing Order that, after the first ten days of the Session, not more than ten Peers should take the oath on any one day. That would prevent what I do not believe to be a great danger: it would prevent the House from being swamped by people coming here only on an occasion of excitement. If there was anybody who specially wanted to attend, we could always put aside Standing Orders for the time being.
I should like now to turn for a moment to what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said. He made a very interesting speech which I followed most carefully and with much pleasure, because it gave me the feeling that he was really thinking aloud of the kind of House that he is aiming at and would like to have. I k now he will not mind if I put it very shortly and say that he seemed to me to wish for a House composed of "Yes-men" of superlative ability. I think that was pretty well the point at which he arrived. I can understand the need for "superlative ability," because their task should be to put into proper workable shape the measures that a Socialist Government might introduce into your Lordships' House. In that case, I would ask him to cast an eye over his shoulder and see whether this House between the years 1945 and 1950 did not make a creditable effort to approach his ideals. But, apart from that, what I think really
232
comes out of what he said, and I fancy most noble Lords opposite come out pretty well in the same place, is that the more one thinks of it and the more one considers all the difficulties, the more one realises that it is most difficult to reform this House in any very material respect. I am conscious that almost any change, even a small change, in any body often makes a great difference in its tone and temper. Having said that, I will add that I am perfectly ready to embrace and support any measures that I honestly think will be for the strengthening of this House in its influence and reputation. So I think there we are nearly all agreed.
But, before I sit down, I want to challenge something that came up in the debate yesterday. I am sorry that the noble and learned Viscount who is in charge of this Bill is not here to hear what I have to say. He said yesterday (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 180, Col. 137):
"It is suggested in some quarters that this watering down of the hereditary element in the House in some way brings into question the hereditary character of the Monarchy…"
It is not only in the character of this House but in other matters. The law of heritable succession in Scotland, for example, follows the line of devolution of the Crown. I have already approached this Government on that matter to say that I thought it would be a pity radically to alter the law of heritable succession in Scotland, because I did not like leaving in isolation the heritable right of the Crown to the Throne. I think it has some bearing here.
The noble and learned Viscount goes on to say:
"The hereditary character of the Crown persists and is everywhere accepted because the Sovereign acts on the advice of her Ministers."
He then goes on to suggest that the hereditary character of the Crown is dependent on the fact that the Crown acts on the advice of the Ministers. My Lords, I desire to challenge that here and now. I challenge absolutely that doctrine. I say that the hereditary right and title of the Crown is absolute. I do not believe that this House has ever held the contrary. I believe that the circumstances of the Revolution bear that out. I cannot in my own mind understand any qualified loyalty. It is a matter which is of great importance, because at some time in our history the unchallenged,

233
absolute, hereditary right of the Crown might become most important. Suppose an atom bomb fell in the Central Lobby and wiped out the Government and both Houses of Parliament: it might be absolutely necessary that whoever was Monarch at the time should take back the old powers and exercise them for the safety of the country. When King Haakon of Norway was chased the length and breadth of the land he was the father and shepherd of his people, without any question of acting on the advice of his Ministers or not. I therefore desire to challenge the noble and learned Viscount's doctrine of the conditional hereditary right of the Crown. I think that that doctrine should be challenged, and the hereditary right acknowledged to be absolute.
4.33 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long, but I have been most interested in this debate. In my opinion as a Back Bencher, its great value is that we have been collecting the views of this House in order to ascertain what are our real feelings towards the Bill introduced by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. In that one sense alone, however distinguished a Back Bencher may be (and Lord Simon is a very distinguished "Front-Back" Bencher) it is unique that the rules of this House permit him to introduce a Bill to change the constitution of the House of Lords. That is what it amounts to. When it was announced in the Press that he was going to introduce the Bill, I as a layman, wondered whether he had first obtained the permission of the Sovereign. I seem to remember that there was a fairly long delay before he introduced his Bill, and I fancy some traditionalist, with a small "c" for "conservative," like myself, must have reminded him that he could not do it with out the permission of the Sovereign. He duly got that permission and introduced his Bill to create in a year ten Life Peers, who may be women—a sort of infiltration over a course of many years which, we have been reminded, in about thirty years would produce 300 Life Peers.
On the merits of the Bill itself, I cannot disagree with that principle. If your Lordships will allow me to introduce a personal note, I may say that I have been a Member of this House now for seven
234
and a half years. I have enjoyed every minute of my membership here because of the friendliness of the House. But I happen to have a son who is not so radical in his outlook as myself, but who objects to the hereditary principle. I shall go home to the north and tell him that he need have no fear: that there is perhaps little chance of his taking his seat when. unfortunately, I depart—an eventuality which I hope will be long deferred.
There has been some minor criticism even from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and a similar minor criticism from Lord Samuel, that there has been some procrastination in not implementing the preamble of the Parliament Act, 1911. That implied criticism of my own old leader of forty years ago, Mr. Asquith. In fairness to the name and also the services of that great Prime Minister, I would ask all noble Lords to bear in mind what happened after 1911. Soon afterwards there was a war and then, when Mr. Lloyd George, afterwards Earl Lloyd-George, destroyed the Liberal Party, neither the Liberal nor the Labour Party had much chance to bring in or to implement the preamble. If there is any procrastination, I would say gently to Lord Simon that he himself is a sort of Rip Van Winkle who has just awakened and introduced his Bill. As we can impute only the best of motives, I am wondering why he has awakened from his complacency and his long silence. It happens that he was His Majesty's Solicitor-General when the Parliament Act, 1911, was framed, and I have a shrewd idea that, together with the Attorney-General, Lord Simon had something to do with the drafting of that Parliament Act. I had something to do with that Act in a small way. I remember that when in 1910, Mr. Asquith advised His Majesty to hold a second Election, there was great indignation in the country, especially amongst the younger men. I had to quell a rebellion in the northern counties of young men, nearly all of them under the age of thirty-five, because they thought that after Mr. Asquith had obtained his mandate he should have gone on to insist that your Lordships be compelled to pass the Budget, and that there should be no more Lansdowne House meetings.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh suggests that the Parliament Act was an agreed

235
measure. But I remember vividly that the late Master of Elibank (as he then was), the Liberal Whip, used to go and down the Lobby with a long list of names, and if any poor Tory happened to say that he would have nothing to do with anything the Liberals might do, he simply pulled it out and said, "I have here the names of three hundred persons whom His Majesty has agreed to make Peers of Parliament." Then Mr. Asquith decided that there should be a General Election, and in a very small way I was able to convince my own brethren that they should not be rebels; that we had one of the finest Prime Ministers that we had had for a long time—which he was; I pay him that tribute with great sincerity—andthat we must support him. We did so, and we won the Election. But that is by the way.
Nowadays I address very few political meetings. I am supposed to be an elder politician. I do not think I could ever graduate as a statesman unless I took to wearing a butterfly collar instead of a soft collar. But I may tell your Lordships, if you will bear with me, that it has been my lot to address meetings which are rather unusual in character, and one of my great sources of inspiration has been some of our great public schools. I suppose I have been to nearly forty of them altogether, and I often found that when those concerned had developed confidence in me I was asked to address the sixth form. But instead of addressing or lecturing the sixth form, I asked the young fellows to lecture me, and I found that those citizens of the future gave me a great inspiration and also a conviction that there was not much wrong with the country so far as they were concerned. I was nearly always asked questions, and a great many of the questions related to the House of Lords. I was asked whether I believed in the hereditary principle and so on and so forth.
Another type of audience altogether was that which I addressed from time to time through the courtesy of the Prison Commissioners—I mean, of course, the inmates of prisons. I remember, on one occasion, when the chapel at a particular prison was filled with more than 500 of my fellow citizens who were unable to get out at the time, that great interest was shown in questions relating to your Lordships' House. More recently I have
236
been further questioned and quizzed on the same subject. In general, my replies have amounted to this. I have expressed the view that in the old days, when your Lordships' House was not famous but notorious for rejecting Bills, introduced in those times by the Liberal Party, then the stock of this House fell. When the Labour Party was returned with a. majority in 1945 we had a definite programme, and so far as the rank and tile were concerned—and I believe the same is true of sonic of my leaders—a certain amount of trepidation was felt. They did not know what line your Lordships would take with regard to some of the Bills we had promised to introduce, This is what I have told my friends—and at some of the places I have mentioned they do not by any means share my own political opinions. I do not know, of course, what are the politics of the people in gaol. But when some of the people in those great schools and in military detention camps have asked me about the House of Lords, that is what I have said, and I have gone on to declare that the House of Lords has reformed itself. Its stock, according to my reading, is higher now than at any time in its history; and that has come about simply because of the way it received the Labour Government's Bills.
I have pointed out that the great majority of the Members of this House hold opinions contrary to the principles of those Bills but, nevertheless, the measures were most carefully examined and in many respects were amended because of the wisdom of this House. I told them that I found that I had to talk a little differently from the way I was accustomed to speak in another place on such occasions. I could not put out as much propaganda: I had to he as factual as possible. And I have paid tribute, for what it is worth from a Back Bencher, to the Members of this House who, in my view, excelled themselves at that time in applying their brains to the problems which came to them from another place. I can see a great sphere of usefulness for this House in the future, whether Life Peers are created or not. More and more, I feel, the Government of the day will he able to use this House, as it has done in regard to such measures as the one affecting magistrates, to introduce Bills, thus saving the time of the House of Commons.

237
My Lords, that is all I have to say, because the whole conception and nature of the debate has changed owing to the announcement made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I hope that the chief Labour Whip in the House of Commons will be consulted, so that he, in his turn, can consult his "constituents," who represent 14,000,000 voters and who assemble in Room 14 once or twice a week. I say that because, unless there is some sort of mandate, it will be foolish for the Labour Party to enter into negotiations if there is a great danger of their failing. I wish the Conference well, though, as I said in 1948, it seems that, as far as I am concerned, I shall receive my cards. But that cannot be prevented, and I shall bear it with fortitude and philosophy. Personally, I am thankful to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, for introducing his Bill in order that some of us—about twenty-five, believe, all told—Front and Back Bench Members, have been able to express our varying opinions with, I hope, moderation and some degree of statesmanship.
4.47 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that there is nothing worse than a good party which has been allowed to drag on too long. We all know the moment when the guests begin to go, and then we are aware that it is time to pack up. I sense that moment coming near at hand, and therefore it is with considerable hesitation, in spite of many flattering references made in the course of the debate to the younger Members of your Lordships' House, that I rise to speak. I rise only because of two points which concern me personally, and in which I have an interest of which I think I should tell your Lordships. The first is a matter of history. This concept of Life Peers is not a new one. One of my forbears was made a Life Peer, the reason being that in Scotland, in the 17th Century, when a commoner married a peeress in her own right, he was made a Life Peer to make him equal in rank to his wife. These Life Peers could and did sit in the Scots Parliament. But that is by the way.
My second interest is a more vital one, because these proposals in the Bill, should they come about as the result of the Conference, or as the result of the Bill, will affect my generation considerably
238
more than the generations of a great many of your Lordships here present. It is in twenty years' time, say, that the effects will begin to be felt. Then it is we who will have to share the bed with these strange new bed-fellows that are the result of Lord Simon's conception—or should I say his delivery: that is, I think, the term he used. Either we shall have to share the bed with them or, I strongly suspect, we may find ourselves being kicked right out of bed by them.
It is not only because of public opinion towards the hereditary principle that we have to face up to this question of revising the composition of the House. As several noble Lords have said, it is increasingly difficult for members of the Peerage to find the time to come to attend this House. I speak from my own experience. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made this very point, but he is more fortunate in that his practice is within this City. Mine happens to be 400 miles away, and it is extremely difficult to find the time to come and play any sort of part in the work of this House. It is interesting to note that in the last fifty years the number of hereditary Peerages has increased by over 200, yet I doubt whether attendance in the House to-day is as high as it was fifty years ago.
Whilst it is clear that we have to introduce some form of Life Peerage as a reform, I think it is only right to point out that that step will bring certain difficult problems in its train. Appointments to Life Peerages can be made only by the Government of the day advising the Sovereign, and if they are made by the Government of the day they are bound to be in the nature of the fruits of political patronage—using the word "patronage" in no derogatory sense. But the fruits of political patronage, however well meant the patronage may be, will inevitably tend to go in the main to those who are nearest the source of patronage, those most in contact with, and in the eyes of, the leaders. That will lead to two results, both of which will be somewhat deplorable. Your Lordships' House contains a fairly large number of members who can be relied upon to express a completely independent opinion, regardless of Party; and if the appointment of Life Peers is made in this way I think the number of Members who will express independent opinions will be reduced.

239
Secondly, one of the great attractions of this House at present is that it includes in its membership Peers from every part of the country. No matter what local question comes up for discussion, be it, as we have recently had, the University of St. Andrews Bill, or the Great Ouse Catchment Board Order, or the Bill to which we gave a Second Reading earlier this afternoon, the Great Northern London Cemetery (Crematorium) Bill, there will always be a Peer who has an intimate knowledge of the district and the local problems concerned. That situation has been maintained largely by the hereditary system, and when Life Peer ages become the fruits of political patronage, that general territorial spread of the House will be in danger.
As a Scottish Representative Peer I must stress that if there is any alteration in the nature of the appointment of Members to the House it will be watched in a very critical spirit by the public in Scotland, who I am sure are jealous to maintain an adequate Scottish representation in the House. I should like to think that in the past Scotland has been well represented, not only in numbers but also in quality, both by its Representative Peers and by those Peers who have risen by their distinction to be created Peers of the United Kingdom, by virtue of which they take their seats in the House. Scotland is proud that she has given the country three Prime Ministers who started as Representative Peers. If a system of Life Peer ages is introduced, it is essential that a certain number of nominations should be made by some body or council in Scotland, and not merely by the headquarters of the Party that is the Government of the day. I heartily endorse the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that the House should include representatives of other Churches besides the Established Church of England, and particularly of the Church of Scotland. When these inter-Party talks take place, as I hope they will, I hope the Government will see that at least one member is a Scotsman who can speak on the problems which affect Scotland.
To conclude, I think we should be extremely grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, for having introduced this Bill. However inopportune other noble Lords may have considered it, the Bill has, as the noble Lord,
240
Lord Calverley, said, given the House an opportunity to express its own opinion about these reforms, instead of their merely being considered in camera by a Committee which would announce their conclusions as an accepted fact. We must also wish the Government every success in the venture on which they have embarked and which we hope will bring a solution to this extremely difficult but essential problem.
4.55 p.m.
EARL WAVELL: My Lords, when a young and new Member of the House speaks in this debate, he is rather like a spectator at a big football match who can shout all sorts of well-meant advice to the First Division players, well knowing that his more rash indiscretions are not likely to upset their play. I listened to most of the debate on the 1947 Parliament Bill from the steps of the Throne, and I have always been puzzled by the dominance in the minds of the Leaders of the two main Parties of the powers of delay of the House—twelve months or fifteen months—the more so in that the House had then just passed what I suppose was the most momentous Bill of the century, the India Act, 1947, when the majority Party might well have considered attempting to impose a two years' delay; but, in their wisdom, they did not attempt to do so. Therefore, I conclude, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, argued yesterday, that the authority of the House depends upon the consent of the people and their recognition of the value of the work of the House.
Here I depart from what the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, was saying. From my experience of education in the Army, in talking to groups of men and even of officers, I know that there is not a great deal of interest in, or awareness of, the value and temper of debates in this House. Certainly our Strangers' Gallery never attracts the crowds who queue to get into another place. But all this may rapidly alter if, by the creation of Life Peers, we gain as members men and women whose names are household words in new ways. If I may put it in this way, with great respect, the public admire our great national leaders and proconsuls, but as men whose attainments they themselves cannot emulate; yet they argue and discuss round their firesides and in the pubs the men who do the things they

241
try to do, whom they can go to watch on a Saturday afternoon—their favourite sportsmen or actors, the men who try to beat the speed records, the explorers, the men who make scientific inventions that affect their everyday lives. There are always some small men who win a vulgar summer of fame, but I believe that our people have a sure instinct to take to their hearts, as their perennial heroes, men of a modesty of nature and generosity of spirit that makes them great in themselves, apart from the excellence in their achievements. Surely these are the men we have in mind as Life Peers. For example, if it is given to an English man to be the first to scale Mount Everest, I am sure he will be a man who will recognise that his success is as one of a team mounting on the experience of a whole generation of courageous men.
Surely the aim of the reform of the House is to build up a body of independent opinion that can outweigh the members with specific Party loyalties, or, at any rate, to have enough Cross-Bench opinion to make any balance of one Party over another in doubt. I am fortified in my remarks by all that fell from the lips of the noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Chatfield. But then the Cross-Benches must be fully representative. Where on the Cross-Benches are the men with the experience of the factory, the pit, or the council school? Those of us in the Services have learnt of these things in trying to under stand the men we lead. But that is not the same thing. Those of your Lordships, with all respect, who have this direct experience have also your specific Party loyalties, and for the most part have ended your active life in industry. But supposing that men, still in middle life, come and speak in this House, and go directly back to their jobs at the factory bench, or in industry, then there will be a much more lively commerce between the work and life of this House and the general public.
You may say, "We come to this House to legislate. What will these men know about legislation?" Well, many of the issues in this House are moral issues, such as the issue on which this House made its most significant intervention in recent years, that of the death penalty. That is where the law must move in consonance with the general body of opinion in the land. If men of wisdom
242
be created Life Peers, who mix with men of all estate, they surely can pronounce on these issues just as well as the practised politician. Surely we do not fear that new blood can alter the great traditions of debate in this Chamber: they will only make the public more familiar with it. Then gradually a convention may perhaps grow up, with out any statutory alteration of our powers, whereby more Bills in every Session will be first introduced in this House, thus relieving in another place the congestion of business which may continue for some time with the even balance of Parties there.
There is this further advantage: that in a controversial Bill in this House the Government and the Opposition can afford to listen to the weight of independent opinion before crystallising their views beyond the point of no return, beyond the point of compromise. A recent leading article in The Times said this:
"The real cause of the unwholesome rigidity in the present Party system is the strict interpretation which Party leaders have been putting on the doctrine of the mandate. The traditionally constitutional idea that the electors voted for Governments and not for policies has, since 1834, given way more and more to the quite opposite idea that the electors vote for Governments pledged to particular policies."
In another place the independent Member has vanished all Members are less and less able to work at their professions outside the House, and more and more have to observe Party discipline. But perhaps in this House, by this Bill, and maybe by this Bill alone—apart from some Amendment of Standing Orders about the right to vote, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin—we may find a new vigour and vitality to show that it is people and not Party doctrines that have inspired our great days in this country.
The heirs of William Cecil and Philip Sidney grace our Front Bench. The successors of the great seamen are with us. But where are the poets who also took part in the affairs of State in the Elizabethan scene: the cobbler's son, Marlowe, the bricklayer's stepson, Ben Jonson, the page boy, Drayton, the poor scholar at Merchant Taylors', who was Secretary to the Deputy of Ireland, Edmund Spenser? These men interpreted the Court to the groundlings and the

243
groundlings to the Court. Their plays, like the great Elizabethan plays, abound with topical political allusion and caricature—indeed, some of the dramatists went to prison once or twice for their indiscretion. I believe that, because he lived in the midst of all the political crisis of his day, Shakespeare was able to proclaim for all time in his historical plays those virtues of balance and good sense that have in part inspired the political sagacity of the British people and their devotion to the Monarchy. So may we not also hope that other men who have spent a lifetime's apprenticeship wrestling with the magic of words, and seeing into the heart of things, will come and sit amongst us and illumine our debate with their counsel?
5.8 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate of yesterday and to-day, and will, if I may, approach this matter as an engineer closely concerned with scientific research and development, and thank the noble and learned Viscount for giving those of us who believe in the appointment of Life Peers an opportunity of saying so. I have had the privilege on previous occasions of mentioning this matter in your Lordships' House. Our country becomes even more dependent on the understanding and application of the lessons of scientific and technological research. I am convinced that your Lordships' House could, assuming this measure is given the force of law, greatly increase the value of the services it renders the country. I was impressed by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, yesterday, and two phrases in particular appealed to me. The first was (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 180, Col. 181):
"… the House of Lords as a practical institution works extremely well, although it may be open to every kind of theoretical objection."
A little later on he said of the various considerations that he had in mind with regard to the suggestion of reform (Col. 182):
"One is to leave it alone."
He continued:
"There are many people who, in practice, are working to that end, but nobody has ventured to say so in public."
I would say that I have done so quite recently in this House and, my Lords, I do so again.
244
With regard to the creation of Life Peers, I feel that that is a matter of great importance which, I submit, brooks of no delay. If, as is suggested, these reform Conferences are to proceed, a consider able time will be taken up in the process of the Conference, and again in putting into practice that which may be agreed upon. But, in the meantime, if the suggestion now before your Lordships is given force to, it will be possible at a much earlier date to bring some eminent people into your Lordships'House—I think of those leading in the scientific and technical fields. I should like to suggest that the President of the Royal Society, the leading scientific society in the world, should be consulted, together with such Governmental scientific advisory committee as may already exist. In the last few years we have seen the attempts in another place of people with great scientific knowledge to make a contribution to our national affairs. There is the case of the Secretary of the Royal Society, Professor Hill, who was a Member of another place for several years. He found that the duties falling on a Member of Parliament were such that he lost all count of his scientific work, and therefore he did not seek re-election. In such circumstances, people in the world of science and technology as Members of your Lordships' House could fill a vital need.
Some ten years ago I was moved by the idea that something along the lines so clearly set down by the noble and learned Viscount should be done, and I wrote to the Prime Minister of the day, who is the Leader of the Opposition in another place to-day, and suggested the appointment of Life Peers. I had a very nice letter in reply, from which, with your Lordships' permission, I will quote one sentence:
"Your suggestion would have to be considered as part of the general question of Life Peerages, and in this connection I hope you will not forget the difficulties in which Mr. Gladstone found himself when he once tried to create a Life, Peer."
I must confess that I was not at all aware of the difficulties which Mr. Gladstone experienced.
VISCOUNT SIMON: It was Lord Palmerston.
LORD SEMPILL: I thank the noble and learned Viscount, but I was quoting from a letter. I was, of course, not aware

245
of the difficulties which were experienced, but apparently they arose when Queen Victoria wished to create Sir James Parke, a judge, a Life Peer. I think I am right in saying that all those difficulties were subsequently removed by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876. But, surely, this does not touch the issue to-day, and I do support with enthusiasm the Bill before your Lordships' House with regard to the creation of Life Peers. I think it would be a wise and valuable move from the scientific and technological standpoint. I hope that your Lordships will not set the matter on one side and allow it to drift on, as has, with advantage, the suggested reform of your Lordships' House.
5.14 p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, as usual, the debate has ranged over a great tract of country, and I feel that noble Lords in all parts of the House should be most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, for introducing this Bill. It may not be a large Bill as regards the extent of paper which it covers, but it is a very important matter. If nothing else has arisen, I cannot help feeling that the introduction of this Bill has had something to do with the calling of this latest Conference on House of Lords reform. We have heard this afternoon that a decision to call the Conference was taken on the Prime Minister's return from abroad, but it will be remembered that Lord Simon's Bill was first mooted some months ago. I cannot help feeling that it is a happy coincidence, at any rate, that the invitation should have been sent out on the day when this Bill was first debated in the House of Lords.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who said this afternoon that he did not think anyone in this House was really in favour of the Bill. There are always black sheep in every flock, and I would prefer, whether I am regarded as a conservative with a large or a small "c" or both—certainly I have no hyphen in my political affiliations—to see this Bill go through without a general reform of the House of Lords.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That is not quite correct. I referred to the passing of the Bill to-day.
LORD BROCKET: Well, perhaps I might even say that I should like to see the Bill read a second time to-day and
246
not postponed, although I may be the only one here holding that view. I feel that, arising out of the Conference of 1948, the creation of Life Peers, and possibly the introduction of women Peers, was really one of the only universal agreements by the Conference. I feel—and I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—that the Conference did not really break down on a matter of principle. I feel that the three months upon which the Conference broke down was certainly a matter of detail and not of principle. I also feel that the members of that Conference who were representing their Parties, and had to refer back to their Parties, realised that there were so many factors considered at that Conference to which their followers would not agree that they found these three months to be a convenient way of seeing that the Conference did not reach agreement. That may be an interpretation which I should not give as I was not a member of the Conference, but that is my feeling.
As regards the Bill before us. I feel that the creation of a certain number of Life Peers—whether it is ten, or more or less—would be an addition to this House. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has said of his experience of ladies in another place, I feel that there should be women Peers in this House, and that, if the hereditary principle continues, hereditary women Peers should also be admitted. It would not be logical to create new women Life Peers and not to allow the hereditary women Peers to attend this House.
With regard to the Conference of 1948, there appear to me to be two views on this question of a hereditary principle. I personally am in favour of a hereditary principle, and Lord Hailsham, who spoke yesterday, has certainly shown us what heredity can do. He may not agree with his being in this House, but I think we should be thankful to the hereditary principle for ensuring that he comes to this House and enlivens its debates with such a speech as that which we heard yesterday. It is also interesting to note that the noble Marquess the Leader of this House—whose absence for reasons of health we all deplore—is the third generation of his family who have been interested in the reform of the House of Lords. I well remember that when my father was a Member of this House he used to tell me of the efforts which the

247
late Lord Salisbury made for the reform of the House of Lords. And I see from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, yesterday that he recalled that in 1888 the then Lord Salisbury, the Prime Minister and grandfather of the present Marquess, made various suggestions with regard to the non-attendance of Peers in the House of Lords. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Moran, he said (OFFICIAL, REPORT, Vol. 180, Col. 164):
"Nevertheless, there may be support for the proposal of Lord Salisbury, who in 1888 suggested that noble Lords who were not interested in the proceedings of this House or found it difficult to attend should be released from their obligations to attend."
I think that that suggestion of 1888 was a very good one, and it should certainly be considered in the deliberations of the Conference of 1953.
To get back to the principles which were enunciated as a result of the Conference of 1948, and which appeared in Command Paper 7380, this third principle appears:
"The present right to attend and vote, based solely on heredity, should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber."
The fourth principle states:
"Members of the Second Chamber should be styled 'Lords of Parliament' and would be appointed on grounds of personal distinction and public service. They might be drawn either front hereditary Peers or from commoners who had been created Life Peers."
Now, although the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says that we do not always appear on the same stage, I must say that I am definitely in agreement with the noble Lord in his interpretation of Command Paper 7380; and I think there is no doubt—and I have the opinion of eminent legal authorities on this matter—that if the decision of the 1948 Conference were carried out the hereditary principle would be abolished. It is put in a mild way, but it means definitely the abolition of the hereditary principle. Of that abolition I am not in favour, be cause in this country we have a hereditary Monarchy; and no one wishes that that should not continue as it is. The House of Lords is a very ancient institution; it is older even than the House of Commons. It is founded on the hereditary principle and it is undoubtedly a bastion of the hereditary
248
Monarchy. If the hereditary principle were abolished, as the Conference of 1948 recommended, I think it would have the effect of weakening the Monarchy—and I should certainly be against that.
Another point raised in connection with the hereditary principle was that it allowed the inclusion in this House of young Peers. I do not know exactly how the Peers of Parliament are to be chosen—whether it is by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leaders of the other political Parties—and I certainly do not know how young Peers would be chosen, unless, perhaps, at the beginning of a new reformed House of Lords, for it says here that:
"Members of the Second Chamber should be styled 'Lords of Parliament' and would be appointed on grounds of personal distinction and public service."
That seems to me to imply that Peers of Parliament would be middle-aged or elderly, and I do not know how young Peers would be chosen. Young people would not have been able to show their ability; and unless they were chosen in the same way as now—that is, by heredity—it is difficult to see how any Prime Minister or Leader of a political Party could advise the Crown to create them Life Peers.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, put forward a very good suggestion. If I may paraphrase his words, he was suggesting that the floating voters should he represented. To do that, I think, would be almost as difficult as to choose young Peers. Perhaps it would be even more so, because it would he difficult enough to choose Lords of Parliament with Party affiliations. How representatives of the floating voters could be chosen I do not know. Perhaps the only practical suggestion which one could offer is that the principle under which some of us have been lucky and some unlucky in getting seats for the Abbey should be applied, and that is that it should be done by ballot—but front amongst whom I cannot suggest.
Now with regard to the proposed Conference. The last Conference, at which there were four representatives from the Conservative Party, four from the Labour Party, and two from the Liberal Party, almost reached agreement; but it seems to me unlikely that, however eminent those representatives were, their Parties behind them would have agreed so much

249
as they themselves had agreed. That is the difficulty of any Conference of this kind; and that is why I should like to see the noble and learned Viscount's Bill become law. At any rate, it seems to me to be almost the lowest common denominator upon which agreement might be reached. I was glad to hear several noble Lords say that to get permanent settlement one must have agreement; and I was amused to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, ask the question whether the Battle of Waterloo would fall into that category or not. I hope, therefore, that any legislation brought in by the Government will be the result of agreement between the Parties—and agreement between Back-Benchers, and not only between the leaders of the Parties who are represented in the Conference on the reform of the House of Lords.
My Lords, this debate will soon be drawing to a close, and I do not intend to stand between you and the remaining speakers for more than a few moments. I feel that there is a great deal in what several noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, have said about the composition of the House of Lords. From my experience while travel ling about the country, I think that the House of Lords is held in great respect. It is held in respect because it did not try to go against the expressed will of the people during the period from 1945 to 1950. The duties of the House of Lords have altered over the centuries. It is now not so much a blocking Chamber as an advisory Chamber and a Chamber which puts forward constructive suggestions. I think it is held in greater respect that it has been for many years. When I discuss the composition of the House of Lords with people in different parts of the country I find that there is not the slightest interest as to how the House of Lords should be composed. The House of Lords, they think, should be composed of Lords—which it is. If it is going to be composed of people nominated by political Parties, in whatever proportion, I feel that the respect in which it is now held will decrease. People will say that the new Peers of Parliament are, after all, only nominated by the political Parties and that they are therefore politicians; and the term "politician" is not always
250
regarded as a term of endearment or praise. When a man is referred to as a statesman it is regarded as a term of respect, but when people wish to revile a man they call him a "politician."
I am afraid the House will become more political than it is now if nominations are made in the manner I have suggested. It is regarded with respect now because people know that the Lords have no axe to grind or voters to sway them. The country accepts the House of Lords because its opinion is given fairly and justly and without any regard to the effect on the opinion of the electors at the next Election. I should very much regret the passing of the present composition of the House of Lords, because I am sure that the country would not regard the House with the great respect which it does now. I do not think the average person in town or country cares a bit how the House of Lords is composed so long as it is composed of Lords who have no particular axe to grind.
We are all grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, for introducing this Bill. Personally, I am sorry that the Bill could not go through, because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, that there are many eminent people who might be brought in as Life Peers to help us in our deliberations and debates. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who pointed out that of 318 Peers who have spoken during the last few years, 147 were Peers of the first creation—in other words, almost the equivalent of Life Peers. The fact that those Peers have been created in such large numbers—there were seventy-five in the years 1945 to 1949—means that the numbers of the House of Lords are thereby swollen and made unwieldy. Had Life Peers been created since the time of Lord Palmerston (in whose house, strangely enough, I live, and in which house he died), if Life Peers had been created in considerable numbers since the Wensleydale case, we should have had fewer Peers in this House and there would not be the criticism, which is a criticism of this House, that Peers do not attend well enough. We have now 857 Peers—I have not counted up how many have not taken the Oath during this Parliament, but there is a very considerable number on the list. I feel that another suggestion which was made by

251
the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and which will certainly be considered, is that those people who do not attend, and even do not take the Oath, should, perhaps, after some effluxion of time, cease to have rights to be represented in this House. That is all I have to say, but I hope that those Peers who are interested in preserving the hereditary principle will not take the recommendations of the 1948 Conference as doing anything but abolishing it.
5.32 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, on behalf of by noble friend Lord Salisbury, I beg to move the Amendment to the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment to Amendment moved—Leave out all the words after ("House") in the first line of the Amendment and add:
("resolves that the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill be adjourned pending the discussions on the reform of this House which Her Majesty's Government have suggested should take place between the Parties").—(Earl Fortescue.)
5.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, after these two full days of debate, a debate which has sometimes ranged over the whole field of the report of the Conference, and after the announcement which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, made yesterday, that the invitations to a new Conference bad gone out (though I knew nothing about that when I moved the Second Reading), I am glad to agree that the debate should be adjourned. I infer that that is the general intention. The Bill will then, I understand, as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh pointed out, go into the list of Bills for Second Reading for which no day has been named, and will remain under the control of the Lord who introduced it.
I will occupy your Lordships' time for only a few moments, but I must express my appreciation of the support which the Bill has received from a large number of Peers—from Lord Samuel and Lord Halifax, and from my noble and gallant friend Lord Chatfield, who is beside me now and who wishes to secure in this House a representation of the "floating" population. He belongs to the "blue water school," no doubt. We have also had placed on record that the noble and
252
learned Earl who leads the Opposition is not opposed to the creation of Life Peers and is most heartily in favour of the acceptance of the principle that women should be Members of this House. I must acknowledge, too, the eloquent support of the noble Earl, Lord Wavell, of Lord Sempill and of Lord Brocket, and I note with much interest what was said by Lord Polwarth, that in the old Parliament of Scotland there were such things as Life Peers. And we had yesterday a brilliant speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, which disturbed Lord Silkin.
I must make this observation: I am not convinced that the reform of the House will be best achieved by trying to do everything at once. There is a good deal to be said, in developing an old constitution, for piecemeal amendments, just as there is in the case of old houses. I give an example. In the middle of the last century, as your Lordships may know, there was a system by which a Peer could vote in this House by proxy. He need not come, but could send his proxy as one does to a company meeting. Its abolition was one of the changes which reformers wanted to effect. They did not alter it by a great scheme of revision. The provision abolishing proxies is now a Standing Order of the House—your Lordships will find it in the book—and I am not convinced that the easiest way of getting an agreed reform is to try to do the whole thing at once. But the question of method is now unimportant, since it is agreed that there will be a Conference, or, more strictly (I wish to safeguard the position of the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition), that invitations have been sent, though the noble Viscount does not yet know what the answer to the invitations will be. I hope that all Parties will accept the invitation.
As regards the proposed adjournment of the debate which has just been moved by my noble friend Lord Fortescue, I had already informed Lord Salisbury and Lord Swinton, before ever the debate started, that if the announcement could be made that invitations to the Conference had been issued, I would myself propose that the debate on the Second Reading be adjourned in order to see what the Conference brought forward. Of course, it is a matter of complete in difference to me whether I propose the adjournment of the debate, or whether it is proposed from the Government Bench.

253
I am glad to know that the Government urge this course and I hope and believe that it will be agreed to by general consent. I was, of course, very much interested to hear yesterday, for the first time, the announcement that invitations had been issued. I felt rather in the position of the father who asks a young man what are his intentions, without doubting that they are quite honourable intentions, and I am as gratified as the father would be by getting the answer, "Intentions? Why, we have fixed the date for the wedding!"
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Swinton is not here, but I want to make the most friendly observations on his speech of yesterday. He made some play with the fact that I had been a member of previous Governments in the course of the forty-two years since 1911, which included the period of two world wars and their aftermath, and I shall make a short answer. May I, in all good temper, reply that between the wars I had the noble Viscount as a colleague, a valued Cabinet colleague, and he will therefore know the views which I then held and communicated on the reform of your Lordships' House? Then there was another criticism, last mentioned, I think, by my noble friend Lord Llewellin. He thought that a Bill which touched the revision of the composition of this House should be a Government measure. Lord Swinton was extremely positive about this, and he laid it down that the subject matter of my Bill was "far too grave and important" to be dealt with in a Private Member's Bill. His language made me feel rather like a naughty small boy who is rebuked by his governess for daring to walk upon the grass.
Lord Swinton went out of his way to assure your Lordships that what he had to say was entirely expressing the views of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I venture, with great respect, somewhat to doubt it, for two reasons: first, because at an earlier stage of this Bill, when Lord Salisbury was amongst us, he conceded that I had a perfect right to bring it forward; and secondly, because there was a Bill called the Parliament (Reform) Bill, which I have in my hand, which was discussed here in May, 1934, and was introduced without objection or criticism by a private Member, who was Lord Salisbury's father. So I question whether the noble Marquess who
254
ordinarily leads the House would have thought it necessarily improper for a private Member to introduce what some of your Lordships rightly regard as a very small Bill. At any rate, I do not at all accept the claim that private Members of this House must abstain from proposals dealing with these high matters and must submit to be scolded by the governess if they venture to enter upon them. After all, this Bill has produced a certain result, over which I rejoice, and if I may send a message to Lord Swinton I would urge him most respectfully to re-read his copy of Æsop's Fables (there is in the Library a very good edition, illustrated by Arthur Rackham) and remind himself how an insignificant mouse, by gnawing away at a net, was enabled to release the King of Beasts.
Now let me say that I most warmly agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and with the noble and learned Earl opposite when they assert that the reform of the House of Lords can best be reached by general agreement. Lord Balfour of Burleigh said this afternoon that "any settlement must be by agreement." I most warmly subscribe to that view. I join in the hope that the Conference will lead to such an agreement, and hope, at the end of this two-days' debate, that I have done nothing to deserve the reproach that I have made agreement more difficult. What is contemplated here is a constitutional change; and in my opinion constitutional changes cannot wisely be made on the terms that what is done in one Parliament is reversed in the next. That is the great reason for seeking agreement. I and, I think, all your Lordships hope that the meeting of the Conference will not be delayed. I shall presume from time to time to address a respectful Question to the Government asking for a report as to how it is getting on. I hope that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will be able to take part in the Conference, and I commend to the House the observation which I see in The Times this morning, where the leader writer says:
"Lord Simon's Bill should not be rejected on Second Reading, but kept alive by adjournment for possible revival if more comprehensive attempts at reform should be frustrated."
My Lords, I accept and support the Amendment to the Amendment that has been moved by my noble friend Lord Fortes cue.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
5.47 p.m.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the
256
meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; and read 1a.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before six o'clock.