Lords Sitting of 10 March 1955

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  AGRICULTURE: ANNUAL REVIEW
  3.5 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Government the following Question, of which I have given private notice: Whether they have a statement to make about the Annual Review of the economic conditions and prospects of the agricultural industry.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, my right honourable friend will be making a statement shortly in another place, and noble Lords would not wish me to anticipate his remarks. With the permission of the House, therefore, I will interrupt the proceedings a little later in the afternoon and will make a statement then.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, before we resume the debate, I should like to ask your Lordships' leave to make an announcement on Business for next Monday and Tuesday, when the Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill will be taken. There is so much work before us on this stage that it will be necessary to ask the House to sit late on Monday night next. A dinner adjournment will be taken between seven and eight-fifteen p.m. The Report stage should be completed on the next day, Tuesday. Whether or not we shall ask your Lordships to sit late on that night also will, of course, depend upon the progress made on Monday.
CHATHAM INTRA CHARITY OF RICHARD WATTS AND OTHER CHARITIES BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR
3.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the revelations recently made both in this country and in the United States as to the treatment of prisoners of war in Korea, whether consideration will be given to taking steps to insert in Part I of the Geneva Convention, which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war, or in some other appropriate place, words to the effect that "Prisoners of war are not 'war criminals' and cannot therefore be punished by the enemy as such." The noble and gallant Earl said: My Lords, I am under no illusion why there is a fairly full House. I have been told, though in a courteous manner, to be quick and get out of the way. I shall endeavour to comply with the wish of the House. When I have asked my Question I hope to be told that all my fear is groundless and that the leak to which I shall refer has already been stopped. When I asked a Question recently on the same topic, I was told by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of altering anything in the Geneva Convention of 1949. I have not the slightest intention of attacking that Convention, because I believe it provides everything that can be required; but there is a loophole which would enable an unscrupulous enemy to get round its provisions although he was an adherent to the Convention.
Her Majesty's Government have recently issued a pamphlet called Treatment of Prisoners of War in Korea. Though moderately worded, the pamphlet leaves no doubt as to the terrible conditions under which many of our men had to exist during the recent war in Korea. Probably most noble Lords will have read that pamphlet. The details given in it are not new. In 1952, General MacArthur appointed a Commission to go into the question of war crimes in Korea, and their Interim Report, published in June, 1953, was illustrated by photographs taken on the spot which leave no doubt that the Chinese and North Koreans resorted to mass killing of prisoners as well as individual executions, and that prisoners were brutally treated and mutilated when they were either dead

905
or dying. No medical attention was given to their wounds, and starvation was rife.
Besides this Report, several books have been published. I have read only two of them, written by unimpeachable witnesses, one being Captain Farrar-Hockley, the adjutant of the Gloucester Regiment at the Imjin River, and the other the chaplain of the same battalion, the Reverend C. J. Davies, who is quoted in the Government pamphlet. These two officers were captured together, were separated for some time and then, in rather peculiar circumstances, found themselves neighbours in prison cells. These cells measured 6 feet by 3 feet by 3 feet—the size of an average bath. They had been built for prisoners condemned to solitary confinement. We read of a private in the Gloucester Regiment who had been confined in one of these cells for six months. In a cell on the other side of the Reverend C. J. Davies was a young American air corporal who had been there many weeks for denying that he had taken part in germ warfare. These cells were filthy and crawling with lice. No water or washing was allowed, and in some cases even men with dysentery were not allowed to leave those cells for three or four days in succession. Some of the guards thought it rather a good joke.
In November last the Secretary of State for War announced in the other place that 100 of our officers and men who had been reported as missing in Korea, and who had not been subsequently accounted for, were to be considered as dead. Dead, no doubt—rotted to death in those horrible holes. It may be said with truth that every rule that is laid down in the 1949 Convention for Prisoners of War was not only broken, but broken cruelly and brutally in every way. Yet the Chinese Government claim to have adhered to that Convention and to be supporters of it. How can that be explained? It is explained in the Government pamphlet very simply. It is explained that the Chinese Government held that prisoners of war who had been convicted as war criminals should not be allowed to benefit by the terms of the Convention, and it is added that the Soviet and other Communist Powers support that view. This gives us a very sinister outlook for the future.
The Chinese consider that the war in Korea is a war of aggression, and, owing to the unfortunate decision, or want of decision, when the General Assembly of the United Nations incorporated some of the principles of the Charter of Nuremberg into International Law, a new crime was introduced—that of taking part in a war of aggression. The guilt in that connection is collective or individual. A man cannot escape. He is either one of a group or he has committed the crime himself. As I say, he cannot escape. I believe—no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that the word "aggression" in that context has never yet been satisfactorily defined, and that many international lawyers of repute have put forward definitions with no success; so it is not clear what is meant by the word "aggression". The Chinese have interpreted the word in such a way that they look upon every person who lands in Korea and in any way furthers the war effort of the United Nations there as a war criminal. They say that the United Nations is an aggressor; therefore anyone who takes part in that war is a war criminal and is liable to death. That view has been put forward very often.
Captain Farrar-Hockley was taken before three colonels for interrogation. The proceedings were opened by the senior colonel saying to him: "You are a war criminal; you have no other status but that of a criminal; it is only due to our mercy that you are alive." What he went through afterwards as the result of that interrogation has to be read to be believed. Intermittently for days he was tortured, half-drowned, flogged and kicked. He came out alive because he was a courageous, and a brave man. We acquiesced in its being laid down that every one taking part in a war of aggression was collectively and individually a war criminal, and so long as that holds it is a very poor look out for the future, particularly in respect of the war for which we are supposed to be preparing. The rule, or whatever it may be called, may have been very necessary and useful at the time when the Convention was drawn up. No one questions that. But, surely it is hopelessly out of date and we should do what we can to have it altered, so that in the future we shall not run the risk that our men will be subjected to such infernal treatment as they have suffered in the last few years.
What chance has the individual now got? Can you imagine that an individual of a battalion from Hong Kong, or of a ship's company diverted from some distant ocean, or of an air squadron sent as reinforcements to Korea, will be able to determine whether the orders he is acting under are legal or not? And what option has such a man got? None at all. Some noble Lords may say, "What is the good of putting these Questions down? It does not really matter what is laid down; if the Chinese want to break it they will do so." I do not think that that is quite borne out. The Chinese are not entirely impervious to world opinion outside their own country. They have frequently mentioned the Geneva Convention, and they have suggested that their actions were justified by it.
As your Lordships will remember, there was at one period no protecting Power, and the Red Cross for some time were not allowed to send their officials to visit prisoner of war camps when there was any question concerning the treatment which was being given to these prisoners, and their condition generally. Undoubtedly the fear that inspectors would find out how matters really stood was a potent factor in improving conditions in camps elsewhere. When discussions for an armistice in Korea were begun there was a change, and Red Cross officials were allowed to visit selected camps. Conditions then became better. I suggest that if something on the lines which I have suggested were inserted in the Geneva Convention, it would greatly strengthen the hands of the senior officer of any prisoner of war camp when he had to represent to the enemy authorities the desires, wishes and necessities of the prisoners who were in that camp. He could then point to these words, and so maintain that the prisoners were not war criminals and ought not to be treated as such. The senior officer, in those circumstances, would have some standing, and the uneducated are always impressed by something in print.
There is said to be a silver lining to every cloud, and in this case surely it is the bravery, the steadfast courage and the loyalty of our men when they were prisoners of war in the hands of these infernal torturers. Two typical cases are given in the Government publication. One is of a second lieutenant who sent his
908
men to safety and said he could not go himself and must remain because, as he said, "I am an officer." That boy was only a very short time out of Sandhurst. The other was of a young private of the Northumberland Regiment who defied his captors all through and, as the official announcement said, was an inspiration to everybody of all ranks who met him. One of his offences was that he insisted on wearing a buttonhole on Coronation Day. One cannot read this account of what went on in Korea without noticing, particularly in the Gloucestershire Regiment, of which there were a large number of prisoners of war, how matters always came back to the senior noncommissioned officers. Their conduct appears to have been magnificent, as one would expect. And when I am talking about non-commissioned officers, I include the chief petty officers and petty officers of the Royal Navy, to whom I owe what success I have had in life. It is not always recognised that they are of the greatest value to the country and they should be much more recognised than they are.
If others will not go with us, surely we could try out a line of our own and say definitely that we will not tolerate the conviction or punishment of any subject of Her Majesty the Queen, of whatever creed or colour, unless he has been convicted after a proper trial on his own actions and taking into account the circumstances in which he was placed. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I hope that I may be able to make this matter clear in a few words. The matter to which the noble and gallant Earl has drawn attention is already covered by the 1949 Prisoners of War Convention. A prisoner of war may, in accordance with Article 99 of that Convention, be tried and sentenced for an act which is for-bidden by International Law. This, however, is subject to the safeguards that the act must have been forbidden at the time when it was committed and that there must be a fair trial in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. Therefore, if a prisoner of war has committed a war crime recognised by International Law, he may be tried and, if convicted,

909
be punished; but a prisoner of war is not, as such, a "war criminal." Thus the action taken by the Chinese in the Korean war to brand British prisoners of war as "war criminals" without proper trial, and to subject them, in consequence, to appallingly bad treatment, is entirely contrary to the 1949 Prisoners of War Convention as it stands at present.
Her Majesty's Government entirely share the feelings of indignation to which the noble and gallant Earl has given expression, and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to-day of making this absolutely clear, and also of making clear the profound admiration which we must all feel for the conduct of British prisoners of war during their captivity.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, it would obviously be wrong to pursue this matter further now, but is the noble Lord who has answered for the Government aware that many of us are deeply impressed by what the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, has said? It would be unfortunate if, because of procedure in your Lordships' House, the impression were given that this is a matter in which we are not interested. Some of us may want to revert to it at a later date to ask what action it is proposed to take. After all, the Government published this document and they are still in diplomatic relations with the Chinese Government.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
3.27 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order), on the Motion moved yesterday by Viscount Samuel, That there be laid before the House Papers in regard to the proposals for the reform of the House of Lords which the representatives of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties in both Houses unanimously agreed, at the Conference of 1948, might have been the basis for further consideration in detail, with a view to their submission to their respective Parties, had it been possible to achieve general agreement over the whole field of powers and composition; those proposals being as follows:

(1) The Second Chamber should be complementary to, and not a rival to, the Lower House, and, with this end in view, the reform of the House of Lords should be based on a modification of its existing constitution as
910
opposed to the establishment of a Second Chamber of a completely new type based on some system of election.

(2) The revised constitution of the House of Lords should be such as to secure as far as practicable that a permanent majority is not assured for any one political party.

(3) The present right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber.

(4) Members of the Second Chamber should be styled "Lords of Parliament" and would be appointed on grounds of personal distinction or public service, They might be drawn either from hereditary Peers, or from commoners who would be created life Peers.

(5) Women should be capable of being appointed Lords of Parliament in like manner as men.

(6) Provision should be made for the inclusion in the Second Chamber of certain descendants of the Sovereign, certain Lords Spiritual and the Law Lords.

(7) In order that persons without private means should not be excluded, some remuneration would be payable to members of the Second Chamber.

(8) Peers, who were not Lords of Parliament, should be entitled to stand for election to the House of Commons, and also to vote at elections in the same manner as other citizens.

(9) Some provision should be made for the disqualification of a member of the Second Chamber who neglects, or becomes no longer able or fitted, to perform his duties as such: (Cmd. 7380).

LORD LAYTON: My Lords, I do not think anybody who has listened to what has passed in your Lordships' House during the last half-hour can fail to feel satisfaction at the reply given by the noble Lord on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and also to hope most sincerely that it will be followed by action. The last time I spoke to your Lordships on a subject of general political principle, some nine months ago, I found myself, unhappily, in opposition to my noble friend and leader Lord Samuel. I am extremely happy to say that on this occasion I find myself wholeheartedly and enthusiastically on his side. I think he has every reason to be satisfied, with qualifications, with yesterday's debate. His own speech was a physical and intellectual triumph, and it must have been still more pleasing to him that it marked a step forward in this difficult subject on which he has spent so much time and on which he has been so persistent.
It is true that the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition, in

911
reporting the canvass he made of opinion in the Labour Party—a sort of personal Gallup Poll—expressed an opinion that was a disappointment after the statement he made in January. On the other hand, the Government position has been clarified, and I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for making the position clear, point by point, on the statement in the Conference Report. I think my noble friend must also feel satisfaction at the substantial measure of agreement shown in the House on the subject which he brought forward.
Let me elaborate that slightly. On the need of a Second Chamber, I think there was almost entire unanimity in this House. But that only gave rise to the question of whether the House, with its present composition, is able to carry out efficiently and adequately the functions that fall to it, or whether some Amendment or adaptation of its composition is necessary. I think it will be agreed by those who followed the debate carefully that, in spite of the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and of other points that were made, the balance of opinion was clearly, with various degrees of enthusiasm—or lack of enthusiasm, shall I say?—that some amendment or evolution is necessary. Further, there was a degree of common opinion on certain principles of amendment, though not on details. Moreover, the agreement on these points extends to part, at all events, of the Labour Party. The statement of the Leader of the Opposition, to which I have referred, contains certain references indicating that a number of people agree in substance on that general approach. I think it would be true to say, too, that the speeches from the Labour Benches, on the whole, would not be noticeably different from the general body of opinion expressed in this House yesterday.
It is also true that one of the leaders of the Labour Party, Mr. Herbert Morrison, has comparatively recently published a book on the subject of the working of the Constitution, including a whole chapter on the subject of the House of Lords, its functioning and its composition. He has written an article on it, in the course of which he says this:
"With regard to changes in the composition of the House, I adhere in general to the views
912
expressed by the Party Leaders in the Report of the all-Party Conference published in 1948."
That is a comparatively recent statement from Mr. Herbert Morrison. It seems to me that the formula which he uses is extremely close, so far as he personally is concerned, at all events, to that used by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in describing that Conference yesterday. But on the Labour side, and to some extent in other quarters of the House, I sensed a sort of feeling that, after all, this question does not really matter very much. I want to say, with the greatest force that I can, that in my opinion it matters very much indeed.
I should like to deal now with those three general concepts. The case for a Second Chamber rests partly on practical considerations of the working of the Constitution, and partly on political considerations. On the practical side, there will be no difference of opinion in expressing the case for a Second Chamber—it was referred to by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, yesterday: the great increase in the work of Government and of legislation; a tendency from time to time of blocking the channels; a Second Chamber, and a sort of division of labour, as it were, between the working of the legislative machine between the democratic Chamber, where political considerations are necessarily dominant, and a Chamber where political considerations are much less dominant. Expertise and calmer consideration, if necessary, should, and does, produce better results than single-Chamber Government. On that side, if there were not two Chambers, we should be forced to something like a massive devolution in the work of legislation and government as the only possible alternative. Many suggestions have been made in that direction from time to time. When I think not merely of Britain's domestic problems, but also of foreign affairs and the affairs of the Commonwealth, it seems clear that if it were not for the existence of a Second Chamber, we should require a radical alteration in the whole constitution of the House of Commons and of the legislative apparatus generally.
But there is also a political consideration. If a Second Chamber—certainly in this country, but I think this applies to others, too—can command the approval

913
and support of the nation, it may make good some of the deficiencies and help to ward against some of the dangers of a democratic Constitution. Let me say at once that it is not a disservice to the cause of democracy to say that there are such dangers and deficiencies. I am not saying that I want to put a brake on the wheel of progress, but it has been my lot to watch constitutional affairs on the Continent and elsewhere in recent years, and I feel that anybody who has done that cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that it is extremely important to watch the apparatus and the working of the constitutional machine.
Democracy is up against, and is being measured against, totalitarianism. Is it really efficient? There is no more important problem today than to keep our constitutional practice right up to date and to see that it works well and smoothly. I need not give illustrations, which will occur to almost everybody at once. We have seen what difficulty and trouble occurs to our French neighbours across the Channel from the constitutional point of view; and we have seen the problems that arise in the United States of America. I do not pretend that "McCarthyism" is due to flaws in the Constitution of the United States, but its magnification, and the way the problems of "McCarthyism" were spread, were not by any means entirely detached from the methods and practice of the Constitution. There is tremendous importance in seeing that these constitutional things are rightly worked.
This need to watch carefully applies in this country, too. Many of your Lordships will have recently read a book about the working of the Party system in this country. This is not a debate about the Party system, but few of us would doubt that the Party machines are tending to become possibly dangerously rigid, and that is something that must be carefully watched. The mover of the Motion pointed out that, for the first time, the Independent Members of the House of Commons have completely disappeared. The voting system of to-day might easily at the next General Election produce a Government dependent on a minority of votes in this country.
EARL JOWITT: The present one is, is it not?
LORD LAYTON: Where there are three Parties there is a different system, and it rarely happens that the actual Government concerned have a majority vote. That has certainly been so in the past. On one occasion when the Government were elected on a minority vote the Prime Minister, in his first speech in the House of Commons, said he realised that he had got a trust of a different kind from that which fell ordinarily to Prime Ministers and, because of that fact, he would not do this, that and the other. But it is a problem. It may well be that a Second Chamber helps to maintain a platform for independent points of view, or minority points of view; and as I say, might also help to make good some of the deficiencies and flaws that may arise under the Constitution. It was pointed out yesterday that, to a large extent, the hereditary Peers in this House do represent an independent point of view. Certainly they do, and the prestige of this House is largely due to that fact. At the same time, without any question it also produces a politically biased point of view and an overwhelming weight on one side. I think the reform of the constitution of this House could produce a Chamber which would provide a platform for many at present unrepresented elements in the community without permanently weighting the scales in one direction.
I now come to the further point of whether changes on the lines of the proposals mentioned on the Order Paper would make this Chamber more efficient and effective in carrying out the necessary duties of a Second Chamber. The speech, made yesterday by the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition certainly implied that in the Labour Party it is presumed and assumed that reform would greatly increase the prestige of this House—indeed, it is for that reason that some channels of opinion in the Labour Party go on to assume that, because of that increased prestige, there is a danger of an attempt to increase powers, which is something the Labour Party would oppose. I think it must be admitted that a reform, a modification or an evolution, whichever word you wish to use, in the composition of this House, would undoubtedly increase the prestige of the House. The decisive answer to the question, however, was given by the Leader of the House in reply

915
to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he spoke of the difficulties in running the House on present lines. It is as clear as it can be that as things are at present, those difficulties will necessarily increase. The refusal of so many people to accept a Peerage for economic reasons means that it is not possible, as things are at present, to get the right selection of Peers into this House. The levelling of incomes, the equalitarian trend of the whole of the community, means that very few people are free and at leisure to do the increasing work which ought to be thrown on an effective Second Chamber. The problem of the Leader of the House will inevitably get worse and worse.
As I said, the comments of the noble Marquess yesterday on the nine points of principle, though not of detail, clarified the position. This is not the occasion to go over them, because they have been discussed at great length before, but it is clear that they must include the following points. First, there must be the creation of a number of Life Peers on a carefully planned basis, designed to give a correct balance and also to maintain and develop the independent and expert characteristics of this Chamber. Secondly, there must be a considerable reduction in the number of hereditary Peers who sit in this House, whether there is abolition of the right of inheritance or not, because it is, I think, recognised that we shall get a hopeless situation if we have the continuous creation of Peers and retain the right of everybody to sit in the House.
Some arguments were given yesterday against the hereditary right to sit in the House as an absolute right. The attitude of this House is one thing, and the attitude in the country is another. It is well that we should consider opinion outside this House. Now the only evidence I have on that point is not immediately recent; it is about five or six years old; but I do not think there is any reason to suppose that the opinion of the country as a whole has changed very much since then. The only time since the war that a Gallup Poll has been taken on these issues—polls have been taken on many questions relating to the composition of the House of Lords, but only once, I think, on this specific point—was when the question was asked: "The sons of Peers inherit the right to sit in the House
916
of Lords. Do you think this should be retained, or should it be abolished? "The voting was 26 per cent. for it to be retained, 56 per cent. against retaining the right, and 18 per cent. "Do not know."
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Would the noble Lord give that last figure again?
LORD LAYTON: 26 per cent. for retaining the right, 56 per cent. for abolishing it, and 18 per cent. "Do not know," or gave no specific answer.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That does not add up to 100—I beg your pardon; it does.
LORD LAYTON: I would not compete with a banker, but I think 26, 56 and 18 make 100. In any case, even if it did not add up, there is no doubt at all that the proportion—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry, but did the noble Lord not say 26, 56 and 18?
LORD LAYTON: Perhaps I have not allowed for the discount! In any case, it is clear that the figures are so large that they show an overwhelming proportion—more than two to one—against the right of inheritance. I quoted those figures merely as indicating that opinion in the country does not attach great prestige to the fact of heredity in this connection. The third point is that, for the present at all events, the numbers should not be fixed. May I at this point make a brief comment on one other suggestion that was made more than once yesterday, and that is as regards possible inclusion among Life Peers of Members from the Colonial or Commonwealth areas? I should like to make only this comment: that we must be very careful in applying that proposition. It would be a great mistake to let it be thought in general terms that this was the opening of the door to a system under which we should have a great Senate of the Commonwealth, because that is really not in the picture. A great deal is to be said for the proposition that this House should have the benefit of such experience, but if it is done it must be done on the individual and personal basis, and not on any basis of representation.
Coming to one further point about the proposals, I would add that we should

917
not attempt at this stage, whatever the formula adopted, to try and get a new constitutional shape for the House of Lords in a final form. Having regard to the background history and all that has been said about evolution, I am certain that we must do this by trial and error, and move, as we have always moved, by degrees. But we do need substantial changes if the Howe is to be put into a condition where it does what is really needed. Substantial changes in the practical work of the House are needed at this stage in order to maintain and increase the prestige of the House in the country and to remove the bias that is felt about it from the Left.
To sum up, I do not think that the continuation of the House of Lords without readaptation is a possibility that is open to us—not, at all events, if we are thinking of taking a long view. The choice is between a single Chamber—which I think most of us reject—and evolutionary changes in this historic institution of which we are all proud members. The matter is urgent, for the reasons I have given. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to suggest that, while he was sympathetic, this was not a good time to do it. There is no great crisis at the moment, he suggested, between the two Houses. That is perfectly true, bat I submit that the improvement of our political institutions, both in theory and in practice, and their firm hold on the hearts and minds of the people are of supreme importance. That involves an evolution, a change. The right time to mend holes in the roof is on a dry day when the sun is shining, not to wait until the storm is pouring through the holes. The noble Marquess who leads the House asks for collaboration in helping to solve what is inevitably a complicated and difficult question. I am sure that at least the Liberal Party will respond to his invitation.

AGRICULTURE: ANNUAL REVIEW
3.52 p.m.
EARL. ST.ALDWYN: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will interrupt this debate to answer the Private Notice Question of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The statutory Annual Review of the economic conditions and prospects of t he agricultural industry in the United Kingdom has been concluded. The Government have made their determinations on the guarantees to the industry in the light of the Review. These are set out in a White Paper which is now available. The general production policy of the Government is unchanged. The main objectives of policy continue to be to foster a high level of net output by encouraging the production of beef, mutton and lamb and the production and use of home-grown feedingstuffs. It is necessary to avoid stimulating further the production of pigs.
The condition of the industry has been adversely affected this year by the particularly bad weather. There has also been a substantial net increase in costs. The actual farm net income for 1954–55 is forecast at £280 million, as compared with the final figure of £320½ million for the previous year, though on a normal weather basis the forecasts are £312 million for this year and £306½ million for last year. Net output is estimated at 53 per cent. above pre-war, as compared with 55 per cent. a year ago. I am sure the House will join with me in paying a tribute to the determination, hard work and skill of the industry, but for which a greater decline could have been expected.
These circumstances, with the other factors to be taken into account, have been fully considered by the Government in determining the changes to be made in the price guarantees and in the production grants. The net effect of the determinations is to increase the total value of the guarantees in a full year by £28 million. The Government regard this increase as necessary to give the industry the stability and resources that it needs in present circumstances, if it is to play its full part in meeting the requirements of the national economy. It has been decided to increase the price guarantees for fat cattle, fat sheep, and lambs, milk and eggs for 1955–56, and for coarse grains, potatoes and sugar

919
beet of the 1956 harvest; to increase the calf subsidy, the lime and fertiliser subsidies and the ploughing grants, and to make a special payment on hill sheep; to reduce the price guarantee for pigs; and to leave unchanged the price guarantees for wool for 1955–56, and for wheat and rye of the 1956 harvest. The importance of minimising the cost to the Exchequer has been recognised by the reduction in pig prices. The increased production grants and cereal prices are designed to help reduce the strain on the balance of overseas payments by encouraging the production and use of home grown feedingstuffs.
The Government are confident that these determinations should substantially help the industry, in the face on this occasion of heavy increases in costs coupled with exceptionally bad weather, to maintain and indeed increase its net output and income.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for making this important statement. I am sure your Lordships will want no further interruption now of the debate for which most of your Lordships have come here this afternoon. I would merely express the hope that if, after we have studied the White Paper, we wish to discuss without delay this year's Price Review, the Government will help us to find the time.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
3.55 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, at the outset of this century I was sent as an unpaid attaché to our Embassy in Paris, and there the senior secretary passed in review the merits of the staff. He began with some kindly words about the Ambassador and the counsellors, and a few more for himself; and so he descended the ladder of eulogy, until at last the eyeglass rested on the least of God's creatures. He said, "We do not know much about the new boy yet but, with that solitary exception, we can say that there is not a fool among us." I should, naturally, not have complained if your Lordships had repeated at the end of my life the verdict of the beginning, but I think it only honest to add that,
920
on one occasion, having made a speech in this House, I left the Chamber behind two of your most affable Members, and I could not help hearing one say to the other, "The worst of Van, is that he always exaggerates." I do not exaggerate when I say that this happens to be the best Second Chamber in existence. Many of your Lordships may retort that it ought not to be, and I can only say: "Well, it is."
Would any noble Lord on the Right, for instance, care to vaunt the superior wisdom of the French Council of the Republic which may still have in store for us before the month is out an exhibition of fecklessness? Or would any of the noble Lords on the Left care to extol the greater virtues of the United States Senate, and so incur the wrath of Anglo-America-phobes? Or perhaps some Liberal would rate above us the German Bundestag without knowing much about it, because there is not much to be known, and one would find it rather difficult to locate any figures of distinction there. Or shall we all get together and shout. "Hooray for the Italian Senate!" when only this morning we find The Times carrying big headlines, "Members come to blows in Italian Senate"? Only three days ago there was another such exhibition. I am afraid that there is really no getting away from it.
Somewhere in The Compleat Angler there is a quotation to the effect that of course God could have made a better berry than the strawberry, but he just did not. I beg your Lordships to forgive me for speaking well of you, because I am sure that my remarks will be exceedingly unpopular in some quarters. At the same time, I am only too ready to meet your Lordships' wishes in any way, and to any length that your Lordships care to go, particularly as it will not greatly affect me. I am far past being three score years and ten, and I have no male issue. Moreover, I would gladly accept points (6), (7), (8) and (9) right off, and perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will care to know that I think there is no case at all for forcing our company on those who do not desire it.
There also seems to be an extremely strong case for admitting Peeresses in their own right. But the crux of the

921
matter is really point (4). There, I confess, my apprehensions have been very greatly enhanced by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, yesterday, for he went as far as to suggest that we should take into our midst (to use his own words) a considerable number, and not a mere handful, of people, white and coloured, from all over the Commonwealth. And he said that that would crown their careers. My Lords, that would not crown them, it would drown us. This House belongs to this country and I hope it will stay so.
This, to my mind, preposterous dilution—or the prospect of it—leads me to make a speech rather different from the one that I should otherwise have made. In a word, it leads me to suggest to your Lordships that, having, in effect, got the best possible Second Chamber in an admittedly imperfect world, you might well be cautious in changing it. The French are just as often right as wrong in their famous saving that "the better is the enemy of the good." Do your Lordships so urgently need changing? Why should we so often stand in the white shifts of sinners? Why is a dun horse called in French a "cheval Isobel"? It is because, long ago, a Queen Isobel wore her white shifts so long that they turned dun. We stand in no need of shirts or apologies, but every time a dun criticism turns up many of your Lordships rush into the garb of contrition; and there sit the Lords of haute couture politique, snipping the sackcloth and lowering the waist, and changing your shape from A to H, or even to Z, in many varieties of beige.
La Maison Samuel has kept you penitentially attired for over 40 years, since Mr. Asquith first said that the matter of reform "brooks no delay"—though Tennyson had told him that brooks "go on for ever." Of course, there has been a great and inevitable delay, because there is a great and inevitable abyss between theory and practice. If Mr. Asquith had had to be as good as his word (I hope that none of us will ever find himself in so painful a predicament), he would have had to create hundreds of Peers. Half of them would have been "duds"—and he knew it.
It seems only yesterday that my late and truly lamented friend John Simon came to your Lordships with a proposition
922
for creating ten Life Peers per annum, in addition to the ordinary run of the Honours List. I should have seen no objection at all to that proposal, though I think he would have run into considerable difficulties after about two or three batches. But the proposals now under discussion go a long way further than that, and contemplate an unspecified number of Lords and Ladies of Parliament, appointed on grounds of personal distinction. Into those grounds I will dig shortly, but in passing to them may I observe that this is an age of fairly bad manners and here, in your Lordships' House, at least there is a refuge for dignity and reticence. Some of you may think that they are pushed too far. I would dissent so long as there is any tendency for other Houses to turn into "rough houses." Moreover, this is the last resort of the Independents; and as one of them I naturally reproach the Commons for having eliminated us. I think that Independents and experts represent a solid stock which your Lordships would be unwise to sell out to reinvest in pure speculation. Moreover, I feel, since point (2) in this programme obviously contemplates the equation of the two main Parties, that in the long run, in the inevitable and clamorous ding-dong of Party manœuvres, we Independents would be again squeezed out—and that is a position against which I should naturally protest.
My Lords, there is another point. You all know Tucker—little Tommy who "sang for his slipper." Well, he has now grown up, and he would be one of the first of the new nominees, because they would feel obliged to speak, if not for their fees at least to justify their selection. You do not know how lucky you are that many of us do not feel this mechanised urge to loquacity, and, indeed, that some of us, myself included, never speak unless we have something to say and know jolly well what we are saying. It is also a profound error to think that these persons of great distinction are so easily obtainable. You would not think so if you had spent ten years of your life, as I have, in sitting on honours committees. You assume, with enormous levity, that we can always find what we want because there are 50 million of us. That is a pure delusion. You politicians are very kind, except to each other; and I have known many of

923
you honestly delighted when "good old Smith" gets a distinction. But, to my knowledge, many of you have never paused to think that "good old Smith" got it only because "good old Brown" was not at all so good, and "good old Jones" was no good at all.
Of course, you will not believe me, because "Van, always exaggerates." But you might perhaps convince yourselves by casting a glance at, say, the Order of Merit. Its members are limited to twenty-four, and within the whole of my official experience its membership was never full because the men were not there. The Order would have been even emptier if the rules had not been violated from the first, because they explicitly exclude politicians. My recollection is that Mr. Lloyd George was an early "gatecrasher," and so opened the way to other even more famous footfalls in the echoing corridors of fame. Your Lordships may say that that is not a fair example—that the standard is too high. I readily grant you that. So let us take another illustration of human limitation, which was much in your notice last week—I refer to the French Academy. There are only forty members, but the vacancies have to be filled—and filled they are, somehow, and sometimes with names unknown to the French public. In all my experience it has never been possible, in the whole of France, to muster forty living men of the standard required.
I have heard it said that this House is dull. Pray, why? It is not because mass creation so far excels procreation. It is not because the House is incompetent—no, sir! It is not because it is uninformed—no, sirree! It is because the House is powerless, or virtually powerless. Yet there is nothing in these proposals about any addition of powers—nor do I suggest any—and the only condition on which the Socialists will agree to any change of composition is that the House should continue completely powerless. As I say, I do not suggest a change; but what I do suggest very strongly is that the only justification for reforms that go quite so far as point (4) may carry you, is that there should be some modification of impotence. I conclude that you will be wise indeed to accept a large part of these proposals—the points that I have named. But if you
924
go the full length, I predict that you will end in disappointment and that this House will be flooded with the mediocrity of which point (4) takes no account whatever. Then I shall never be able to tell again the story with which I began this speech.
4.10 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the House has listened with great pleasure to the amusing speech of my noble friend. I shall not follow him in great detail. I confess I remain a little puzzled as to what he wants your Lordships to do. I understood at the beginning of his speech that he was an advocate of inaction.
LORD VANSITTART: I thought I had made clear that I accepted four of the eight points right away, and that there were two others to which I assented though perhaps not wholly. Six of eight is a considerable number. I have quarrelled only with the extent to which point (4) may apply.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): NO more than three questions need be attempted.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I certainly understood my noble friend to end his speech by indicating some degree of acceptance of the proposals, but I do not think he dealt with the argument for action on the same lines as those put forward by the noble Viscount opposite and by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House. I should like to begin by referring to the speech of my noble friend, Lord Elton, which I know all your Lordships thought was a particularly valuable contribution. I should like to thank him first for what I consider to be a wonderful phrase, "the reservoir of intermittent attendance" which describes in a few words one of the great virtues of your Lordships' House. I also greatly liked what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said about the hereditary principle. Added to that, in my recollection of yesterday's debate, is what the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, said regarding the hereditary principle:
"To my mind it is far more important than any individual example of personal or intellectual brilliance."
That is a profound saying; and after the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton,

925
and those of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the hereditary principle needs no further defence.
I will admit to the noble Lord, Lord Layton, that my arithmetic was temporarily defective. All I did was to carry one instead of two—a thing that might happen to anybody. My common sense tells me that a Gallup Poll presented in the form quoted by the noble Lord opposite is utterly valueless. My experience, and I am sure that of many noble Lords on this side of the House also, does not coincide with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, that the hereditary principle is not highly regarded in this country. I believe it is, even among members of the Party opposite. Another point which I liked in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was his dislike of what he called, "a rationalised, planned Senate." I am obliged to my noble friend for that phrase, too. I have been able to think of nothing better than "a fancy scheme," but they mean the same thing. If so many noble Lords on this side of the House dislike a fancy scheme, it may be asked why were the Parties so near agreement in 1947. The answer is that such agreement was far more apparent than real. I am certain that many noble Lords on this side of the House would have had difficulty in accepting the proposals, as would many noble Lords on the other side of the House.
Another interesting point referred to by more than one speaker yesterday was the apparent contradict ion in the statement of fact between the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. In his Motion the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that the House is working perfectly and needs no alteration. The noble Viscount, who was supported by our noble Leader, used words to the effect that your Lordships' House is dying of inanition. Those two statements are not so irreconcilable as at first sight they appear. I believe that your Lordships' House is working extremely well and is doing a good job. But that does not alter the fact that we have to look to the future; and there is no doubt whatever that the noble Viscount and our noble Leader are right in thinking tint the time has come when we have to look to the future membership of your Lordships' House.
926
I will not go through all the reasons, already canvassed by many speakers, as to why fewer noble Lords than previously attend on this side of the House. Those reasons include business, greatly increased county affairs and other causes, which undoubtedly are affecting, and will continue to affect, attendance on this side of the House. But perhaps even more striking is the position with regard to noble Lords opposite. Not long ago I was told that, perhaps a year ago, there were forty-five noble Lords who adhered to, or took the Whip of, or who were members of, the Party represented by noble Lords opposite, and that their average age was sixty-five. If those figures are correct, it is obvious that the effluxion of time must, within a comparatively few years, reduce the Opposition in this House to a disappearing quantity; and, great as are the merits of your Lordships' House, I do nor think it could work without an Opposition. Consequently one of the most important matters we have to consider is not only the reduced attendance on this side of the House (about which I am not so concerned for I think that will be all right) but the necessity of providing an informed Opposition.
I think it is prudent—and my noble friend Lord Vansittart did not attempt to question it—to accept that we must look to some means of replenishing our numbers. By some meats or other we must have an increased supply of fresh blood. The obvious remedy is to permit the creation of Life Peers, and the first duty of the Prime Minister of the Conservative Party who brings in such a measure would be to make suitable appointments to replenish the Benches opposite. We know that there are numerous gentlemen in the country who would be willing to sit on these Benches were it not for the bar of the hereditary Peerage. I do not blame them. I think that any Conservative Prime Minister might cast a benevolent eye also on the Liberal Benches and do something to remedy the grievance voiced by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. The question is: Is it enough merely to allow the creation of Life Peers? Many would say "Yes" in answer to that question if it were merely a matter of dealing with composition—which, at the moment it is, At the same time there are, of course, some minor points which present themselves. There is the question of women. The minority in your Lordships' House

927
who would exclude women is now very small. It has remained silent in this debate, and for that reason I greatly regret that my noble friend Lord Saltoun did not speak last night (I saw his name on the list of speakers, but he did not speak) because I believe—though I am not sure—that I can pay him the compliment of thinking that he is one of the minority—
LORD SALTOUN: Hear, hear!
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: —that still holds that out of date view.
There is the other very interesting question, which was persuasively put by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, about heirs of Peerage. I view that with great sympathy. If we are going to do even a little to interfere with what I may call the sanctity of the hereditary Peerage, I would go a little further and say that, if an heir to a Peerage is doing good work in the House of Commons, it is in his interest and also in the national interest that he should be allowed to continue to do it. I do not see why he should not be so allowed, and I should be inclined to be completely flexible in that matter. I do not think that the Constitution would suffer if such an individual had an option. Let him serve where he likes; it is all to the benefit of the business of both Houses.
Then there is the question of the absentees, and here I think we have the real difficulty. It is true that the greater the number of the absentees the greater is that "reservoir of intermittent attendance." While on that subject I would say with what regret I saw that some newspapers seem to think it is a matter of reproach to your Lordships' House that there was a large attendance here for our debate yesterday. If it was not actually mentioned, there was an implied suggestion that noble Lords who came here yesterday were in many cases backwoodsmen, who came only because something of their own interest was being discussed. I am not sure whether such innuendoes are more ignorant than impolite. Those who attend here regularly know that any such references could only be misleading to those who may happen to read them. The problem we are dealing with, if we have to deal with the absentees, is simultaneously a reduction in our nominal numbers combined with an increase in
928
our regular attendance. That is not an easy thing to bring about. I was astonished to learn, and I think that some of your Lordships would be astonished to be told, that 740 out of 850 Peers have taken the Oath. That shows that membership of your Lordships' House is a privilege which is valued, and which most Members desire to retain.
If we are looking at composition, we have to remember also the very minor question of the black sheep. I am told—and it is not uninteresting—that certain categories are excluded. Peers who are bankrupt are excluded by Statute. I am told that those who commit treason or felony—a very narrow category of offences—are also excluded by Statute, though a different one. Minors are excluded by Standing Orders. If we are going into the question of absentees, there could be no better way of tackling it than by adopting the suggestion made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who proposed that there should be a Select Committee to examine matters in relation to the attendance of Peers by amendment of Standing Orders. I, for one, should welcome the establishment of such a Select Committee.
While I am speaking on the question of Members and who shall be Members, I should like to refer to a point which I consider to be of great importance, and which, though mentioned in passing yesterday, has not, in my view, had the attention it deserves: that is, whether the numbers are to be, determined or undetermined. Once again, if I may, I would refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I liked his reference to "indeterminate numbers" rather than "unlimited numbers." There is an unpleasant ring about "unlimited numbers," though it may mean much the same thing as "indeterminate numbers." I attach the greatest importance to our numbers remaining indeterminate. The noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, made a reference which sent a shiver down my spine: he referred to the possibility of the numbers being limited to 200. I can imagine no proposal more calculated to reduce your Lordships' House to the status of a body of "old buffers," as dignified as ineffective.
There are two reasons, and very important ones, why the membership should be indeterminate. The first

929
involves the question of the Royal Prerogative; that is one which I think should appeal to noble Lords opposite more than to noble Lords on this side of the House. A limited number of Members would prevent the creation of Peers for swamping, which is the constitutional safeguard of the Left Wing. It may be that the Party of the noble Lords opposite feel that, with the curtailment of the powers of your Lordships' House, no question of swamping would arise ever. I confess that one of the things that surprised me about the 1947 arrangements was that the Socialist Party seemed willing to accept proposals which, to my mind at all events, indicated a fixed number. I think it may be that there was a bit of shadow boxing on the part of the leasers of the Labour Party.
May I now refer to the contributions made to the debate yesterday by noble Lords opposite? I deeply regret that the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition has left the House, as I want to say something about his speech. I welcomed the constructive contributions of Lord Calverley and Lord Haden-Guest more than that rather costive contribution of the noble and learned Earl, their Leader, if it is not impolite to say so, I could not help thinking that if the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, had been a Back Bencher, speaking without responsibility, his contribution would have been more constructive and perhaps more useful. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said—I thought with great pungency—what the real reasons for the attitude of the Party of noble Lords opposite were. But I need not enlarge upon that.
Apart from the Royal Prerogative, the reason we should keep the numbers unlimited is that young hereditary Peers must be allowed to come into the Home to prove their merits. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House said that we needed young Peers to assist in the detailed work of the House. With the greatest respect, I would say that we need them for more than that—we need them because that is the only way they can prove their merits. I suggest to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that our principle should be: let the hereditary Peers choose themselves by their attendance. Lord Hailsham said that we could not expect young Peers to come here because of business and other things.
930
Being young is a relative matter. When I was Lord Hailsham's age, I expect I thought that thirty was young. Now I think that between forty and fifty is young. One of the only sure evidences I have of old age is when my family begin to mutter round the dining table. I think that Lord Hailsham is wrong when he says that we shall not get young Peers here; I believe that we shall. I think the attraction of your Lordships' House will bring professional and business people here if they feel that there is something worth doing. Consequently, I welcome the advance which, in my view, has been made since 1947. I thought the 1947 scheme was alarming. I thought then that our leaders seemed to be tending towards a fancy scheme; now, I think we are moving towards a valuable and constructive change.
There can be no complete and final scheme of House of Lords reform at one blow, and here I am happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Layton, who said something about trial and error. I hope that our leaders will remember that in this matter, as in all other great affairs, the simplest course is the best. Of two courses, if one is complicated and the other simple, let us take the simple one. That is why I shall be glad to see the disappearance of any question of electing Peers as is done in the case of the Scottish Representative Peers. For a large number it would be very complicated and it would not work. With indeterminate numbers it would not be necessary to bother any more about it. Once again I rejoice in the move which I think I see coming. It holds out a hope that your Lordships' House will continue to evolve constructively, as it always has done for more than a thousand years.
4.31 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have been connected with this subject ever since 1910. In that year I had to collect material and act as private secretary 10 my father when the Parliament Bill (later the Parliament Act, 1911) was debated. On this matter most people seem to have taken the line that the Parliament Act was uniform in its action. I differ from that for reasons which I will shortly give your Lordships. Since then, we have had the Parliament Act, 1949. Your Lordships will remember that Act and how it came about. It was not passed on

931
account of anything your Lordships' House had done, or was likely to do, but, as the Government themselves said at the time, for fear of what we might do to the Steel Bill. That action on the part of a Party, all of whose members for a long time past have with pen and voice proclaimed the wickedness of a preventive war, is one of the most difficult things to explain that I have ever met in my life. I think that possibly in morals and politics there is a great difference between what one does oneself and what somebody else does.
If the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, becomes effective, we have the proposal that there should be another Parliament Bill from our side, to be followed, possibly, by another Parliament Bill from the other side. We must remember that we are not the only people who have Constitutions for sale. It is a process which I am bound to say will bring lasting discredit upon Parliament, and I think it might also bring disaster to the country. I do not think there is a real demand in the country for any change in our constitution, but I think that proposals like this, repeated again and again, are the best means of convincing the public that we are unfit for our duties. After all, no-one is inclined to question the veracity of a notice of damaged goods.
Ever since 1910 I have felt inclined to discuss a change of the composition of the House, if there were to be considered at the same time some change in its powers; but everybody knows that whatever Party are in power in the House of Commons, they would never consent to an increase in the powers of your Lordships' House. To be frank, I think the House of Commons is perfectly right. It may be that here and there in the world there are individual men who are wise enough to be able to put aside power when it is offered to them, but I do not think there is on record any Assembly which, having power and having long exercised it with credit, has voluntarily given it up. If there is such an example, I should very much doubt whether history shows that the results justified the abnegation.
Although I do not like the continued harping on this theme, I welcome the noble Viscount's Motion on this occasion because it has drawn from our noble
932
Leader the most constructive speech I have ever heard upon the subject. In March, 1953, my noble friend Lord Exeter proposed that the House should, by Resolution, prescribe conditions to be complied with by Peers before their votes were accepted. This proposal was crushed from the Woolsack by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, as quite unconstitutional; and he quoted a precedent (I think it was the Bristol precedent) to show that the Crown was not entitled to withhold a Writ of Summons from a Peer. While that may be so, I think I have found better and later precedents which show that the House itself has ample power to exclude its Members. I am encouraged by higher authority to think I am right.
When, in the eighteenth century, a Representative Peer for Scotland, the Duke of Hamilton, was created Duke of Brandon in the United Kingdom, he was forbidden to sit as a Representative Peer by reason of his United Kingdom Peerage, and he was forbidden to sit as a United Kingdom Peer on account of his Scottish Dukedom. So they got rid of him from both sides. In our enlightened age we may say that that was wrong of them, and that it was not an action of which we should approve to-day. But the power to do wrong surely implies the power to do right; it does not mean that the power is not there. Just because the power exercised in the eighteenth century does not command our approval, that is no reason for saying that it does not exist. Moreover, such powers as these cannot fall into desuetude, because their very nature is such that they are likely to be required only at long intervals of time. I think a similar argument might apply to the Wensleydale case. If this is so, if I am right in what I think, we have within ourselves power to effect useful changes without the necessity of legislation at all. It seems to me that it would be a great gain to do that, and therefore I warmly welcome our noble Leader's proposal to set up a Committee to consider this matter and the precedents in respect of it from this angle—and in saying that, I know that I speak fort a large number of your Lordships.
I should like to turn for a moment to the proposals in the articles which form part of the Motion—whether they are agreed or not we do not know. I agree with the first article, of course, though

933
I am sorry to say that I do not like its language. I do not think there was ever a time in the history of this House when it was so lost to respect for itself or for its colleague as to consider the other place in terms of rivalry. I remember the unfortunate dispute in 1910, but that was a different matter altogether. As to the second article, I should very much like to know how that proposal is to be carried out. A costly and expensive device is now being fitted to our great liners to ensure their stability; but what device can be fixed to the human mind to ensure its stability and that it continues to think the same thing? The, noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, must have a vivid recollection of the many Liberal Peers who were created between the years 1905 and 1920, and I cannot help thinking that when he looked around his Benches yesterday he must have felt that stability of opinion was difficult to attain even in your Lordships' House. Therefore, I am much puzzled to know how the second article is to be carried out—in fact, it gives me the feeling that some of these articles were produced of a multitude of cooks and not of a multitude of counsellors.
I am bound to say that I think that the third article is a dangerous one. If it is laid down as a principle, it is one that is universally discarded by all men in their dealings with animals. Therefore, if it is not applicable to men, I submit that it is a vital biological difference, and it is much more important than the use of fire to distinguish men from the animals. The danger of this proposition seems to me to be that, given out in this sort of way by authority, it is apt to be accepted as self-evident by a large number of people who do not think; and no man is so wise that he can look ahead and say that the time may not come when it might be applied with lamentable effect at a much higher level. I could say a great deal on this point, but I prefer to leave it there. These three propositions, however, would have one sad effect on this House: they would deprive it of those people who, having no particular desire for popularity, and possibly in any case enjoying no particular popularity, hold views at variance with those of a large Party or the Press—they hold quite independent views, and do not hesitate to express them. Such persons may often be wrong, though I do
934
not think they are wrong so often as most people do. But even if they are geese, I think we might remember that, like the geese on the capitol, they may from time to time serve to waken a nation to its danger.
The next article deals with the membership of the Chamber. If we are going utterly to revise the Second Chamber, I do not see why we should not abolish all titles above those of a Baronet, and call ourselves Senators, in imitation of those Senates which we are going to imitate. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh asked me to speak about article (5). Our Monarchs have never been reluctant to make Peeresses, and I often think that they have sometimes made Peeresses for better reasons than they made Peers. But I do not think that the inclusion of Peeresses in this House would contribute in any way to our debates. I can give your Lordships one solid objection to it—there is not room. As your Lordships know, we are already very crowded, and the Lord Great Chamberlain has a difficult task in keeping the premises which we occupy from encroachment. I am certain that he would find it impossible to provide the necessary room if Peeresses were admitted.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Here, in the Chamber?
LORD SALTOUN: No, not in the Chamber.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Why does the noble Lord not say what he means?
LORD SALTOUN: Article (7) reads:
"In order that persons without private means should not be excluded, some remuneration would be payable to members of the Second Chamber."
Noble Lords opposite have often talked to me about a book that I possess called "the Black Book." One of the entries in the Black Book is a pension of (I think it is) £300 a year, payable to the mother of George Canning, who your Lordships will remember lived and died a very poor man, leaving his family in poor circumstances. This is always held up as being part of the distribution of public funds amongst Parliamentarians and people of influence and their friends. My own personal view is that the most economical way of making it possible for Peers whose circumstances are poor to attend and do their duty in this House is to do precisely

935
that: to give them a pension on public funds, at the discretion of the Prime Minister. Any other form is going to be much more expensive, and any ordinary statutory allowance would be difficult.
Article No. (8) is an act of justice but is, nevertheless, a dangerous provision. If noble Lords were allowed to escape from what have been called the "sepulchral integuments of the British Peerage," the younger, more energetic and more ambitious Peers would accept their freedom; and although it might be that the House of Commons would gain a little in force and ability, I am certain that this House would lose a great deal. If I were given fifty years, I would take the chance myself.
I have already said that in my view the Parliament Act, 1911, was a bad Act and unfortunate in its effect. Had steps been taken at that time to heal the breach, if they had remembered the advice of George Meredith,
"to keep the young generations in hail and bequeath them no tumbled House,"
it would have been a very good thing. But the effect of the Parliament Act, 1911, that has been most marked to me is the decline in the power and influence of Parliament as a whole, and not merely of this House. In 1905, when Parliament spoke, it commanded the assent and the support of everyone in the country. To-day there are many organisations—and not only political ones—that are so powerful that I firmly believe that a Government would be slow to challenge an issue with them; and, if an issue were offered, would be slow to take it up. I think that is probably the most marked effect of the Parliament Act, 1911, and it is the one that I regret the most. Whenever I show guests round your Lordships' House I never fail to point out that the two Houses are in reality one. The Queen on her Throne is the head, with the Two Estates, Lords Spiritual and Temporal at her side and, beyond, the Third Estate, with its Speaker facing the Throne. And I always add that though, for practical reasons and the adequate fulfilment of their various functions, they are thus drawn apart, they can truly perform the high duties committed to them by Her Majesty and her people only when the difference between them is seen to disappear.
4.50 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I have been listening with some surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, pulling to pieces these nine, to my mind, excellent points, more or less agreed between the Parties several years ago. I feel that we must at all costs rationalise and stabilise our position as the Upper House, and become more effective and more acceptable to the main mass of the people. In anything that I say I should not like it to be thought that I have not the deepest sympathy for ancient tradition. Also, I feel that we should have no sense of rivalry with the other place—indeed, our function is different and in different mood. To begin with, I should like to quote two sentences which Lord Bryce—who I am honoured to think was my godfather—said in 1921:
"There is no use in having a Second Chamber unless you give it substantial powers; but it is to be remembered that the more powers you give the more popular must be the composition of the Chamber."
I feel that we have now reached the stage when we must marry the two principles of composition—the hereditary principle and the creation of Life Peers, or the selection of Peers on some other basis than that of heredity.
Yesterday, the noble Marquess the Leader of the House told us, I thought very movingly, what it costs, what it means, to run the ship of this noble House, and I feel, looking especially to the future, that we must undertake basic and imaginative repair. In a sense, this Chamber of ours is watching us as we speak, as it has watched so many before us. I feel that in this country there will inevitably be over the next years a new tide, if you like, of extreme Radicalism that would be prepared to sink the ship if it had the chance, and possibly to declare a positive belief in government by a single Chamber. Therefore, I think that this is the time, as the noble Lord, Lord Layton, suggested, to put our House in order.
The fact that we are not elected by the people gives no reason why we should be any less democratic than the other place. I think it was rather a fine statement of Henry Sidgwick, when he said:
"The main end for which a Senate is constructed is that all legislative measures may receive a second consideration by a body different in character from the primary representative assembly, and if possible superior or supplementary in intellectual qualifications."

937
I am not suggesting that we are trying to be superior, but we do not want to feel any sense of inferiority; and as a younger Member of your Lordships' House I should not like to feel that in coming here whenever I can I am coming to a House that does not matter. I feel that it can matter as much as, if not more than, anything else.
In this modern age, one is aware of merit and belief in merit, and I know that a great many of us are here by an act of fate and not by an act of intelligence. That means that we have to prove ourselves once we are here. But I believe that if the composition of the House is matured so as to include people not on the hereditary principle, and narrowed down among the hereditary people to those who are willing to attend and to work, the House would then be acceptable to the nation, and that the nation would believe in this House just as much as in the House of Commons. We have the chance of debating the broad sweep of foreign affairs or anything else, without being ties and without always having to look over our shoulders to constituents. As I say, we should not try to resemble the other place. We have a genius of our own, and it is complementary to the genius of the other place. We should be more leisurely but not less lively. We should, of course, continue to realise that we are not the main executive power in the State We in this building have almost a sense of segregation. This Palace of Westminster is one vital focus of the nation—namely, the focus of government. Yet when one goes to the House of Commons and talks with people, particularly people of one's own Party, they say, almost with a cynical twist, "What have your Lordships been discussing today?" as if it did not matter. By adapting ourselves to the mood of 1955, I think we have somehow to get over that potential slur. There is ammunition for criticism, and I think it is based on the fact that there are so many of us who do not attend regularly, quite apart from whether we have the chance to attend.
I could not feel more proud and more humble in being a Member of your Lordships' House. Therefore, I find it un-understandable that quite a few of your Lordships have taken this rather negative view of the whole question. If we consider that this Upper House of the British Parliament is really important, and if we
938
essentially believe in a Second Chamber, then we must make it fit the mood of the times and become more fully acceptable to the people than it now is. At the moment, perhaps, reform of the House of Lords is not a topic which is discussed in every home and in every public bar of this nation. On the other hand, it is an issue of supreme importance, and I am sure that one result of this debate will be considerably more discussion of this issue. Everybody, whether a Member of this House or a member of the public outside, will realise that something must be done.
4.58 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but after listening for two days to magnificent speeches I felt there were one or two words I should like to say. First of all, may I humbly and sincerely say to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that during my period in your Lordships' House I have never heard a finer speech, Although I know I shall never reach the standard of his speaking, I hope that when my time comes, if it does, to reach his age, I shall be able to hold the attention as he does. I came into the general political side of your Lordships' House after the last war, although I took my seat some time before, and for a happy year, as some of your Lordships may remember, I was Assistant Whip to our noble Leader, who vas then the Leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately, I then had a long illness, arid since that time I have had to be away, earning my living. I tell your Lordships that only because I refute the words that have been said in some places, not in this House, that in yesterday's debate all the backwoodsmen turned up to save their skins. I remember well my year in this House and, looking around yesterday, I found there was hardly one face that did not recognise. I think that is something that should be said.
It has been a typical debate in this House on a great occasion. The only point which worries me about the future—I fully realise that reform must come—is that if Lords in Parliament are appointed and this House agrees, as I believe it does, that the young must be given the chance to come in and show their worth, how are they going to show their worth if they are not allowed to speak in your Lordships' House? To my mind, a distinction must be made between

939
sitting in your Lordships' House and voting in your Lordships' House. That is the one point I should like to make. I know it was made by the noble Earl yesterday. May I take the case of my son? When he succeeds me, he will not have the chance, maybe, of knowing noble Lords in this House. If he wishes to sit here, how is he going to get into this House to show his worth? That is the main difficulty, as I see it. As a result of this plan, it may happen that retired business men and other retired men, whatever their worth, will be appointed. Many of us have seen a certain advertisement for a famous insurance company. Let it never be said that we point to our noble Leader and say: "Without him I should not be able to supplement my pension." That is the fundamental question: how are the young men going to enter this House and have the chance to speak if they are not actually Lords of Parliament? I hope that the noble Viscount who is now going to answer will give us some hope that we may differentiate between sitting in Parliament and voting in Parliament, so that the young men will, so to speak, be able to try and sway the jury who are the Lords of Parliament. In this way the voting power required would still be retained and we should have the outside people who are still Peers of the Realm and who could come and sit, as they have done for so many years.
5.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, it will be universally agreed, whatever other views may be held about the subject of debate, that the debate itself has been extraordinarily interesting and valuable and, without exception in the speeches made, well worthy of the importance of the subject. The noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech at the beginning, said that he expected to hear as many views as there were speeches. Indeed, on the previous occasions when we have discussed this matter, whether in debate in this House or in discussion outside it, there certainly has been an enormous variety of views. But what struck me in this two days' debate, and I think it probably struck all of your Lordships, was that, whereas there was not unanimity—and one would not have expected it—there was a preponderance of identical opinion on quite
940
a number of aspects of this topic. That measure of agreement, where all are speaking their minds quite frankly and without any inhibition is, I think, significant.
There was complete agreement. I think, about the functions and powers of this House, just as there was general agreement on the value of a Second Chamber and the way in which it does its work—an appreciation which I think extends far outside this House and which this House enjoys universally, or almost universally, in the country. There was also, I think, complete agreement about what should be the relationship of this House to the House of Commons. There was again complete agreement—at least, I think so on—the undesirability of turning this House into an elected Chamber in any shape or form; and there was complete agreement that this House should not attempt to be a rival to the House of Commons, which it might become if it were put on an electoral basis. And then (and this I know my noble Leader will agree is important) there was an appeal from all three Benches, Conservative, Labour and Liberal, that Peers ought not to be precluded from the attendance which they are called upon by their Writ of Summons to undertake by the cost of coming here to attend and do their duties. Few, if any, would ask for or accept a salary.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in a speech which I thought was of extraordinary interest and with almost every word of which I agreed, expressed yesterday a view, which I expect we all share, about the independence of the House, the importance of its independence and also the importance of having, as we have in this House, non-professional politicians, one of whose chief values is their continuous contact with the world outside Parliament. But I must say that I agree that it is unfair to ask noble Lords to make a daily sacrifice, which many can ill afford, to do their duty. As one noble Lord (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hylton) said, speaking on this side of the House—I paraphrase what he said—why should this House be treated worse than the members of any local authority in the land? That view having been expressed in all quarters of the House, and not challenged in any quarter, is, I think, one which certainly should command attention.

941
My Lords, there are some, like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who say, "Why should we alter an institution which, whatever its anomalies, in practice works well? "Certainly no one could have pleaded the cause of "no change" better than Lord Elton yesterday. There have been a great many speeches, and I think that the great majority have favoured some reform in our composition. I feel, from the speeches delivered and the way they were received, that there would be wide support in all quarters of the House for a power to recommend the creation of Life Peers. Without Life Peers, I am sure that we in this House will not get a number of men whom we ought to have here, and who, for one reason or another, do not come—it may be either from their own personal disinclination or perhaps, still more, because they do not wish to burden and handicap, as it might do in business or in a profession, their descendants with the duty to succeed, generation after generation, to a Peerage. I am quite sure that we lose men who ought to be in this House, and who would gladly come here if the power to create Life Peers existed. That applies to a number of people, quite irrespective of party, and to people of no Party.
We were greatly entertained today by Lord Vansittart. He was true to his motto "Van. always exaggerates"—"or perhaps I ought to say, "Van, always underrates." He spoke of the hereditary Peers as being quite admirable creatures, and he said that, if you look round at the 50 million people who do not happen to be hereditary Peers, whether of first creation or succession, where on earth among them are you going to find any who are like us or who would be fit to come and associate with us? Having gone through the Honours List, he appeared almost to be saying, "I got here only because the other Under-Secretary of State was even worse than I was." It was a very good "turn," but the noble Lord really put the matter a little too high. We do not want a lot of supermen; we want sensible and average people—people of experience who will come and do their duty and be of great help. After all, the other place is not entirely composed of supermen, yet on the whole it is quite a good counterpart to this Chamber.
I think there is also the fact that we shall not get the kind of people we require
942
to do the business of the House. I would echo what my noble Leader said yester day: that it is the attendance of those of us who carry out the business of this House and, still more, those who come day after day to support us or to oppose us—and that is just as important—which makes this House work as it ought to work, as a critical and revising Chamber, as well as a debating Chamber. I do not believe that we shall achieve that position satisfactorily without the possibility of creating Life Peers. I think that is the answer to the doubts of noble Lords such as the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, who speaks with great experience—he was a Leader of the House at one time. I think that answer would satisfy him.
At the same time, I am quite sure that while the House would like the Prime Minister to have the power to recommend the creation of Life Peers, the last thing the House wants is that it should become a sort of antique dealers' fair, however priceless some of the museum pieces may be. We do not want that. That is why the older one gets, perhaps, the more one agrees how important it is that there should be an opportunity for young Peers. This is not a matter of theories. It is certainly reinforced by the examples of the young men who come into this House. We have seen them come in after their careers in the Army, or whatever it may be. They have come in and have made good; and some have been promoted. They could not have been found at all if they had not had the right to come here.
I was much interested to find that point of view re-echoed in the last speech but one—an extremely interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton. It applies to the Opposition just as much as to this side, because, as I have said, this House can do its job only if it has an effective Opposition as well as an effective Front Bench and supporters behind that Front Bench. These young Peers must be given the opportunity to prove their worth. I do not see how they will get that opportunity except by the right, when they succeed, to come here as hereditary Peers and, if they elect to do so, to speak.
My Lords, that raises the question whether, in any reform, we ought to limit the total numbers of this House. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh said that he did not like the word "unlimited"—what was the word he preferred?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: "Indeterminate."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes. I may perhaps, with great daring, give a personal view, though I should not at this stage presume to dogmatise. I am bound to say that the more I think of it the less am I attracted to the idea of having any numerical limit. The reputation which this House enjoys for fair dealing, and its consequent repute in the country, depend, I am sure, a great deal more on how we act than on how we are constituted or composed. I am not at all impressed by the necessity for a sort of mathematical system of proportionate representation, particularly if, as I think it would, it meant losing a lot of good men and a lot of good things which have proved their value in action. For all these reasons, on historical and on practical grounds, I am sure that there will be great unwillingness to surrender the hereditary principle. There, I must frankly join issue with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel.
A number of noble Lords have spoken about evolution. Well, it is not necessary to do everything in one step. If you try to do so, you may do some wrong things; and it is much harder to go back than to proceed gradually. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am to some extent thinking aloud here, but it is no good speaking unless one speaks frankly about what one thinks is wise and right, disregarding expediency. I feel that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was a little hard on the hereditary principle. He has never liked it. Far be it from me to denigrate the merits of Peers of first creation but I feel that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, overrated our merits a little in comparison with those of Peers of succession. One could pick out two elevens, and I am not quite sure which would win on virtue and performance; and by "virtue" I mean attendance. It is not true that all the Peers of first creation line up every day to attend—not a bit of it. There are many Peers of first creation who are never seen in this House. Conscious as we are of each other's shortcomings, I feel that we had better have a little more sense of equality, in that regard.
LORD MATHERS: Will the noble Viscount forgive me for reminding him
944
that there are noble Lords here under a mathematical system, who have to go through the process of election before they get to this House? The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, are examples, being Scottish Peers, who are limited to sixteen in number.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am well aware of that, and there are exceptions which prove the rule; but if the noble Lord were to take a Gallup Poll of the Members of this House as to whether or not they would like the Scottish principle of elected Peers extended to all other Peers, I do not think he would find a majority in favour of election.
LORD MATHERS: Then, as a corollary to that declaration—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not making a declaration.
LORD MATHERS: —that personal declaration, would the noble Viscount be prepared to bring in a measure to qualify all Scottish Peers to sit in this House?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I must certainly have notice of that question. I ventured to say only that I did not think, if a plebiscite were taken in this House of Peers other than Scottish Peers (and there are a large number of so-called Scottish Peers who are also Peers of the United Kingdom), the noble Lord would find a majority of Peers of the United Kingdom in favour of making the Scottish principle universal. But there is of course a great deal to be said in favour of it.
It has been said—and I believe with every reason—that the present system works well and gives a good Chamber in practice, so why should we exclude any of those who attend and render good service. But those who render good service do so because they attend. If I sense the feeling of the House, I feel that there would be quite a large measure of support for excluding Peers who do not attend. Many of them do excellent work elsewhere and they cannot do both. A reform which gave Peers an opportunity of signifying at the beginning of a Parliament whether they wished to be summoned and to attend, and excluded those who did not so wish, would probably be acceptable. Such a reform would certainly remove the political

945
cockshy of an army of backwoodsmen lurking somewhere, always ready to attack. It is a complete bogy, of course, and not a reality, because the phantom army never goes into action.
It is quite true, as more than one noble Lord has said to-day, that yesterday's attendance in this House did not represent a great mass of backwoodsmen. I have seen this House equally full on the occasion of discussions on quite a number of Bills; but there are a number of Peers who cannot attend regularly and who yet make a very valuable contribution when they do attend. Two shining examples are the noble Lord, Lord Elton, himself, and the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. They attend from time to time, and speak with great charm; and they are therefore inspired with an enormous affection and admiration for this House as it exists at present. I suppose it is a case of absence making the heart grow fonder.
LORD ELTON: I hope that the noble Viscount is not suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, or I attend only when we wish to speak. I believe I probably attend twenty times or more without speaking for every time on which I burden your Lordships with my observations.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should not put it like that, but I can give the noble Lord the record of his attendance, as I happen to have looked it up. I think the ratio of his speeches to his attendances is a little higher than he has given, but I am not criticising the noble Lord; I think it is an excellent thing that Peers who contribute a great deal but cannot attend very frequently should be able to attend: I am not in favour of cutting them out. But I do not think it rests with those Peers to advise us—we who have to carry through the Business of the House—that we ought not to reform the House in order to get more people who can give that regular attendance necessary if the House is to function.
LORD ELTON: May I ask the noble Viscount one question on an important point which has not been made clear? The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, told us that the average attendance in this House was about ninety-seven a day, and I believe that is approximately correct. The noble Marquess complained, with every justification, that sometimes there
946
are only three or four noble Lords behind him. In other words, there is a striking contrast in the proportion between those actually in the Chamber and those in the House. How is this new Chamber to differ in that respect? Are the Lords of Parliament necessarily people who will not prefer sitting in the smoking room or having tea to sitting in the Chamber?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): That comment of the noble Lord will merely show the House that he is not quite au fait with what happens in this House. It is perfectly true that, on average, ninety-seven noble Lords attend the House. They come at the beginning of business, stay for one or two speeches and then have to go away on other business. They are not sitting in the smoking room (if there is one), or the library; but they have been in die House and are marked down accordingly. But anybody who attends this House, as most of us do, will know perfectly well that the figure of ninety-seven, although it is accurate, in the sense that it means that ninety-seven Peers have been within the precincts during that day, does not mean that they are attending the whole of the Sitting of the House.
LORD ELTON: May I just pursue the point? I entirely understand what the noble Marquess said. I understood it at the time. What I am asking is, why will it be different because these proposed new Members are called "Lords of Parliament"? Why will they be more likely to attend?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: For one excellent reason—you will choose a man who is more likely to be able to attend.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: May I ask the noble Viscount whether that figure of ninety-seven includes Peers who sit on half-a-dozen committees?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, I think it includes anyone who comes into the House, even thought he is sitting on a Select Committee or a Private Bill Committee or something of that sort. Of course, it is quite fallacious to judge of the day-to-day work of the House from an average.
Apart from the point which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House made, that it includes Peers who are, as my

947
noble friend says, sitting on Select Committees or who are here for, perhaps, only half an hour during the day, there are also days—yesterday was one—when the attendance is far in excess of ninety-seven. If there is some very important debate, whether it be on an important Bill or an important Motion—it may be so in the case of the Defence debate next week—the attendances will again be very large. But that still does not mean that we get ninety-seven Peers here on a day when only the more humdrum work of the House is being done: yet that is just the kind of work for which attendance and work and study are necessary. Take, for example, the Committee stage of a Bill. If the noble Lord is ever here for such a stage, he must know, or would know, that that is the testing time which shows whether a House is working. It may be that ninety or a hundred Amendments are put forward to a Bill, and those are Amendments which ought to be discussed if we are going to knock a Bill into the right shape. It is the work of this House as a Revising Chamber which is of vital importance, and which makes its reputation in the country. One noble Lord (I forget for the moment which) said that 1,000 or 1,100 Amendments had been rightly made in three or four major Bills. That means a tremendous amount of work by a limited number of Members.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Would my noble friend allow me to ask him to emphasise the fact that Committee work is done by perhaps a dozen or so noble Lords on one particular Bill, but it will be a different dozen who do the work on another Bill; and so it goes on.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is perfectly right; I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has said that. We find that one set of Peers who are experts in this or that matter work on one Bill, while another lot who are experts in something else work on another. In sessions like the present, with what is regarded as a light legislative programme, I do not know how many Bills have to come before us to go through careful examination at the Committee stage, but I suppose the number is much nearer a hundred than fifty—and all that work has got to be done.
948
Reverting to composition, I think that the House generally would accept the sort of view which Lord Hailsham put to us. I should have thought it would be very wise to give all those Peers who cannot attend a chance of not being treated as Members of this House. In fact, if I may so put it, why carry a burden— and it is a political burden when this House is attacked—which does not even want to be carried? I think it is right to say that those Peers would be quite glad not to have the Writ of Summons which orders them to attend. This is very much in line with the sort of ideas which the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, has propounded more than once, and which I think command a good deal of support. I am sure that it would be valuable for us to have an authoritative opinion on what is the right of this House to concern itself with the attendances of Peers, and to deal with that matter by Resolution and by Standing Orders, without saying whether, in a particular case, that is the right or the best way of dealing with it. I think the House ought to be told with authority what its constitutional position is in this matter. Therefore, I suggest that that might well be referred to whatever is the appropriate Committee, which should include among its members constitutional lawyers.
It has been said—and I agree—that the ideal thing would be to proceed by agreement, if we can. I must therefore admit that the speech made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, yesterday, was a disappointment to me; and judging by other speeches made by occupants of the Benches opposite, I rather think that it was a disappointment to those, or some of those, who sit with him and behind him, because they contributed a number of interesting suggestions about reform. I am not sure that, perhaps, the speech was not a bit of a disappointment to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, himself.
He told us that the matter was not urgent. I think it is urgent in the interests of the House. The noble and learned Earl said there was no crisis on. But that is just why the present is a good moment to do something. If we wait to deal with the reform of this House until we have a constitutional crisis—which under the wise leadership of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, we are, I am glad to say, very unlikely to have—that is exactly the worst moment at which to

949
deal with a matter of this kind. When the noble and learned Earl told us that his Party was so occupied with the H-bomb or the A-bomb that they could not deal with this matter, I could not help wondering whether the real deterrent was, not the H-bomb or the A-bomb, but the "B-bomb" in the shape of Mr. Bevan. I must honestly reject the contention that we cannot do anything unless we get the agreement of all Parties. Certainly that could not be an argument advanced by the Labour Party after the passage of the Parliament Act of 1949. And I do not think it can be advanced by the Liberal Party, though Mr. Asquith acted with a great deal more circumspection.
I have been interested, and agreeably interested, to note Lord Samuel's sudden zeal for immediate action—"action this day." But, after all, he is the elder statesman of this House now. Forty-four or forty-five years ago he was a member of the Government which passed the Parliament Act of 1911, when his Government said that the reform of this House "brooks no delay." With his health and vigour, which we are all so delighted to see, he cannot (I am glad to say) even plead that this is a death bed repentance. It is very agreeable to find him now keen about this matter. Rather like the case of the Labour Benches, however, I find that on the Liberal Benches all his followers did not sing the same tune, or even keep in harmony with him. The noble Lord, Lord Saye and Sele, in an admirable maiden speech, displayed the independence of his ancestor in the Protectorate Parliament. But we are ready to be encouraged and prodded, and my noble friend Lord Salisbury has voiced his sense of the importance of action, which I and all on the Treasury Bench certainly share.
It has been very valuable to the Government, as well as to the House, to have heard the views expressed by noble Lords who have the interests of this House at heart and who have contributed so much to its efficiency and prestige. Anyone who has sat through this debate and heard the speeches, and has sensed the atmosphere in which those speeches were received, must have been convinced of this. It certainly is my abiding impression, after listening, to the two days' debate, that whatever differences there
950
may be on ways or means, on timing or method, there has been an impressive unanimity, which transcends all differences, on the value of this House, on its present prestige, on its historic past and on pride in its service.
5.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the concluding, or penultimate, observations of the noble Viscount surprised me somewhat. If he had got up to say: "Here is this noble Lord, this melancholy vestige of the Government of 1911, once more troubling us with this eternal question," I should have had to apologise and not deny the soft impeachment. But when, ever since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House and increasingly as the years have gone on, I have begged and implored and vociferated that we ought to reform this House, I think it is rather too much for the noble Viscount to say that I am showing a sudden zeal, that I am showing unexpected and strange and sudden excitement over it. Perhaps the noble Viscount has forgotten what happened in I947, that it was I who, on behalf of my colleagues, first urged that there should be a Three-Party Conference. To my great surprise—it was deed a surprise—both the Conservative and Labour Parties showed that degree of enlightenment which enabled them to agree to my proposal. My surprise was still greater when we came to unanimous conclusions on several most important points.
I am not surprised to-day that the Labour Party are frightened of what they did then and are running away from the proposals which their principal leaders—I think Mr. Bevan was not then in the forefront—accepted at our hands as matters for consideration. Let me remind the noble Viscount that at the last General Election when the present House of Commons was elected, the Party of which he is an eminent and distinguished ornament announced to the public at large that they would propose to summon another all-Party Conference in order to discuss this question. When that was made impossible by the attitude of the Labour Party, they at once declared that nevertheless they would take action. And am I then so urgent and insistent if I humbly and respectfully put the question to them now?

951
I do not propose to survey the course of the debate, because of my somewhat unduly long speech of yesterday and because my noble friend and colleague, Lord Layton, this afternoon has done that so far as yesterday's debate is concerned. With all that he said I most cordially agree. Looking back over this two days' debate, two matters of great significance have become evident, one negative and one positive, which have come from the two Front Benches. The negative one is the declaration of the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition that his Party now propose to take no part in any discussion or any action for reforming the House of Lords. That is a great disappointment. What the reasons of it may be, many of us would wish to know. The situation was most scathingly and effectively analysed yesterday by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who made a devastating explanation of the present situation as it arises from the attitude of many of the rank and file of the Labour Party. However, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, would be the last to suggest that this action and that of his colleagues to which he gave expression should be a veto on the whole House and prevent any forward move at all. He did not claim that, and if he had claimed it, that claim would have been immediately rejected.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, contributed the new, positive element when, in a very careful and understanding speech, he analysed the whole of the conclusions that were tentatively arrived at, ad referendum, by the Conference to which we have referred, and left an impression on the House and I think on the country that at long last something is about to be done. He, and the Prime Minister in another place, have told us that they are now engaged on a detailed analysis of what they find to be a most complicated subject and are preparing a Bill. It is impossible to suppose that the Government, through their accredited chiefs in both Houses, would have said that and announced it to the public and that nothing concrete should follow. So I feel convinced myself that we shall see this question move at last, after this long interval of over forty years. In fact, the noble Marquess said, with regard to the negative attitude of the official Opposition, that if that is to be the case, they
952
—the Government—will go on without them. So that the situation is quite clear. So far as the Liberal Party are concerned, as my noble friend Lord Layton has said, we will co-operate most cordially in every way. Apparently the first step is to be the appointment of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to consider what are its constitutional powers in the matter of attendance, and possibly some other points of that kind.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I was going to make it clear to the noble Viscount that we should certainly favour the appropriate Committee. I suggested, as a possibility, a Select Committee. I do not know if that would be finally fixed, but we should favour the proposal of whichever Committee appears to be most appropriate.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: In the near future?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In the near future.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The actual machinery is not important. Whatever the Government think is the right course, we shall be prepared to join and serve in any way that may be at all useful, and we can explore whether there is anything that can be done in this matter apart from legislation. But I confess that whatever can be done will be of a very limited character, and certainly cannot be a substitute for the larger reforms which I think the great majority of the House would desire.
I would draw attention to what was said by my noble friend Lord Layton, continuing a line of thought of my own yesterday, about the desirability, if it be feasible, not to have a voluminous and elaborate Statute—nothing in the nature of a blue-print, which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, fears so much. For my own part, I should prefer to see, if it is legally possible, a short and simple Bill couched in more general terms and leaving a great deal of the actual action to be taken perhaps through constitutional organs outside the Statutes, by means of conventions and agreements, and action by the Crown, by Orders in Council, or Committees of the Privy Council, or in other ways. Do not let us have a Bill of thirty clauses and ten schedules, fixing everything possible that needs to be decided. I made that point yesterday, and I attach great importance to it.

953
What we want is in line with the gradual evolution of our unwritten Constitution, and the less we put into a rigid Act of Parliament the better it will be, in my view. Possibly the legal advisers may say that a great deal must be put into the Statute; but that is as it may be. For example, on the question of fixing a determinate number of the House as a maximum at any one time, I should personally, as at present advised, agree with those who think it would be better not to have such a limitation, which would affect the Prerogative of the Crown—a Prerogative which in the past has been found useful in important and unexpected ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, in an intervention just now said: "Why was it to be expected that the new Lords of Parliament would be any better in their attendance than the present Peers?" For this simple reason: that they would all be men who would come to this House because they wished to be Members of the House. The great majority of those who do not now attend say to themselves: "Why should I attend? I am not specially interested. I did not make myself a Member of the House; I was just born that way"—just as criminals sometimes say: "It is not my fault; I did not make myself. I am what society and the fates have made me." The new Lords of Parliament will be appointed precisely because they are men who, on inquiry being made, wish to serve. They will be full of zeal, and the only danger will be that they may be so full of zeal that the House may be unduly loquacious. But if they are men of such excellent judgment and ability as we presuppose, they would be well aware of that danger and avoid it.
LORD SALTOUN: The noble Viscount will remember that some of the great men who have received Peerages in the last ten years are very conspicuous by their absence. They sit on the Cross Benches, but seldom come here unless they have something to say.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Probably the new ones will not be appointed precisely as men of that kind: they may be appointed as a dignity for the office, as a favour, or as a distinction. But it is not necessary for the whole 200, or whatever the number may be (I say nothing as to numbers) to attend with absolute
954
regularity every day; and as they get progressively older they will probably attend more and more irregularly—it would not matter very much.
One point that has been raised—and I referred to it yesterday—is that this House might be the medium, to some extent, in drawing the Colonies more closely to our system here. I made that suggestion very tentatively. I have nothing in mind such as the creation of an Imperial Senate. If that ever has to be done—and I do not think it will ever need to be done—it will have to be done ad hoc and deliberately, and the body created as such. I do not know why people should think we are not grateful for the attendance of such men in this House as the late Lord Bennett, or the present noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne. If they can come from Canada and Australia, why not also from the new self-governing States in other continents of the world?
The question of heredity naturally comes up as as a matter of principle—heredity as such, unsupported by any personal qualifications. I still adhere to the view that I have expressed, that it is indefensible as a principle for the appointment of the members of any Legislature, no matter how limited its powers may be. But I should be the last to say that this is a sine qua non, and that unless others concur my friends in the Liberal Party will not co-operate in effecting any changes that may be agreed to. From the beginning I have urged the importance of carrying out this change by general agreement, if possible if not in details, at all events in substance. Anyone who wishes to enter into agreement cannot say beforehand that he will only agree on certain conditions. I do not expect to get everything that I want; nor do I want the members of the Government to get everything that they want. I hope that if we surrender certain points or compromise on certain matters they will be willing to enter into it in the spirit of fair give and take.
With regard to heredity, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said just now that I was unduly disrespectful to the hereditary Members who are now sitting in the House; that one could easily pick an eleven from among them as good as any eleven from among the new creations. No doubt that is so. I have never failed in

955
anything I have said to pay due respect to the brilliant and invaluable qualities of many of those who sit here by hereditary right. I may mention, incidentally, the exemplar usually taken, the Leader of the House; but I would remind him that he came into this House first as a new creation; he was so much needed here that, in his father's lifetime, he came in with another title and rendered useful service before, in the course of nature, he succeeded to his present position. But that does not alter the fact that there are 800 Members, and that what has been said about the brilliant virtues of the exceptional ones among them is not characteristic of the average, and still less characteristic of those who are below the average.
I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, in his brilliant and entertaining speech, was guilty of one or two fallacies which went unnoticed along the stream of his oratory. He said, for example: "Look at the other Second Chambers in the world. See the faults that attach to the one in Paris, to that in Rome and to that in Washington. Why then"—and this is the conclusion— "should you wish to alter your own?" I fail to see that that follows from the premise. Because the other Second Chambers have faults from which particular faults we happen to be free, it is no reason to suppose that we are therefore perfect. And as for numbers, the noble Lord said: "How are you going to get the desirable people to serve in this House? Look at the Order of Merit: it is difficult to fill up even 24 places. Look at the French Academy: how can they get 40? But 850, that is just right."
Another significant fact about this debate has been the general agreement that, on the whole, there should be some change. The great majority of speakers, and certainly the most weighty speakers, took that view. But a considerable number, a minority, give fresh evidence, if that were needed, of the great force of inertia in the world; of the difficulty that always exists to get any change in any constitution at any time, because there is a kind of dead weight of the inactive persons who are always ready to find all virtues in what exists and none in what might be added. I am sorry to say that even to-day that view has been voiced to a large extent—although I do not think
956
he would himself admit it—by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who made yesterday so powerful and appealing a speech from his point of view. I remember him as a younger man—a keen enthusiast who came into your Lordships' House as a member of the Labour Party.
LORD ELTON: May I correct the noble Viscount? I came in as a supporter of the National Government.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: A supporter of National Labour.
LORD ELTON: Yes, National Labour, not Labour. I had the disgrace or the honour, whichever it was, of being expelled from the Labour Party years before I had the honour of entering your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: At all events, the noble Lord termed himself National Labour and was a follower of the National Labour Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald. In his youth the noble Lord was, by temperament and character, a crusader for the great causes. He has written books—St. George or the Dragon and another book more recently—in a spirit of enthusiasm and zeal. I am sorry to see him now sitting on the Conservative Benches and the exponent of what could only be regarded as a plea for the status quo.
I welcomed the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I observed that he underlined what had already been said from that Bench: that they would not now propose to raise the question of the powers of the House of Lords. We must proceed along other lines and leave that matter in abeyance—which I hope will cause many noble Lords such as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, to take a favourable view of whatever measures may be put forward, even though they do not participate in their preparation. The debate has shown a keen interest in your Lordships' House in this matter, a desire that some reform of some sort should be effected and soon. I cannot expect more. I think it would be unreasonable to ask the Government to produce their proposals until they have completed the preparation of their Bill. When that will be, and when a further step can be taken, must depend upon their judgment; and possibly the imminence of a General Election may have weight in

957
the matter. It may be that they would wish to place their proposals before the country before there is a General Election; or possibly they might think it better to await the results of a General Election before declaring them. I know nothing as to that, and it would be impertinent of me to express any opinion. I think this debate will have been helpful to the Government in their preparations, because it has evoked most admirably phrased and formulated expressions of the
958
various points of view which they would have to take into account before they presented definite proposals to your Lordships' House, to the other House, and to the nation. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at four minutes past six o'clock.