HL Deb 27 January 1953 vol 180 cc4-13

2.42 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, with your permission I propose to make a short statement. I have received so many requests for information about the position of Peers at the Coronation that I have thought it desirable, with your Lordships' leave, to make this brief statement. I am particularly moved to do so because some letters that I have received, and others which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has received, suggest that every Peer has a legal or constitutional right to be present at the Abbey ceremony.

As your Lordships are probably aware, all arrangements for the Coronation are made by the Coronation Commission, which was, in accordance with precedent, set up by the Queen last April, and by the Coronation Committee, which was set up by Order in Council last June and is, in fact, a Committee of the Privy Council. It was the duty of the Coronation Commission to consider those aspects of the arrangements for the Coronation which were of common concern to the United Kingdom and other Member States of the Commonwealth, and for this reason there were upon it representatives of both the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

Amongst the matters of common concern was pre-eminently the question of seats in the Abbey. The result of the consideration of this matter by the Commission was that a certain number of seats was allocated to the House of Lords which, if every Peer wished to attend with his Peeress, must have proved insufficient. If the view that every Peer has an absolute right to a seat is correct, it is clear that any allocation of seats which did not provide for them all would be vain. I am, however, satisfied that this is an incorrect view. I can assure your Lordships that I have made such researches as I could and have sought all the advice that was open to me, and in the result I am convinced that it lies entirely within the Royal Prerogative or otherwise within the personal power of the Sovereign to determine what Peers shall be summoned to the Abbey and what services shall be rendered by them; and it would be clearly improper in this House to challenge or criticise the exercise by the Sovereign of such powers.

I do not think your Lordships would wish me to embark on a lengthy discussion as to the reason why I have come to this conclusion. But I will, with your permission, make a few observations. The letters that I have received lead me to think that some of your Lordships may have confused rights with duties. I do not doubt that it is still, in theory at least, the duty of a Peer to do homage to the Sovereign if he is required to do so, and that an appropriate time and place for it is at the Coronation ceremony: but it does not follow, and is in my opinion an untenable proposition, that a Peer has therefore the right to insist on doing homage on that occasion if he is not required to do so. On the contrary, the Sovereign may release him from this duty, as he may from any other duty or service which is owed him. And it is interesting to note in this very matter of homage that, whereas formerly the Sovereign required each individual Peer to give the kiss of homage and touch the Crown, from 1902 onwards the duty has been changed, and homage has been rendered only by the premier Noble of each rank on behalf of his peers. Other Peers have urged that, as a Peer has a constitutional right to be summoned to Parliament, so he has the right to be summoned to the Coronation. The answer, I think, is clear: that the former was established as a right many centuries ago; that ample authority for it can be found in our records, and that there is a well-recognised manner of asserting it; in the case of the latter, there is no such precedent nor any method of asserting it. And there is nothing strange in this, for the two so-called rights have so link in common that it would be foolish to argue from one to the other.

In other letters, I have found the suggestion that it is a right established by long usage for a Peer to attend the Coronation ceremony. This is an argument that cannot be accepted. In the first place, it once more confuses "right" with "duty": in the second place, it is based upon the assumption, which I believe not to be well founded, that the Sovereign has always summoned all Peers to his Coronation; and in the third place, to found a claim of right upon usage is, as every lawyer knows, a very difficult thing to do, and in such a case as this, a thing impossible to do, since the usage is sufficiently explained by the right which lies in the Sovereign to require attendance.

One noble Lord has asked me certain questions upon which he hopes to be satisfied, and I conveniently take this opportunity of answering his questions. The first question that he asked is this: When the Peers meet in the Abbey, are they not sitting in Parliament? Parliament can, of course, meet in a church. The answer to that question is that at the Coronation ceremony in Westminster Abbey, the Peers are not sitting in Parliament. The second question the noble Lord asked me is this: The new Sovereign clearly enters the Abbey not as a Sovereign but as a candidate for the Sovereignty, and in the "Recognition" receives a vote of confidence. Can this be given except by those who have a right to give it? My answer to that is that the premise of this question is so clearly wrong that no answer can he given to it, except to say that the new Sovereign, having been proclaimed King, is already Sovereign when he enters the Abbey, and that so far as his Title is concerned, no Coronation ceremony is necessary. The third question which the noble Lord asked is this: if the Sovereign excludes Lord X, can he not also exclude the Archbishop of Canterbury? My answer is that this is a question upon which I should not care to dogmatise. But I recall at least one instance where a Sovereign was not crowned by the Archbishop. She had in fact before the ceremony committed him to the Tower, and there he stayed.

My Lords, it was hoped that the quota of seats allocated to the House of Lords might be sufficient for all Peers who wished to attend with their Peeresses, for many Peers had already generously intimated that they would willingly make way for representatives of the Commonwealth. This proved not to be the case, as there were still more Peers who wanted seats than there were seats available. At this juncture, however, a change occurred which made it appear possible that there might yet be enough seats in the Abbey, for it became known I hat a covered stand was to be erected outside the Abbey in which seats were to be available for Peers who did not get seats in the Abbey. A number of Peers spontaneously expressed a preference for these seats, and it was decided to offer alternative accommodation, to consist of two free seats and two seats to be paid for in the covered stand, to all the Peers who had expressed a wish to attend the ceremony. This was done, and a number of Peers did choose seats in the stand. But unfortunately not enough of them did so to enable all Peers who still wanted seats in the Abbey for themselves and their Peeresses to be thus accommodated. This position could be met only in one way—namely, by giving priority to certain Peers who were entitled to it by virtue of some special distinction, such as a Privy Counsellorship, and then by holding a ballot. This was accordingly done and Peers have been told of the result.

I can conveniently at this stage remind your Lordships of the position as to seats in the stands. A Peer who has not been given seats in the Abbey, either because he was unsuccessful in the ballot or because he did not apply for them—and will your Lordships mark those words, because there has been some confusion?—is entitled to a free seat for himself and a free seat for his Peeress in the covered stand, and he is also entitled to have two more seats in the same stand on payment of£6 for each seat. A Peer who has been given seats in the Abbey is not entitled to any seats in the covered stand, but is entitled to two seats in the uncovered stand upon payment of£4 for each seat. Applications for seats should be made to my Private Secretary, at the Lord Chancellor's Department, House of Lords. Cheques should accompany the application and should be made payable to Her Majesty's Paymaster General.

2.53 p.m.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I gather from the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that he shares the feeling of regret that it should have been necessary to have a ballot at all—a regret which I have heard expressed by everyone to whom I have spoken on this subject, whether members of your Lordships' House or not. It is most regrettable that there has had to be a ballot. It is a precedent that has caused a good deal of uneasiness. Anticipating this event, I gave notice on December 16 last of a Question not for Oral Answer, which has not yet been answered. As the Lord Chancellor's statement has not covered all the points that I raised in that Question I will, with your Lordships' permission, repeat the Question from the Order Paper. It begins as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the event of a ballot being necessary for places for Peers at Her Majesty's Coronation, the ballot will be for each order of the Peerage or whether it will he a general ballot. I think that is a legitimate question to ask in relation to this unprecedented event. It is something which may recur in the future, and I think that more information is required. That is one part of the Question I put on the Order Paper which has not yet been answered. I then asked, as the second part of my Question who will conduct this ballot. I should like an answer to that as well. I also asked, as the third part of the Question, when Peers may expect to be informed of the result. That was on December 16. Of course the third part of the Question has already been answered, through the post: Peers have now been informed whether or not they have been successful.

There are other questions to which I think we are entitled to have answers, and which may be answered by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, by the Leader of the House, or by the person responsible. I should like to ask, how many seats were allocated to Peers. After all, I think we should know that. I have a great admiration for those Peers who stood aside for members of the Dominions, or for other reasons. But it is our Coronation, and this is the first time that this has happened. I think we ought to know how many seats in the Abbey were allocated for Peers and Peeresses. Secondly, I would ask, how many Peers applied? If that question is answered, we shall know the kind of percentage of unsuccessful applicants. That is a very simple question and I think we are entitled to know the answer. If it is not convenient for the Lord Chancellor to give a reply to day, perhaps it could be circulated in the usual way in due course. The last part of the Lord Chancellor's statement said that those who were successful in the ballot should send to him for seats in the uncovered stand. I think I am right in saying that I received a notice to the effect that we had to apply to the Lord Chamberlain.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That is entirely a matter of convenience. I have arranged with the Earl Marshal's Office that, in order to save him some of the burden, applications by Peers for seats in the stand should be sent to my office. It is simply a matter of machinery between us.

LORD STRABOLGI

I am obliged. I do not want it to appear that I am making factious complaints or criticisms. Obviously, this has been a most difficult task, and I feel that great sympathy should be extended not only to all the members of the Commission but particularly to the Earl Marshal himself. I do not see the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, present, but he must have had a tremendous, responsible and delicate burden thrown upon his shoulders. I dissociate myself from any sort of suggestion of criticism of the work that he does in the honorary fulfilment of his great office. I want to make that perfectly clear. Nevertheless, I think further information is required. I repeat, in my opinion it is most regrettable, from many points of view which I will not specify, that a ballot was needed, and I trust that your Lordships will support me in asking for this explanation.

2.59 p.m.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I said a word at this point. The Lord Chancellor has made so full and clear a statement to your Lordships that I had not expected that it would be necessary for me to intervene at all. But there have been one or two questions asked (I do not complain of that at all) and it is perhaps desirable, therefore, that I should say a word.

My Lords, as to the doubts which have been expressed by noble Lords and others about the absolute right of Peers to attend the Coronation, that subject has not been raised following the Lord Chancellor's authoritative statement, and I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more on that point. There are, however, one or two questions that have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to which perhaps I should give an answer. If I understood him aright, his first question was this: if a ballot was in fact necessary, were noble Lords balloted for in their ranks, or all together? The answer is, that they were balloted for all together: everybody had an equal chance. The second question asked by the noble Lord was: how many seats were allocated to the House of Lords, and how many Peers applied? I cannot give that information. I say frankly that it is a matter for the Coronation Committee; it is not a matter on which I am entitled to give any information. I would say to the noble Lord that no information as to the number of seats allotted has ever been given in the past. This has always been regarded as a matter for the Committee or the Commission dealing with the Coronation. I think those are the main questions which I have been asked.

The noble Lord said that he thought it very regrettable that there should have had to be a ballot. I entirely agree with every word he said about that. I do not suppose there is anyone, whether it be the Coronation Commission, or the Coronation Committee, or the Earl Marshal, or the Lord Chancellor, or people like myself who have been called into consultation, who has liked the ballot in this connection. We have all thought it a most unfortunate necessity. We have done our utmost to avoid it, but we have been up against two hard facts, facts which all your Lordships would be up against. First of all, the Abbey is exactly the same size as it has always been, and, secondly, the number of those who not only wish to attend but ought to attend—especially from the Commonwealth and Empire—has greatly increased since the last Coronation. That is inevitable. There is, therefore, much less room for those categories of people who previously attended the ceremony.

No device, however ingenious, that was explored has succeeded in overcoming this fundamental difficulty. It was therefore apparent that some method of selection had to be found, and it was equally apparent to those who had to consider this matter that a ballot was the fairest method. Supposing the Earl Marshal or the Coronation Committee or the Coronation Commission had selected the Peers they thought ought to go; or supposing—much worse—that the ballot had been faked, how much more ground for complaint would there then have been!I have heard suggestions in various quarters that this ballot has been faked, that it has not been a genuine ballot. As to that suggestion I can only tell your Lordships these facts. The names were drawn by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice himself, in the presence of the Earl Marshal. I think the House will therefore see that there was nothing "hole and corner" or underhand about the procedure.

In any case—and this is the last thing I want to say—I would suggest, with all deference to your Lordships, whatever you may feel about this, that what has happened is in full harmony with the most fundamental principles which underlie our Constitution. It is a voluntary change in the ancient fabric of the Constitution to meet changing needs. What is it that we are proudest of in our history? It is not that we preserved the feudal system longer than anyone else, but that we were the first people to discard it in favour of parliamentary government. It is not that we were the last people to uphold the Divine Right of Kings, but that we were the first people to transform it into a Constitutional Monarchy. The sort of change which we are discussing to-day is a very small matter compared with those great changes, but I submit that it is in the same spirit and that that is its main justification.

This House enjoys at the present time (and I think we may say this without undue smugness) the respect of a great many people far outside the Parties of the Right, and it does so because we are regarded—and this, I hope, applies to all of us, in all Parties—as being actuated by a broad spirit of moderation, combined with wisdom, statesmanship and common sense. If on this particular occasion we had done what I think some people—but not very many—would have liked, and had shown ourselves rigid or unyielding, unwilling to yield one jot or tittle of what we regarded as our ancient privileges, I believe that we should have forfeited a large measure of the respect which we to-day enjoy. The dignity and understanding which I know your Lordships have shown in the face of a decision which, inevitably, has caused doubts and disappointment will, I feel certain, still further enhance our reputation. For that, I must, if I may do so as Leader of the House, tender my grateful thanks to noble Lords in all parts of the Chamber.

3.6 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I would only say, having considered this matter, that, while sharing the regret which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has felt about the necessity for the ballot, I came to the conclusion that the course which the noble Marquess has indicated was right and, indeed, inevitable.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed to add that I never for a moment suggested that there was any sort of unfairness connected with the ballot. I hope that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House does not attribute that view to me. In my remarks there was no hint of that at all.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, that is perfectly correct—no one in this Chamber has even suggested it. But I have heard suggestions that it might be the case, and I was anxious to take this opportunity of making clear that it was not so.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I should like further to say, if I may be allowed to do so, that I am certain that we may have great confidence that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House did his best to uphold our position in this very important matter. I am certain of that from what I know of the noble Marquess's career and standing. May I also say that I do not see any reason why we should not have the information which I asked for about numbers? The noble Marquess has not got it, but it can be obtained, I presume. I do not see any reason for secrecy. I think we ought to know how many seats were allocated and how many noble Lords applied, and I hope that the House will support me in asking for this information.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

My Lords, will the noble Marquess the Leader of the House agree with me that it is an occasion for great rejoicing, and not for regret, that we have this great increase in the numbers of leaders from independent countries within the Commonwealth who have a right to attend the Coronation?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I would entirely agree with the noble Viscount. I only wish that Westminster Abbey had grown at the same pace.