Lords Sitting of 17 March 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Earl of Powis—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
The Lord Darwen—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Prayers
  FOUNDLING HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NATIONAL TRUST BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ENEMY PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision as respects things done, in relation to enemy property or property treated as enemy property in excess of the powers
2
conferred by the law relating to trading with the enemy, and as respects income from moneys invested by custodians of enemy property; as respects copyrights, rights in inventions and designs, and other rights in or in connection with which Germanenemy interests subsisted, or were properly treated as subsisting during the period of the war with Germany; as respects property allocated by way of reparation from Germany and as respects other property seized from Germany; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid; and to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

POUND-DOLLAR EXCHANGE RATE
2.41 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are committed not to take any action which might result in a change in the present official exchange rate of the pound to the U.S. dollar, without previous consultation with other member countries of O.E.E.C.; if so, is such consultation to be secret or to be made public in advance through Parliament or other official channels.]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, there is no commitment in the terms mentioned by the noble Lord. The United Kingdom is, of course a member of the International Monetary Fund, and the Articles of Agreement of the Fund lay down certain rules which bind the United Kingdom about the par value of members' currencies. Under one of these articles a change in the par value of a member's currency may be made only after consultation with the Fund. Many European members of the O.E.E.C. are, of course, members of the Fund. Since, in the case of the pound sterling, the question of any such change is entirely hypothetical, the second part of the noble Lord's Question does not arise.

LORRY DRIVER'S RESIGNATION
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the report of the dismissal of a lorry driver employed by the British Road Services, because he would not abandon his vehicle in a fog, and thereby broke some trade union rule.]
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, the Minister of Transport has been informed by the British Transport Commission that the driver in question tendered his resignation to the Road Haulage Executive following some disagreement with his fellow workers. He was not dismissed by the Executive, who were not concerned in this matter. It is understood that he obtained other employment a day or two later.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, at a time when the value of a lorry and its cargo on the highway may amount to as much as £30,000, are we to understand from the noble Earl's answer that the Road Haulage Executive agree with an obsolete trade union requirement that under difficult conditions the driver should abandon his vehicle and leave it anywhere on the highway? Does the noble Earl not think that the driver in this case showed great public spirit in the action which he took?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I sympathise with the anxiety of the noble Earl. I have a great deal of "ammunition" on this subject but perhaps as it would take a long time to give the information across the Floor of the House, the noble Earl will agree that, for the convenience of the House, I should give it to him privately, later on this afternoon. I am certain that I can satisfy him.

THE CORONATION: OPENING OF TUBE STATIONS
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords. I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government up to what hours the various Tube stations on the processional route will be kept open for the convenience of spectators.]
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I would refer the noble Lord to the announcement of Coronation travel arrangements made by the London Transport Executive yesterday. For the convenience of the noble Lord and the House in general, I am arranging for the full details to be published in Hansard.
Following are the details referred to:
. The London Transport Executive have made the following arrangements, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police, for the operation of their tube stations in the vicinity of the processional route on Coronation Day:—

(a)Westminster, Trafalgar Square, Hyde Park and Bond Street—will be closed after the finish of traffic on the previous night until after the procession is over.(N.B. Westminster will be open specially for certain privileged parties, e.g., school children, but will not be available to the general public.)

(b)Traffic will be restricted at certain stations as follows—

(i) Charing Cross—Northern Line trains coming from the south will not stop.

(ii) Green Park—From 3.0 a.m. there will be no admission from the street. The station will be open only for the exit of passengers coming from the west.

(iii) Holborn (Kingsway)—No interchange between Piccadilly and the Central Lines.

(iv) Marble Arch—No admission from the street. Open only for the exit of passengers from the west and only until 9.0 a.m.

5

(v) Piccadilly Circus—No admission from the street. Open until 9.0 a.m. for the exit of Bakerloo and Piccadilly Line passengers from the north Trains from the south or west will not stop.

(vi) Strand—No admission from the street. Open only for the exit of passengers from the south.

2. All the above arrangements are subject to the general proviso that the police may find it necessary to order the closing of stations at any moment that the pressure of crowds above makes this necessary. This may be particularly applicable to Charing Cross, Marble Arch and Piccadilly Circus in the above list, and also to Oxford Circus and St. James's Park.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given for the Viscount Trenchard's Motion (now standing for Wednesday the 1st of April next) to be advanced to Wednesday the 25th instant.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PEERS' ATTENDANCES AND VOTING RIGHT'S
2.43 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER THE MARQUESS OF EXETER rose to move to resolve, That this House is of opinion that no Peer, except he has obtained leave of absence under Standing Order No. XVIII, should vote on a Division of this House unless he has, if resident in England or Wales, attended the House at least x times, and, if resident elsewhere, attended at least ytimes, during the previous Session in which the House has sat for Public Business on twelve or more days; provided that this Resolution would not apply (a)in the case of a newly created Peer until after the expiry of a complete Session following the date of his introduction, nor (b)in the case of a Peer succeeding by descent until after the expiry of a complete Session following the date of his succession. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I make use of very copious notes, but the Resolution which I have put down takes a good deal of
6
explanation, and I do not think that my memory is good enough to enable me to move the Resolution without such notes. With that preamble and before I move the Resolution, I must give some explanation with regard to the origin of this proposal.
When the last Parliament Act was being discussed, it was suggested that your Lordships, if you so wished, could, under the present powers of the House, include a Standing, Order to deal with noble Lords who seldom attended your Lordships' debates. I do not wish unduly to criticise that action, for I think we all realise that in some cases it is almost impossible for Peers to make regular attendances. But I do think that before a Peer votes he should have heard something of the debate. I suggest that a Standing Order should be inserted to give effect to this Resolution. If your Lordships will cast your minds back, you will recall that there has always been some justifiable criticism of the fact that Members of the House could vote without having firsthand knowledge of the subject on which they might be called upon to give their vote. I am prepared to admit that communications, both written and oral, have become so rapid that a Peer nowadays may have sufficient data on which to make up his mind which way he votes. But, on the other hand, I think your Lordships will agree that it would be less embarrassing for this House if Members were to attend more regularly. If they had not qualified under the Standing Order, they would still be able to speak on any subject before the House, but they would not be entitled to vote. It is not the purpose of this Resolution to deprive anyone of a right, but merely to impose a simple and obvious qualification before that right can be exercised. Of course, if the right to vote is temporarily forfeited, owing to a Peer's non-attendance in a previous Session, it can at any time be regained by subsequent attendance. As a Committee is now sitting dealing with the, revision of Standing Orders this seems to me an appropriate moment to consider the suggestion. The question arises, however, whether such a Standing Order would infringe the Royal Prerogative, and also whether the Committee's terms of reference cover the insertion of a new Standing Order or only the revision of existing Standing Orders. This matter

7
must be settled before any action can be taken; hence the Resolution.
Your Lordships have always had power to insist on the attendance of Members, and I quote the following as bearing upon this point. When the revision of Standing Orders was carried out in February, 1889, the Lord Privy Seal, Earl Cadogan, used the following words:
"Your Lordships are aware that there has always been power in the House to enforce attendance of its Members. That power has not been exercised for many years and it is hoped it will never be necessary to exercise it. The two rules proposed are these: XVII, (Absent Lords may be called upon to serve upon Committees) and XVIII, (Leave of absence). The latter reads as follows: 'Lords may obtain leave of absence at the pleasure of the House upon cause shown.'"
In further support of my contention, there is in the Journals of July 25, 1820, a long list of occasions when this power has been used. Round about 1700, many Lords were "ordered into custody for not attending," and the Earl of Ailesbury was "fined £100 for being absent." On May 9. 1642, the House ordered
"that Lord Savill, for refusing to come when sent for, shall not sit nor vote during the Session of Parliament."
That is very much in support of what I suggest.
Then I come to the question of the Royal Prerogative. I contend that such a Standing Order as I propose would not be in conflict with the Prerogative. The following are instances where it might be said that the Royal Prerogative may have been interfered with—although, so far as I know, no definite action was taken. In the year 1856, when Queen Victoria wished to make a Life Peer, Lord Wensleydale, the House ruled
"that neither the said Letters Patent, nor the said Letters Patent with the usual Writ of Summons issued in pursuance thereof can enable the grantee therein named to sit and vote in Parliament,"
because the grant was for life only, and was not hereditary. Another case is that of the Scottish Peers. Between 1715 and 1790, the House refused to allow to sit those Scottish Peers who had had Great Britain Peerages conferred upon them by the King. It may further be noted that on at least one occasion since the O'Connell case in 1844, when the principle was established that non-legal Peers could not vote in Judicial causes, a lay Peer has attempted to vote, and his vote was disallowed. In passing, I should like to draw
8
your Lordships' attention to the words, "the principle was established." Yet another case is that, apart from Standing Order XII, there is no authority for the exclusion from the House of Peers under twenty-one. Such Peers did, in fact, sit during the reign of Henry VIII, and at some time between then and 1685 the House, by Standing Order, decreed their exclusion—and I emphasise the words "Standing Order."
It seems to me important to explain that the purpose of the Resolution which I am moving to-day is to obtain an expression of opinion on the general principle. And if the House agrees to the Resolution, I suggest that a Standing Order should be framed in conformity with it, and that this should then be submitted to the House. No question of Prerogative can arise in considering the Resolution: it is only at a later stage—that is, the Standing Order stage—when this might occur. If it is thought that it does, I shall be prepared to move another Resolution asking that the question be referred to the Committee for Privileges. If it should be decided that the Prerogative has been infringed, the appropriate action could be take at the direction of the House. I think that this is the correct procedure.
I should like once again to call your Lordships' attention to Rule 18 with regard to "Leave of absence." This rule, by inference, makes it clear that the House has power to grant this leave, and pre-supposes that Peers are expected to attend the House regularly. Therefore, the House of Lords has laid down certain procedure if they cannot do so. But—and I hope your Lordships will note this—it is your Lordships who grant this permission, not the Sovereign. To end my statement. I quote the words of the Writ of Summons by the Sovereign which:
"…strictly enjoins and commands a Peer on his faith and allegiance to be at the place of Parliament on the day named to treat and give counsel upon the affairs aforesaid."
All that this Resolution does is to reinforce the Sovereign's command. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House is of opinion that no Peer, except he has obtained leave of absence under Standing Order No. XVIII, should vote on a Division of this House unless he has, if resident in England or Wales, attended the House at least x times, and, if resident elsewhere.

9
attended at least y times, during the previous Session in which the House has sat for Public Business on twelve or more days; Provided that this Resolution would not apply (a) in the case of a newly created Peer until after the expiry of a complete Session following the date of his introduction, nor (b) in the case of a Peer succeeding by descent until after the expiry of a complete Session following the date of his succession.—(The Marquess of Exeter.)
LORD SALTOUN: Before the noble Marquess's Motion is put, may I ask him to elucidate two points? The first is this. What would be the position of a Peer who is disqualified but who had to bring a Motion before the House and perhaps press it to a Division'? Would he be entitled to divide the House? Secondly, what would be the position of a Peer succeeding to his father, or succeeding by right of blood, who was absent from the United Kingdom on duty for more than one Session? Would he still be disqualified until the lapse of the Session?
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: Surely the "Leave of absence" rule would come into operation for that kind of case: the Resolution has been so drawn as to give as much latitude as possible in such a case. The noble Lord will see that if he reads the last few lines. That will give him some indication of what would happen in such circumstances. There is no reason at all why the Peer should not have leave of absence. With regard to the noble Lord's second question, the Peer would surely be able to speak in the House at any time, and he could divide the House.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
2.53 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think it may be for your convenience if I intervene early in this debate to give the views of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the extremely interesting proposal which has been put before the House by my noble relative, Lord Exeter. I should add that my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor, will also be speaking later to give to your Lordships information in regard to the more technical aspects of this question—and it is, as your Lordships will have
10
gathered from the speech you have just heard, an extremely technical topic. My duty is to give general guidance to the House; and let me say at once that I am afraid that any answer which I could give to-day on any aspect of the question of the reform of your Lordships' House would have been bound, in the nature of things, to be of a rather anodyne and even negative character. Your Lordships must not expect any earth-shaking pronouncement from me. That, I think, is inevitable in the circumstances in which this debate takes place.
As your Lordships know (if I may range a little wider than the actual topic of the noble Marquess's Resolution) the Prime Minister recently sent out an invitation to the leaders of the other main Parties in Parliament to take part in inter-Party discussions on the whole question of the reform of this House, on which no inter-Party agreement was reached on the last occasion when an attempt was made, in 1948. Mr. Clement Davies, on behalf of that body of Liberals for which he speaks, accepted that invitation. The Party of noble Lords opposite, the official Opposition, to the great regret, I may say, of those who sit on these Benches and, I suspect, to the great regret of some, at any rate, of the noble Lords who sit opposite, decided to refuse.
It is not for me in any way to criticise the decision to which the leaders of the Labour Party came; that is a matter for them; it is not a matter for me. But I am frankly sorry, and I am sure the country was sorry, too, that they came to the conclusion they did, for I feel personally that it would be very much better if it were possible to reach an agreed solution of this difficult question. However, it is no good crying over spilt milk. What is done, is done. But their decision has undoubtedly created a new situation, and I would say frankly that Her Majesty's Government have not decided in that situation exactly what the next step must be. That, perhaps, is partly my own fault, because unfortunately I have had to be away ever since the Labour Party's reply has been received. I can assure the House that there will be no avoidable delay in reaching a decision.
I understand it has been suggested in certain quarters that nothing further can be done by the Government, pending a

11
change of heart on the part of the Labour Party; that any reform must be subject to their approval. I cannot help thinking that that is rather a strange doctrine for a Party that only five years ago themselves brought in unilaterally, when they were in office, without any agreement from the Opposition, extensive alterations in the powers of this House. I do not remember Labour spokesmen at that time putting forward arguments which I understand are now current; and I personally should not be prepared to accept those arguments. But, at any rate, I am afraid the House must accept the fact that I am not in a position to make any firm statement of policy this afternoon; and I should, therefore, as I explained earlier, have been obliged at this stage to return a negative answer to any specific proposals for the reform of this House, whatever they might he, as being premature. That would have applied to schemes of the kind which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, put forward in this House not long ago; and it would apply equally to the more limited proposal which the noble Marquess has put forward this afternoon.
But there is, unfortunately, another reason of a different character which forces me, very reluctantly, to say that this particular proposal which the noble Marquess has put forward is likely in any case to be unacceptable. I confess to your Lordships that I do not do this at all lightheartedly: for, let me say at once, that for me, at any rate, the proposal has very considerable attractions. As the noble Marquess has said, one of the reproaches most commonly levelled against this House is that there are large numbers of Members of the House who seldom or never attend to their Parliamentary duties. We all know that there is a very considerable measure of truth in that reproach. It is, indeed, perhaps inevitable in the times in which we live. Whatever some people may think, Peers of the Realm are to-day no more rich men than any other British citizens, and all, even those who have nominally large incomes, are weighed down by the burden of taxation. They are not given large salaries, like the Members of another place. They are not given any salaries at all. They have, therefore, to supplement their straitened resources—what is
12
left of them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—by hard work in other spheres. For that reason, as we all know—and it is as familiar to noble Lords opposite as to those on this side of the House—there are many Members of this House who cannot spend their lives as their fathers used to do in the service of this House.
Moreover, there is another reason, and it is this. The burden of local work is to-day much heavier than it used to be, say, fifty or one hundred years ago, and there are a great many noble Lords who feel—and we cannot criticise them—that they can perform more useful work there, in their own parts of the world. At any rate, it still remains true that there are, as a result, many Peers who are not nowadays here as often as either they or we should like. This is frequently pointed out by the enemies of your Lordships' House, and it is equally said, as we all know, that they could come down and flood the Division Lobby at any time on some issue affecting them. In fact, I am pretty certain that they would not do so, and the proof, I suggest, is that these normal absentees, who are sometimes rather flippantly called the "backwoodsmen," did not appear in 1948 or 1949 to vote against the Parliament Act, which drastically limited their powers. But, technically, they could have done—that is the argument. That is a point which is elaborated, as we all know, by those who, in reality, hanker after single-Chamber government, on platforms all over the country every week-end that they can find an audience.
The proposals of the noble Marquess, if I understand them aright, are designed to enable this House to do away with this reproach by our own action and by a simple alteration of the Standing Orders of the House. Peers who are normally absentees could continue to sit and continue to speak, if they wished, but they would be unable to vote in any Division unless they had attended a certain number of times in the preceding Session. I think I have stated the proposal of the noble Marquess fairly. Your Lordships will perceive the advantages of this proposal which is, if I may say so with all diffidence, a credit both to the ingenuity and to the public spirit of the noble Marquess. I repeat, I must confess that I was at first greatly attracted by it, and even now

13
I only wish that it were practicable. But I understand that there is to it a fatal objection which the experts who have been consulted regard as insuperable. Even if it does not involve an actual infringement of the Royal Prerogative, which I understand is not absolutely certain, it would certainly involve too serious a departure from the ancient customs and traditions of this House to be regarded as practical politics.
As your Lordships know, every Peer of the United Kingdom has the right to have a Summons to Parliament issued to him, which includes the right to vote. That is a right which has been hallowed by the constitutional usage of the centuries, and the view of these experts is that it cannot be denied. In such circumstances, as I understand the position, they regard it as out of the question that the House itself, by a mere alteration of Standing Orders, should take away or even limit that right. That is the broad argument, though I recognise, from what the noble Marquess has said to us this afternoon, that he would not accept it.
LORD BLACKFORD: May I ask the noble Marquess a question? Does that right apply to noble Lords who have not taken the Oath?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Lord would allow me to say so—I am dealing with this subject briefly because I do not want to keep the House—the Lord Chancellor is going to speak on the constitutional aspect of the matter, and I have no doubt that he will answer the question which the noble Lord has put. As I was saying, I am not a constitutional lawyer, or even a constitutional expert, and I should not have the temerity to enter into a detailed controversy with the noble Marquess who has moved this Motion. I shall leave that to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who is to speak to your Lordships later in this debate. But, in view of the advice which we have received, it is clearly impossible for this, or indeed any other Government, with the best will in the world, to accept the Motion of the noble Marquess. The last thing that we wish to do is to vote against it, because we recognise fully the purity of the motives and, above all, the concern for the good name of your Lordships' House which
14
have led the noble Marquess to put forward his proposals. I hope, therefore, most profoundly, that, when he has heard what the Lord Chancellor has to say, he will be willing to withdraw his Motion. We owe him, think, a debt of real gratitude for having raised this subject, and I am only sorry, for the reasons which I have staled, that it is not possible for the Government to accept the Motion.
In conclusion, I would say one more word. The noble Marquess, in the closing phrases of his speech, stressed his desire to submit this matter to the judgment of the Committee for Privileges. If lie still wishes to do this after hearing the Lord Chancellor, I can assure him that the Government have no wish to deter him—if, indeed, he can find a proper form of putting the question to the Committee, which, I understand, is not without its complications, but no doubt the Table will advise him upon that. But I should tell him and the House that it would be an unusual procedure; that no general question of this kind—at least, that is my information—has been put to the Committee for Privileges since 1750. However, there is that very distant and remote precedent. Moreover, in view of the strong advice which the Government have received, I should not like the noble Marquess with the best will in the world, to think that it was likely to lead to any very satisfactory results. However, that is a matter for him and not for the Government who, I repeat, would not in any case be committed by his action. I can only assure the noble Marquess once more that, if he wishes to take that course, the Government will put no difficulties in his way. I think that is all I can say to your Lordships this afternoon. As I say, the more detailed and technical side will be dealt with at a later stage by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
3.8 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I very much regret to say that because of other business my noble Leader is unable to be present this afternoon, but he has asked me to convey, on his behalf and on behalf of every noble Lord on this side of the House, our very good wishes to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on his return to duty once more. Noble Lords opposite understand very well what

15
his leadership of their Party means to them. They, no doubt, have views as to the value to attach to his services as Leader of the House. I think it is right and proper that we on this side of the House should say that, if the Leader of the House has to be someone other than a Labour Minister, we would prefer the noble Marquess to most other persons with whom we come in contact. We wish him many happy returns and a successful period for the remainder of the Session.
In view of the attitude taken by the Government towards this Motion, I will not go into great detail about the rights and wrongs of the matter. There may be other opportunities in the future, as foreshadowed by the noble Marquess, to enable us to do that. But in view of what the noble Marquess himself has said, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words on the general issue. It is true that the Government recently asked the political Parties to meet them in conference concerning the composition and powers of your Lordships' House. It is also true that the Party to which I consider it a privilege to belong decided not to accept that invitation. But that refusal to accept the invitation should not be misunderstood. It will be remembered by noble Lords that the Prime Minister's letter covered two points—first, the composition, and second, the powers of your Lordships' House. I do not think I am giving anything away if I say that the Party of which I am a member, and of which noble Lords on this side of the House are proud to be members, are somewhat alarmed when noble Lords opposite begin to talk about the powers of this House. We would rather hear them talk about the authority of this House. We think there may be danger to all of us in the extension of power.
It is sometimes said that this power is required because, on a General Election, there may be a swing of the electorate in the wrong direction: that we in Parliament might find ourselves confronted by a revolutionary majority and that, therefore, it is essential that your Lordships should have an increased power in order to prevent harm from being done. We have seen revolutionary powers at work in Europe during the
16
last twenty years. If a revolutionary power arose in this country at all like those we have seen abroad, then the power which your Lordships' House has been claiming would not stand in the way of those revolutionaries' accomplishing their aims. If there were a Communist majority in this country the first thing that would be done would be the complete abolition of the House of Lords—it would not be allowed to meet. That is a fact. So when noble Lords opposite talk about an increase in power they are surely not thinking about the return of a majority of that kind: they can be thinking only about the return of a Labour majority—a majority that wants to go faster than noble Lords opposite, but does not want to go so fast that the ruin of the country is accomplished. If that be a fair picture of the position, noble Lords opposite need not be surprised if the Labour Party decide, that at this present time they do not want to decide (a) the composition of your Lordships' House and (b) the extension of its powers.
Now I should like to say a word about the Motion now before the House. As I see it, the Motion is in part an expression of opinion, although in the proviso it assumes that it can be operated. In expressing an opinion, I should have doubted whether it would effect the purpose that the noble Marquess had in view. It does not ask for the appointment of a Committee to consider a new Standing Order, nor does it ask that the Motion be referred to such a Committee; it is simply an expression of opinion. The second pointis that Standing Order No. XVIII appears to me to be an Order of a permissive character. Therefore, if we were to have a new Standing Order, Standing Order XVIII would require some alteration. I rather doubt whether noble Lords would find it convenient always to ask for permission to be absent, especially when they have to find a reason for it. It may be very embarrassing for some noble Lords to say that they want to be absent from the counsels of your Lordships' House for a period of time. Moreover, we on this side of the House somewhat boggle at the use of the words "if resident". The noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack could probably tell us what those words really mean, but we on this side

17
of the House feel that it would be difficult to bring anybody to account under them.
If there is to be a new Standing Order, then obviously the question of how it should be framed is not one for this House as a whole, but one for some delegated arrangement that the House cares to make. Finally, I question whether it is wise to have such a Standing Order. I can imagine that there was a time when the membership of your Lordships' House was such that if any portion of it was absent the business of the House came to a standstill. I can imagine that in those days serious consideration may have been given to a regulation compelling attendance. But surely in these days it would be embarrassing to have nearly 900 noble Lords all assembled at one time to participate in our Business. Therefore, without saying whether or not we are in favour, I say merely that I have doubts about this Motion, and that I hope the advice given by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will be accepted.
3.16 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I do not intend to pursue the point of whether or not the Party for which the noble Lord who has just sat down speaks was wise in turning down the invitation to an all-Party Conference on both the powers and the composition of this House. Suffice it to say that I thought the reasons he gave why his Party turned it down were somewhat poor. First let me say that I am delighted to see the Leader of the House back with us, although I am somewhat disappointed that he has not been a little more forthcoming towards the Motion before your Lordships to-day. Of course, there are some people who will always attack a House of Lords, or indeed any Second Chamber. We are always liable to be attacked until we ourselves become an elected Chamber—if that ever happens; I doubt whether the House of Commons would allow it. But there are aspects of our composition with which I should have thought we ourselves could deal.
One thing that can be said about us is that although a large number of Peers are entitled to attend this House and to legislate, comparatively few do so regularly, and, even when they are most populated, our Division Lobbies do not account for more than a small proportion
18
of our numbers. I do not know what would happen if all 840 Peers who are entitled to come here were to turn up; it would be an extremely crowded Chamber. But what I think we have to face is that with every year that passes—it has happened in fact, with every year since 1900—an average of ten new peerages are created. Our numbers have gone up by 512 since the beginning of this century, which accounts for a considerable proportion of the 840 Peers who are entitled to sit in this House. Yet, whilst there has been this increase in the growth of the tree, there has been no pruning other than the normal pruning occasioned by death or a Peerage disappearing. So we have arrived at the position that in the last fifty-two years the growth of this House has been out of all proportion to that of the House of Commons, and the question is whether we have got to wait for a Bill which limits our numbers, as it would, I think, be bound to do if it dealt with the composition of this House. I do not know who of those who are at present entitled to sit in this House would, under the terms of that Bill, as finally agreed, be allowed to sit thereafter.
The virtue of the Resolution moved by the noble Marquess is that those who would not be allowed to vote under its terms would be those who had eliminated their right by reason of their absence. If there was good reason for being absent, they could apply for leave. I find, on looking through the Records of this House in the Library, that back in the reign of Henry VIII, the Archbishop of Canterbury asked leave of the House not to sit, on the ground of illness, and he was granted leave by the Lord Chancellor of that day. That rule could come into force in the case of anyone who properly went abroad to represent this country—perhaps as an Ambassador, perhaps as a Governor, perhaps in some military or other capacity. A further virtue, surely, of the noble Marquess's Resolution is this. It would not prevent any Peer who wanted to come here and advise your Lordships—as ins House was originally called to advise the Sovereign—on some matter on which he (as is the case with so many of your Lordships) was an expert, from coming here and giving that advice. The only thing he would have precluded himself from doing, if he had not been a regular attendant, would be from actually voting in the Lobby. I expect that the

19
noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will have made considerable researches into this matter. I do not know whether he has been reading them, but I found that a number of books which I wanted to look at had been borrowed from the Library by the Lord Chancellor's secretary, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord has been studying them. There were about four books I sought which, quite rightly, of course, had gone to the Lord Chancellor.
So far as I have been able to understand the history of this House, there is a doubt whether or not it is a direct descendant of the old Council of the Saxon Kings. But whether that be so or not, I think it is undoubted that William I called in the Earls and the Barons to advise him, and they were the nucleus of the original Parliament in this country. We all know that the squires were called in by Simon de Montfort, and we can also read that the first time the two Houses sat separately was, apparently, in 1332 in the reign of Edward III. From 1339 onwards they always sat separately. The two Houses were called together in order to voice their views. It is often said that "voicing" meant shouting: "Content," or "Not-content." I do not believe it meant anything of the sort in those early days. It meant that the Members of the Houses lifted up their voices to advise the Sovereign as to what action he should rake. I have traced down the records, and though it may be that it actually happened much earlier, the first vote of which I have been able to find a note was recorded by this House in 1691. So for some 360 years—359 to be exact—this House, so far as I have been able to gather, never did more than the noble Marquess, if his Motion were carried and put into Standing Orders, would allow Peers to do who did not regularly attend. For those first 360 years—more than half the life of this ancient institution—apparently no one ever voted at all. The Members only advised the Sovereign.
I was a little surprised to hear my noble friend the Leader of the House say that to accept anything such as the noble Marquess's Resolution would be too serious a departure from customs and tradition. Of course it has not often happened that a Peer has been excluded from voting in this House. The noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, quoted the case
20
of a Lord Savill, who was so excluded. There was also an Earl of Middlesex, who in his age and time occupied what was then a somewhat lucrative job—the job of Paymaster-General which is now occupied by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. This Earl of Middlesex of those days apparently put not only his hand but the whole of his arm into the till, with the result that he was impeached and sent to prison. When he came out of prison, having served his sentence, he then attempted to come back and sit in your Lordships' House. He was whitewashed by his Party but your Lordships' House would have nothing of that. They passed a Resolution the effect of which was to exclude the noble Earl for life from sitting in your Lordships' House. It is true of those Peers who do not often attend that none of them has done anything of that kind, and no one is suggesting anything to the contrary. But there clearly has been in the past exercise by this House of the power to exclude people from sitting and voting in it, if the House has voted accordingly. As I say, it has been done only in isolated cases—not, of course, in a general way. But even the isolated cases, I submit, prove the rule and show that we have the power to do it if we will. Whether we do it or not is, of course, another matter.
I believe I shall long have ceased to be a Member of your Lordships' House before it is altered in any way at all, because if this matter has to wait for agreement between the Parties, I can see no change at all taking place. Some people do not wish to be deprived of the target for their stones, and if they agreed to any reform they would at any rate have to agree to the fact that the Second Chamber is of some use. I believe we shall go on justifying ourselves by what we do. At any rate, the business of the House of Commons would be more difficult than it is to-day if we did not "have a go" at the Bills that come to us from another place and put in, as we did a number of times in the last Parliament and in the Transport Bill last week, a number of Amendments on which the Government of the day had second thoughts.
Frankly, I should like to see us take this step, to see if we cannot do something to take away one of the blemishes on the record of this House as a whole. In his

21
capacity of Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack is asking new magistrates to visit assizes and quarter sessions and take some course of instruction before they sit and administer the law. This Motion does the same thing: it asks Peers to come here and listen before they come and make the law which magistrates will have to administer afterwards.
I should like to see this matter pursued still further. I believe it would be in the interests of all who have the welfare of he House at heart if the noble Marquess. Lord Exeter, tried to pursue it further to see whether there is not something we ourselves could do. As I said before in a speech on the Bill proposed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon—a speech which I am afraid received some notoriety because of a couple of sentences—I do not believe that we should be doing anything against the Royal Prerogative. If noble Lords look at their Writs of Summons, they will see that we should be taking some effective action to exclude those who do not obey those Writs. We should be backing up what Her Majesty requests of every new Peer and what her predecessors almost from time immemorial have requested of Peers—to attend in this place and give of their advice. I hope that whatever the noble Marquess does about his Motion to-day, he will not let the matter drop, but will try to see whether he can get the Committee for Privileges or some other body to investigate the suggestion fully.
3.33 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I certainly support the principle of this Resolution, because I believe that it goes part of the way to lessen the reproach sometimes levied against this House, a reproach already mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I refer to the reproach that Members who take little part in the work of the House can at any time appear and vote on legislation; that a sort of rearguard force can come along and go into action at any time they choose, although they may not have been in the Chamber for, perhaps, twelve months or more. I appreciate the argument put forward by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, that under Standing Order No. XVIII we may be interfering with the Royal Prerogative. For this and other reasons, I should
22
prefer to see the principle of this Resolution embodied in a more comprehensive reform—which would, of course, mean a Bill before Parliament. The Motion indicates voting in a Division, but the Division might be on a Motion of "No confidence" in the Government. If a Motion of "No confidence" in the Government were carried in this House, the Government would not fall. But I should think that "voting on a Division" is perhaps a little too broad, and I should prefer to confine this proposal to legislation.
It can be argued, of course, that unless reform is approached step by step, nothing will ever be done. I think there is a good deal of force in this argument but, on the other hand, I suggest that the proposed reform envisaged by this Resolution does not go far enough even for a first step. It would mean that at any time a large and variable number of Peers could attend and vote on legislation, provided that they had complied with the terms of the Resolution. I suggest that the first step in reform should include a definite limitation in the number of Peers who could vote on legislation. At the risk of wearying your Lordships, I should like to refer for a few moments to what I said in a previous debate. I suggested that some 200 Peers of Parliament should be elected from the present Members of this Chamber by a Joint Standing Committee of all Parties in the House. It should also be provided that all Members of the Second Chamber who were not elected Peers of Parliament should have the right to attend and speak in debate, but not to vote on legislation. On that point my proposal was very similar to that in the Motion before the House to-day.
A further provision would allow Peers who did not wish to be elected Peers of Parliament to be candidates for the House of Commons. I suggest that it would be the duty of the Joint Standing Committee to keep a balance of Parties in the House corresponding in proportion to the Parties in the House of Commons at the commencement of each Parliament. It is true that there are not yet sufficient Peers amongst the Opposition to create such a balance, but no doubt by the process of time this difficulty would be rectified and some adjustments could be made by the creation of

23
a limited number of Life Peers, somewhat on the lines of the recent Bill brought before the House by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon.
I need hardly point out to your Lordships that one of the great advantages to be found in this Chamber is that an expert can be found on almost any subject amongst its large and varied membership. Many such Peers are unable to attend the House very frequently, as they may be engaged in local government work or industrial activities in the provinces, and probably would not wish to be Peers of Parliament. But by the reformation I have suggested their advice and experience would not be lost to the House. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to try to go much further than the reform I have briefly outlined. If we do, this House would become a rival to the other place, something which I am quite sure the country, as a whole, would not accept. Whatever may happen to this Resolution, may I hope that its principle will be embodied in a more comprehensive form, somewhat on the lines I have put forward, at some time not very far ahead?
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned the question of powers. I hope he is not suggesting that the present powers of the House should be reduced in any way. The power of delay which we have varies, of course, according to the time taken for a controversial Bill to pass through both Houses. I suggest that with a small adjustment, which I will not go into now, the powers we have are probably adequate. I feel that this Motion would be well worth considering as part of a larger reform, but I cannot support it to-day because I think that by itself it does not go far enough.

SHOOTING DOWN OF BRITISH BOMBER
3.39 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY): My Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to intervene for a few minutes to make a Statement similar to that which is being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place.
24
The House knows that a Lincoln aircraft of Flying Training Command was shot down by Russian MIG.15 fighters near the zonal boundary in Germany at about half-past two last Thursday afternoon, March 12. The whole crew of seven were killed, or have since died as a result of their injuries. I offer to the families of these officers and airmen the deep sympathy of Her Majesty's Government and of the House in their grievous loss. This was due to a cruel and wanton attack by Soviet fighter 'planes. The Lincoln was unarmed. On training missions, when not engaged in gunnery practice, our aircraft have hitherto carried no ammunition. The belt feed mechanism had, in fact, been removed from both Hispano 20 m.m. guns in the upper turret, which is the usual practice when it is not intended to fire these weapons. The 0.5 machine-guns in the rear turret were complete but were not provided with ammunition. The Russian assertion that the Lincoln opened fire on them is utterly untrue.
The flight was part of the usual exercising of Allied air defences. Such exercises have been carried out regularly by Flying Training Command over the past eighteen months. The course prescribed for the Lincoln ran parallel to the zonal boundary and forty miles on our side of it. The pilot and the navigator were both fully trained and experienced officers.
A study of the information now available indicates that the aircraft may, through a navigational error, have accidentally crossed into the Eastern Zone of Germany at some point. But the evidence of ground observers and the spent cannon shell links from the Russian fighters picked up in our Western Zone prove that the Russians repeatedly fired on the Lincoln and mercilessly destroyed it when it was actually west of, and within, the Allied zonal frontier. The wreck of the aircraft followed in its descent a track which caused it to fall just within the Russian Zone. Thus it was actually over our Zone when first and mortally fired on, and the lives of seven British airman were callously taken for a navigational mistake in process of correction which could have been dealt with by the usual method of protest and inquiry.

25
British aircraft in the Western Allied Zone of Germany will continue to carry out their normal exercises, taking all possible precautions. Should Soviet air-Graft stray into our Zone every effort will be made to warn them and, by following the procedure normally used by nations at peace, to avoid loss of life.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble and gallant Lord the Secretary of State for his statement of the facts regarding what I am sure we all consider the unjustifiable shooting down of the Lincoln bomber. The resultant tragic loss of seven lives—and here I should like to repeat the words used by the Secretary of State—was "due to a cruel and wanton attack by Soviet righter 'planes." The noble Lord's statement is itself a direct contradiction of the explanation advanced by the Russian authorities, because it is obviously impossible for an unarmed 'plane either to open fire or to return fire. I should like to associate noble Lords who sit or these Benches with the expression of sympathy uttered on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the families of the crew whose lives have been lost.
There are two points that I should like to raise with the Secretary of State. In the course of his statement he said that the pilot and navigator were both fully trained and experienced officers. The general public do not always understand the meaning of a "training flight," and they may have assumed that the crew were, in fact, being trained in flying. Can the Secretary of State give us an indication of the flying experience possessed by the pilot and the navigator? Secondly, the Secretary of State said that training flights will continue, and that all possible precautions will be taken. Does he not consider it desirable that for future training flights the margin between the plotted course and the frontier should be such as to allow for navigational errors, drift and the effects of adverse weather? Perhaps the noble and gallant Lord will be good enough to reply to those two points
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, may I take the second question first? The course plotted in this case was at the nearest point forty miles from the western zonal frontier: the course actually lay west of two of our Royal Air Force-occupied airfields, at Fassberg and
26
Celle. There were, moreover, ample ground navigational aids available. We can only conjecture that there must have been a navigational error. It is not, however, one that it is possible to guard against, and in my view the precautions taken and the margin of error allowed were adequate. As regards the first question of the noble Lard, he is perfectly right: both the pilot and navigator were very experienced airmen. The pilot had completed altogether 1,500 hours of flying, arid had what is called a green ticket—which is a ticket granted for a high standard of instrument flying. He had also done a large number of hours on Lincoln aircraft. The navigator hid wartime navigational experience, and had flown more than 1,000 hours. I think that shows that this was a most experienced crew, and it is impossible to explain how the error, as error there must have been, occurred.
LORD HENDERSON: While thanking the noble and gallant Lord for his reply, there is one other suggestion that I should like to make. His statement makes it perfectly clear that the Russian explanation of the incident is totally untrue; that is to say, that the Lincoln was unarmed and, therefore, could not fire. That statement has been made to-day, and it was made earlier. But so far as I can recall, it has not been made officially to the Soviet Government—it does not appear in either of the two Notes sent by the British High Commissioner in Germany. Is it not desirable that an official statement of the actual facts, which are the crucial facts in the case, should be brought to the attention of the Soviet Government?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I will take note of what the noble Lord has said.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, I do not propose to make any comment on the statement that has been made, except to associate myself with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that the statement given this afternoon is proof that the excuses given by those who committed the outrage are groundless. My purpose in rising is mainly to associate Peers who sit on these Benches with the expression of sympathy with the families of those who perished as a result of this attack.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and gallant Lord this question. Is it not normal, and has it not been so for a long time, both in this country and in Germany, to send up 'planes, when they are on training, unarmed as this one was?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, that is quite accurate. Noble Lords will realise that there is a great deal of traffic, civil and military, which flies to Hamburg and in the region south of it. Indeed, it would be impossible, in time of peace, going about our peaceable missions, not to allow ourselves freely to use our air space in that Zone.

PEERS' ATTENDANCES AND VOTING RIGHTS
3.49 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, like others of your Lordships who have taken part in the discussion on the Motion moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, I have felt a great deal of sympathy with his object, though I doubt whether the object can be achieved by the means he proposes. The object he has in view would both remove from this House a reproach which is often exploited, and contribute to the efficiency of our own action. But there seem to me to be two difficulties in the way of adopting this proposal. The proposal is that we should make a Standing Order which prevents a Peer from voting in the House if he does not fulfil certain conditions depending on his past attendances. I ask myself the question: Would not such a Standing Order have the result of cutting down the rights granted to a Peer by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative? A Patent of Peerage confers on the recipient the right to vote as a legislative Peer, and the Writ of Summons calls on him to attend and discharge his duties as a Peer of Parliament. Subject to what the Lord Chancellor may tell us, I should have thought that a Standing Order which would restrict his right to vote would therefore be in conflict with the rights and the duties imposed upon him by the Crown. Of course, if that is so, then such a restriction could be imposed only by a Statute to the consideration of which the Crown had given its Royal permission.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? Of course, the Writ of Summons only summons a Peer to give his counsel. It says nothing about voting.
VISCOUNT SIMON: That is true. Still, I should have thought that the traditions of the House were that the House gave its counsel collectively and, in case of a difference of opinion, by a vote. However, that is a matter upon which no doubt my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor, will tell us his view. I am not in the least opposed to the idea behind the proposal, but I question whether it is one which can be reconciled with our constitutional rules.
Secondly, on the merits of the proposal itself, there is a second objection which is of a practical kind and which I would venture to mention. The difficulty that would arise is that, under this proposal, a Peer could qualify for the enjoyment of a future voting right by a merely nominal attendance—by coming into the House, being registered at the Table as present at a sitting for a few minutes and then, without giving any attention to what was going on, disappearing again. Some provision to meet that case would. I think, have to be contemplated. May I be permitted to mention an analogy? In the palmy days of the Parliamentary Bar, busy King's Counsel were often briefed to appear for or against a number of Private Bills which were being considered contemporaneously in various Committee rooms along the Committee Corridor. The rule used to be that a leading counsel was not entitled to what was called his "refresher"—that is to say, to a payment of ten guineas for any day after the first day in connection with a Bill in which he was engaged—unless on that day he actually appeared in the Committee room and took part. I recall that it used to be said that a particular practitioner, who was exceptionally occupied in the Committees, earned his refresher by merely turning up in the Committee room for a few minutes and intervening, and that his clerk then made good his claim to a refresher by pointing to his intervention in the shorthand notes of the proceedings—"My Lords, may we have the window open?", or whatever it might be. We certainly do not want to encourage the practical disregard of the object which the noble Marquess very

29
rightly aims at by a mere formal satisfaction of the rule laid down. I think that is a difficulty, and I do not at present see that it is met by this proposal. On the constitutional point we shall, of course, all want to hear what the Lord Chancellor has to say. But I see considerable difficulties in reconciling the proposed Standing Order with the Royal Prerogative which is the basis of a Patent of Peerage.
3.57 p.m.
LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, it may very well be that your Lordships think that this subject has now been sufficiently debated and that it is not right that I should delay your further proceedings, whatever it is you wish to do—proceed to the Lobbies or otherwise. But I have crossed swords with my noble friend Lord Exeter in another room in this place on this subject so often that I feel I should be cowardly if I did not take up the gage which he has thrown on the Floor here this afternoon. The whole purport of my remarks amount really to an entreaty to him not to press this matter to a Division. To me, personally, such an action would be extremely embarrassing, for I have for so many years benefited by the knowledge, experience and wise counsel of the noble Marquess that it would be a grief to me to vote against any Motion which he laid before the House. I think it would be an embarrassment to us all.
May I again interpose a personal note to say that I am in favour of the object at which the noble Marquess aims? It is no doubt desirable that we should have something instead of this glass window at which other people can throw stones. I do not think it is possible that this Resolution can form the basis for our protection. It is, in the first place, open to criticism in its terms. It takes no account of the services rendered by those noble Lords who, though they may not be often in this Chamber, do serve elsewhere in this building on Private Bill Committees, on the House of Lords Offices Committee, on Joint Consolidation Committees, on Standing Orders Committee, and in many other ways. Secondly, it takes no account of those noble Lords who ought not to attend frequently. On occasion we have the great benefit of hearing the advice of great Service chiefs, who certainly ought
30
not to intervene in any way, either by speech or vote, when general political matters are under discussion. We have the advantage from lime to time of great lawyers, other than the Lord Chancellor, whose advice on law and order is desirable and helpful, but who ought not, in my view—and I think in the general view of your Lordships'House—to intervene except when such matters as that come before the House.
Beyond that—if I may venture in the presence of my noble and learned friend, Lord Simon, to say so—I take a strong view of the constitutional doctrine which has been laid down by both the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I should like your Lordships to consider how it is that a Peer comes to sit here. He receives a Writ if he comes here as the object of a first creation, and takes it by right. If he claims on the death of his father or other relation, he applies for the Writ to be issued, and the Writ must be issued ex debito justitiœ. The Lord Chancellor once satisfied, the claim is justified and the Writ is issued. Thus many Lord Chancellors in succession have laid down.
He comes, therefore, on his Writ, and, having done so, he has certain privileges and duties which he has to exercise and discharge—summed up briefly in the words "seat, place and voice." Those are privileges conferred by the Prerogative of the Sovereign; and this House, of itself, cannot by Resolution deprive a person who has come here on such a Writ of the right to exercise the duties conferred on him by a Patent. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, appears to think—and I have heard it suggested before, though I cannot think it has been suggested seriously—that "voice" means the power to make the kind of noise which I am making at this moment. But it does not. It means the power to vote, and it is so accepted universally by all persons who have studied these subjects. We cannot, therefore, by any sort of complicated and special-pleading argument, take away the right to vote from the Peer who comes to sit here.
That is really all I want to say, except that I repeat again that I have tried to persuade the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, before and have failed. Perhaps I have failed this afternoon; but I

31
again entreat him not to put us to this embarrassment and to remember that when proposals for the reform of this House or for other grave alterations in the Constitution of this country are to be brought before either House, they should be brought by the Government of the day, with full responsibility. They should be brought, not in the form of vague Resolutions to which some other Committee has to give effect, but in the form of proposals for legislation—in this case or in any cases which affect the Royal Prerogative, strengthened by a sense of governmental responsibility. They should, indeed, be watched over by governmental responsibility at every stage of their progress until at last they reach the Statute Book. We ought not to discuss these great matters in any other form. Certainly we ought not to try to make any great alteration in the constitutional position of this House and every Member of it, merely on what I must, with great respect, regard as a misconceived notion of the powers which this House has to discharge.
4.3 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, when I came into the Chamber I had no intention of taking part in this debate, but now that I have listened to it there are one or two observations which I should like to make. It seems to me that almost every noble Lord who has taken part in this discussion has more or less taken the view that the objectives of the noble Marquess's Motion are very desirable but that unfortunately it is not practical politics. And I desire, therefore, to say that, unlike most noble Lords, I regard the noble Marquess's Motion with very grave misgivings. As I understand it, it is an attempt to introduce—rather as the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, has just suggested, by a by-path—an instalment of that rationalisation of your Lordships' Chamber which the present Government, like so many previous Governments, have attempted, but failed, to introduce.
Well, my Lords, I am one of that, I am afraid, diminishing number of British citizens and members of this House who passionately believe that, like many other British institutions, your Lordships' House, while totally indefensible in theory, works extraordinarily well in practice. In theory, I know, a horde of
32
"Backwoodsmen" might descend at some critical juncture and outvote the regular denizens of the Chamber. But we all know that in practice they will not. As the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury reminded us, they did not come in 1948. They were offered repeated temptations to come between 1945 and 1950, but they did not come. I suggest to your Lordships that, in a country so long denuded of forests, the outmoded expression "Backwoodsmen" is suggestive of the outmoded idea behind it.
I know that in theory, in the theory at least of all the demagogues who are throwing stones at the glass house of which we have heard so much to-day, this is an over-numerous, unwieldy, hereditary Chamber, many of whose Members are poorly qualified for the business of legislation. But we all know that, in practice, it is an extraordinarily efficient and distinguished working nucleus, capable, when needed, of calling into its counsels—and its voting Lobbies—persons of the highest authority and the widest experience. I have always believed that it was one of the merits of this Chamber that it did not, like another place, keep a large number of more or less professional politicians permanently penned in the airless, artificial atmosphere of politics and the Division Lobby; and that it owed its efficiency largely to the fact that it was potentially capable of calling in the authoritative expert, who is probably too busy attending to important matters elsewhere to register the routine attendance with which Lord Exeter wishes him to qualify to come and vote when the matter upon which he is an expert happens to be under discussion in this Chamber.
Would your Lordships wish a Bishop from a northern diocese to come here and "clock in" five or six times before he is qualified to vote on, say, unemployment in the North, should that subject come under discussion in your Lordships' House? For I do not agree with the suggestion in Lord Exeter's speech, and the speeches of other noble Lords this afternoon, that it is perfectly satisfactory to summon some Air-Marshal or Archbishop to give advice, like an expert witness who is not allowed to vote on the issue before the House. It seems to me that the position of an expert witness is very different from that of a Peer who is seeking to persuade your Lordships to

33
take a certain view, and then goes with you into the Lobby when the debate comes to an end.
Last autumn I had the honour of moving in your Lordships' House an inconspicuous Private Member's Motion to abolish gin-traps. There were then speaking and voting, on both sides of the argument, a considerable number of noble Lords who do not come here very often and who on that occasion came a considerable distance to speak and vote. And I suggest that they were entirely justified in so doing, for they were giving us the benefit of their lifelong experience on the subject. There was surely no reason why they should have previously "clocked in" six or seven times, to debates on subjects with which they were unfamiliar, and in which they were perhaps not interested, before they were qualified to take part in this particular debate. I hope very much, therefore, not only that the noble Marquess will not press his Motion this afternoon but that it will not commend itself too warmly to the majority of your Lordships.
4.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, may I first express my apologies to the noble Marquess who introduced this Motion in that I was not in my place when he introduced it. Only one thing would have kept me from being here and that thing did. Unlike many of your Lordships, when I read this Motion, I did not approach it with sympathy—and for this reason: that I wished to keep my mind quite unbiased, not in order that I might give your Lordships, to the best of my ability, my advice on whether it is desirable or expedient to alter the Standing Orders in the way that this proposal suggests, but to direct myself solely to the question, in as impartial a way as I could, whether it is competent for your Lordships to make an alteration—and, let there be no doubt about it, a great alteration—in the traditional rights and duties of a Lord of Parliament.
May I say at once that, though I should not wish to be didactic or dogmatic to this House upon so grave and difficult a matter, yet I cannot conceal from your Lordships that I was soon led to the conclusion that it was by no means within your competence, by an alteration of the Standing Orders of this House, to make so grave a constitutional change?
34
The position, as I see it, is this. The terms of the Writ of Summons which each of your Lordships receives is in the familiar terms by which the Sovereign, recites that
"By the advice and assent of Our Council for certain arduous and urgent affairs concerning Us the State and defence of Our United Kingdom and the Church, We have ordered a certain Parliament to be holden"
and so on.
"and there to treat and have conference with the Prelates, great men and Peers of our Realm, and strictly enjoining, command you, upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to us that the weightiness of the said affairs and imminent perils, considered (waiving all excuses) you be at the said day and place personally present with us and with the said Prelates, Great Men and Peers to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid."
That is the peremptory language of the Writ of Summons imposing a duty, but imposing a duty in this sense: that now, for centuries, it has been considered the right of every Peer to receive such a Writ of Summons. Let there be no doubt about that: each Peer is entitled to receive a Writ of Summons and to receive a Writ of Summons in that traditional form. I think there can be no doubt about that. But it is a matter which has been considered very fully in recent years by the Committee for Privileges, in the case of Lady Rhondda's claim to a Writ of Summons.
Many of your Lordships, the older Members of this House, will remember that case very well. The fact is that every Peer, whether it be an ancient Peerage by Writ or a Peerage by Patent, is entitled, as of right, to a Writ in that form. Lord Birkenhead, the father of the present Peer, in Lord Rhondda's case said this:
"The doctrine that the King, having created a Peer, cannot direct that he shall not be summoned to Parliament, had become settled constitutional law in the course of the seventeenth century."
Lord Birkenhead made special reference, in his Opinion in that case, to the case of Lord Bristol, which I think it worth while to recall to your Lordships. The Lord Bristol of the day had incurred the enmity of Charles I before that Monarch came to the Throne. Accordingly, Charles I directed that a Writ of Summons should not be issued to him. Thereupon Lord Bristol preferred a Petition to this House signifying that his Writ of Summons had been withheld from him

35
and desiring this House to mediate for him to His Majesty that he might have his Writ of Summons according to the privilege of a Peer of this Realm. That Petition was referred to the Committee for Privileges, and their Report, which is dated March 30, 1626, is in this form:
"After diligent search, no precedent being found that any Writ of Summons hath been detained from any Peer that is capable of sitting in the House of Parliament and considering withal how far it may trench into the right of every Member of this House whether sitting by ancient right of inheritance or by Patent, to have their Writs detained, the Lords' Committee are all of opinion that it will be necessary for this House humbly to beseech His Majesty that a Writ of Summons may be sent to this Petitioner and to such other Lords to whom no Writ of Summons bath been directed for this Parliament excepting such as are made incapable to sit in Parliament by judgment of Parliament or any other legal judgment."
The Duke of Buckingham signified to the House that upon the Earl of Bristol's petition the King had sent him his Writ of Summons.
Lord Birkenhead also, in an exhaustive judgment dealing with this matter, with the whole of which I will not weary the House, refers to the work of that great lawyer, Sir Edward Coke, the Chief Justice, who in the Fouth Edition of the Institutes, in the year 1644, after refering to the Lords Spiritual, says of the Lords Temporal in their several degrees that
"Every one of them being of full age ought to have a Writ of Summons ex debito justitiœ"—
that is, that he is entitled, as of right, to a Writ of Summons to this House to speak and to vote. As I have already observed, what is now regarded as a right and a privilege was, in olden times, regarded as a duty, as indeed the language of the Writ still imports; and many instances will be found in the books where attempts have been made to enforce the attendance of Peers in this House.
There have been attempts made by Resolution of the House, by the Sovereign himself and, indeed, by Act of Parliament. As long ago as the fifth year of Richard II—and that is a very long time ago—an Act of Parliament was passed enacting that every one who received a summons to Parliament and
36
absented himself unless he could reasonably and honourably excuse himself from the King shall be amerced or otherwise punished according to the ancient custom—it was already then an ancient custom. But never has it been attempted to punish a man for his absence by enforcing absence upon him. On the contrary, the attempt has always been made to enforce his presence by fine or other penalty. Never until this hour has it been suggested that you should punish a Peer who neglects his duty by making it impossible for him to perform it. That is, I fear, the proposal involved in the Resolution which the noble Marquess has brought before the House.
My Lords. I would go so far as to say this. The Patent of Peerage being in a traditional form which, so far as is relevant to the present purpose, cannot be varied, and the Writ being in a traditional form which I and my predecessors in the office of Lord Chancellor have by direction of the Sovereign issued these many centuries, it is quite impossible for this House, by Standing Order, to vary the rights or alter the duties of a Peer of the Realm. The noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, followed in this by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, suggested that somehow there may be a variation because, although we do not alter the language of the Writ of Summons, yet by our Standing Order we may qualify it in this way: that a Peer may attend, may speak, but may not vote. My Lords, I challenge that absolutely, on two grounds: first of all, the Writ following the Patent must be regarded and construed according to traditional usage; and if Peers have been accustomed by virtue of their Patent and their Writ to attend and speak and vote, that is what the Writ means. Secondly, if you had not such traditional usage to support you, I say that it is beyond controversy that, when you have a Writ "to treat and give your counsel," that means to give your counsel not only by speaking but by your vote, because counsel is given by means of a Resolution of the House and a Resolution of the House turns upon the vote of those who vote. Whether on the broad ground or on the narrow, the Writ of Summons cannot, according to the view which I humbly put before the House, be treated as if it authorises this House to say that a

37
Peer may come, may sit upon his seat, may speak, but may not vote. My Lords, with great respect I cannot advise your Lordships that it is competent for you to do anything of the kind.
One or two points have occurred to me, for this is not the first time that I have had the advantage of an expression of his views from the noble Marquess. I know that there is one point upon which reliance has been placed as showing that this House can make its own rules as to attendance. One point I remember that the noble Marquess made is this. He has said that it is by a Resolution of this House that infant Peers have been excluded from sitting. It is true that the House has passed a Resolution in that regard, I think more than once. The first that I have been able to find was in the year 1685, by which it was resolved that infants should not sit in this House. Accordingly, that is used as art argument for saying that the House can make its own arrangements and rules as to who shall sit. With great respect to the noble Marquess, I think that is wrong, for already, in 1644, Chief Justice Coke, whose words I have cited, had said that Peers being of full age were entitled to sit. If I may make a suggestion, I think probably the truth is that at Common Law Peers under age were not entitled to sit, hut possibly some precocious infant Peers had claimed to sit and had sat and the Resolution of the House was nothing more than declaratory of the Common Law, and asserted what the position was.
Then it is true that this House has made its own regulations as to voting by proxy. That is a matter upon which the noble Marquess has led me to make many researches. The result was to satisfy me that, though the House had from time to time made regulations as to voting by proxy—and you will still find some in Standing Orders—that is a long step from assuming the right to exclude Peers altogether from voting. From the earliest days (and I mean from the very earliest days) the King was accustomed to grant his licence to Peers to vote by proxy in this House; and in the ancient records you will see sometimes against the name of a Peer that he voted by proxy licentia Regis—by licence of the King. It is a complicated and difficult history, and I do not think I need go into it. But I venture to think that it will not lend
38
any support to the view that this House can, by an alteration of its Orders, exclude those Peer; who want to sit and who are under a duty to sit.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, made reference to certain cases where this House had purported to exclude certain Peers—he referred to the case of Lord Middlesex; he might also have referred to the cases of Francis Bacon (Lord St. Alban) and Lord Macclesfield. Upon those three examples he cannot found the proposition which he asserts. The position there is stated very simply in the authoritative work of Anson—I am reading from the first volume of the fifth edition, at page 228, where the learned author says:
"It is presumed that the House of Lords could not, any more than the House of Commons, by mere Resolution exclude a member of its own body permanently from taking a part in its proceedings. But it can disqualify by sentence, sitting as a Court of Justice, either upon an impeachment by the House of Commons or presumably upon trial of one of its own Members, in the full House if Parliament is sitting, if not in the Court of the Lord High Steward. And this sentence passed by Resoluion of the House is an actual disqualification, and not, as in the case of the expulsion of a member by the House of Commons, a punishment which may or may not be temporary, as the person expelled does or does not obtain re-election.
"Thus the sentence upon the Lord Middlesex, our High Treasurer of England, by the House of Commons, far bribery, extortion and other high crimes and misdemeanours, was settled by Resolution of the House before the Commons had demanded the sentence should be passed. Lord Middlesex was to be incapable of holding office, to pay a fine to the King and then came:—'The sixth question, Whether the Lord Treasurer could ever sit in Parliament hereafter on no?' Agreed 'that he shall never sit hereafter.'
"Sentence to this effect was passed on sentence being demanded by the Commons."
There you have the exercise by this House of certain judicial powers which are part of its ancient tradition, and that is something very far from the sort of proposal which the noble Marquess makes for the exclusion, in a limited way, of members of this House.
Now we come to a piece of rather more recent history. In the year 1888 the then Marquess of Salisbury, the grandfather of the noble Marquess who leads the House to-day, introduced a Bill which was followed by another Bill in somewhat similar terms, introduced in the following year by the Lord Carnarvon of

39
the day, which was aimed at excluding Peers Who had been guilty of some crime. The interesting thing about that was this. Those noble Lords, with their great experience of law and practice and of the customs of this House, thought it necessary to introduce a Bill to exclude Peers, even Peers who had been guilty of misconduct, not merely those who had not attended this House. They were to be deprived of their privileges, but only by a Bill. That was necessary. And in the debate upon that matter, Lord Fitzgerald, a learned Lord of Appeal, expressed himself thus:
"I am not aware that any provision exists in the Constitution of this House under which any Peer can be deprived of his rights as a Peer, nor can he voluntarily renounce them."
So your Lordships will realise that a Peer cannot be deprived of his right, he cannot be deprived of any part of it, nor can he voluntarily renounce it. And that is because it is not only a right, but a duty.
It is only fair to add that after Lord Fitzgerald had said that, Lord Herschell said that though he was not going to lay down the contrary, he was not satisfied of the truth of the proposition laid down by Lord Fitzgerald. The matter was not pursued further. It was suggested that there should be an inquiry there was no inquiry, and the Bill therefore dropped. That is the only bit of comparatively modern history I have been able to find which has any bearing on this matter. Summing it up, I venture to advise your Lordships that it is not for you to deprive a Peer of any part of his right as a Lord of Parliament, a right, let me say, in answer to Lord Black ford who asked a question upon this point, which is to be exercised after the Peer has taken the Oath. That is part of the constitutional usage of Parliament. He must take the Oath. Then he is entitled to sit and vote.
There has been some suggestion that it must be part of the rights of this Assembly, as of every other Assembly, to make rules which are necessary for order. I accept that entirely. The difficulty is always to determine where the line is to be drawn. What is a rule which is merely regulatory of order, and what is a rule which, if carried into effect, would deprive a man of his rights? Analogies are proverbially dangerous, yet I will venture to
40
offer your Lordships one. All the Queen's subjects have the right to use the highway. That is what a highway, in law, means. All have a right to use it. Their rights are not infringed if you have a rule of the road, under which a passenger may be directed or compelled to go to the right or to the left. But if you said to one of the Queen's subjects: "You cannot use the highway unless you went to Church last Sunday", that would not be regulatory of the use of the highway, but would be a gross infringement of the rights of Her Majesty's subjects. In this House, we make our rules. We have a Standing Order to which the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, has once, at least, referred, about "sharp and taxing speeches." We have a practice under which we move that a noble Lord" be no longer heard"—a practice that I have heard of but have never yet experienced. But these are rules for the preservation of order. They are not rules which affect the rights and duties of a Lord of Parliament.
Perhaps it is difficult, when one has spent a great deal of time in research and come to a very definite conclusion, not to appear dogmatic. All I can say is, that I humbly advise your Lordships that, however expedient, however desirable it may be that the result at which the noble Marquess's proposal aims should be attained, it is not competent for your Lordships to attain it in the way which is proposed. I will add one last word. It has been suggested by the noble Marquess who leads the House that the question might, in certain circumstances, be referred to the Committee for Privileges. The difficulty about that, I think, is this. I have made such researches as I could, and made inquiries from the Table—who have been most helpful to me in this matter—and I understand that a general question of this kind has not been referred since 1750. I think there is very good reason why such a general question should not be referred. Where you have a Peer whose particular rights are, as he thinks, infringed, and the question of his rights is referred to the Committee for Privileges, you may be very sure that the question will be thoroughly investigated and explored. Counsel will probably be engaged to assist the Committee, and there will be no stone unturned. It is really somewhat other-

41
wise, I think, if the matter comes in a general way before the Committee for Privileges, with no one there whose duty it is to explore these matters—except it he the Lord Chancellor, who has already done his best.
So, with great respect, I doubt whether any advantage will be gained by referring the matter to the Committee for Privileges. But I entirely endorse—I would not dream of doing otherwise—what the noble Marquess who leads the House has said—namely, that if the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, thinks fit to ask that it should be done, certainly Her Majesty's Government would not put any obstacle in the way. Perhaps that is a matter which the noble Marquess will consider. It is not necessary for him to return an answer now. He will perhaps consider it and let us know at a later date whether he wishes that matter to be referred to the Committee. I fear that I have taken up far too much of your Lordships' time, but this is a troublesome matter and one affecting very gravely this House and the rights of every one of your Lordships. Therefore, I have thought it right to give the matter all the consideration I could.
4.39 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: My Lords, I am put in rather a difficult position by the very careful analysis of my suggestion which has been made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. As he knows full well, I am not a lawyer, I am a husbandman, as my forefathers were. But when I put my hand to the plough, I like to see the furrow finished. I am not quite satisfied that the furrow is completed. I am grateful to my noble kinsman for what he said with regard to the possibility of referring this Resolution to the Committee for Privileges. As the Lord Chancellor has been kind enough to say that I need not answer here and now, but that I may go away and think about it, that is what I will do. He will probably think that that is quite safe, and that I shall not get very far with it. However, that is a matter for the future. But I do feel it is an astonishing thing that this House should be the only assembly in the country where there is not some control over the attendance of members. Every assembly usually has it laid down in its Standing Orders that if a member does not attend for six months, he shall be
42
asked why he did not do so, and he has to produce a valid excuse or he is told that his services are not required. As I say, it seems strange that, in the case of a House of this antiquity, nothing of this sort has ever been suggested until your humble servant produced this Resolution to-day. I apologise for doing it, but I feel it has produced a most interesting debate. We have had all sorts of views about it and I cannot help thinking that the Hansard report will go down in future as a matter of great inerest. It may be that on some other occasion it will be useful when some other Peer may want to do something of the same sort. Then he will be shown this debate and told it is quite impossible. I am not satisfied that something of this sort cannot be achieved by the House. What I most strongly object to, and I am sure a great many noble Lords object to it also, is that we should be told from outside how to reform our House. I think there is the opportunity and sufficient ability here to make proper arrangements for the carrying on of the House of Lords.
I have been a Member of your Lordships' House now for a great many years and I remember those who were called the "Backwoodsmen." I did not join the band of brothers myself, because at Budget time I was at Berkhamsted Downs with a battery of artillery, doing an exercise, and I could not be here. Therefore, I cannot call myself a "Backwoodsman." But if your Lordships remember what happened then, I am sure you will think it would be desirable that there should be some control over the Members of this House and that they should not be able to come up in a gang and defeat the settled opinion of those who do the work here. Unfortunately, I am not one of these. It is not like the old days, and, like many other noble Lords, I find it impossible to come here. But that has not altered my opinion that some form of Standing Order should be produced to prevent even a suggestion of the arrival of the "Backwoodsmen." I hardly know what to do, because I strongly dislike withdrawing my Resolution. But if it is understood that I may go further into this matter and see whether I can produce anything more satisfactory to your Lordships (though I do not suppose I can), I shall be prepared to withdraw the Resolution.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HERTS AND ESSEX WATER BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.