HL Deb 11 March 1953 vol 180 cc1290-9

3.7 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My Lords, the Statute of Westminster, which did not create but recognised and declared the status of the independent countries of the Commonwealth, in its second Preamble recites thus: Inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Royal Style and Titles were altered in 1927, and in 1947 conditions in Eire and India necessitated further changes. Fortunately, the Commonwealth Conference at the end of last year afforded an occasion for discussing the whole subject. I think we all felt that those discussions were as opportune as their outcome was felicitous.

There were other considerations, besides those relating to the Irish Republic and India, which made a further alteration in the Title desirable. There was a feeling in other Member countries of the Commonwealth, which we in the United Kingdom fully shared, that the Title should reflect clearly what is now the established constitutional position: that the Sovereign stands in exactly the same relation to each of those countries as to the United Kingdom, and that for this purpose the names of the other countries should be included in the Title no less than the name of this country. The conclusion was reached that the best course would be for each country to use a form of Title which would suit its own particular circumstances, while at the same time embodying, to the largest possible extent, an element common to all. The Title as used in all the countries concerned will include the phrase "Head of the Commonwealth" and a reference to Her Majesty's other Realms and Territories. Your Lordships will, I think, agree that we thus achieve, in complete accord, a happy reconciliation of the unity and diversity which characterise the British Commonwealth.

Adoption by each Commonwealth country of the Royal Style and Title it chooses will emphasise and enhance the relationship of the Queen to all her peoples, as it affirms the love and loyalty felt for Her Majesty throughout her Realms. As I have said, the titles which other Commonwealth countries are adopting emphasise that Her Majesty is their Queen as much as ours. "Queen of Canada"; "Queen of Ceylon"—the oldest and the youngest. But significant and important as this is, it is in reality nothing new. Lord Balfour in the introduction which he wrote to Bagehot's English Constitution, and which contains so much of the wisdom he contributed to the Conference of the Commonwealth in 1926 says this: The King is the chief of a nation—the chief indeed of many nations. He is everybody's King; by which I do not so much mean that he is the ruler of the Empire, as that he is the common possession of every part of it. In the debate in the Canadian Parliament, Mr. Pearson told how the title, "Queen of Canada," fulfilled Sir John Macdonald's hope at the start of Confederation that the country of Canada might bear the title, the Kingdom of Canada. Your Lordships will also have noted that the Titles in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan all refer to Her Majesty as Queen of the United Kingdom. Thus the Canadian Title runs, "Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen." As the Prime Minister of Canada explained, introducing the Canadian Bill, this was no mere compliment to the United Kingdom, but an explicit recognition (to quote his own words) that it is the Sovereign, who is recognised as the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, who is our Sovereign. So to-day I move this Bill, which has its counterpart in the other countries of the Commonwealth. And when each of us has taken the action appropriate to our Constitutions, there will be one further demonstration of the unity of the Commonwealth. The seven Proclamations proclaiming the Queen's Titles will be made throughout the Commonwealth on the same day. "God save the Queen!" I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Swinton.)

3.12 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I rise to give my cordial support to the Motion which the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House has moved and to trouble your Lordships for a brief moment only to say why I so strongly support this step. I think it is a significant fact that here for a moment we lay aside the rancour and asperity of the Committee on the Transport Bill and turn to a subject, and one which I venture to think is far more important, on which we are absolutely at one. The fact that we at home in this little country all feel the same about this is surely a splendid thing. The Crown is a symbol of our underlying unity, which prevents disaster even though it be the fact that the House is divided against itself in other respects, and at the same time the Crown enshrines the great traditions of the past and our hopes for the future.

When I was a young man studying constitutional law, I used to be told that constitutionally the conception of the British Empire, as it was then, was incomprehensible. If I may borrow the language of St. Athanasius, we have now not only one incomprehensible but seven incomprehensibles. Although the constitutional position may defy logic, I venture to think that it works very well. I would have commended these proposals to your Lordships even though I disagreed with them, because they are based on an agreement which was hammered out by common consent. But it so happens that I agree with every conclusion come to on this occasion. I think the Government were wise not to insist on the continuance of the word "British." It is unfortunate that this adjective is connected with two wholly different concepts. When we talk or when we used to talk about "British Railways" or "British Transport," we used "British" in a local sense; but when we spoke of the British Empire, we used it in a very different sense. I remember the Canadian representative, at the Imperial Conference, in 1930, making this very point. The documents before the Cabinet in those days, and indeed ever since Lord Rosebery's time, had this legend on their front pages: This document is the property of His Britannic Majesty's Government. The Canadian representative drew attention to that legend and pointed out the two different senses of the word "British."

I think, too, that the Government are wise to drop the word "Dominion." I believe that the word "Dominion" had come to connote a status, I will not say inferior, but certainly not quite equal to that enjoyed by this country. The whole conception of our British Commonwealth is that we are all completely equal amongst ourselves. I think the conception of putting in the words "Head of the Commonwealth" was a great inspiration. I believe that if those words had been there in the old days, when Burma was considering whether she should or should not remain in the Commonwealth, they might have made all the difference. I am sorry that there seems to be some slight anxiety in Scotland at the Title, "Elizabeth II."I do not know whether there was the same anxiety at the accession of William IV or Edward VII or the Georges, but let us hope that if ever a Monarch succeeds to the Throne bearing the name of Robert, he wilt be known as Robert IV—or perhaps it is III: my Scottish history is not good. I should like to associate myself with the fine words spoken to-day by the Deputy Leader of the House and to assure the House that this Bill has the entire and cordial support of Her Majesty's Opposition.

3.16 p.m.

LORD REA

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Samuel, who much regrets that he is not able to be present to-day, I rise from these Benches to give cordial and full support to this measure. I think your Lordships will agree that this Bill though small, is nevertheless a notable one in constitutional history. I would congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the honour which they have in putting on the Statute Book a measure which can hardly fail to bind closer all the Members of the British Commonwealth in loyal devotion to their Queen.

3.17 p.m.

VISCOUNT SIMON

My Lords, while this debate on the Royal Titles Bill is, in the interests of time, merely a first Order before the more prolonged discussion on the Committee stage of the Transport Bill, it will be a pity if we do not fully realise the vast constitutional importance of the measure which is now before the House. It is a measure which, by its Preamble, declares that the object of Parliament is: to reflect more clearly the existing constitutional relations of members of the Commonwealth to one another, and their recognition of the Crown as the symbol of their free association and of the Sovereign as the Head of the Commonwealth. The contents of the Bill are particularly striking for a reason which has already been mentioned by the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition: the complete omission of the word "Dominions" from its language.

I have some reason to appreciate the importance of that omission, for when the Indian Commission, over which I presided a quarter of a century ago, were about to produce their Report, the Government of that day, without our assent, issued a declaration that in their opinion the natural issue of India's constitutional progress is the attainment of Dominion status. I have always thought that that announcement was unwise and paid little consideration to the particular problem of the development both of the British Commonwealth and of India. Subsequent events have carried us far beyond the conception of Dominion status, and I am glad that the use of the word is now, by common consent, abandoned. It marked an advance at the time of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, and the Balfour Declaration which preceded it, but it is now demoded and quite out of date.

There is another observation to be made, which is suggested by the speech of the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading. It is a curious fact about the Statute of Westminster, 1931, that one of its recitals was to the effect that it would have been in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Royal Style and Titles should hereafter require the assent as well as of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. But, though this was stated by way of recital, there is no section in the Statute of Westminster which deals with the point. This Bill, though it has an operation only within the boundaries of the United Kingdom and all other territories for whose foreign relations the Government of the United Kingdom are responsible, is to be accompanied, as we are told—and I gather from the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is already accompanied—by new legislation in the other Commonwealth countries. Indeed I believe that Her Majesty is already by Canadian law the Queen of Canada, just as one of the earlier founders of the Canadian Constitution urged she should be.

May I be allowed to make one other brief observation? There is, I think, a danger in the over-emphasis which is sometimes employed in insisting upon the divisibility of the Crown. The Crown is, no doubt, divisible in its local aspects and functions, when the Sovereign follows the advice of separate Ministries, but in matters of common concern we can only hope that the advice will be consistent. It would be unfortunate, for example, if a Ministry in one part of the Commonwealth advised the Sovereign to issue a proclamation of war, while another Ministry advised the Crown to make a declaration of neutrality. We might have had, as I well remember, a similar divergence at the time of the Abdication, for our Abdication Act altered the law touching the succession to the Throne, and that is certainly a matter on which common agreement throughout the Commonwealth is desired, and common agreement was forthcoming. The truth is that the Crown is indivisible, in the sense that it is a single historic Crown, devolving according to a recognised right of succession. It is not a purely personal union in the same individual, such as existed between the Crowns of this country and of Hanover from the accession of George I to the death of William IV, or like the casual union of the Austrian Imperial Crown with the Crown of St. Stephen in Hungary.

The important thing, as it seems to me, is that as between members of the Commonwealth which have retained the Crown there is a common status of loyal subject which every citizen enjoys and shares with every other. That is the real basis for confidence in the future of the Commonwealth. We are taking part to-day in the passing of a most significant Act, for this Bill is one further proof that the Commonwealth is not a merely mechanical arrangement, but is a thing of life and growth which pervades and inspires the hopes and devotion of us all.

3.26 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I have been asked by the Secretary of the Scottish National Party—to which I do not belong—to say a few words to-day upon the numbering of Her Majesty as Queen Elizabeth II, to which the noble and learned Earl opposite has referred. I am going to begin by saying that, so far as I can make out, nearly every responsible Scotsman I have met deplores and laments the outburst of lawlessness and violence that has greeted the appearance of Her Majesty's monogram in Scotland. I share that feeling most strongly. It would have been a very charming thing—and I believe Queen Anne intended it—if, when the two countries sunk their individualities and obliterated their ancient kingdoms to form the kingdom of Great Britain, the renumbering had taken place at that time. But, of course, the objection is very much stronger now than it was then, because, as your Lordships know, the real difficulty in this case is that in all lawsuits and litigation of any kind it is important to be able to cite rapidly and with complete certainty the laws and Statutes to which reference is made; and as those Statutes are named after the monarchs in whose names they run, it is absolutely necessary to be able to refer to each King or Queen without doubt. Therefore, the only way in which that can be done is to have the highest number in use in either country.

The Government were perfectly aware of the trouble that was likely to arise immediately on Her Majesty's Accession. I submit that this difficulty—which I certainly have never found a way to get over—and this fact should have been prominently put forward at that time. If people in Scotland were opposed to the numbering that Her Majesty, under advice, decided upon, it would have been very good for them to try and find a way out of that difficulty. I am always in favour of asking people to use their brains before they start using their hands. However that may be, the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite is one with which I have also toyed—namely, that unless this position can be clearly understood and explained in Scotland, the best hope we can have is that when Prince Charles comes to reign—and I hope it may be a very long time before that happens—he may choose to assume the style and reign in the name either of David III or Robert IV, or whatever it may be.

I should like to point out to your Lordships that the numbering of the English Kings from the Conquest is really an injury much more to England than to Scotland or any other country. For us in Scotland, apart from being the representative of our great and ancient line of Kings, the principal ornaments of the blood royal are two, I think one is its connection with the ancient Saxon Royal House, through St. Margaret; and the other is its connection with the blood of St. Columba himself, through King Duncan. I should have thought, from the English point of view, that the great ornament of the blood royal would be its connection with the ancient Kings of England, and the blood of Edward the Martyr, through Queen Edith the Queen of Henry I.

But your Lordships will remember what happened. I think it was Edward III who called himself "Third since the Conquest," and your Lordships will remember that what really happened was this. When William the Norman came over, he claimed as heir of Edward the Confessor, and when he had conquered and settled the country he realised that the whole thing would dissolve if it passed to Robert. Therefore, he had to enable himself to pass the Crown to his second son, Rufus; and, in order to do that, he made England Conquest, which, as your Lordships are aware, is territorial property acquired outside feudal inheritance. I myself think that the Title he took from Edward the Confessor would have sufficed for it, but he was on the spot and judged otherwise. Because of that fact, his second son succeeded him, and after him, Henry, his younger brother, because, of course, in feudal law heritage goes down and not up. That fact has obscured the really ancient descent of the British Royal. Family from the ancient Kings of England; and, I suppose, that, owing to this unfortunate trouble in quoting Statutes, this will always prevail.

It is a disadvantage to England in another way which is far more important; and it is this. Every Scottish boy, when he learns Scottish history, learns the dates of the Kings of his country, and he gets a ladder of dates going back into the mists of antiquity in which he can insert every event that he learns went on in the world outside. The same is true of the French boy who goes back to those horrible Frankish Kings, with their terrible or unfortunate wives, and right back to the gates of the Roman Empire. But in England, as somebody said to me the other day, "That goes back to the Conquest, and nothing happened before the Conquest." No Englishman, so far as I can see, ever learns that anything happened in the world before the Conquest. I think it is a great misfortune to England, and a really practical one which I myself have experienced, that they should number the Kings and Queens of England from that date.

3.33 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS)

My Lords, it is perhaps appropriate that on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I should conclude this debate with a very few words. This Bill appears to me to be the affirmation of Her Majesty's subjects in this United Kingdom of a new faith. In the words of the Preamble to the Bill, it affirms their recognition of the Crown as the symbol of the free association of the Members of the Commonwealth of whom they are one, and of this Sovereign as the Head of the Commonwealth. That is a new conception in the history of the world, and we rejoice that it is out of the genius of our people that there has been born an idea that binds together so large a part of the world in bonds of a common loyalty. May we not rejoice, too, that it is in the person of Her Gracious Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, that we see the first flowering of that conception which will, we believe, cherish and foster throughout the world the ideals of freedom and of peace, for which our people have fought and died and for which they now stand?

But this Bill, too—and perhaps for us this means most of all—recognises the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, as the Queen of this Realm of England and Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland, which are united under one Crown. It is one United Realm which now, for a period of time that can count its centuries, has shared under one King or Queen, good times and ill, glory and tribulation. We will not mar this day by controversy whether the Queen's Title should be Elizabeth I or Elizabeth II. Whatever number is chosen, the pedant may find fault he can find historical error whatever choice is made. It will surely accord with our tradition and history if, in all parts of this Realm, we accept without demur the Title which has found favour elsewhere throughout the Commonwealth, and with one heart and voice acclaim Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories, Queen.

On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.