Lords Sitting of 10 April 1962

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry
The Viscount St. Davids—Took the Oath.

EFFECTS OF ABOL-X
2.35 p m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the constituents of the systemic insecticide sold under the name Abol-X, and what research has been done concerning its effects on human beings.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, the active ingredients of the garden insecticide sold under the name "Abol-X" are gamma-BHC, D.D.T. and menazon. The names of these ingredients are printed on the label of every container. This product has been given clearance under the Notification of Pesticides Scheme, on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances. The three active ingredients have been individually tested for mammalian toxicity, and they are all of low toxicity.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is it not the case that these poisons are cumulative poisons and can have a cumulative effect in course of time? Secondly, although this information may be upon the label, what information is given to the consumer of the contents of the vegetables he eats?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I think that these ingredients are probably slightly cumulative. There are no recommendations on the tin of Abol-X as to
358
how you should eat the vegetables. If this insecticide is used by gardeners in a sensible way according to the directions on the tin, there is no appreciable risk.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, as the noble Earl has said that it has been tested for mammalian toxicity, may I ask him whether that includes homo sapiens?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I believe in certain cases. yes: but I am not perfectly certain of that without notice. But these ingredients have all been tested for mammalian toxicity.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the United States there is legislation limiting the amount of residues of these poisons which may be left in any food, and that in New Zealand the use of D.D.T. has been prohibited in order to prevent butter and other substances from being contaminated by it?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I believe that there are regulations in the United States for permitted tolerances of residues in food substances, and I believe that in New Zealand certain regulations have been made with regard to D.D.T. But, without notice, I do not know the exact regulations.

CORTISONE IN BROILER CHICKENS
2.38 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any restriction upon the sale of broiler chickens which have been injected with a preparation of cortisone.]
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, my Lords, cortisone is not used in the rearing of broiler chickens for market. The noble Lord may be referring to the experimental use of cortisone in studying a condition known as "breast blisters" in chickens, an account of which was given in Nature on March 31, 1962.

359
This was purely research work; cortisone is not available to the commercial poultry farmer, except under veterinary prescription, and its cost would rule out its use for therapeutic purposes in broiler production.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I am delighted to hear it.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what regulations exist to prevent various deleterious chemical substances from being fed to broiler chickens and other animals which are kept in an unnatural state in order to force their growth artificially?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the Question was one about the use of a preparation of cortisone. I could not "off the cuff" give a complete answer to this supplementary question. The control of cortisone is exercised under the Therapeutic Substances Act, and. subject to certain exceptions, its distribution and administration for treatment are permitted only by or under the direction of a duly qualified medical practitioner, a registered dental practitioner, or a registered veterinary surgeon or practitioner.

RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE INQUIRY
2.40 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended to publish the report of the findings and conclusions of the inquiry held by the Board of Trade into resale price maintenance, and, is so, when.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I understand that the inquiry to which the noble Lord refers was carried out by officials of the Board of Trade, and that, in accordance with long-established practice on reports by officials to Ministers, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade does not intend to publish their report. A statement will, however, be made about the Government's
360
conclusions on this matter as soon as my right honourable friend has completed his study of the results of his Department's inquiry.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, in asking the noble Lord to accept my thanks for his reply, may I also ask him to accept that I have knowledge of the qualifications he has made in it? But would he not agree with me that it would be advantageous if that statement by his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade were made as soon as possible, as those in the distribution industry who wish to pass on the benefits of their efficiency in distribution to the consuming public are suffering under grave disadvantage through the uneven application of Section 25 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the Government realise that there is a desire on the part of both supporters and opponents of resale price maintenance for an early statement about the conclusions which they have reached as the result of this inquiry. But it is a complicated matter, and it is not yet possible to say whether the statement can be made at an early date.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, recognising what the noble Lord has said, may I ask whether he could give the House any rough idea when the Government will be in a position to make a statement?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I think that my reply to the first supplementary indicated that that is not possible at this stage, but I realise the necessity for having a statement made as early as possible.

QUARANTINE FOR DOGS AND CATS
2.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider revising the Dogs and Cats Order, 1928, so as to exempt such dogs and cats as have been vaccinated against rabies before leaving the United Kingdom from quarantine on their return.]
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, this country has been free of rabies for over 40 years, and it is in the interests of both the human and the canine population that this happy state should continue. With a disease of this horrible nature no risk is too small to be ignored, and the noble Earl's proposal has definite risks inherent in it. No form of vaccination for any disease is completely effective; rabies vaccination is no exception. There would be a very real difficulty in identifying individual dogs, particularly since there would be an increased traffic in dogs with infected countries; this would make possible the evasion of any regulations.
In countries where rabies exists in the animal population, or which are not in a position to enforce quarantine, vaccination is an invaluable protective measure. Quarantine, which is the only sure protection apart from prohibition of entry, is the method recommended by the Expert Committee on Rabies of the World Health Organisation for countries such as Britain which are free of the disease and are well placed to enforce quarantine regulations.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, are the Government aware that, out of 27,398 dogs and cats quarantined in this country over the last twelve years, no single one developed rabies? Are they further aware that in the United States, where no quarantine restrictions exist, there were only two cases of human rabies last year out of a population of 180 million and that in Western Europe, with a population of over 300 million, there was only one case? Finally, will the Government not admit that the human anti-rabies vaccine gives virtually 100 per cent. immunitv?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, there are many difficult figures here. First of all, I think that one case of rabies in a human being is one case too many. Secondly, the noble Earl may not be aware that there were over 3,500 cases of animal rabies identified in the United States in 1960 and over 2,200 cases of animal rabies identified in Western Germany in 1960. I do not believe that we should be well advised to take any risk with this horrible disease. I think that it is worth remembering that Australia and New Zealand do not allow the importation of dogs except from one another and from this
362
country, because of our quarantine regulations. In Jamaica they accept dogs only from this country. It would be a retrograde step if we, who are perhaps leading the world in this matter, should go back.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the difficulty of identification. Could this not be done by marks on the ear?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, most certainly it could be, but this also could be evaded. Pet lovers are apt to be enthusiastic. I am afraid that it would be very difficult to mark all dogs on the way out of this country and to ensure that the customs officer was marrying the certificate to the same dog on its way back through a crowded customs barrier on an August Bank Holiday afternoon.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the noble Earl's figure of the cases of rabies in Western Germany and that of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, indicating that there have been no cases of human rabies in Western Germany, show that possibly there are two sides of this question. If the noble Earl who asked the Question put down an Unstarred Question, would the Government give time for it to be debated?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords. I have no doubt that that could be arranged through the usual channels. I do not want to mislead the House. The figures I gave were of rabies in animals, but there have been cases of rabies in human beings. The last outbreak of animal rabies in this country ended in 1922. This was the end of an outbreak of over 300 cases which we had when dogs were smuggled into this country after the First World War.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his most courteous answer and for his intention to be helpful, will the Government please understand that there are many objectively-minded people who regard this as a triumph for Blimpishness and bureaucracy? Would they please take a fresh look at this whole problem, bearing in mind that because the system has worked well for 50 years, that does not mean that it cannot necessarily be scrapped or improved? When I come to raise the subject again under a different

363
heading, perhaps the Government will be able to give us a really informed and really unprejudiced opinion.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that anybody who has seen a person suffering from rabies would never contemplate opening any opportunity for this disease to come to this country?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am glad to say that I have never seen anybody suffering from rabies, but from what I have heard I very much agree with what the noble Lord has said. I think that when discussing this problem we should remember that dogs get hysteria frequently. In a country which has rabies, when one finds a dog with hysteria one ought immediately to be inoculated, because one cannot be sure whether or not the dog has rabies. This is a very painful inoculation and can have bad side effects. The World Health Organisation reports that in 1960 over 400,000 people received treatment for rabies or suspected rabies and 81 people died during or after treatment. In addition, there were what are, I believe, described as paralytic accidents attributable to vaccine treatment in a large number of other cases. It is a very horrible treatment.

THE KENYA CONFERENCE
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I wish to ask a Question of Her Majesty's Government, of which I have given Private Notice: whether they are able to make a statement on the result of the Kenya Constitution Conference.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): Yes, my Lords. I propose, if it is convenient to your Lordships, at a little after half-past three to make a statement similar to that which is being made in another place.

NUCLEAR TESTS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on nuclear tests at some suitable moment after 3.30.

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND PIPE-LINES BILL
2.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to raise another matter which I promised to raise last night. We felt some concern in the Opposition as to what happened on the moving of the adjournment of the House yesterday afternoon. With the extraordinary margin which was cast for the defeat of the Government's position, it is always customary for some sort of statement to be made, as well as for the adjournment of the House Ito be moved; but my noble friend Lord Silkin was just rising to ask specific questions on what was the result on Business of that defeat of the Government when the Motion to adjourn was moved, and before anybody could hear anything from the occupant of the Woolsack the Mace was lifted and my noble friend was unable to speak. That is an extraordinary position. First of all, we ought to be quite sure, in such a contingency as we had yesterday, that every Member of your Lordships' House is free to speak on the Motion to adjourn. It seemed to be assumed yesterday that we should have to give notice to speak on the Motion to adjourn. I repudiate that. If the Motion to adjourn is put to the House and we do not wish to adjourn for the time being, any Member should have the right to say all that he wants to.
I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is on the Woolsack to-day. He very courteously sent me notice that he would probably be late in arriving yesterday, and the matter that arose was too early for him to deal with. But I cannot imagine that if the noble and learned Viscount had been on the Woolsack there would have happened quite what did happen. I am not complaining about the Deputy Speaker who was acting, because he is a very popular figure in your Lordships' House, but I think perhaps he did not attach sufficient importance to the occasion and allowed the operation to happen at such speed. It was not quite so bad as a precedent about which I have heard, of one case where the acting Speaker on the Woolsack for the time being actually got up and rushed away in front of the Mace, which had to chase

365
to get in front of him; but I think the speed of the operation yesterday could be compared to the speed on that occasion. I hope it is not likely to happen again.
I should like to hear the Leader of the House upon this matter now, and I hope that, when that is done, we shall then be given an opportunity on "Business" to raise the points we wished to raise yesterday with regard to the future of the Bill in respect of which this defeat of the Government occurred.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am not sure how far this is a question for me as Leader. I was, as the noble Viscount will remember, actually present at the Division yesterday, although I did not play any part in the earlier proceedings. It seemed to me that my noble friend Lord Mills acted perfectly properly in moving the adjournment of the House. That, I should have thought, was a natural and proper thing to do in the circumstances. The actual practice in this matter, as I understand it—I have made inquiries as to what the practice is—is that the Question is put in full—that is to say, the voices are collected—on the adjournment of the House only in the exceptional circumstances where a Peer has given notice that he wishes to raise some matter on the Motion. Since 1937 there have been ten occasions on which debates have occurred on the adjournment. That does not mean that where the voices are not formlly collected noble Lords have not an absolute right to discuss the Motion for the adjournment. It is plain to me, at any rate, and I think it will be agreed by the House, that the Motion for the adjournment is essentially one that is debatable, and, therefore, any noble Lord, who chooses to rise when the Motion is moved will ordinarily be heard by the House.
I cannot answer for the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, who actually pursued the ordinary course where no previous notice has been given, but I did myself see the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, rise and was expecting him to say something; but, in fact, no audible sound emerged from his lips, and by the time I realised that he had none the less intended to utter, the
366
noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, was half way down the Chamber, and it seemed to me far too late for the Leader of the House to intervene. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the last thing which was present in my mind—and, although I have no right to speak for him, I am sure it was the last thing present in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn—was to deprive him of a right which undoubtedly is his, and certainly at some stage he must make the comments, with such additions and amendments as on reflection have occurred to which he desired to make yesterday.
If the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition wants to alter the practice with regard to the collection of voices I think the matter should be put through the Procedure Committee, because the practice of the House in not collecting the voices formally is now a well-established one and I think should only be changed—in fact, I do not think it could be changed otherwise—after consideration in the usual way. I do not know what would be the view of the Committee or of the House if that were done. At any rate, so far as we are concerned, we are sorry we did not have the opportunity of hearing the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, and I am sure that whatever happened was the result of misunderstanding.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, that may well be; but there is this one point. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, is certain that he put the Question in such a manner as to collect the voices, but it would now appear that that particular side of the issue has fallen by the wayside in the course of years. I want to establish that the voices should be collected. Certainly we heard no Question put to the House and, if it was uttered, it must have been very sotto voce. But the speed of the operation was the amazing thing, and it seemed to me to be entirely in accordance with the desire that the Government did not want to go on too long discussing the matter.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that there is no point there. The Government were perfectly willing to hear any remarks which fell from the noble Viscount or

367
anyone else. So far as the actual position is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, acted in accordance with the existing practice of the House. If the noble Viscount wants to alter that practice, which may well be desirable—I do not know—he will no doubt take the proper steps to secure discussion of it, which I certainly would not resist. But it is fair to say that if noble Lords want to debate the Motion for the adjournment, which. of course. it is well within their right to do—it is, to my mind, an absolutely established right that it is a debatable Motion—they should make it plain; and if the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, could have brought himself to utter the words "My Lords" in an audible tone, I am sure that all of us would have returned to our places.
3.0 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I want to say only one word, from the point of view of the occupant of the Chair. I have now had the honour of occupying the Woolsack for nearly eight years, when I took over from my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds. I was told when I came here that on the Motion "That the House do now adjourn", one simply put "That the House do now adjourn and that was the end of the matter. One did not collect the voices. That is the procedure I have followed, and my researches agree with the view expressed by my noble friend the Leader of the House, that this is a procedure which has been followed for a very long time indeed. My noble friend Lord Ailwyn followed the same procedure, and up to now either myself or my Deputies would have expected notice, or a very quick jump up "by somebody, to make us alter the practice. I should like to say, on behalf of my noble friend, that he followed the practice that was communicated to me, and has always been followed since.
VISCOUNT SIMONDS: My Lords, may I say that that was also the procedure communicated to me by my predecessor Lord Jowitt, and no doubt handed down to him by his predecessor?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this is the first time I have been accused of being not sufficiently agile and lacking in the powers of utterance. I do not think it
368
is profitable to pursue this particular point. It might be useful if this matter were discussed by the Procedure Committee at some time, so that if a noble Lord wants to say something on the adjournment he will feel that he is able to do so. However, that aspect can be left.
May I now say what I intended to say last night?—and I hope that I can say it very briefly. I think the decision of the House yesterday afternoon was a significant one. The vote was, I think, almost unprecedented, and it represented noble Lords from all parts of the House. As I understood it, what it meant was that we felt we were being unduly rushed in the Report stage; that not sufficient time had elapsed between the Committee stage and the Report stage to enable noble Lords to give proper consideration to the Amendments that were put down, or to Amendments which they wished to put down; that, although in the course of the Committee stage a number of undertakings had been given by the Government that matters would be considered, they had had inadequate time to deal with these undertakings, and it was felt that, in view of the speed with which the Report stage followed the Committee stage, we were not enabled properly to do our duty by this House. I think that was the general feeling of the House, and it expressed itself. There was no hostility to the Government, but we felt that this was a very important measure and that this House would not be doing its duty if it did not consider the Bill in all its aspects and with the greatest care.
Having regard to this vote, I was very surprised to find that, nevertheless, the Government are proceeding as if nothing had happened, and have put the Report stage down for next Thursday with none of the Amendments which would flow from the undertakings given during the Committee stage. To my mind, it would not meet the views of the House as a whole just to give us two more days before the Report stage and to treat the House as if this vote meant nothing. I would respectfully suggest to the Government that if they were enabled to put down the Amendments with which they have given an undertaking to deal before the Report stage, it might then be possible to have the Report stage on Monday

369
next. Otherwise, if we cannot do that, if we cannot see what the Government are proposing to do in view of the undertakings they gave, then I would submit that the Report stage is going to be a farce.
In those circumstances, what I ask of the Government is that they should not have the Report stage on Thursday; that they should do everything they can to put down the Amendments which they propose to put down in time to enable noble Lords to study them; that where they do not propose to put down Amendments as a result of the undertakings they have given they should notify noble Lords responsible for the original Amendments in time to enable them to put down Amendments on the Report stage, and that we proceed in an orderly way. I can assure the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Mills, that there is no desire on the part of anybody to hold up this Bill or to frustrate the policy of the Government. Our only desire is to do our duty and make this Bill as good a Bill as we possibly can, so that when it comes to be considered in another place there is the feeling that we have done our job.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition raised the question of the way in which the Motion for the adjournment was put at the termination of yesterday's proceedings. Of course, he was quite right to do so as a point of Order. But I think we should probably be getting ourselves into deep water if we were to debate what was to be the future of the Pipe-lines Bill. I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said. I was not myself present at the proceedings yesterday, although I have read everything that happened. I will certainly consider very carefully, on behalf of the Government, all that the noble Lord has said. But I do not think we could debate the question unless a Motion is moved, because the matter arises, not on the question of what is to be done about the Pipe-lines Bill, but upon the point which the noble Viscount raised, which affects the proceedings of the House and the way in which Motions are put. I myself feel that these things are far better discussed in an amicable way through the usual channels than raised
370
on the Floor of the House, certainly without notice to me except upon the narrower procedural point. I will certainly consider everything the noble Lord has said in the spirit in which he has said it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, on this question of procedure, may I say that I rose originally at a time which is usually given to the Opposition to raise a matter of Business if they wish to do so, and I referred to the fact that what happened last night had an important relation to what was to be the Business on this Bill. I then, I think quite properly, handed over to my noble friend the Deputy Leader of my Party, who had been in charge of this Bill, to raise the question of Business which arose directly out of it. We are really dealing, therefore, with a question of Business: whether it is right for us to be faced with the Report stage of the Pipe-lines Bill on the Order Paper for Thursday next.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, technically, if I may say so, I think the Leader of the House is quite right in saying that we should be out of Order so far as we can ever be out of Order, in discussing a matter—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Wait a moment—that is not before the House on a Motion. On the other hand, we are in the great difficulty that ordinarily, after what happened, the Government, on the Motion to adjourn, would have made a statement as regards Business. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has quite rightly said that if anybody in the House had wanted to debate it—a debatable matter—no doubt a good deal would have been said about future conduct.
I only wish to say this, if I may. I am sure the Leader of the House will most carefully consider what has been said and also what has taken place, but I do not think the House will be satisfied merely to be presented on Thursday with a Motion which they rejected so overwhelmingly yesterday. If the noble Lord was proposing to do that, then I am afraid that what happened yesterday would be repeated more emphatically.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, all I was saying was that these matters present very considerable difficulty and that I would very carefully consider what has been said. Naturally, we are all anxious to meet the convenience of the House in the matter, but it is not always easy to say what that convenience will be until suitable discussions have taken place through the usual channels.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I take it that the House could be informed before the adjournment tonight whether or not this matter is to remain on the Order Paper for Thursday, because really we must have a settlement of this. I am quite prepared to take part in any discussions through the usual channels, but we have stated our view and the House knows the extreme importance of this Bill and of the many Amendments which have been made from all parts of the House, and their expression upon procedure was pretty emphatic yesterday.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount has very kindly promised to take part in discussions—I realise the importance of what he has been saying—and he will realise that I have to get in touch with various sources. He will not, I hope, expect me just at the moment to give an absolutely emphatic answer to what he has been saying. But I realise the importance and value of what he has been putting to us.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, could the noble Leader say whether this question will be dealt with before the end of the day?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I was hoping that I should be able to fall in with the noble Viscount's suggestion that the House would in some way be told this evening, but I did not want to promise to do that until I knew that I could perform what I had promised.

SAINT PAUL, COVENT GARDEN, BILL
Read 3ª, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.
SAINT THOMAS APOSTLE (QUEEN STREET) CHURCHYARD BILL
Read 2ª, and committed to a Select Committee.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
3.14 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Message in regard to House of Lords Reform.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM rose to move, That this House do concur in the Resolution communicated by the Commons, namely,
" That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider whether any, and if so what, changes should be made in the rights of Peers of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain or of the United Kingdom, and of Peeresses in their own right, to sit in either House of Parliament, or to vote at Parliamentary elections, and whether, and if so under what conditions, a Peer should be enabled to surrender a peerage permanently or for his lifetime or for any less period having regard to the effects and consequences thereof."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name. I could not help being slightly amused the other day when I discovered, by chance, among my father's papers the actual letter and telegram I had sent him some time ago, in 1928, when he accepted Mr. Baldwin's invitation to accede to the office now held by my noble friend upon the Woolsack. The telegram read:
" Melancholy congratulations. Reform Lords. Quintin."
My Lords, my melancholy on that occasion was occasioned by a number of considerations, not least of which was the filial respect and affection in which I held my father, who had explained to me that if he was not going to take that step he might have been considered in the line of succession to the leadership of his Party. As the son of an American mother, too, I have always had a certain doubt about the magic of male primogeniture as a principle of human genetics, a doubt about which your Lordships have always been extraordinarily generouse in dealing with me. It was also in my heart that I was already sufficiently interested in public affairs to desire to try my hand in the normal way on the hustings and in the House of Commons,

373
as it was, and is, the birthright of any other free Englishman to do without the added complication of a peerage, be it privilege or responsibility. And for the young it is not, oddly enough, the glittering prizes which attract the generous heart of youth; it is, on the contrary, the gleaming sword and the lust for battle.
But, my Lords, my prescription to my father to reform the Lords proved rather more difficult to achieve than I had then supposed. I feel perhaps that at that time I was insufficiently apprised of the important differences between traditional and contrived political institutions. There is, of course, virtue in both types. But there is this distinction. Being contrived, the latter must satisfy some rational pattern of logical design. But of the traditional, its very nature is such that no one would have thought of it had he been starting afresh. If it is to be retained at all, it must be judged, like other human things, by its performance rather than by the rational perfection of its design. If it is to be reformed, it is more likely to be done acceptably if it is altered in detail to circumvent some anomaly or to cancel some injustice.
Nevertheless, my Lords, I should wish to begin to-day by considering the virtues of a traditional system, and surely these are too solid to be denied. For 700 years, more or less, the Legislature of this country has consisted of Sovereign, Lords and Commons. During that time the relative power and attributes of the parts have changed, but the tradition of the whole has remained continuous. Other monarchies have risen and fallen. Other Parliaments have died, often in their infancy. Ours has become not merely the pride of our own country but the pattern of others. It is not vain glory but fact that almost every representative institution active in the world to-day has been modelled, directly or indirectly, upon the Parliaments of Edward I: if they had not existed, probably none of the others would have come into being. It was the success of representative government in England which led to its imitation throughout much of the world.
My Lords, it is surely only the superficial who would mock at the mediæval framework of our institutions. The
374
exquisite beauty of the ceremony with which our proceedings are opened by the Sovereign in November is more than a medieval pageant. Let him who smiles cast his eyes upon the events of the recent past across the Channel. The French are a nation not less proud, sensitive or civilised than ourselves, hut, as General de Gaulle told us, in that extraordinary tour de force he accomplished in Westminster Hall, it is a matter of infinite thankfulness to the British people that it has inherited traditional institutions whose inherent authority is beyond dispute. Since the French destroyed or lost their feudal inheritance they have never enjoyed a moment when the authority of the State was beyond question or in which the institutions of society were invulnerable to insurrection or violence.
Yet it is with the practical advantages, rather than with the decorative and the impressive and the traditional, that we are concerned to-day. All over the world Parliaments and the politicians who compose them come in for criticism. Many have fallen, but the fall has been due to the inveterate defect of government by discussion, that discussion breeds delay and becomes notorious for procrastination.
Our own Parliamentary system, however, has survived, equally powerful as an instrument in war and in peace. In the main, its two Houses have developed side by side, in peace and amity, each conscious of a separate function, each the proud heir to a different tradition. Some privileged individuals have been proud to serve in both. Indeed, from the days of the Tudors there have been few Houses of Lords which have not owed much to those who served their first apprenticeship in the House of Commons. And by the like token there have been few Houses of Commons which have not been remarkable for Members, of all Parties, who were members of noble families, and often heirs to hereditary titles. Open breaches have, in fact, been few, and the events of 1911 were almost, although not quite, unique in Parliamentary history. In my opinion, at least, they could, and should, have been avoided. To-day no one challenges the superiority in authority of the elected Chamber. Yet it would be surely a mistake to regard our own House as no more than a decorative

375
appendage. To destroy the House of Lords would, of course, be to mutilate the venerable pattern which, as I have tried to show, is the talisman of Parliament's continuous authority. My purpose here is also to vindicate its usefulness as a working part of our Constitution.
For, my Lords, the truth is that our method of legislation is geared into the existence of two Houses. Let no one suppose for an instant that the House of Lords could go without catastrophic effects upon the procedure and efficiency of the House of Commons, which, even after the Gladstonian reforms following the Irish Obstruction, is less and less able to bear the 'burden of the weight of business thrust upon it. No one who has served in Government, or in either House, is unaware that the Teal struggle for power to-day between the Parties is the struggle for time. The procedure for passing, Bills through the House of Commons presupposes the existence of an efficient House of Lords in which a further detailed discussion and revision of legislation can take place. No one who loves the House of Commons, as, my Lords, I have always loved it, can fail to desire an alert and efficient House of Lords to complement its labours and to provide time for general debates on subjects meriting public discussion but for which the Commons have no leisure to provide an opportunity.
My Lords, there is no need to-day, in view particularly of the terms of our Motion, to question the exact legal extent of our powers. Enough there must be to give us dignity, to make it to be seen to be worth while for us to attend, to make us a veritable partner in debate and in the legislative process. But no one to-day questions the superiority of the elected House. The factors which give the House of Commons superiority are not legal but social and political, and though this is reflected in our respective powers the Commons would, in fact, effectively exercise superiority did they not possess it already in legal theory, and in substance the House of Commons exercises an influence vastly in excess of the actual legal powers it possesses. Despite six years of Socialist Government there has been no overt challenge under the leadership of this House by my noble
376
friend who sits below the Gangway, and since the powers of the House were reduced by the Government composed of noble Lords opposite to their own prescription I think I could challenge anybody to produce a single instance of abuse justifying or suggesting the desirability of further change.
But, my Lords, with all these merits, the composition of your Lordships' House has never during this century been capable of theoretical justification. As long ago as 1908 this House resolved that the mere succession to a United Kingdom title was insufficient ground by itself to merit the right to sit and vote, and this has been the consistent view of both Conservatives and others who have thought and spoken upon this subject from that time to the discussions of 1948 and in the successive Parliaments thereafter. In 1911 the Liberal Government declared that the subject brooked no delay. Successive Socialist speakers have been at pains to assert that they themselves do not justify the status quo, although some of us believe that it is a matter of history that some of them may have been a powerful means of perpetuating it.
After consultation with the Opposition, Her Majesty's Government have decided that it is no longer practicable to continue without taking active steps to reduce some of the anomalies. There are some of us, I must say including myself, who have thought so for quite a lone time. Only the difficulty of Parliamentary time led me to support the limited nature of reform at the time of the Life Peerages Act, and this limited character came in for some fairly hostile criticism in both Houses and in the Press. I myself regret that the course I now commend to the House has not been undertaken long since. However, I will now rehearse the reasons which lead me to say that it ought no longer to be delayed.
My Lords, I personally regret that the occasion for this Motion, the first cause as I might say, was the occurrence of a grievance affecting a single subject—sympathise, as I do, with that subject, disapprove, as I do no less, of the particular methods employed to brine the grievance to public notice. Neither the justice of the grievance nor the unsuitability of the method should, however,

377
in my submission, deter your Lordships from taking the correct course if I can so persuade your Lordships that the course suggested in the Motion is the correct one. The grievance of the reluctant heirs is, I would submit, only one among a number of connected anomalies which cannot indefinitely be continued. All in their way may cause inconvenience; some certainly cause injustice. The national advantage should, after all, be our main criterion. I cannot at this juncture refrain from observing that if Sir Winston Churchill's uncle had died without issue, under our present convention he would never have been available to lead the nation in 1940. Indeed, Sir Winston Churchill would never have served in the House of Commons at all.
But, my Lords, this is only one instance. The position of the Scottish peerages, unchanged since 1717, may require attention. Out of the Scots Peerage, only fifteen do not sit in your Lordships' House either as Representatives or under substantitve titles. Surely in the history of representative institutions never have so few been represented by so many. It is at least arguable that we should either be like them or they should be like us. The Irish Peerage has clearly become something of an anomaly since the Treaty. If they are commoners, why are they not allowed to vote? If they are Peers, why do they sit in the House of Commons? The dilemma in the case of Peeresses in their own right has been answered by preventing them from sitting in either place—a sort of floating kidney in the body politic. Their absence here can be justified only on the grounds of eligibility elsewhere. Their exclusion elsewhere can only be justified on the grounds of their presence here. Yet neither argument is allowed to prevail. Your Lordships will remember the Report, and the debates we held on the Report of the Swinton Committee when we established the Rules relating to Leave of Absence. It was then recognised that only legislation could alter the underlying scandal of the disregarded Writ. It is not for me to suggest what remedy should be proposed. But it is germane to this Motion to establish that only in this way can a remedy be founded.
My Lords, I return for a moment to the grievance of the so-called reluctant heirs. As Leader of the House I cannot disabuse myself of the conviction that it is bad for the prestige of this House to be repeatedly projected in the public image as a place which can recruit its Members only by recourse to conscription. This is far from the truth. Most heirs go willingly and with a mingled sense of pride and duty. But a minority do not. This has been so since at least 1895, when three heirs including the future Lords Selborne, Curzon and Middleton protested. I protested in 1950. Lord Altrincham in 1953 stated his unwillingness to attend and he has not attended. I do not approve of his action, and I am not sure how much we have lost by it. Now Lord Stansgate has taken the, to me, objectionable course of standing for the House of Commons when he has been declared disqualified to sit.
It is not for me to speculate how many others will act, or to justify whatever action they take. It may well be true—I think it is—that it is a matter of criticism of ourselves that we have allowed matters to progress so far that we have waited until these somewhat unedifying events have pressed themselves on the public attention. It is enough to say that they have happened, and your Lordships may be quite certain that in one form or another they will be repeated at irregular but possibly diminishing intervals over the years, and that each lime they do happen, both Lords and Commons, both Government and Opposition will be made to look ridiculous—and, what is worse, distract their attention from problems more weighty, injustices more grave, and perils more instant. If there were public advantage in that course it might be seemingly to acquiesce in inactivity. But the balance of advantage is surely on the other side. In general the right of the people is to elect whom they please to represent them in the Assembly; their interest is that the most suitable should be promoted to the highest place notwithstanding that their uncles do die sine prole. The right of the individual is to pursue the public service in equality with his neighbours, not seeking advantage but not submitted to injustice. No constituency that I know of willingly undergoes a by-election. I believe that I was reasonably popular in Oxford. I have

379
no doubt that Lord Stansgate is beloved in Bristol. No doubt all Constitutions have anomalies; but there is no purpose in adding to them out of sheer perversity.
Add to this that it is surely not to your Lordships' advantage to be thrust into the maelstrom of Party controversy. We perform our functions best when we do so unobtrusively. Our House is at its most valuable when politics disturb it least. One cannot ignore the fact that the Party opposite has embraced Lord Stansgate's cause and even, what I regret, underwritten his method of pressing it. They may have been wrong to do so, but at least we must give them the credit for some depth of feeling before they surrendered a Parliamentary seat. I cannot but notice, somewhat ruefully, that their indignation was enhanced and their zeal for reform was increased when the reluctant heir was not a member of the Conservative Party.
These questions cannot be viewed separately; nor, as a matter of fact, should they be considered hurriedly. Hence the need for a Joint Select Committee before legislation. If United Kingdom Peers are to renounce, Scottish Peers also must be given an opportunity of arguing before a Select Committee their right to do so; so must Peeresses in their own right. It is argued with force that we must be on our guard lest, in limiting the hereditary character of our own composition, we undermine the Monarchy. That is an argument which has been presented, and it must be considered.
Many of us are aware that there are many duties and rights inherent in a title which are not attached to Parliamentary duties. To some, ancient seats are attached and entailed; to many, local responsibilities. With a few, hereditary offices are closely allied, like the Earl Marshal or the Lord Great Chamberlain; or, in the case of my noble friend Lord Dundee, the Standard Bearer for Scotland. Surrender raises the question of extinction or succession issues between a Peer and possibly his infant children, unprotected by a guardian, or, more delicate still, between him and relatively remote relatives who may be his heirs presumptive. These things need argument and discussion. I say no more than that.
Of the instrument required, the Joint Select Committee, I have no doubt of the suitability of that proposed. I think that the Commons, and I am persuaded also this House, would not brook the intervention of an outside Committee. The discreet and, on the whole, friendly conversation between the Parties in 1948, on an alternative procedure, the renewal of which was unfortunately rejected in 1953, has, I am persuaded, yielded all the advantage of which it was capable until a full elucidation of the problems has taken place. What is needed is a calm and dispassionate look by a body capable of detailed study. Before we legislate, if ever we do, in the light of the Report of the Select Committee, there will still be, if it is desired, ample opportunity of renewed consultation, which I personally should welcome, as I always have done. A Joint Select Committee of both Houses is the appropriate body to inquire and hear the evidence. Only such a body will contain the necessary Parliamentary experience to hear and discuss the issues which must be considered.
The terms of reference have been agreed between the Parties. They do not include powers. The general issue of composition is not specifically included. But included in the terms of reference are at any rate some, and perhaps most, of the matters to which I have alluded with the exceptions, as such, of the disregarded writ, except in so far as this is accentuated by the non-attendance of reluctant heirs.
I should like to add, if I may, a personal note. In all the discussion regarding reluctant heirs there are some, I think, who have inadequately understood the peculiarly painful nature of the predicament in which they are placed. This was stressed by my noble friend Lord Hinchingbrooke in another place. It would be difficult, I think, to find four men who differed more completely in temperament or opinion than Lord Hinchinabrooke, Lord Altrincham, Lord Stansgate and myself. Yet I doubt not that we have one thing in common, which indeed we share with the great majority of mankind: we all loved our fathers and are proud of the stock from which we came. My Lords, this is no snobbery; it is shared by all classes in every age. It is not foolish pride. It is

381
common piety that we honour our fathers and our mothers, that we praise famous men, and the fathers who begat us.
It has fallen, or will fall to us all in a moment of bereavement—and, believe me, the pain of parting is as great for rich and poor alike, and neither age nor long service, nor a lifetime full of honours really blunt the edge of the axe when it falls—to have to leave or else forswear a life we loved, the ordinary healthy normal business of democratic politics as it is lived to-day in the Commons or on the hustings, and if we have protested to have to seem in so doing to dishonour our heritage and the families which gave us birth.
I have promised not to suggest answers in the terms in which I move this Motion, and I shall not do so. Those who wish to suggest answers must do so by their evidence to the Select Committee. But I should like to say just three things before I sit down. It is said, and said rightly, that some limit must be placed to the choice of a man who, by the accident of succession, finds himself in a position to succeed to a seat in a hereditary Legislature. He cannot, it is said, have it both ways. He cannot be in and out.
This may be so. But the public advantage is not, I believe, served by the perpetuation of injustice, nor would it be served by the presentation of a choice which, by its very nature, is invidious or dishonourable to those who have to make it. If Sir Winston Churchill had succeeded to the Dukedom of Marlborough at the age of twenty-one when his uncle died, does anyone who knows him, his family pride, his sense of tradition and of the greatness of England, his feeling for what is worthy and appropriate in human conduct, suppose that he would have been grateful for the choice of surrendering his due part forever in that splendid patrimony, even for the right to take part, however honourably, in the hustings of 1900 or 1906, with the distant prospect, which must at that time have seemed impossibly remote to all the world, that, in the inscrutable wisdom of Providence, he would have been preserved forty years later to save his country on a field and in a cause greater than Blenheim, Ramillies or Malplaquet?
My Lords, it is for the Select Committee to answer that question. My humble prayer to your Lordships is that it be allowed to do so, and that when the Answer comes it will be just, and in the public interest, and honourable to us all. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved. That this House do concur in the Resolution communicated by the Commons. viz.:—
" That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider whether any, and if so what, changes should be made in the rights of Peers of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain or of the United Kingdom, and of Peeresses in their own right, to sit in either House of Parliament, or to vote at Parliamentary elections, and whether, and if so under what conditions, a Peer should be enabled to surrender a peerage permanently or for his lifetime or for any less period having, regard to the effects and consequences thereof."—(Viscount Hailsham.)

THE KENYA CONFERENCE
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Before the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, rises, I wonder whether it will be convenient to him or to the House if the two statements are taken now. I think we should like to hear him without those statements in our minds.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, the Kenya Conference ended on April 6. With a few exceptions, all delegates, including the leaders of the main political Parties, signed a document setting out the framework of a new Constitution. The details are to be worked out by the new Coalition Government now being formed. A report on the proceedings of the Conference was approved on April 6 and will be published shortly as a White Paper. We have now begun the process of co-operation by which alone Kenya's urgent political and economic problems can be tackled. The problems have not been solved but the way to their solution has been pointed out.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on this side I should like to thank the noble Earl for his statement. I should like to say how satisfactory we find it that the main political Parties have been able to agree on a future Constitution and the formation of a Coalition Government. We hope they will continue to work together in the same spirit for the good of Kenya.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am sure we all agree with the point made by the noble Earl, that it is now up to the people and the leaders of Kenya. We hope that, having found unity, they will carry on and work out their own problems.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
3.46 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think the whole House will agree that we have just listened to one of the most remarkable orations of which the noble and learned Viscount has delivered himself during the time, he has been Leader of the House. I would pay a tribute to him for the care and attention which he has given to the history of this matter. He has dwelt on the traditions of English life, political and administrative, and I do not think it would have been possible for any other person to achieve quite the phraseology of his oration to-day. But let me say at once that I had not imagined for a moment, having very carefully studied the procedure on this particular Motion in another place, that we would cover quite the ground traversed by the noble and learned Viscount's statement.
I dare say he will have observed from looking at the list of those intending to speak that nobody is going to speak on this side except myself and Lord Longford, because this was an agreed Motion, one which has been hanging fire ever since the original Motion, with different terms of reference, was laid before another place on April 26 last year. The particular Motion we have now—except for same slight alterations towards the end of the wording—is in accordance with the middle phrase of the three-pronged Motion that was laid before the House of Commons last year. In those
384
circumstances we determined that we would regard this matter as having reached a point of consultation, which expressed itself in the setting up of a Joint Select Committee of both Houses for which there was general agreement as to the basis of discussion.
We have gone rather more widely in the survey, as I think it was intended to be, made by the noble and learned Viscount this afternoon. But he is not only an orator who carefully prepares his ground; he is also a speaker who, from time to time in the course of his addresses—to the Commons, to the House of Lords, or to any other audience—cannot refrain from saying exactly what is in his mind. He let forth one or two things this afternoon that I cannot possibly ignore. There was his reference, for example, to the manner in which there had been few grave breaches in the understanding between the Parties since the unfortunate breach of 1911. When we come to these amended terms of reference, on which both Houses have agreed to join in a Joint Select Committee, the reason why the three-pronged Resolution was submitted in 1961, as was clearly present in the noble and learned Viscount's mind, was that it would have brought under discussion the powers of this House.
Enough has been said on the subject from time to time since the amendments to the powers of the House of Lords were first made by a Liberal Government years ago and the additional amendment in the time of the post-war Labour Government. Many persons in this House have desired to see your Lordships' powers increased. If you want general agreement on that, you can count the Labour Party out. We could not discuss any amendment to the constitution and the powers of the House of Lords on that basis. I make that clear right away. The noble and learned Viscount has stated quite fairly the obvious feelings of a member of a noble family who may be engaged in another place; when the parent finally hands over to his heir he does not want to move but wishes to stay in the elected-representative Chamber.
The noble and learned Viscount made some reference to my friend Anthony Wedgwood Benn, who is, of course, unable for the moment to shed himself

385
of the legal title of Viscount Stansgate; and to what he engaged in so as to get his felt injustice removed. What he did was to go back to the electors, who had elected him to Parliament, for reelection. That was referred to by the noble and learned Viscount as being possibly—he did not say it too firmly—perverse. Certainly, it was not something with which he agreed. Whether that came from a natural reaction that, perhaps, sufficient response was not made by a Labour Prime Minister to his own representations in 1950 I do not know, but perhaps there was some reaction in that direction. However let me say this: that there would be no joint agreement and no proposal of this amended character for a Joint Select Committee had it not been for the courage and the expression of sacrifice of Anthony Wedgwood Benn in taking the course he did, a course which was not illegal—a returning officer would not refuse his nomination—to bring his case before Parliament and the nation in such a way as to create an opinion which might lead to organised attempts for a reform, which would give justice not only to himself but to any others who might find themselves placed in the same position. Therefore, I disagree with the approach that the noble and learned Viscount makes in describing the position of Viscount Stansgate, Anthony Wedgwood Benn.
Now we shall have to discuss certain things, in relation to the necessary amendments which will come, in accordance with the constitutional practice of the House of Lords; and it is no use burking the fact that some people will surely not agree with whatever the findings of the Joint Select Committee may be. But of all the things that the noble and learned Viscount has mentioned, the first thing we have to remember is the ruling which was kept for nearly the whole of the proceedings on this Motion in another place, until the Attorney-General wound up the debate: that we shall have to leave these things very largely to what the Joint Select Committee decide to recommend, and it will then be for both Houses of Parliament to debate and discuss them, for there to be the usual conversation between those who are chosen by their Parties to discuss matters in detail, and see what the outcome of it is.
386
Nevertheless, there are certain things that I should like to say myself. The first is that one cannot very well split oneself into two entirely different beings. I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount said in his approach to that matter. I did not agree with every word he said upon it, but I am quite certain of this: that the nation as a whole would not understand it if people wanted to be in a position where they could go into the Lords or into the Commons, or to go from the Lords into the Commons by a renunciation of a peerage for a period of one life only, with no renunciation of the hereditary principle in the family of a man who wished to give up the peerage which he had inherited. Certainly, that is not what we should desire from our point of view.
I want to make it quite clear that discussion upon that point is perfectly open to the Joint Select Committee, under the terms of reference, and I think that that must be admitted—that that can be discussed. But as to whether you would be likely to get agreement afterwards on the findings of the Committee that went in a particular direction, that would be another matter altogether. So I hope we shall, naturally, bear those things in mind. Moreover, I hope that we shall not, by the early part of the opening of the noble and learned Viscount this afternoon, in which he spoke about tradition and the like, sour a little the mind of the public in certain directions, as to whether we do not count tradition too highly over what has grown, in the last two centuries, to be an established democratic idea: that of the full power that is now given to the elected Chamber in the House of Commons to manage the affairs of the country. It has a Revising Chamber up here, certainly; but if it were suggested, as I seemed to detect in the mind of the noble and learned Viscount, that if there were not two Chambers, or perhaps a Second Chamber quite of the character of this one, it would mean a threat to this practice or this idea, or even a danger to the Sovereign herself, then I surely could not accept that. In New Zealand, there is never any question of challenge to the authority of, and the tremendous affection and admiration for, Her Gracious Majesty and the constitutional

387
Throne of this country, but New Zealand has a single Chamber, and a single Chamber established by a Conservative Government.
I think we must look at this matter with a little more freedom of thought than seems to have been establishing itself in the minds of some of your Lordships, and I do not think we need pay too much attention to that. Certainly, we need to bring justice to any person who, having an hereditary peerage, feels he wishes to be relieved from the incubus which is placed upon him; an incubus very often applying to his right to be heard, if elected by the electors, in the representative Chamber. In many cases you will find, if you discuss general matters with a man who has succeeded to a peerage from the death of his father, that the actual use of the name is a handicap in his particular vocation, or in his special 'business or profession. I do not say that these instances are very frequent, but I have come across them several times myself. The great thing there is to have complete justice lot those persons, so that if they wish to be free they can be free. But there is no shadow of logical reason why that should mean that, afterwards, their children can be re-enacted as passing on to the possession of the Peerage which their parent has rejected.
I do not wish to detain the House too long, but I have read very carefully the speech of Mr. Macleod in introducing the Motion in the other place. He was not quite sure about some things. I have also read very carefully the speech of the Attorney General in another place. There is some question as to whether the aim of the terms of reference has been drawn tightly enough to keep to the position to which we wish to adhere. Mr. Gaitskell, in dealing with the matter in debate, said that if there was any blame to be spread upon that matter he must share in it with the others who were concerned in agreeing to the terms of reference. But I am quite sure of this: that I can accept—and I am sure my colleagues can accept—the terms of reference, as they are submitted in the Motion moved by the noble and learned Viscount to-day, because they are capable of being discussed in general, upon the basis that we want them to be
388
discussed; and we can afterwards decide upon the actual recommendations of the Joint Select Committee.
I hope very much that this Motion will be accepted without opposition. It has taken nine years to come to a position in which we could make some beginning to discussions on these matters upon a joint and agreed basis. When we come to deal with a matter of such constitutional importance as will be dealt with by the Joint Select Committee, then I, for one, like my Leader in another place, think it is a good thing that we should be able to proceed at the outset on the greatest possible measure of agreement. If we do not get agreement on matters of this constitutional character, then it leads either to complete frustration, further delays or a question of going to the nation upon an issue which ought not to have to be put to them and which would bring such divisions as would then come. I hope, therefore, that we shall continue in that spirit in which the Leaders of the Parties in another place have acted in this matter, and that we shall pass this Motion without a Division.

NUCLEAR TESTS
4.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, there was another statement which is certainly now ready for delivery, and if it is convenient I should like to repeat it to the House now. I did not want to interrupt the noble Viscount, who had already embarked upon his speech before I realised that he had intended to do so. If I may, I will now repeat a statement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place, which he will have made now about half an hour ago. The statement is as follows:
" President Kennedy and I are to-day issuing a joint statement about nuclear tests which was communicated to the Soviet Government yesterday evening. The text of the statement is as follows: "—
and the quotation follows:
" ' Discussions among ourselves and the Soviet Union about a treaty to ban nuclear tests have been going on in Geneva for nearly

389
month. The Soviet representatives have rejected international inspection or verification inside the Soviet Union to determine the nature of unexplained seismic events which might be nuclear tests.
' This is a point of cardinal importance to the United States and the United Kingdom. From the very beginning of the negotiations on a nuclear test ban treaty, they have made it clear that an essential element of such a treaty is an objective international system for assuring that a ban on nuclear tests is being observed by all parties. The need for such a system was clearly recognised in the report of the scientific experts which was the foundation of the Geneva negotiations. For nearly three years this need was accepted by the Soviet delegation at Geneva. There was disagreement about details, but the principle of objective international verification was accepted. It was embodied in the treaty tabled by the United States and the United Kingdom on April 18, 1961, which provides for such a system. Since the current disarmament meetings began in Geneva, the United States and the United Kingdom have made further efforts to meet Soviet objections to the April 18 treaty. These efforts have met with no success as is clearly shown by the recent statements of the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union and of their representative in Geneva, Mr. Zorin, who have repeatedly rejected the very concept of international verification. There has been no progress on this point in Geneva; the Soviet Union has refused to change its position.
' The ground given seems to be that existing national detection systems can give adequate protection against clandestine tests. In the present state of scientific instrumentation, there are a great many cases in which we cannot distinguish between natural and artificial seismic disturbances—as opposed to recording the fact of a disturbance and locating its probable epicentre. A treaty therefore cannot be made effective unless adequate verification
390
is included in it. For otherwise there would be no alternative, if an instrument reported an unexplained seismic occurrence on either side, between accepting the possibility of an evasion of the treaty or its immediate denunciation. The opportunity for adequate verification is of the very essence of mutual confidence.
' This principle has so far been rejected by the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, and there is no indication that he has not spoken with the full approval of his Government. We continue to hope that the Soviet Government may reconsider the position and express their readiness to accept the principle of international verification. If they will do this, there is still time to reach agreement. But if there is no change in the present Soviet position, the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom must conclude that their efforts to obtain a workable treaty to ban nuclear tests are not now successful, and the test series scheduled for the latter part of this month will have to go forward '."
My right honourable friend's statement now continues in his own words:
" That is the joint statement. The House will observe that President Kennedy and I have both emphasised that the door is still open for an agreement. I therefore sent this morning a message to Mr. Khrushohev in the following terms:
' Dear Mr. Chairman,
' You will have seen the joint statement about nuclear tests which the United States and British Chargés d'Affaires communicated to the Soviet Government yesterday and which President Kennedy and I are issuing to-day. You will remember that we first discussed this problem together as long ago as 1959 when I had the pleasure of visiting you in Russia.
' I will not repeat the arguments in the statement but I feel that I must ask you to give the most earnest consideration to our proposal. After all, the object of verification is not to increase suspicion

391
but to dispel it; to identify an event as a natural one so that confidence may not be threatened. I feel sure that once the principle of international verification is accepted there would be a real chance of reaching an early agreement as to its application. This would fill all the peoples of the world with a new sense of hope.'
" That is the message from me to Mr. Khrushohev. I know that the whole House will share my earnest hope that Mr. Khrushchev will respond to my appeal."
My Lords, that is my right honourable friend's statement.
4.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the message which he has repeated to us and which has already been given to the House of Commons. I must say that I feel a certain feeling of relief that the direct decision to go right ahead with the nuclear tests has been delayed until this joint statement has been sent from the United States and ourselves to Mr. Khrushchev. Therefore I should like to support the idea which has been put forward in this joint statement, and I hope very much that Mr. Khrushchev will give special attention to it.
I have been rather concerned about the manner in which the reports of speeches by the Russian representatives have come over, and how they have repeatedly stated that the reason why we want to have this proper, scheduled series of inspections is because we want to spy. I am just wondering, in view of what I call that outrageous kind of statement. whether the British Government have themselves taken any special steps to try to dispel from the minds of the responsible Russians in this matter that this is from no point of view whatsoever a question of spying. It is, as is stated in the last part of the statement which the noble Viscount has just given us, a question of retaining confidence by the kind of checking up to which the Prime Minister refers. But what have we, or the British Government, been doing to make this really clear, and how far have we informed the public in this country as to what our statements to the Russians on that matter have been?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the support which he has given to this statement, which I think adds to its chance of proving fruitful. I can tell him sincerely that I think he has contributed a great deal to the force which this appeal will have, when it is known that it commands his support, too. As regards his specific question, I know that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has been in constant and, I believe, very friendly touch with the Russian Foreign Secretary. I know that this has been very much uppermost in my noble friend's mind, and that he will have done everything in his power to dispel any fear that there might be an intelligence background to this request on the part of the West for verification. I am hoping that the actual terms of the Prime Minister's letter to Mr. Khrushchev will reinforce that point. Anything that we can do to dispel that belief will certainly be done, and any suggestion that could be made for the dispelling of that belief will be welcomed.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to associate noble Lords on these Benches with what has been said by the noble Viscount. Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and again to assure the Government that we hope, of course, that this matter will go forward in the way that they suggest. I was particularly struck by the phrase that
" the object of verification is not to increase suspicion but to dispel it":
and I would agree with the last words of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House when he said that the impression on the world given by this letter should be very great, and we are at least a united nation behind the Government on that point.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
Debate resumed.
4.11 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I now turn back to the matter immediately in front of your Lordships this afternoon—a very much narrower matter? My noble colleagues on these Benches and I, of course, support this Motion, as it has been supported in another place, and I gather will probably be supported on all sides in your Lordships' House.

393
But I must admit that at one point some of us felt some doubt about it; that the manner in which we are discussing the Commons Resolution is in rather limited terms, and is only tinkering with this great problem, which has been before us for so many years; and that we might be getting the worst of both worlds by going into the matter on a scale which is inadequate to the problem which the subject really presents.
The problems posed in the Commons Resolution have the merit of being, as a matter convenience, limited in number and in scope; of being topical and of some urgency in present Parliamentary practice. Therefore, it is particularly appropriate that the matter should be dealt with by a Committee who will consider the matter; and that that Committee should be a Joint Committee is, of course, only right and proper. I rather wish that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House could have given us a little indication of the size and constitution of the Committee. I do not expect him, nor do I ask him, to give any detail. but I suppose we can assume that it will be largely composed of the parties who, for one reason or another, have not been able to support for some years the reform of the House of Lords.
I am not quite convinced that this matter is very well described under the heading of "House of Lords Reform". The narrow issue appears to me to be far more closely connected with certain disqualifications and obstacles, both in regard to, and imposed by, the other place; and I see no particular reform in either the power or the constitution of this Chamber if, as a result of action taken by the Committee, noble Lords may be allowed to vote in Parliamentary Elections, or may include membership of another place as a legitimate extra-mural occupation. The word "reform" can mean either "improving" or "reshaping"; and because the potential outcome of this Motion may well be primarily the reshaping of the machinery of election and of the elected Chamber—I do riot presume to say whether or not it will be an improvement—I should have considered the words "Reform of the House of Commons", or "Reform of Parliament", to be rather more appropriate than "Reform of the House of Lords". Indeed, if I may say so without impropriety,
394
I think it is to be hoped that the other Chamber may, in the result, look to the anomaly and dangers of an elected but unrepresentative House, if there should ever be such a thing. But that is a matter which I certainly would not propose to develop now.
I think it is accepted that the position of the noble Viscount. Lord Stansgate, the second son of a much-loved Member of this House, has in general, but of course in considerable measure, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said, led to this Resolution now formulated in another place. My Lords, there is a not altogether dissimilar position in the case of the gentleman whose name is Mr. Eric Lubbock, the newly-elected Member for Orpington, who will also have to vacate his seat if anything untoward should happen to our colleague. Lord Avebury, to whom, of course, we wish safety, long-life, and freedom from all the perils of land, sea, air, disease, traffic, and legislation.
In the former case, the Stansgate case, a constituency is deprived of being represented as it would wish to be represented; and in the latter case (should it arise), a strenuously-fought by-election would count for nothing, and the electors of Orpington would once again, through no fault of their own, be without a Member. In such matters (leaving aside, for the moment, the question of Scottish and Irish Peers, and Peeresses in their own right), I think the initiative properly rests with the Commons; and as it has been properly taken by the Commons in sending us this Resolution to appoint a Joint Select Committee, in that case it would seem best, in one way, that to-day we should really merely assent to the Commons' proposals, without taking up individual or Party positions before the Joint Committee has done its work and before we have heard what the Committee has to say on the one aspect which is urgent—the Stansgate-Lubbock type of situation.
That we should merely assent would be a counsel of perfection; but I happen to know that that view is held by my noble friend Lord Samuel, who much regrets he is unable to be in his place to-day. But, in the words of to-day's Motion, we are invited to give consideration to the matter, and I think your Lordships will agree that consideration in this Chamber is not habitually silent.

395
The only time when accord—real accord, I think—on the reform of your Lordships' House was nearly reached was, as your Lordships will recall and as was mentioned by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, at the Party Leaders' Conference of 1948, whose proceedings are recorded in Command 7380. That was fourteen years ago, and yet I think it remains by far the most important milestone in this context. The Party leaders were acting only ad referendum to their respective Parties; they had not absolute powers of decision. If I may just recall to your Lordships who they were, I think your Lordships will agree that it was a meeting of some authority. Meeting during the Labour Administration, the Government were represented by the Prime Minister, the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord Chancellor, and the Chief Whip. The Official Opposition were represented by Mr. Anthony Eden, the Marquess of Salisbury, Viscount Swinton, and Sir David Maxwell Fyfe (as he then was). The Liberals were represented by Viscount Samuel and Mr. Clement Davies. I think your Lordships will agree that that meeting was extremely representative of the Parties concerned. Nevertheless, this Conference came to a general agreement over certain proposals for the new composition of your Lordships' House. But your Lordships know that, because of a narrow margin of disagreement between the Conservative and the Labour Parties, in respect, I think, only to powers of delaying legislation, the whole outcome of the Conference was abortive. Although this particular disagreement has never been resolved, it would seem that neither the Conservative nor the Labour Party has really felt able to follow up the virtually agreed proposals on the composition of your Lordships' House.
My Lords, the Liberal Party alone, I think, has adopted the nine conclusions in toto as its official policy in regard to the reform of the House of Lords, and it is because we are to-day in sight of tackling some of these points that I consider it relevant, and very desirable, to have them clearly before us once again after this lapse of fourteen years. Therefore, with your Lordships' indulgence, I should like for the sake of the record to recapitulate these nine points,
396
which are quite short points, and three or four of which are particularly germane to to-day's Motion. They will not take me long to recite.
The first point was this. The Second Chamber—your Lordships' 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 opposed to the establishment of a Second Chamber of a completely new type based on some system of election. I think it is notable that both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party want to avoid some system of election, in order that this House may not be a rival to the Lower House, and, further than that, that they use its present constitution to develop it.
The second point is that the revised constitution of the House of Lords should be such as to secure, so far as practicable, that a permanent majority is not assured for any one political Party. This point has been made clearly and very sincerely by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on several occasions and I am sure is accepted by everybody. The third point is probably the most important to noble Lords who sit on these Benches. The present right to attend and vote in the Chamber based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber. This is an absolutely key-point to noble Lords who sit with me on these Benches.
The fourth point is that Members of the Second Chamber should be styled "Lords of Parliament" and should 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. My main ground here is that if we try to make a House composed entirely of Life Peers, it will obviously be a rather elderly House, and we shall miss tremendously the younger element whose contribution to the debates would be so valuable.
The fifth point is that women should be capable of being appointed Lords of Parliament in like manner as men. That view has been largely overtaken by the Life Peerages Act, which has given us

397
the pleasure of seeing noble Baronesses sitting among us. Since that has happened, I cannot see any logical reason for refusing to allow Peeresses in their own right to sit in this Chamber. We owe a great deal to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who started an interesting debate on this subject, but I believe that the whole situation has changed since then and from both logicality and fairness we should reverse the decision then arrived at.
The sixth point is that provision should be made for the inclusion in a Second Chamber of certain descendants of the Sovereign, certain Lords Spiritual and the Law Lords. The seventh is that, in order that persons without private means should not be excluded, some remuneration should be payable to members of the Second Chamber. I am not going to debate this point now, but it seems to me that the new Select Committee will have great difficulty in avoiding discussion of this particular point, which I should have thought is bound to come into their general deliberations in some way.
The eighth point is that Peers who are 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. That point was agreed by the Conservative Party, Labour Party and Liberal Party, through their representatives at that: Conference, so it is nothing new. Finally, 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.
My Lords, those are the nine points which we on these Benches support, and I hope that I shall be excused for reciting them again, because it is desirable that they should appear on the Record of this debate on the subject to-day.
Since the Conference of 1948, we have had the Life Peerages Act, implementing points 4 and 5. I do not know whether I am expected to be particularly enthusiastic over that rather grudging little reform, which is about the only one we have had since the Liberal Party made its famous remark about "Brooks". Neither of the other Parties seemed particularly enthusiastic about it, any more than we on these Benches are.
398
I cannot help recalling that the Life Peerage Act was brought in by the Leader of the Conservative Party in each Chamber with the avowed and clear intention of increasing the strength of the Opposition in your Lordships' House. I do not want to go into details, but I think that your Lordships will know that approximately 20 life peerages have been given to the Labour Opposition and approximately 20 to those who do not support the Opposition. I think that I had better say nothing about the complete neglect to give any life peerages to the only Party which I think is gaining, not losing, support throughout the country. The only epithet which can apply is an asterisk, and possibly a note of exclamation.
The Commons Resolution which we are discussing to-day does not directly apply to life peerages as such, but I think that in the scope of the Committee's deliberations the question of life peerages is bound to arise; and in that connection I, for one, consider that if a Peer is permitted to surrender his hereditary peerage in order to go into another place, he should certainly not he debarred from later accepting, as a reward, for good work in that place, a life peerage and so returning to your Lordships' House. If he were refused that right, he would be placed in a position worse than that of any other commoner.
As regards the surrender of an hereditary peerage, of course, this is a matter for individual consideration. The levelling out of equality of opportunity over the last 40 years has produced its good and its bad side-effects—mostly, I think, good ones. But on the debit side there can be no question that a philosophy of equality by force, if I may so call it, rather than of equality by emancipation, has arisen, and has brought with it a fashion for sheer iconoclasm which even our Left-wing Parties find a little embarrassing when it is no longer restricted to the very young or very inexperienced or stupid.
On these Benches we oppose the principle of the hereditary principle constituting by itself a right to attend and vote in this Chamber. But until we decide how the present system is to be replaced, as it should quickly be replaced, I should be rather chary of

399
taking a virtually irrevocable step, which might have extremely difficult repercussions in regard to future action when we come to the remodelling of this House on the lines suggested at the 1948 Conference. I should feel particularly worried if such a step were basically founded upon the fashion of discontent which to-day shows itself rather too clearly, sadly and unproductively in many ways.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he could amplify or elucidate that dark saying about "the fashion of discontent"?
LORD REA: My Lords, my answer to that is that the reform of this House should not be done purely in an iconoclastic, damaging and destructive way, because I believe very much in the existence of a Second Chamber; and it should be reformed in a constructive and, at the same time, democratic way.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What about Lloyd George?
LORD REA: My Lords, Lloyd George went a long way from the Liberal Party before he finished up.
While I should oppose the conditional sort of surrender of a peerage for a period of less than a lifetime, for reasons which I think are too obvious to need analysis, I should support the right of any Peer to divest himself during his own lifetime of a circumstance which he found intolerable, and therefore I would approve the renunciation of a peerage for the lifetime of the holder of that peerage. Nevertheless, speaking for myself, I think that we should be unwise if we were suddenly to enact, without, of course, the thought and consideration of any generation other than our own, that a man who held the passing honour of a hereditary peerage should speak for all his ancestors, none of whom he can consult, and for all his heirs, only one or two of whom he can consult.
An hereditary peerage is a mantle of Royal honour, whether it temporarily clothes a sage or a saint, a mountebank or a moron—I am glad to think that the former category is the more usual in
400
your Lordships' House. But the man himself is not his peerage; nor should the actual word, "Peer", equal Member of Parliament or Lord of Parliament. Therefore I should be inclined to support the complete extinction of a peerage only after a long period of consideration by both interested and disinterested parties. I would suggest that, in the same way as a Bill in dispute between the two Houses of Parliament must pass the other place in three successive Sessions before it can succeed, the extinction of a peerage should require the approval of Parliament over three successive Parliaments. The procedure, of course, would be slow, but the evolution of the peerage has been even slower. Perhaps courtesy alone might demand that what has been evolved over a thousand years needs more than a couple of afternoons for its destruction at the hands of one passing generation, which is tempted to think it knows all and is even prepared, by the H-bomb, to blot out mankind for ever on its own responsibility in this decade.
As a Liberal, I cannot support the hereditary system as a yardstick of right to rule over others; but as a Liberal I cherish the culture, the statesmanship and the learning which the democratic environment of heredity has often produced among the liberal arts. Such qualities can come, and often do, from sources other than likely sources. But although we draw much of our benefit from ridiculous traditions and dear anomalies, I would hesitate to do away completely with this unjustifiable situation so long as democratic safeguards are jealously upheld.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. Is it not a fact that in 1910 the Liberal Government said that they would make 400 Liberal Peers? Is he, therefore, opposed to the hereditary system?
LORD REA: I have been trying to explain that I am not opposed to the hereditary system in the sense that the Speaker's Conference of 1948 wished to build a new House of Lords drawn upon that system. Nor am I immediately concerned about what was decided in 1910. I believe, though with feelings of considerable frustration about what is being done and how little is being done, that I

401
should support this Resolution. I do so in the conviction that the Joint Select Committee will, nevertheless, have support and help from all quarters of your Lordships' House.
4.32 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, cannot, I think, but create a measure of bewilderment in the minds of some of us as to what is to be the exact scope of the inquiries of the Committee that your Lordships are asked to-day to set up. According to the Leader of the House, as I understood him, it would be within the terms of reference of the Committee to range fairly wide; but according to the Leader of the Opposition, on the contrary, the discussion would have to be strictly confined within very narrow limits. I hope that we shall know a little more about this when we hear the winding-up speech from the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House, so that we may be able to understand in what we are involving ourselves by our decision to-day. But in the meantime, I hope the House will forgive me if I follow the Leader of the House on the rather wider issues he raised in the brilliant speech that he delivered to us this afternoon. For these wider issues must, in my view, affect the deliberations of the Joint Select Committee, even if the conclusions to which they come are confined to the more limited aspects of the problem.
In rising to support this Motion, I would, if I may, approach the question of the reform of your Lordships' House from a rather different angle from that of most of those who have addressed themselves to the subject in another place, and from that from which I think, in his heart of hearts, the Leader of the House himself approaches it. In nearly all the speeches to which I have referred, this question has been looked at from the point of view of the individual Peer, or mainly so. What is fair to the individual Peer?—that is the first question that speakers seem to ask themselves. Ought he, by the accident that he has succeeded to a hereditary peerage, be denied the chance of a possibly brilliant career in the House of Commons? Should he have the right to repudiate the right of a peerage for himself during
402
his own lifetime; or should reform go even further and open up for him the possibility permanently to divest himself—and not only himself but his descendants as well—of obligations which were undertaken by his forbears, but which he personally finds a distinct encumbrance? That is the kind of question that has been asked; and one cannot help feeling sorry for young men who, whether for reasons of personal and very natural ambition or for other causes, find a hereditary peerage a burden and wish to rid themselves of it, and so save themselves from the dreadful fate of permanent incarceration in your Lordships' House.
But I feel, perhaps because I have had the privilege of membership of this House now for a great number of years, and have a steadily increasing respect for it, that there is something more important even than the hardships of these individual Peers, however acutely they may feel them; and that is: what is the right course for all of us to pursue, from the point of view of your Lordships' House as a whole? What is likely to make it the best body that can be devised for the performance of the functions that lie upon it under the Constitution? That, and not the position of these individual Peers is to me what really matters. We may, indeed, be able to find reforms which will help the Peers to whom I have referred what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, called the "reluctant Peers"—and which will not impair, and may even benefit, the efficiency of the House. No doubt we shall all be delighted if that is so. But the most important thing, I repeat, for us to consider is the House and not the individuals who compose it.
That brings me directly to the question: what are the essential requirements of the House of Lords in an unrestricted democracy? First, as I see it, it must be capable, as the noble Viscount has already said, of revising legislation that comes to it from another place. It must be competent to act as a second sieve through which such legislation has to pass. For that purpose, I would suggest, with great diffidence (and this is what I may call my second requirement), that it must contain some younger men. For distinguished men of retiring age—soldiers, diplomats,

403
trade union leaders, whoever they may be, who have been made Peers not so much for their future work as for their past services—will be reluctant to concern themselves, in the evening of their lives, with what I may call the donkey work of the House, the making of Amendments on Committee stages and so on. The House of Lords, I believe, just like the House of Commons, must have younger members. That, I suggest, Is one essential feature that we ought to keep in mind.
Thirdly, I think the House must be well equipped, by the quality of its membership, to discuss in the spirit of a Council of State the great topics of the day. That, I hope it will be agreed, the present House of Lords, especially, if I may say so, since the inclusion of Life Peers, most certainly is. And, then, fourthly, there is a function which the House fortunately is only rarely called upon to perform, but which could be the most important of all. It is this. In the event of extremely controversial legislation being sent up from another place by a Government either of the Left or of the Right—legislation which has never been before the electorate at a General Election—the House of Lords ought to enjoy sufficient authority to impose the brief delay which the Constitution allows to enable the views of the British people to crystallise, in one direction or another, on such legislation, before it actually passes into law. And that, of course, connotes that this House must not, in a political or any other sense, be just a replica of the House of Commons. My grandfather once said, when discussing this topic, that if you put two locks on a door, you do not want so to construct them that they can both be opened by the same key. The House of Lords, in fact, must be an independent entity, with an identity and character of its own.
Finally (and this I suggest, though the last, is the most important requirement of all) the House of Lords must not be a rival of the House of Commons; I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House make that point with great force.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I put something to the noble Marquess?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, certainly.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The noble Marquess is making a most interesting speech, but I should like to get the facts right. I would gather, for example, that when the Conservative Opposition made it impossible for us to carry without another Election the Iron and Steel Bill, they overlooked the fact that we had put the iron and steel nationalisation project before the country at a General Election in 1945. At any rate, the present Government have not hesitated to bring in the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill without any submission to the country at all.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Viscount will remember, the reason why we put our Amendment into the Iron and Steel Bill at that time was because the legislation introduced by the Labour Government went beyond what was on their programme at the General Election. Not only that, but the Labour Government accepted the Amendment. If I remember rightly, it was not voted on; it was accepted by the Labour Party. I do not therefore honestly think there is much validity in the point the noble Viscount made.
May I go on? In this country the House of Commons, which is elected, as we all know, by the suffrages of practically the whole adult population, must always be the senior partner; and in the event of a conflict between the two Houses, the will of the House of Commons, after the delay prescribed by the Constitution—and nowadays it is a very short delay—must always prevail. About that there will not, I imagine, be any dispute in any quarter of this House.
Such, I suggest, are some of the main requirements of a Second Chamber—which is what our House is—in a Constitution based on an unrestricted democracy, such as we have in this country to-day. To what conclusions does that lead us? I suggest, very diffidently, one, which may seem extremely odd to some of your Lordships. It is this. In spite of the introduction of Life Peers, which has increased, as we all know, so greatly the value and vitality of this House, there are good reasons, I believe, why

405
it should continue to be based predominantly on the hereditary principle.
I will give your Lordships two reasons for that view. The first is this. It is only in this way, short of an elected House—which I would dismiss for other reasons which I will mention later—that we can hope to obtain the services of the young men who, I believe, are so essential to the successful working of the House. Broadly speaking, even Life Peers tend to be elderly. They are men and women, usually, who have already succeeded in some other walk of life or in another place. But hereditary Peers can be, and frequently are, quite young. There is, too, a second reason which makes the retention of the hereditary principle, I believe, so important. It is only in this way that one can ensure that the House of Lords will always be the junior partner of the House of Commons. If, for instance, we were to replace the hereditary principle by any system of election, by whatever form of electorate, by the very fact that it was elected to represent certain views and interests it would always tend to become a rival of the House of Commons.
There are those, indeed, who still feel that the very fact that your Lordships' House has a suspensory veto, however short that may be, in a sense makes this House a rival to another place. But if that were ever true—and I suppose it was many years ago—I do not believe it is true to-day. For though the suspensory veto is nominally for a period of one year from the first introduction of a Bill in the House of Commons, yet, in practice, we all know—those of us who have been in both Houses—hotly contested Bills take upwards of nine months to pass through both Houses. Therefore, there is likely to be only three months between the arising of a conflict between the two Houses and the end of our suspensory veto. You cannot have anything very much shorter than that. Moreover, with the introduction of life peerages, it will always be possible for any Government with a majority in the House of Commons to ask the Crown to create a sufficient number of such Peers to give it a majority in both Houses. For that reason, I believe that the fear which is still sometimes expressed that your Lordships' House could, if it wished,
406
clog the wheels of progress, is nowadays completely unfounded. On the contrary, I believe that the retention of the hereditary system is by far the best method of ensuring that the House of Commons shall remain the stronger Chamber of the two. And that, in an unrestricted democracy, is surely right.
The composition of your Lordships' House, resting mainly on the hereditary principle, is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to defend logically in the modern world in which we live. It owes its hereditary basis, as we all know, to circumstances which have long passed away. But, like so many British institutions, though illogical, it works. And that, after all, is the most important thing. I suggest, therefore, that however hardly the hereditary system may appear to press upon individual Peers such as Mr. Wedgwood Benn, we ought to think twice before, in our anxiety to avoid hardship to individuals, we do anything likely to impair it, much less to strike at the roots of it.
Having said this, however, and though hereditary Peers have had, as we know, ever since the seventeenth century, the right to a writ of summons if they want it, I believe there is no reason why the Crown should not, on the advice of both Houses of Parliament, take steps to limit the number of Peers who take an active legislative part in your Lordships' House, if that is in the interests of the House itself and if this House approves such action. I make just those two provisos. After all, we really must take account of the changed position that exists to-day; and the position is changing further with every year that passes. It is only within comparatively recent times that the numerical membership of this House has reached the stupendous level at which it stands to-day.
In the Middle Ages, the Great Council of the Realm, which was the ancestor of this House, was a small executive body of powerful, territorial magnates; and those who received writs of summons to it were very few. But, since then, peerages, as we know, have been granted more and more, for honorific rather than functional reasons and with this change the number of hereditary Peers has steadily grown. Indeed, it is not at all impossible that with the

407
advent of Life Peers the membership of this House will soon exceed the figure of 1,000. Of these, only a comparatively small proportion normally come, and quite a number never come at all. That, clearly, as has been recognised now for many years, is not a satisfactory position and is, I think, damaging to the reputation of your Lordships' House.
I understand that this particular aspect may well come within the purview of the Committee the setting up of which the Government are asking your Lordships to approve to-day. If I may say so, I am personally very glad to hear this, for, as some of your Lordships know, I have long hoped that something could be done to bring the active membership of this House within reasonable proportions. I believe, moreover, that such action would be welcomed by numbers of Peers who cannot, for various reasons—many of them extremely good—attend to their duties here, and to whom the inability to fulfil their constitutional obligations is the cause of serious embarrassment.
There is also another reason—a very practical one—which has not been mentioned to-day, why I believe a limitation of the active membership of this House to those who actually mean to attend would be desirable. The time, I am certain, will come, must come, although it is certainly not within the terms of reference of this Committee—and here I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough—when Peers will have to be paid. At present, as we all know, they receive no salary. They get only £3 3s. a day in repayment of expenses incurred in attending your Lordships' House. That is a maximum of £300 a year if a Peer attends every single meeting of the House. It is less than the minimum wage which is paid to almost any manual worker to-day, and no younger Peer could hope to keep a wife and growing family on such a pittance as that. Moreover, my Lords, even this maximum figure of £300 a year which I have mentioned is not an additional income. It is merely repayment of expenses which have already been incurred.
I am sure that, in these days of crippling taxation, this absence of any salary is one of the factors which prevents many noble Lords on both sides
408
of the House from attending fully to their duties. They have to earn their own living elsewhere. There seems to be an old fashioned idea, which is still prevalent, that all Peers are rich. I only wish it were true, but it is not. At the same time, the country clearly cannot pay a salary to Peers unless there can be some certainty that they will be able and willing to attend to their Parliamentary duties. For that reason I believe it will be desirable and, indeed, essential, to limit the number of Peers to those who really intend to be active Members of this House. I do not propose to-day to discuss how that should be done. There have, as your Lordships know, been various schemes put forward in recent years, all of which, no doubt, have their advantages and disadvantages. I saw that yet another was advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Hinchingbrooke, in another place last week. It was a new proposal which seems to have obtained some support. It will be the task of the Committee to examine all these proposals—if its terms of reference permit—and I do not propose to prejudge its conclusions to-day.
It will also, I understand—though perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, would not agree with this—be within the terms of reference of the Committee to define the status of those who, under any scheme of reform, are not selected as Members of this House. Will they rank as commoners and be eligible to be elected to the House of Commons; or, once Peers, must they always be Peers, whether they sit or not? I must leave that also to the Committee.
One thing, however, I should like to stress yet once more. In my opinion, for what it is worth, what ought to influence us most in the final decision we take is not the situation of those individual Peers—who have received so much publicity—and their grievances, however acutely these may be felt; it is the prestige, the authority and the efficient working of this House. If the Committee makes, if we all make that our guiding principle in considering these matters, we shall not go far wrong.
4.52 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would echo what the noble Marquess has just said, that we should concern

409
ourselves in this debate with the authority, the prestige and efficient working of this House, and I would also say of Parliament itself. My noble Leader, I hope inadvertently, indicated during his speech that he was unaware of the fact that I was going to take part in the debate. The noble Marquess, on the other hand, made it perfectly clear that in his view I should not even have come to your Lordships' House at all, because he said the qualifications of a Life Peer or Peeress were that he or she should be both distinguished and of retiring age and, of course, I am neither. Indeed, I would remind the noble Marquess that although all my colleagues who are Life Peers are distinguished, most of them have not yet reached retiring age. To that extent, although I agree with a very great deal—in fact, a surprising amount—of what he said, I do not think that his arguments in favour of a predominantly hereditary House of Lords are valid in so far as the qualifications which he suggested for Life Peers are invalid.
I was somewhat surprised, but by no means dismayed, to find when I looked at the list of speakers that, of the sixteen, I was apparently the only Life Peer on this side who had decided to speak. However, I am very glad to notice that there is one on the other side; and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, is mainly intervening for the same reason as I am myself, namely, that I, at least, feel it may be possible for us who are not hereditary Peers—and, so far as I am concerned, have no wish to be so—to say things in this debate which those who are hereditary Peers might have some difficulty in saying. My other reason for intervening is that, like the noble and learned Viscount who opened this debate. I, too, love the Commons. I would put it rather broader than that, and say that I love Westminster; I love Parliament.
Indeed, I have now spent about an equal time in this Chamber as I did in the other Chamber, and I never imagined when I was a Member of the Commons that I would ever agree to go to another place, or ever be happy in a place other than the Commons. I had not reached retiring age; I had a seat about a fourpenny bus ride from the House, which I could not possibly lose, and I think your Lordships
410
will realise I came here with some reluctance and only out of what I was convinced, or became over-persuaded, was a sense of duty. It is for all those reasons and because of my love for Parliament and my service in both Houses that I feel I can speak on these matters with reasonable freedom from bias. I now propose to destroy the illusion which I hope I have created of freedom from bias by saying that after four years in your Lordships' House, I cannot imagine any set of circumstances which would ever make me desire to go back to another place.
I, like the noble Lord, Lord Rea, support this Motion, but very much regret that the issue we are discussing is so narrow; that the mountain of talk, as it were, has brought forth such a comparative mouse of a Motion. But if now the Select Committee feel that they are free to discuss all the matters which the noble Marquess has mentioned, it may well be that we shall have a most exciting and, indeed, revolutionary report. But I think, in any case, it would have been much more to the credit of the great political Parties if they had got down to the job of deciding whether or not they want a Second Chamber, and, if so, the method of selecting those who are to sit in it. I would submit that until that is done there is no possibility of giving, as the noble Marquess suggested, a Second Chamber any powers to defer the passage of legislation. If and when a Second Chamber is selected on a different basis, then it might be a very necessary part of its powers, but it would seem to me impossible to justify that on the present position. I would say also that, until the two great Parties get together and decide about the future of your Lordships' House, we are entitled to demand the end of the unworthy sniping and sneering at this House which comes from those who are willing to wound but afraid to strike.
Meanwhile, I would submit that there surely can be no question but that a Peer should have the right to surrender his peerage in his lifetime, and, if elected, to sit in the Commons. I hope that the Joint Committee will take that view and that my—I was going to say my honourable friend, but I am probably more correct in saying my noble friend, Anthony Wedgwood Benn, will soon be

411
back in the place in which he has already rendered such outstanding service. Indeed, once there, I hope he will perhaps modify the descriptions of your Lordships' House, which have been attributed to him, as "a haven for the worn out" and "the outer Mongolia for retired politicians."
I do not agree—and here, perhaps, I am expressing a view contrary to that of a majority on these Benches—that Mr. Benn or any other Peer should have the right to decide this matter for his heirs. Every peerage, as I see it—and this is implicit in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—with the rights and duties pertaining to it, was created for what appeared to be a good and sufficient reason at the time, and if the hereditary right of Peers to sit in Parliament is to be abolished, then it should be abolished by Parliament and not by individuals. If we support, as I do, the freedom of an individual to decide for himself, we must surely oppose granting to that individual the right to deny freedom of choice to others. It seems to me that the two things must go together and I cannot honestly see how it can be argued otherwise. I believe that Peers who wish to become commoners should do so completely for their lifetime, but that their peerages and titles should remain in abeyance and that their heirs should have the right to revive them or remain commoners.
In my view, this would in no way affect subsequent consideration of the reform of the House of Lords or the method of selection of those who are to sit here. The continuance of a peerage—and here I think this entirely agrees with the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rea—ought not to be directly related to the right to sit in the House of Lords. I am bound to confess, however, that although the present right to sit, whether by inheritance or appointment, is indefensible, paradoxically the thing does work; In fact, once you have got over the indefensible method of selection for your Lordships' House, it is, in my view, in its operation, the most democratic assembly of which I have any knowledge. There is no place, no assembly, where speech, and indeed to a large extent action, are more truly free than here. We had a
412
most welcome example of that only yesterday.
The other point about the present system (and I attach great value to this) is that it retains for your Lordships' House the services of those with specialised knowledge of certain subjects who come here perhaps only two, three or four times a year, but every time make a contribution of great value. Some, I know, sit on the Cross Benches; most of those indeed who sit on the Cross Benches are of that kind; and there are many on both sides of the House, who cannot come and do not wish to come even every week, certainly not every day of every week; but it would be a great loss not only to this House but to the country if they had no opportunity of speaking in this Assembly again.
In my opinion, if the right of surrender is granted, very few Peers will exercise it, and I think that the number would be smaller still if this House did not suffer from the false image created by selective Press reporting. It is understandable, of course, that in their domestic occasions Peers, like parsons should be fair game. If they get drunk, divorced, or do foolish things it is very properly headlined, but the publicity inevitably colours the public image of the whole Peerage. This, of course, cannot be helped, but it is deplorable that a large section of the Press should pursue the same selective reporting of the proceedings of this House, with the result that people who read only the mass circulation dailies could be forgiven if they thought that most of our time was spent on discussions concerned with sex, sadism, sensation or stupidity. Quite sober adults are often surprised to learn that all Bills have to pass through the House of Lords and through all stages. I would submit that this false image has a very considerable effect on the views of those who may be called upon to take a seat in your Lordships' House. I confess that it had a very great effect on my own views before I came here.
Let me quote a typical example of the kind of thing I have in mind. Last month the periodical Time and Tide published a so-called work study of the House of Lords by a Mr. Kaufman. It was called, "Lazy Lords", and was

413
described as a piece of research. It was one of those researches where you first decide the answer and then work backwards. Mr. Kaufman's final answer was this, that:
" instead of attempting every few years to reform the Lords we should abolish it outright and start again."
Here are some of the instances of the objective way in which this researcher reached his final conclusion. He says, for example, that last year the Lords asked only 398 Questions and added:
" The Commons ask that number almost every five days."
This ignored the not unimportant fact that we have a maximum of four Questions per day in your Lordships' House, whereas in the Commons the only limit is the number which can be answered in an hour. It also ignores the fact that on any given day in the Commons one Minister may answer all the Questions and that, apart from constituency points, it is rare for more than four basically different Questions to be asked in the afternoon.
This researcher also declares that our day-to-day proceedings would be impossible without the hard core of Members who, he says, number only 62. But, by his reckoning, to qualify for the hard core one must have made at least ten speeches in a Session. Well, by this test the Lords hard core is a very much larger hard core than the Commons hard core.
But then Mr. Kaufman generously concedes that:
" A wholly subjective analysis of Lords proceedings would lead to an unfair verdict."
So he examined Press coverage to see what was felt to be generally interesting. But first he eliminated from our work all the work on Bills, and then he excluded the reports of the three quality newspapers, The Times, the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph for the somewhat odd reason that they do report our proceedings. Your Lordships can read it all here: this is not exaggeration; this is what this distinguished researcher did.
Then, declaring that the five popular dailies are competent judges of what their readers regard as important, he revealed that, out of our 63 debates, only 41 were reported on their merits. The other day we had a Foreign Affairs
414
debate, and the Foreign Secretary made a very important speech. Earlier that same afternoon my noble friend Lady Summerskill asked a Question relative to the brutality, as she alleged, of boxing. These competent judges of what their readers regard as important, these five daily newspapers, gave more space to my noble friend's Question than they did to the Foreign Secretary.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Wise men!
LORD STONHAM: I should prefer at the moment not to comment. I would say only that if my noble friend Lady Summerskill ever became Foreign Secretary she would expect that her speeches would be given more space and prominence than would my Question if I asked something about patent medicine or something of that kind.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not realise that my Question was fundamentally important, that if we abolished aggression from the world, Foreign Secretaries would not be necessary?
LORD STONHAM: I heard the Foreign Secretary's speech, and I thought, and other noble Lords in the House seemed to agree, that that, too, was fundamentally to do with the abolition of aggression and methods to achieve that. And it did just seem to me (I admit that I may be biased in this) that the Foreign Secretary was dealing momentarily with a larger and more important canvas than that dealt with by my noble friend. Obviously, my noble friend does not agree with me; she is quite sure that the popular papers are night. But I would point out that it is on such objective criteria that this researcher reached the conclusion that we should be abolished. Unfortunately, by applying exactly the same criteria one could make out a much stronger case for the abolition of the House of Commons. The name of the author escapes me, but I think the appropriate doggerel for this, as I remember it, is:
" One cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God! The British journalist,
But, seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, There's no occasion to."

415
As I have said before, my personal views are of small import, but for the benefit of those who will have to make a decision about their political future, I would say that in my experience your Lordships' House is unique. I love Parliament. I love the Commons and I love this place. But having been to both, and having had a reasonable experience of both, I would say, first, that anyone now here who has had experience of both Houses and wants to go back to the other place—unless, of course, he has ambitions to be, and has the qualifications for, Prime Minister—should see a psychiatrist. Secondly, that any Peer with no Commons experience who yearns to go there should first spend two solid weeks in the Peers' Gallery of the Commons, and if that does not make him think twice about his decision he should be given every encouragement to leave us: he obviously lacks the mental equipment required in your Lordships' House. My Lords, I support the Resolution.
5.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I think that anyone who has listened to this debate would say that it has been of the highest order. May I say to my noble friend who introduced it that, after a great many years in this House, I do not think I ever heard a better speech delivered from any quarter than that of the Leader of the House this afternoon? But anybody who has heard this debate without having read the Motion would, I think, be under the impression that the Motion was of the widest possible character, inviting us to consider whether the House of Lords should be abolished, whether it should be reformed; how it should be reformed, and what its powers should be. As a matter of fact, if your Lordships will come back to the terms of the Motion you will see that it really is a narrow Motion. It is not whether we should exist, or how we should be constituted; it is a narrow Motion as to whether we should agree to appoint a Joint Select Committee, and whether we are satisfied with the terms of reference which are set out.
I would also add that, as we have experienced already to-day, while in this House nothing is out of Order, except gross abuse (and that can be dealt with
416
only by moving that the noble Lord concerned "be not heard") I should venture to think that it is perhaps inappropriate that we should tell the Committee today exactly what they are to do and how they are to report. The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition began, I thought, most effectively, by saying that, and then proceeded to tell the Committee what they should do. My noble friend and colleague the former Leader, Lord Salisbury, did much the same thing.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, I did not. If I may say so, I went out of my way to say that there were many schemes that would be before the Committee, but that I did not propose to go into any of them.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I think my noble friend did himself less than justice. Of course, the art which conceals art is the highest art of all. When you have eliminated a large number of alternatives as being wrong, immoral, or unconscionable, and there remains only one, you may not in terms commend that one, but you are left with a certain impression, whether or not it was my noble friend's intention to convey it.
I shall be quite brief. I hope that the House will concur in this Resolution. If changes are to be made, certainly any changes requiring legislation, it is most desirable that they should be agreed to by Parliament as a whole, and the best way of getting that done is to appoint a Joint Select Committee. I venture to think that the questions which are submitted to the Committee are important, but they are limited in scope. Of those questions, the second, the surrender of a peerage, is certainly the most important. Of course this is not at all a new question, as more than one speaker has reminded the House. The attempt to surrender a peerage has been made on a number of occasions. Sixty or seventy years ago the fathers of various Members now sitting in this House did their best to get out of coming here.
Going on through the years, the attempt has been constantly made. But on every single occasion when that was done it was always said in this House, and I think in another place—certainly

417
it was said by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. to my noble friend the Leader of the House: "You cannot decide these things on a personal case. This is a great question of principle, and whatever is decided about it must be decided as a question of principle, and it must be the subject of general legislation." This has been said over the past sixty or seventy years, but we have not had any general legislation. I suppose that, like other matters, it was one of those questions which "brooked no delay ". However, it is right and proper that it should now be considered, and in the first instance by a Joint Select Committee. I think it is also right that the various alternatives in regard to surrender should be put: whether there should be an absolute surrender, if at all; whether there should be a surrender for life; or whether there should be a surrender for a lesser period.
The Motion rightly adds that the Committee will have to consider all the consequences which might flow from any one of those solutions. If that is being done, then obviously it is right and convenient that we should consider the anomalies of the Irish and Scottish Peers. I once had a delightful Parliamentary Private Secretary who sat in the House of Commons and was an Irish Peer. I have never been able to see why, if an Irish Peer could do that, a Scottish Peer who did not get himself elected, or did not want to be elected by his fellow Peers, should not have the same right.
Perhaps I am transgressing in saying what the Committee should find. It is very hard not to do so. I am also going to transgress a little further. I am glad that Peeresses in their own right are not to be excluded from this consideration. Quite frankly, I have always had a sneaking regard for Peeresses in their own right—these poor ladies who victoriously surmounted a Select Committee of this House, who thought that the portals had been thrown open to them and that they were going to line the Benches on both sides of the House, only to find that another Select Committee incontinently liquidated them and banged the door in their faces. I do not suppose I shall sit on the Committee, and far be it from me to say, if I did sit upon it, how I should vote on that one, but I really would feel bound to
418
give the Peeresses in their own right an unbiased consideration.
My Lords, I would add only one thing. I think we have it on the authority of the Attorney General—and I am not sure the Leader of the House did not confirm it to-day; but I expect he will agree with it and I think from my own experience of this House that it is inherent in the rights of a Select Committee—that it would be for the Joint Select Committee, if we agree to it, to interpret its own terms of reference. Presumably, they would interpret those terms of reference with some regard to the normal meaning of the language employed. After hearing some of the speeches in both Houses, I am not quite sure I am right about that, but I would think so. Of course, they would not interpret in the same way that the Court of Chancery has to interpret a deed, simply by looking at the language of the instrument and nothing else. On the contrary, they would have the right, and indeed the duty, to consider all the circumstances; to consider what lawyers would call the intention of the parties; to consider the past history of this matter.
We must remember that there was another Resolution which sat on the Order Paper of another place for quite a while, and it surely will be relevant for the Committee, in interpreting their terms of reference, to look at the Resolution which was put down in the other place and then to look at the Resolution before us to-day in order to see where they differ. Just to take one example, it is particularly noticeable on the question of composition, which has been mentioned positively and certainly frequently to-day by inference, that in the Resolution that was tabled in the other place last year composition was included. The Resolution read:
" To consider, having regard among other things to the need to maintain an efficient Second Chamber (a) the composition of the House of Lords …".
I imagine that considerable exception was taken to that in some quarters and that it has been deliberately struck out—it cannot be just a slip—of the Resolution which is before us to-day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Obviously, because you could not discuss the composition with-

419
out discussing the powers of this Chamber. That was the opinion at least of my Party, the Labour Party.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I take it that the noble Viscount means that he would regard it as undesirable to do so separately. It certainly would be possible to discuss composition apart from powers; it would be quite possible to discuss powers apart from composition. But what in fact has happened is that the question of composition was in the original Resolution in the other place, whereas it is not before us to-day.
That is all I have to say. I hope that the House will agree—I feel sure it will—to support unanimously this proposal for a Joint Select Committee, and I am sure that any Committee which is appointed in the spirit in which the debates have been conducted will do its very best to arrive at the right solution. And here I must agree with my noble friend Lord Salisbury when he says that what must be considered is not only what is right for the individual, but also—which is more important—what is right for the country.
5.25 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has made a very interesting speech to your Lordships and he has reminded us that some 70 years ago another attempt was made to renounce a peerage. I cannot help feeling that the real issue which lies behind this Motion is the so-called "Stansgate" case, and that the rest are just minor frills, although, of course, they are very important. I agree that there are certain obvious anomalies referred to in this Motion which should certainly be examined by the proposed Joint Select Committee. But it is, of course, another effort to reform this House by piecemeal legislation, and the various difficulties could be much more easily surmounted if the intention was to reform the composition of the House on the lines of the proposals put forward by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, some time ago—I think in 1948. I really cannot see, in spite of what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, why composition and powers cannot be discussed separately. This Motion is in fact pro-
420
posing to alter the composition of the House to a very limited extent, and I regret that the Motion is not drawn more widely.
I would suggest to your Lordships that any recommendations of the proposed Joint Select Committee, when they become known, should be examined as to whether they would strengthen or weaken your Lordships' House. It is true to say that there are some Members of another place (I do not think there are many in your Lordships' House) who do not like a Second Chamber and would like to remove it at the earliest possible moment. In many parts of the world we are witnessing too great a concentration of executive power at the centre, and surely the lesson is that the need for the checks and balances of a Second Chamber is now greater than ever. On the other hand, my Lords, there are some who would not like to go so far as the extinction of the Second Chamber, but who are always ready gradually to erode and weaken this Chamber as much as possible. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said that we should be only a revising Chamber. We still have the power to hold up a Bill for a short time to enable the nation to have second thoughts on the matter, especially on a very controversial Bill. I would say that this is a very necessary power for us to have.
I cannot help feeling that the possible recommendations which may be made by the proposed Joint Select Committee would have the effect of gradually weakening this House. In the first place, vigorous young Peers with Parliamentary and ministerial ambitions would be tempted to leave this House for another place if they were permitted to renounce their seats in this House, and would perhaps never even take their seats before they go to another place. Also, we should, of course, lose those of another place who wished to stay in that Chamber and not to take up their inheritance in this House. On the other hand, a reform of the composition of this House on a much more extensive scale would undoubtedly strengthen the House and would remove the gibes which are constantly thrown at it. I agree that we must move with the times, and I suggest that we should put our House in order on a proper basis rather than tinker with

421
it as is envisaged by the Motion before your Lordships to-day. For this reason, I do not feel that I can support this Motion unless our noble Leader can assure me that the Joint Select Committee will be able to put forward recommendations for the proper reform of the composition of your Lordships' House and for the proper payment of Lords of Parliament.
5.31 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Teynham that it is unfortunate that these terms of reference were not more widely drawn, and that in a sense this is really only tinkering with the problem. I also agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who, in a very remarkable speech, told us what he thought would eventually be the composition of this House—namely, a much smaller body composed of Members who attended practically the whole time.
But, my Lords, my reason for intervening to-day is to deal with a matter which I think is clearly within the terms of reference, and that is the question of the Irish Peers. The Act of Union of England and Ireland in 1800 provided for the election by the Irish Peers of 28 of their number as Representative Peers to sit in your Lordships' House for life; and whenever one of those Representative Peers died another was elected in his place, thus keeping the number at 28. This system continued from 1801 till 1921—that is to say, for 120 years—but no election of Irish Representative Peers has been held since the Irish Treaty of 1921, under which what was then the Irish Free State ceased to be part of the United Kingdom—and, of course, it is now the Republic of Ireland.
The reason why no Irish Representative Peers were elected after 1921 has always been given, rather absurdly in my view, to be because a particular official in Dublin, who was known as the Clerk of Crown and Hanaper, ceased to function. As a result, it was said, no machinery existed and it was impossible to elect Representative Peers. But that, of course, is a ridiculous excuse. The real reason, obviously, was that after 1921 it was illogical that a territory which had left the United Kingdom should continue to be represented as before in the Second Chamber of the United Kingdom.
422
It is now 40 years since the Irish Treaty was signed, and in that period of time every single one of the Irish Representative Peers has died. The last one who died was Lord Kilmorey, and about a year ago he was a Northern Ireland Peer. I think the one who died before that—and, of course, his successor cannot sit in this House—was a very greatly respected Chairman of Committees in this House, Lord Drogheda. After the death of Lord Drogheda and Lord Kilmorey there remained no more Irish Representative Peers.
My Lords, so far as I can make out, there are now 70 Irish Peers who have no United Kingdom peerage, and consequently no seat in this House. Most of these, of course, are creations before the Union of 1800, but when I was looking up the dates the other day I was astonished to find that quite a number of the Irish Peers were created after 1800—I should think about a fifth of them. Your Lordships will no doubt remember the case of Lord Curzon. When Lord Curzon was going to be made Viceroy of India, and was to be made a Peer, he wanted to be able to come back to the House of Commons, so he wanted to be given an Irish peerage. I am afraid that I cannot remember whether or not he was given one—I think not.
A NOBLE LORD: Yes: he was an Irish Peer.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: He then inherited the English Barony of Scarsdale.
LORD RATHCAVAN: That was a case of an Irish Peer being created since 1800; and, as I say, I was astonished to find, on looking up the dates, that there are quite a number of Irish Peers who have been created since 1800.
As regards the Scottish Peers, I think I am right in saying that there are 31 of them, and there I find that every single one of the Scottish Peers holds a title created before the Union of Scotland and England in 1707. When I say that, I mean Scottish Peers Who do not hold United Kingdom peerages, and, when I was refer ing to Irish Peers, I meant Irish Peers who do not hold United Kingdom peerages. There are any number of Irish Peers in this House, but they sit under another name—namely, that of their United Kingdom peerage. But I

423
am not referring to them; I am referring to those who do not sit in this House, because they have no United Kingdom peerage.
My Lords, the Irish Peers have both a privilege and a disability. Their privilege is that they can stand as candidates for the British House of Commons, and can sit in the British House of Commons. When I was in the House of Commons I knew several, including my noble friend Lord Winterton, who has since received a United Kingdom peerage and sits in this House. Their disability is that they cannot vote for a candidate in an election to the House of Commons. Perhaps some Scottish Peer when he comes to speak—possibly my noble friend Lord Forbes—can answer this question about Scottish Peers. They are not, I understand, entitled to sit in the House of Commons. If not, why not? Why can an Irish Peer sit in the House of Commons and not a Scottish Peer? Can the Scottish Peers vote in a Parliamentary election? I am not sure.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD RATHCAVAN: I gather that they cannot. Then the Scottish Peers are worse off than the Irish Peers. It has always seemed to me that the complete elimination of the Irish Peers from your Lordships' House has been most unfair and quite unjustifiable—for this reason. A part of Ireland—that is to say Northern Ireland—still remains an integral part of the United Kingdom and sends twelve Members to the House of Commons at Westminster. Yet Northern Ireland is not allowed to send a single Representative Peer to this House. I would therefore suggest that it is obvious that a small number of Irish Representative Peers should be elected to represent Northern Ireland in this House. What the actual number should be I would not suggest—I really do not know; but obviously it should be something considerably less than the 28 who came here when the whole of Ireland was in the United Kingdom.
If the principle of Representative Peers is retained for Scotland, as I imagine it will be, then in my submission it cannot be denied to Northern Ireland, which, like Scotland, is in the United Kingdom. Whether the election of this smaller number of Irish Representative
424
Peers should be by the whole body of Irish Peers or by a smaller number who could be classed as Peers of Northern Ireland origin, I should not care at present to say. So far as I can make out, there are now eleven Irish Peers of what might be called Northern Ireland origin. My Lords, I hope that the appointment of this Select Committee, whose terms of reference we are debating to-day, will be the means of correcting an injustice and an anomaly which has now been in existence for 40 years.
5.42 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, any discussion affecting the future of your Lordships' House must be regarded as one of extreme importance. I am certain that this House can continue to play a great part in the legislative machinery of this country; and, having made up our minds to have a Second Chamber. I am sure that it is essential to see that this House serves a useful purpose. This House must be renowned for the part it plays in the government of our country rather than for its coronets and its ermine.
We have just heard of the plight of the Irish Peers. I can only say that the plight of the Scottish Peers is even worse, because they cannot even sit in another place. There is also the complex problem of Peeresses in their own right. When it was suggested that Peeresses should enter your Lordships' House, I voted against the proposal for the female sex to be allowed to sit here.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Shame!
LORD FORBES: I suffered a defeat, my Lords; I hope I suffered it gracefully. However, having done so, it is quite illogical to me that Peeresses in their own right should not have a seat in your Lordships' House.
The really complex problem is this: should a Peer be able to renounce his peerage, and, if so, for how long? I think what we have to ask ourselves is, why does any Peer wish to renounce his peerage? And, so far as I can see, there are two reasons for it, at absolutely opposite ends of the pole. The first one is to obtain a better chance of becoming Prime Minister, and the second one is a desire to be relieved of responsibility. Regarding the question of becoming Prime Minister, I would say that

425
if any Peer is the most suitable person to become Prime Minister, then nothing should stand in his way. But this applies only to the post of Prime Minister. Other senior Cabinet posts can quite easily be filled by Members of your Lordships' House, such as that of Foreign Secretary. Then there is the other category, the Peer who wants to relinquish his peerage—in other words, he wants to abdicate rather than face responsibility. This is possibly understandable, because a peerage carries little other than the privilege of sitting in your Lordships' House and considerable, increased responsibility.
If there is to be any renunciation of peerages, what is to be the period of renunciation? For it to be for all time would not, I am quite certain, be right. A young Peer, or even one of more advanced age, could, in a moment of irresponsibility, renounce his peerage, a peerage which had been safely guarded by his ancestors for many generations. I could not lightly renounce my peerage responsibilities, which have been shouldered by my ancestors for over 500 years. I am equally certain that to give up a peerage for a short time, such as the duration of a Parliament, would also be utterly wrong. If a Peer could give up his peerage for the duration of a Parliament, one could conjure up a wonderful picture of, say, a Peer who had won his coronet and moved to your Lordships' House from another place being asked by the Prime Minister to go back to the other place to take up a high Cabinet post; then, having served his country diligently for a considerable time, Mr. X again being given a peerage and returning to your Lordships' House. That would make two terms in each House. No, my Lords: the leopard can change his spots only once at the very most. Ships may sail under flags of convenience, but hereditary spots are not spots of convenience: they are birth marks which cannot be lightly changed.
A strong, virile Second Chamber is necessary. This House will not decay because Peers cannot move freely from this place to another place: rather it will tend to decay through lack of opportunities for its Members. At this moment a number of Her Majesty's Ministers are in this House. In my
426
opinion, there should be more Ministers in this House. It is not humanly possible for a Minister in another place to get around the country or to spend sufficient time in the Commonwealth, as the case may be. The beauty of this House, my Lords, is that a Minister is not tied to its Benches; he can get out and about. I am cetrain that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary could not have achieved what he has achieved had he been in another place. The task of a Minister in another place has increased very greatly of late. And I believe it is now necessary to have at least one Minister for each Ministry or Office in each House. More Ministers in your Lordships' House would not only assist the legislative machinery by helping the Government of the day, but add strength to this House by giving opportunities to its Members. Therefore, my Lords, let us agree to this Motion and see that any reform that may be carried out is designed to strengthen this House and so strengthen the whole legislative machinery.
5.48 p.m.
LORD MILNE: My Lords, it is said of matrimony that it is like a hen-run: those who are inside want to get out; those who are outside want to get in. Somewhat the same applies, or seems to apply, to your Lordships' House. We have come to regard a debate such as this, variously introduced, as a regular fixture; and, like its more sporting counterparts, it is always assured of a large and expert following. But, my Lords, this Motion, although charmingly introduced by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, is, in my opinion, something quite different. It is an invitation to concur in the formation of a Committee for a certain purpose. It leaves very little room for manœuvre: either one concurs or one does not concur; and if one does not, one appears reactionary.
Since the recommendations of that Committee could be so sponsored as to command a majority in both Houses, and since "change of rights" could well mean "loss of rights", it could be a "blank cheque". Those of you who play bridge—and Mr. Macleod, I believe, is a master—will no doubt recognise a squeeze play. It is an effective instrument when your hand is not particularly

427
strong. Rightly or wrongly, it may be resented by those who are squeezed.
I should like to make three observations, two on the substance of the Motion, and one general. If one reads carefully the wording of the Motion as it appears on the Order Paper with particular reference to "or" and "and", there appears to be some subtlety in the word "or" at the beginning of line 5. What, in my opinion, is required is that a Peer should receive the normal franchise of an adult now. If an M.P. can sit and vote, why not a Peer? On money matters he is virtually disenfranchised. In this context, it seems to me quite irrelevant in which House he sits; even a Peer cannot be in two places at the same time. If, as I suspect, the word "or" at the beginning of line 5 is alternative, then I consider that is unfair.
My second point, my Lords, is an analogous one. The Peeresses in their own right are once more to be considered. They were considered at the time of the second Life Peerages Bill, when some of the noble Ladies were entered. But, once more, nothing happened. I was among those who thought that the Peeresses in their own right were most shabbily treated at that time. If there really was a difficulty over their title, or over the extension of the hereditary principle, they could, I should have thought, so easily have been summoned as Life Peeresses. If we are determined to do what we think is right, then I think we should go on strike until justice is done. At least this time we should fight for the noble Ladies.
The last point I have to make is a general one. With terms of reference thus drawn, the Committee can range far and wide. Clearly, they will discuss Representative Peers, and I trust that they will also consider the separation of the right to speak and vote from the right to speak only. The longer one sits in your Lordships' House, the more one realises the standard and quality of the debates. Vitality of debate depends on variety of viewpoint. The real failing in your Lordships' House (if such there is) is that there are too many potential Conservative votes. Government, Opposition and Liberal Peers may be nicely labelled, and generally may be expected
428
to do as they are asked. Peers who sit regularly on these Benches are, by definition, not so amenable; and they thereby perform a certain service, especially as in another place independence is a creed unknown.
The independent Peers and the vitality of debate would, I feel, suffer by an application of a purely representative principle. But the greatest sufferers of all will be those who, for no fault of their own, cannot attend regularly, although their knowledge of their own subject may be considerable and up to date. While some might view the loss of vote with equanimity, they would, I feel, consider that loss a reasonable compromise if the right and privilege to attend and speak were preserved. I trust, my Lords, that due consideration will be given to this in the deliberations of the Committee; if not, for many it might be: "Speak now, or forever hold your peace."
5.55 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, in rising to support this Motion, which has been moved by the most brilliant speech that I have ever heard, either here or anywhere else, I have three points to make. They are not particularly novel—indeed, they are less novel now than they were when I drafted these notes—but they are made by a Peer who, as a Life Peer, is not intimately concerned with one important aspect of the matter, and is consequently in that measure disinterested.
But more than that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said when he spoke (though, unlike him, I never had any political aspirations or ambitions, and therefore came to this place nearly four years ago with a fairly open mind), I have had the inclination and the opportunity to study Parliament from within with wide-open eyes. I find myself, in consequence, in a position to take a view of the situation from a rather independent angle; and in this respect I agree with Lord Stonham—and I thank him for the "lead in", as it were, that he has given me in several respects. I greatly enjoyed his references to the article in Time and Tide, which I also enjoyed. And might I ask him to glance at it again, through the eyes, so to speak, of a Scotsman, with a 400-mile overnight journey each way when he comes to attend?

429
With regard to my three points, my Lords, the first is that I regard the provisions of the Act of Union between Scotland and England (this has been mentioned by several noble Lords), so far as they cover Representative Peers, to be unfair, especially after the two and a half centuries that have gone by. I refer, of course, to the fact that Scottish Peers who are not elected as Representative Peers are not eligible either to vote or to stand for Parliament. I would not go so far as some noble Lords have gone in saying that the Scottish Peers are worse off than the Irish Peers, because they do have representation in terms of sixteen of their number. On the other hand, when noble Lords refer to the question of Peeresses in their own rights, they are treading on delicate ground when it comes to Scottish Peeresses, who might then have to face some sort of election at the beginning of each Parliament. I believe that any legislation arising from the proceedings of the proposed Select Committee should put this position right, certainly as regards the disenfranchisement of Scottish Peers who are not elected as Representative Peers.
My second point, my Lords, concerns the hereditary principle. I came to your Lordships' House inclined to the view that heredity, as a stepping-stone to Parliament, was an anachronism. Speaking, like the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, with the feeling that I can possibly say things which other people who are not Life Peers cannot say, I do not mind saying that it did not take me long to revise that view. I am now persuaded that Parliament should do nothing to interfere with the hereditary process. I say this because, whatever the impact of the Life Peerages Act has been, I do not see how it can ever introduce Peers who are not above middle age. In this view perhaps the noble Lord will agree with me, if he does not agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who, I think, used the word "retired".
In my view, my Lords, the younger Members of this House contribute very much more to its proceedings than Parliament or the people appreciate. I do not refer to words alone, but in vigour, if that is the right word. I think this point was also made by the noble Mar-
430
quess. It does not make sense, to my mind, to belittle the fact of heredity. It applies to a noble Lord exactly in the same way as to a commoner. Pride, or the reverse, in one's forbears, whether as encouragement or warning, permeates, or should permeate, every walk of life. As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, this is no snobbery. That a few healthy and well-educated young men, some of them with independent means—and all who attend here willing and able to take part in the proceedings of this House—instinct with a tradition of public service, and probably brought up in an atmosphere of public duty, can take part in the affairs of State, as they do here, is something which Parliament should not lightly cast aside. It is curious to me that these views, reached through a short period of a life peerage, as it were, should accord so closely with that of the noble Marquess, the scion of an ancient house.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me for not being present when he began to speak. He talks of a few well-educated hereditary gentlemen. But in fact there are more than 700 of these hereditary gentlemen, the vast majority of them Conservatives. Can he justify that as a feature of a democratic constitution?
LORD FERRIER: Yes, my Lords, what I meant was that many of these young noblemen long to attend this House, but they are prevented from doing so by the fact that they have to earn their own living or are otherwise engaged. Therefore, only a few of those who are available can appear here and take a full part in the work of the House. But they are few—that is my point. I hope that I have made that clear.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Lord has certainly been most courteous in dealing with my interruption at all.
LORD FERRIER: I have made myself clear, I hope. Without linking what I have said with what some other noble Lords have said—namely, that it is a pity that more do not take part in our proceedings—the fact is that more cannot.

431
I do not propose to enter into the question of remuneration, which is very difficult. But this reference to reaching this House by virtue of an hereditary system brings me to my third point—namely, that this principle brings to your Lordships' House young men who have not served an apprenticeship in another place. With all due respect to that place, and accepting its paramount authority in the conduct of the nation's affairs, my studies (and they included the treatment recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham: I did not take such a heavy dose, but I spent many a weary hour in the Peers' Gallery when I first came to Parliament) do not convince me that responsibility for and dependence on a constituency, with all the inhibitions and possible exhibitionism this entails, is necessarily to the advantage of the State. Is it possible that a sense of looking over one's shoulder sometimes clings to people who are skilled in the transactions of another place? Such disadvantages, of course, are mitigated by a revisory Chamber, such as your Lordships' House as at present constituted. I would go further and suggest that respect for Parliament in the eyes of the people would suffer if ripe years or experience in the lower House were to be regarded as essential prerequisites for membership of the Second Chamber.
Before I close, may I add that my mind goes again to the curious similarity between some of what I have said and what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said. I should like to express my full agreement with him, again as a Life Peer, in his emphasis that it is this House, its prestige, its authority and its effectiveness (I think those were his words), not the need of individuals, which we must hold first in our consideration. I am in favour of the Resolution in the circumstances, but, subject to what I have said about Scottish Peers, I should be happy at the moment if the outcome were that matters are left as they are.
6.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords,s may I make the briefest of interventions? I have been away for much of the afternoon, part of it sitting on a Select Committee, and maybe the two
432
points I have to make have already been made. In fact, I am fairly sure that they have been, but I think that they are important and perhaps your Lordships will bear with me if I make them again briefly. The first concerns attendance in your Lordships' House. I think that I am right in saying that the average number of Peers sitting on any one day is about 140—more than I thought—but the number of Peers entitled to sit is 918. In other words, the average daily attendance is one-eighth of the membership. I find this quite wrong. I am not suggesting, of course, that every Peer should attend every day. There would not be room and in the case of quite a number of them there are excellent reasons for staying away. They may be ill or old or abroad or working a full week in the Provinces.
However, the rest of those who never or rarely attend—and I am afraid they are mostly on our side—make a complete mockery of the House. They let down the side. They destroy whatever small justification there is for an hereditary system, and continue to call themselves Lords. I would ask those professional absentees this question: if there were a rule that you are not allowed to keep your title unless you attend the House, say, twice a month, is it just possible you might come?
My other point, which I know has been made by the noble Marquess and by my noble friend, concerns the average age of regular attenders. As has been said, this is an old House. It must of necessity be an old House, for the hereditary system means waiting until papa dies and in these days papa takes an unconscionable time to die. Instead of swilling port, he swallows antibiotics. One of my chief pleasures in coming here is that I am made to feel so young. Old as I am, by contrast with most noble Lords I am a mere stripling, a boy. There are not so many faces under 40 in your Lordships' House. I find this a great pity. Age may mean wisdom, but youth means enthusiasm and, as my noble friend said, vigour—and that is what I think this House lacks.
It so happens, however, that through the tragedy of war there are quite a few Peers who have had a premature succession. Of course, many of them come and at this moment I can think of three

433
hereditary Peers in their early twenties who might, with profit to us and to themselves, come here to speak from time to time. All three happen to be at Oxford and all three happen to be quite outstanding young men, by any standards. I hope the noble Lords concerned—the noble Marquess, Lord Dufferin and Ava, my kinsman, Lord Gowrie and Lord Sudeley—will not think me presumptuous if I suggest that they might join our deliberations, and that at an early date. Knowing your Lordships' House, I am sure that they would be warmly received. We need young men to tell us what is going on. With regard to the greater issues, which sooner or later have to be discussed, I am not going to hazard a view. Frankly, I am not experienced enough and do not know where the answer lies. I am going to say, however, quite simply, that whatever is done finally, I hone the heart will not he ripped out of this most anomalous, most inconsequent, most indefensible and most democratic of assemblies.
6.10 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, the Motion which has been so very ably moved by my noble Leader Lord Hailsham to-day will he seen in its importance not only in the Houses of Parliament but in the country at large. There have been a great many scurrilous comments made about the House of Lords by certain journalists in such magazines as Time and Tide, who, one presumes, make a solitary trip to your Lordships' House and then come forward with some fantastic account of it. Much has been said to-day about the importance of youth in your Lordships' House, and in studying the list of speakers in the debate I have come to the conclusion that I am the youngest Member of the House taking part. I hope it will not be considered vain of me to say that, in my belief, the future of this House is going to depend largely on the contributions of the younger Members of it.
I have always been unconvinced by the argument that the younger people in this country care little or nothing about the House of Lords. I have in a purely non-Party spirit addressed young members of my own Party and other organisations on the House of Lords, and I have
434
been impressed by the number of questions put to me about both the constitution and the procedure of this House. Therefore, on this ground alone I think the future of this House as an administrative body is of great importance. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in a most admirable speech, dwelt at some length on the rôle of young people in this House, and he mentioned the financial allowances. I do not think this would come within the terms of preference of this particular Committee, but I agree that the amount that is paid is the deterrent to attendance by a great many young Peers. For my own part, my place of business gives me very generous time off to attend here, but inevitably and understandably at some financial loss.
I do not think that we should have a salaried House of Lords, except for Ministers. I think that would be wrong, because one of the most important functions of this House, as I understand it, is that it can, and frequently does, discuss a matter of importance in a non-Party spirit. In the House of Commons the Whips are used with some severity, and I do not dispute the justification of that. In these days, especially, a Member of the House of Commons has to pay great attention to the views of his or her constituents, whether they be sound views or otherwise. In this House we do not have constituents whose views we have to heed and, therefore, I think it is fair to say that we can interpret what is being thought by the country at large in a much more candid manner. I must confess, for my part, that I am sorry I have not had the opportunity of fighting a Parliamentary seat. Whether I had won or lost is of little importance; I should have liked to have the experience.
I regard it as an honour to be an active Member of this House. But I hope that the Select Committee will pay particular attention to the relationship between the Peerage and the House of Commons. I do not think that in the country at large any proposal would be countenanced for a kind of shuttle service to be run between seats in this House and in another place. If a Peer is allowed to fight a seat in the House of Commons and he loses that seat, then in my view, he should not be allowed, except possibly in exceptional circumstances, to revert to this House. On the

435
other hand, I do not think it is right that the successor of a Peer should be prevented from taking a seat in this House. I think it is wrong that, just because one member of the family may wish either not to take his seat here or to remain in another place, his heir should be prevented from taking his seat here. There is a certain amount of feeling in the country that renunciation should be for all time and should apply to one's heirs as well, but I think that would be wrong.
I should like to say a word or two on the question of hereditary Peers. As has been said, there are several hundred of these Peers and, for a number of reasons, some of them attend only infrequently. It might be possible for the Select Committee to look into the question of a quota of attendances of Peers, and noble Lords who do not fulfil the quota could be prevented from attending. I agree whole-heartedly with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that the hereditary Peers have a vital role to play in this House. Not only do they in many cases maintain a tradition of service, but the younger ones, particularly, can gain much experience. We can gain experience from listening to our elder statesmen on all sides of the House, because possibly one day we may be elder statesmen ourselves. I think this has been a valuable debate, and I hope that the Select Committee will pay particular attention to the question of getting the younger element to attend more frequently because, as I said earlier, the future of this very valuable House depends so much on the contributions from all its Members, and very much, too, on those from its younger Members.
6.20 p.m.
LORD SOM̃ERS: My Lords, one cannot speak in a debate at this point without repeating a good deal that has already been said. I therefore hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I say several things that have been said already. and said probably a good deal more ably by former speakers. I think the first point we must consider is whether or not a two-Chamber Parliament is desirable. When I say, "we must consider", I meant the Joint Committee, of which I am entirely in favour.
436
I rather gathered from the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition that he did not think that this was altogether necessary, but I am afraid I cannot agree with him. I feel that any legislation which is passed by a single Chamber lacks a certain amount by not having been looked through by an entirely unbiased and independent body.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. We are in the recollection of the House, and I do not think my noble Leader said that he was in favour of single Chamber government. I should be much surprised if he intended to create that impression.
LORD SOM̃ERS: I do not think he actually said he was in favour of it, but he quoted an example where it worked very efficiently.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think my noble friend was speaking of one Chamber government in New Zealand, in regard to the support of the Monarchy; the fact that there was no hereditary system or Second Chamber in New Zealand did not stop them giving their very loyal support to the Monarchy.
LORD SOM̃ERS: Naturally, I entirely agree with the noble Viscount there. I none the less feel that a Second Chamber is very desirable. I also agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, when he said that a Second Chamber should not be a rival to the first. I feel that it should have greater power than it has at present, but power of a different kind. The two Houses should not be rivals at all; their functions should be entirely different. But if the Second Chamber is to be efficient, I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, yesterday [col. 351]:
" I think it is very important, if this House is to be continued, preserved, that it should have the opportunity of doing its job properly. If this House is not in a position to do its job, then let it be abolished."
He said later on [col. 352]:
" … I am a great admirer of this House and am very keen that we should do our job in the most effective way …"
I could not agree more wholeheartedly than I do with those words.
If that is to be the case, we must examine the House, see what its constitution is, and see whether or not it

437
really needs reforming. There are three main ways of making a Second Chamber: first, by an elected membership; secondly, by an appointed membership, and thirdly, by the way we have at the moment, chiefly an hereditary membership. To have an elected membership would merely be to make this House a rival or duplicate—a lesser duplicate, perhaps—of another place, which would be entirely undesirable. If we are to have an appointed membership the problem arises: appointed by whom? By the Government of the day? If so shall we then get the really unbiased membership which is essential for the nature of this House? I very much doubt it. I am convinced, like the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that the hereditary system really works, but, unlike him, I do not think it is quite so illogical as it appears on the surface. After all, it is not unusual for people in all professions to have gained a great deal from their fathers' having been in the same profession, and their having been interested in it and instructed in it from their boyhood. It certainly has proved so in my own profession, and I am sure it has in many others.
Therefore, I think the hereditary principle, illogical though at first glance it may seem, has really a great deal to be said for it. For one thing, the heir to a title has the privilege of coming here and sitting on the steps of the Throne and listening to debates. He becomes familiar with the procedure of the House. Incidentally, if he wishes he can also stand as a Member of another place and gain political experience there, as many of your Lordships have done. Therefore I think that the hereditary principle is not to be scoffed at, but is to be defended. I am by no means saying that this House has not gained a great deal since the introduction of Life Peers in 1958. I have listened to some extremely interesting and brilliant speeches, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who I see is sitting opposite, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. I think they are great additions to this House. May I say also that, although I was slightly doubtful about the introduction of Life Peeresses, my doubts were within a few weeks swept away completely. We heard only last week an extremely brilliant and convincing
438
speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough. As to Peeresses in their own right, I think this matter should be given due consideration.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Is the noble Lord under the impression that Lord Stonham is an hereditary Peer?
LORD SOM̃ERS: No, I was not.
LORD AIREDALE: The noble Lord referred to Lady Swanborough, not Lord Stonham.
LORD SOM̃ERS: I am referring to Peeresses in their own right. After all, we already have one in this House, and I think all your Lordships would agree that this House has been greatly enriched by her presence. She sits as a Life Peeress, of course. I think that as we retain the hereditary system that can be proved. Since the Life Peerages Act was introduced in 1958, 35 Life Peers, including the 6 Baronesses, and 33 hereditary peerages have been created, so I do not think any shadow has been case on the hereditary system. Since we have abolished the sex bar and still retain the hereditary system, I cannot see any logical reason why Peeresses in their own right should not sit in your Lordships' House.
We come now to the question of the right of Peers to surrender their peerages. I agree with everything that has been said by other noble Lords on the question of surrender for life or permanently. It certainly should be for life only; but I think it should be for life and not for a shorter period. I do not think that any man should have the right to switch from one House to another and sit in whichever one he chooses. It is easy to imagine the case of a man standing for a by-election, perhaps losing it and, because he could not get into the other place, coming back and resuming his seat here. I think that would be all wrong. It should be for life, but I do not think it should be for longer, because, after all, one's heirs have to be considered and one must remember that one's heirs are not always one's sons. One's heirs may be, as in my case, a distant cousin. I should have to get his permission and the permission of his sons before I renounced my peerage—which, incidentally, I have no intention of doing—and therefore it would make it a very complicated procedure.

439
In any case, I wonder really whether the surrender of a peerage should be allowed. Other noble Lords have mentioned the fact that if this House is to be an efficient House of Parliament, it should have equal attraction and an equal status, if a different status, with the other place. I cannot see why equality of opportunity should not exist in this House as much as in the other place, and this could be enlarged if we were to have more Ministers in this House. That would be an extremely esirable thing, because when one has the responsibility of a Ministry on one's shoulders, one does not want to be shackled by the necessity of having periodically to visit one's constituency, which may be in a distant part of the country. A Minister has all that he can be expected to do in his work at the Ministry. So I should say that the ideal place for Ministers, with the exception, possibly, of the Prime Minister, is in this House rather than in the other place.
There was a good deal of outcry at the time when my noble friend the Foreign Secretary was appointed, but I think there is no single one of your Lordships who would deny that he has lived that down to the greatest degree. He has proved, as was said by another Member of your Lordships' House, that we have never had a better Foreign Secretary, and I heartily concur with that statement. But he could not give the time to his task and get through the immense amount of work that he does if he had to consider a constituency at the same time, and also had to answer the innumerable questions during Question Time in the other place. I may say that I, too, have followed Lord Stonham's advice and have sat in the Peers' Gallery in the other place, and it has not inspired me with any desire to go there. I am sorry for any member of the Government who has to face the barrage of sometimes really rather—to put it mildly—not very intelligent questions which are fired at him.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord and ask him if it is in order, quite apart from being good taste, to criticise the other place?
LORD SOM̃ERS: I was not criticising the other place at all. Possibly I was criticising some Members of it, whom
440
I do not even know by name, but in any case merely hypothetically. I should not dream of criticising the other place. I think it is of the greatest possible value.
I think, then, that we really come to the conclusion that what this House wants is strengthening rather than weakening, but very much on the lines which it is at present. I believe that the hereditary system works but that we can strengthen it by more Life Peers. I think it certainly is a pity that the Opposition Benches have not been strengthened by the addition of more Life Peers. I consider also that it is important that the anomalies between the Scottish Peers who are not Representatives, and the Irish Peers, should be cleared up.
I hope that the Select Committee will realise that this House is of very great value. I may say that when I first arrived here nine years ago I had little knowledge indeed of what went on, but I was tremendously impressed; and during my time here I have heard so many brilliant speeches and met so many fascinatingly interesting people in all walks of life, such as one could never have the opportunity of meeting outside this House, that I am convinced that it is of the greatest value.
6.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I am very late in the batting order, but it is my fault because I am a surprise bat. Fortunately, I was always a very bad bat, so I shall be out extremely quickly. The more I have heard in this debate the more convinced I am that it is a great pity we did not have life peerages earlier. I am sure that the late Lord Stansgate, a most loved Member of this House, if he had been able to accept a life peerage, would have been a far happier person. It has always seemed rather inane to me that some individuals whose professed principles are against the hereditary system have had, out of a sense of duty to the nation, to accept hereditary peerages. They have had no option, of course; but now, my Lords, owing to the creation of life peerages that situation has been rectified. I should like here to pay a tribute to the Life Peers; I think they have been a great success. It has been a really good move.

441
It is rather confusing to decide how wide or how narrow are the terms of reference of this Joint Committee to be appointed, if this House agrees, as presumably it will. Of course the chief thing is to be the renunciation. If we are going to have renunciation of a peerage, of course that is going to affect the whole composition of this House. One could, if one had the time, range very far and wide on this question. As I promised your Lordships that I shall soon be out, I will forbear to do that; but it is an extremely tempting subject to speak on, because it is a subject in which I have always been interested.
Of one thing I am quite sure: that if this House ever became truly democratic—and by democratic I mean dependent on the popular vote—there would be no point in having it. Because the object of this House, as I see it, is to ensure that the nation, the public, do not get just that little bit of extra rope by which they could hang themselves. We have instances yin history where unbridled political freedom generally ends in the destruction of that freedom. I hope that this House will always retain its independent character, because I think it is extremely important for the Constitution.
Of course, logically a King is able to abdicate; therefore presumably a Peer ought to be able to abdicate for his life. But when a King abdicates he must have very good reasons. Though I am in favour of renunciation for life, I think that a Peer, before he renounces his peerage for life, ought to go before a very high-powered committee of Law Lords and Privy Counsellors. If a Peer is able to say "I opt out", that will, I think, lead to a considerable number of abuses. I am quite against "scrubbing out" a peerage, extinction, because, of course, there may be a Peer who, out of spite perhaps to his heir, a cousin, will just "scrub out" the peerage. I think that cannot be allowed. If you are going to argue on grounds of logic (always a dangerous thing in politics), a Prime Minister, when he retires, is made an Earl, if he wishes it—and I think with the exception of Sir Winston Churchill most Prime Ministers have accepted that honour—and it does seem extraordinary that, by his so doing, his son and grandson and all his heirs are
442
practically for ever debarred from being Prime Minister or Chancellor of the Exchequer. Though I quite agree they are not debarred by the Constitution, they are debarred in practice.
As several noble Lords have said, it would be very unfair if a Peer was able to scuttle in and out of this House and into another House. If you were to have renunciation for life, that ought, of course, to apply to a Peer whether he is in this House or has just inherited a peerage and has not accepted a Writ of Summons. It has to be the same rule for all Peers. I do see a danger here—I think the noble Marquess mentioned it: that of course in time renunciation is bound to weaken the calibre of the hereditary element in this House. I personally cannot see it weakening the House immediately, because after Orpington I can hardly see a large number of Tory Peers rushing to stand as candidates, and even after Stockton the same will probably apply to noble Lords on the Liberal Benches opposite. But in time it is bound to weaken the hereditary element as regards young Peers. How are you going to make up that weakness? You cannot very well make it up with Life Peers, because, as we have heard, all Life Peers have at least half of their careers behind them. It would be very difficult to find Life Peers of 25 or 30 years of age. I have heard people suggest all sorts of solutions. For instance, some defeated Parliamentary candidates, drawn from all Parties, young candidates, in proportion to the state of their Parties at the General Election could be made Members of this House for the life of the Parliament. But of course the constitutional difficulties in that idea are immense, and I should imagine that it is quite impracticable. I cannot answer that one; but of course, I am not supposed to do so—that is up to the Committee.
Before I conclude, I should like to back up my noble friend Lord Rathcavan in his remarks on Irish Peers. It is quite extraordinary that Irish Peers can stand for election to another place, for English constituencies, but cannot stand for election there for Northern Ireland constituencies. That seems really odd. I should like to support the noble Lord's suggestion that a small number of Northern Irish Peers should be elected

443
by their own Peers for membership of this House, as is done by Scottish Peers.
As one of the Members of this House who voted against the admission of Life Peeresses, I should like to say that, having had the privilege of being in the House with Life Peeresses and of hearing the contributions that they have made to our deliberations, I feel that it is an absolute and absurd anomaly not to have in this House hereditary Peeresses in their own right. After all, they are only few in number—you can count them on your hand. It seems rather an injustice that they should be excluded. Probably there is some legal reason which can be argued against their admittance, but from the fair play point of view the situation is absurd. I hope, too, that Scottish Peers who are not elected to this House by their own Peers will be allowed to stand for another place. Obviously, it is a great injustice that they cannot do so.
I also think that all Peers ought to be allowed to vote if they are not Members of this House. They can hardly expect to vote if they are Members of this House, because presumably they are permanent Members of Parliament. But if at any time this House, by its own Members, is to elect its own Members, I hope that all Peers (perhaps this is not practical, but I do not see why it should not be so) who are Members of this House, Peers of England, the United Kingdom and Great Brtain, will be able to come here and take part in debates, although not voting. I think that the average Peer is not so much worried about voting; but we have so many experts in this House who come here only occasionally, that I think it would be a great pity if they were debarred from taking part.
I should like to make a plea that as the result of their deliberations the Committee will not suggest that this House should be turned into an entirely professional place, because politics to-day appear to be becoming more and more of a rat-race and a matter of place-seeking. I think that this House has a great contribution to make in its independent character. We are always being told that it is a highly illogical House. It probably is. But, after all, our electoral system is highly illogical, and
444
there are a great many things in politics that are highly illogical. And, of course, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has said, it does work. Therefore, I support this Motion, and I wish the Joint Select Committee every success in their deliberations.
6.56 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, so many friendly things have been said about Life Peers that I should like to reciprocate and say to some of your hereditary Lordships that you do all right, too. I would address this remark particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Som̃ers, who was kind enough to pick on some of us. I intervene only briefly to say that I find the existence of the House of Lords wholly indefensible; but then so, in logic, do I find the democratic system. The great justification for the House of Lords is the same as the justification for having the deterrent, the atom bomb. It is simply that we have it and, since we have got it, we may as well make the best of it, especially when we consider what might be the alternative. I should be appalled to think of somebody really trying to produce a powerful, logical and effective Second Chamber. The case for a Second Chamber is a doubtful one in theory, but in practice I think, certainly in this country and in most democratic nations, it seems to be a desirable and useful thing. The fact that ours is an hereditary one is a rather peculiar state of affairs, all the more so since it is rather a nouveau hereditary one. After all, 90 per cent. of all peerages have been created since the beginning of the nineteenth century. But its great merit is that it does work in a friendly and, on the whole, rather modest way.
One or two unkind things have been said about another place. Those of us who have been there—I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will feel the same—acquire a tremendous affection for it. When I lost my seat in the House of Commons, one of the few matters about which I dreamed was that I was back there. Then, one day my dream brought me back, not into the House of Commons but into the House of Lords. It was most strange; it was like moving into a sort of parallel existence. In fact, I made my maiden speech as a Peer from the same Bench as I did when I was in the Commons and

445
the Commons were here. I regret to say that all your Lordships' privileges of which I once disapproved the most, I found I enjoyed the most. I found also that the relative lack of power and the overwhelming Tory domination of this House led to results of a most unexpected kind. It was a fact that, on many occasions, on matters which were of no primary Party political interest, one could put on foot debates which would never take place in another place—matters in which occasionally we have been able to influence that most "uninfluenceable" of institutions, namely, Governments.
I hope that, seeing that we have this indefensible system, we shall not try to tamper with it too much, but make the minimum changes that are necessary to undo what I think is an injustice—namely, the inability of those hereditary Peers who wish to remain in another place to do so. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forbes: I should relate it merely to that particular Peer, and would make it for life. If in due course he wants to come here, we can always give him a life peerage—that would seem a simple solution—but he would have to earn it.
I should be very sorry to see English Peers electing their representatives here. It would seem to me that that would be delivering the whole system into the hands of the Party machines. There would be the usual balancing of powers and deals of the kind that go on between Whips—and, admirable and honourable men though Whips are, they have a different job to do front those of us who are not Whips.
I hope, therefore, that when the Committee report they will report in a way that will allow Mr. Wedgwood Benn, if he wishes, to remain in another place. I am doubtful whether I want to see the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, go. He used to make the Benches shake in the House of Commons, arid I think the discipline of the House of Lords has been rather good for him. It may be he would do better if he went back there, but I should be sorry to see him go. If a change is to be made, I think it must be made for the benefit of those who at the moment have lost the opportunity, and would
446
give the right to the noble and learned Viscount to go elsewhere.
That is all I have to say. It is quite clear, I think, that we shall support this Motion, and I hope that the Committee will report as most of us wish it to do, but that it will keep its recommendations for change to an absolute minimum.
7.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I apologise if I repeat any earlier arguments, but I have been unable to attend the whole debate. I hope that I shall compensate for it by being very brief. As a younger hereditary Member of this House, I should like to stress again, at this late stage, the position of the younger members. It would seem that the most vital decision to be taken by the Select Committee when considering the reform of the House is in regard to its composition. Hereditary Peers at present fill the useful function in the Second Chamber of Parliament of being inert, unbiased and unpaid—a unique position, and I defy anyone to replace this body on similar terms. However, this situation is not exactly attractive to any young, politically ambitious hereditary Peer, and it cannot be of great benefit to the country. It would be very difficult to find young, able Members who would be willing to sit in the House of Lords on such terms.
I would suggest, my Lords, that should hereditary Peers remain as Members after the reform of the House, they should do so willingly. Further, that should they wish to be allowed to submit themselves for membership of the House of Commons, they should be allowed to do so. As tenants of their respective titles, these Peers should not be allowed to renounce for ever their family title, but only during their lifetime. I am sure that most noble Lords here will agree with that.
Finally, I should like to support the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when he stated that a useful Second Chamber must be both youthful and wise. Some payments must be introduced to active serving Members of the future House of Lords, and with this injection I trust that this House will continue to fulfil the vital rôle which it has held in the past with such distinction. I support the Motion.
7.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and so many other speakers who represent the younger elements in this House. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, has temporarily left us, but he was looking very hard at me when he said that he found it very depressing because he could hardly see anybody who had ever been young, or anybody under forty—or words to that effect. I do not know what the age of the noble Earl is—he certainly looks under forty, but I very much doubt whether he is. I came here when I was under forty; delivered, so to speak, to your Lordships by the all too-successful tactics of the noble Viscount opposite. I suppose that I was one of the youngest people to be made a Peer for many years. Looking rather hastily through the lists I could not find anyone who had been made a Peer younger Oran I since the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook—I may be mistaken: I was 39 and I think he was 37. However, there may be others who have escaped me. I say this to show the younger Peers that I, too, have lived in Arcadia; I know what it is to be a younger Peer looking round at all the older Peers.
In those days no one paid any tribute to youth. This is quite a new thing. I do not know what it portends. It is rather sinister, I think. When I first arrived Peers used to boast of their age—upwards, so to speak. Now, the argument is all the other way. At least one noble Lord said that he thought he was the youngest Peer, but other Peers have leapt into the fray to prove that they are even younger. No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is younger. I thought that unless I got to my feet there might be no end to it, and that younger and yet younger Peers would decide to impose themselves on the House. All this accent on youth is very welcome. Youth must be served, of course. But I hope the noble Earl, Lord Arran, will not go past a certain point and offer congratulations to noble Lords upon maiden speeches which they have yet to deliver! I think it is going a bit far, in the case of noble Lords who have not yet shown themselves here, to say that their contributions have been very valuable; that they have been listened to with interest, and that
448
it is much appreciated they have been able to tear themselves away from other duties to instruct your revered Lordships. That is all very agreeable, though I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, is not here.
My Lords, the debate has ranged wider than was to be expected from the rather modest Motion on the Paper. It was initiated by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in a speech which was admired by all. I am sure that it will always be remembered as one of the finest speeches delivered in this House for a long time. My noble Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, followed with an authoritative statement of our point of view. I have no doubt that the Committee will interpret their terms of reference in the way they think right, but, if I may repeat the opinion of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, it was certainly not in the minds of the Leaders of our own Party that this inquiry was going to involve a fundamental reconsideration of the whole structure of the House of Lords. I think I must say that at this point. I will not pursue some of the particular topics that came up, though I should have liked to say something about the Irish Peers. I am an Irish Peer. I have inherited an English title, and I have also been given an English title. So I suppose that I can do battle on most of the relevant fronts.
I was interested to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, about the great work done by his Parliamentary Private Secretary. I was not sure whether or not he was referring to the noble Earl, Lord Winterton.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: No; I had another one.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Earl obviously specialised in Irish Peers.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I am half Irish myself.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: It does him great credit that he should have been so wisely selective. There have been other Irish Peers who have not been allowed to come and sit here. Among them was Lord Dunsany. Lord Hailsham talked about floating kidneys. If we had had Lord Dunsany among us he would have floated to some purpose! I

449
regret that that was not possible. I am sure their problems will be given very careful consideration.
I do not want to say much about the, horrors of those whose whole Parliamentary life has been confined to the House of Lords. I know no other Parliamentary existence except the one that has fallen to my lot here, but I do resist the suggestion that nobody would wish to leave this House except in the hope of becoming Prime Minister. That was a suggestion that fell from somebody, and I do resist it. When, all is said and done, we here are part-time politicians. That is surely the obvious point. That is the strength of the House: that we have so many occupations which involve us in the affairs of the nation in so many different ways, and we come here and pool our knowledge. Leaving out the Ministers, and the top leaders on this side, participation in the affairs of this House is not the primary occupation of most of those who contribute to it. That, I think, is our strength. But it does, of course, distinguish us from the House of Commons.
I can well understand the attitude of somebody who feels that his main life's vocation lies in active politics. I could well understand that such a man, finding himself here, might decide to offer himself, if he were allowed, for election to the House of Commons. I feel that one should not disparage any noble Lord who decided that his duty carried him in that direction, although in this House it is much more popular to say that this is the most wonderful place in the world, and that the only people nearly as marvellous as the hereditary Peers are the Life Peers. That has been said, in one way or another, by many noble Lords this afternoon.
My Lords, this House is a peculiar institution. There was some doubt in one of our earlier debates as to whether the Nigerian House of Notables, or whatever it might be called, was simply your Lordships' House on its hereditary basis. I believe that that idea was disposed of, so I take it that we are the only Chamber in the world where the hereditary element is, in the last resort, dominant. It is true that in most of the debates the leading parts are not taken by the hereditary Peers, although there are, of course, some hereditary Peers,
450
like the noble Viscount opposite, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Earl, Lord Home, who are at the very summit of our life. But, by and large, most of the speaking on the biggest occasions during my time here has been done by those who have been created, which does not in any way under-value the contributions of the hereditary Peers, the people who have inherited peerages.
Perhaps what I am saying is rather stale, or will be stale to old battlers in this controversy, but I would respectfully say to some of the younger Peers, who have not so much political background, that they are making a great mistake if they suppose that in any circumstances the radical half of England would ever accept the hereditary basis of this House as satisfactory. I am now speaking as an individual whose views may or may not be of interest; but that fact, I think, must be recognised.
I would think (though I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, was a little ambiguous on the point), as I have understood the views of the Liberal Party, as expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—which I thought were the views held by the noble Lord, Lord Rea—the Liberal Party was also opposed to the hereditary element in the House having any power to exercise its dominant influence. If one is asked, therefore, why in England we cannot agree, and why we cannot even make any headway with any fundamental plans for reform, the answer lies simply there: that one half of the country certainly must reject any hereditary element of the kind that we see at present. Of the other half, it is not for me to speak. It may be that the Conservatives as a whole feel that there would be some grave dereliction of duty if they abandoned altogether the hereditary principle. But, as I say, it is not for me to try to offer views on their behalf. But here is a total clash of opinion in the country, as to whether hereditary Peers as such, simply through the fact of their heredity, should have any right to vote at all in a House of Parliament in a democratic age.
LORD REA: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but let me make my position quite clear. I did quote from the third

451
conclusion of this Conference, which says that the right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a right and qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber. I have given my colours to that.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I have followed the noble Lord, and I was able to do so because he read things which were printed some years ago, and which I have in front of me. So I was not under any great disadvantage while I was following his remarks. The noble Lord went on to say that he did not want to get rid of the hereditary element altogether, because of the position of the younger Peers. That is what I understood him to say, but if I misunderstood him, then of course I withdraw.
Long REA: My Lords, I said that I thought we should consider some new system before abolishing the old one. But I still maintain that heredity is not in itself a sufficient right to vote and sit in this House.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, in that harmless form I think anyone will accept the proposition. I think that few of us would want to abolish the existing system before considering a new one. So I think I am entirely with the noble Lord.
It seems to me that there is here, on the face of it, a total conflict which leaves us where we are, with a Chamber which is, in the last resort, dominated by the hereditary Peers. There are over 900 Peers, as we have heard, and I think about 200 of those are first creations. So that in the last resort the Conservative leaders—that is how it happens to be, but I am taking my stand on principle that it does happen to be so—can obtain any majority they require on an important matter. To take only one example, the Bill dealing with the abolition of capital punishment was a matter where the Parties were not entirely arrayed against each other. There the Conservative leaders took a certain view and, in the result, there were many speeches in that two-day debate which in numbers, and I should have thought in quality, were very well
452
balanced. When it came to the vote, of course, the supporters of the abolition of capital punishment were simply swept away. And so it always is, when it comes to the point.
One noble Lord said earlier that in this House one does not need to bother too much about the vote. If he had been voted down for fifteen years as I have been, he would bother more about the vote than if he was able to look at it, so to speak, from the other end of the barrel. I think one must therefore accept the fact that no Labour person in this House, whether or not he likes this House and thinks it is the finest debating Chamber in the world, could ever accept the view that the vote did not matter, whether the Labour Party was in Government or Opposition.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question about the capital punishment debate? He referred to the abolition of capital punishment, I thought, as the official policy of the Labour Party. But it was not the official policy of the Labour Party; it was never backed by the Labour Party of the day, so far as I know. It was put in as an Amendment from the Back Benches of the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I remember the circumstances very well. I take leave to doubt whether I said it, but I can easily see in Hansard. But if I said that it was the official policy of the Labour Party, it was a slip of the tongue.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord quoted it as an example of where the Conservative view predominated over the Labour view; but it was, in fact, a Division in which, so far as I remember, the Labour Party never expressed an official view on the subject.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if I said that it was the official policy of the Labour Party, I should not have said what I did not mean to say, and what I know in fact to be untrue, because I have been involved in that controversy. But I am almost certain that I did not say it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords. I did not say that the noble Lord

453
did say it. All I said was that he quoted that debate as a case where Conservative policy dominated over the Labour policy, where numbers of noble Lords on this side of the House took the view that capital punishment should be retained, and noble Lords on the opposite side of the House took the view that capital punishment should not be retained; and that this was a good example of the domination of the Conservatives over the Labour Party.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it may or may not be a good example—it must be, for the noble Marquess to pounce on. But I think most people are aware that the great majority of Conservatives are in favour of capital punishment, and the overwhelming majority of Labour people are against capital punishment. There was a classic example of two days of long debate, at the end of which the vote was overwhelmingly against one side as a result of the intervention of large numbers of hereditary Peers. However, I must leave it to the House and to the noble Marquess to say whether it is a well-chosen example. But that is the history which is in the minds of both of us. It was an example of a triumph of the hereditary principle, if you like, in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, I value as much as anybody the character of our debates. It is not for me, never having served elsewhere, to know whether they are better or worse than debates elsewhere; but it as certainly true that many subjects have been raised in this House (quite a number by my noble friend Lord Stonham, by my noble friend Lord Shackleton and, if I may say so, by myself) Which have been debated at great length here and which, I am sure, would not have been debated in another place—at any rate, they had not been debated in another place. I could mention several subjects which I myself have initiated here which have not been debated in the other place for years. Everybody knows what a tremendous interest is aroused by a debate of the kind initiated recently by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who I am glad to see has returned, and about whom I spoke at some length just now in what we all feared was his permanent absence this evening. He has initiated
454
at least four debates of widespread interest, and I doubt if those subjects could have been raised in another place or could have been debated by such experts. So I hope that no one will suppose that I am in any way underestimating the value of the debates, the quality of the discussions.
But then one comes to the vote—the total unfairness of this system, under which the Conservative Party have this huge majority whenever they want to exert it. The only suggestion I can make—I doubt whether it is within the province of the Committee because, as I understand it, their province is closely defined—is that I believe that one day it will be found that the best solution is the solution which I think may have been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Milne, whose speech I unfortunately missed; and that is the two-writ plan.
Under the two-writ plan, at any rate in its simplest form, the hereditary Peers as such would be able to come here as now and speak, and they would be allowed to record their addresses, if they wished, in a book for that purpose, but they would not be able to vote. The vote would be confined, in the simplest form of the plan, at any rate, to those who had received peerages. That would be the plan in its simplest form, though no doubt it could be worked out in other ways. But even if looked at in only a crude form like that, it would have the supreme advantage that you could retain—and in the long run, through, I think, the reality of the debates, you could enhance—the quality of the debates which we value so highly, and at the same time remove this extraordinary injustice under which the Parties of the Left suffer at present, and will suffer so long as the hereditary Peers have the vote.
If I am asked about the young people, I would say that, under any plans that one can imagine for renunciation, I should hope that these young Peers would be able to stand for the House of Commons, but that if they did not wish to do so they could of course come here and take part in the debates. If they were hereditary Peers they would not, as such, be able to cast votes, though if they were of outstanding ability, under the two-writ plan they would be able to

455
vote. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, mentioned the son of an old friend of his and mine, the present Marquess of Dufferin and Ava, whose father, if I remember rightly, was a Minister in this House before he was 30. It is obvious that if you had the two-writ plan, he could receive a voting right. Then, someone who has given long service to this House, such as the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, or my noble friend Lord Faringdon, or, of course, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to interrupt him for one moment? Does he think that it would be in the interests of the House if a noble Lord were allowed to come here only to speak and not to vote? Let us take as an example the important decision the House made upon the Ullswater debate. Surely, if a noble Lord felt strongly on that matter one way or the other but was allowed only to speak and not to vote, he would not be so interested in coming to this House. That is what I feel; that it would be to the detriment of the House.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If noble Lords felt that way, I am afraid that, unless they had served sufficiently eminently to he accorded the voting right, we should lose them. But, if I may say so to the noble Lord, having come here myself for fifteen years and cast so many hopeless votes, I am afraid I do not find the voting process as interesting or as valuable as the noble Lord might imagine. Frankly, many of us regard voting in this House as a total farce (I must say that) in view of the fact that the Government can whistle up a majority whenever they wish to—at least, except on very rare instances, as apparently occurred yesterday, they can whistle up a majority. In any case, they can soon put that right, and next time, probably, in order to rub it in, they will get a majority of ten to one in order to show that they can still do their tricks. But the voting here is a total farce, and the only way to obtain equality of votes and of putting the voting right would be by something on the lines of the two-writ plan.
In conclusion, I simply go back to where my noble Leader, the noble Vis-
456
count, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, started. This is a limited scheme for some kind of renunciation, and I hope that its purpose will be achieved. I back up what has fallen from the noble Viscount; and I certainly wish all success to the Committee, and all success, if I may say so, here, there or anywhere, to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.
7.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just resumed his seat always speaks with exquisite charm and often with great generosity and charity, even towards his oldest friends. I therefore think it would be churlish on my part to criticise his speech, which, however, was in some ways a somewhat strange utterance because he complained bitterly—and, indeed, to a point at which he said there was, I think, a complete head-on clash, or something of that kind, between two halves of the country—about the composition of your Lordships' House. The one thing which is quite certain is that the composition, as such, of your Lordships' House is outwith the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee which is proposed. The reason it is out-with the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee which is proposed is because his Party insisted on its exclusion.
It is therefore somewhat odd, to say the least of it, that the noble Earl should have made such a point about it; and he followed it up with a suggestion about the so-called two-writ plan which again could easily have been put within the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee which is proposed if his Party had asked for it. But owing to their more rigid view of what is desirable—insisted upon with great force by the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition —that plan, too, will have to go unconsidered, without discussion, whether it is desirable or whether it is undesirable. Because the truth is that, as my noble friend Lord Swinton (who explained to me that he was unable to remain to the end of the debate), said in the course of his very welcome speech, there has been a great contrast between the width of the debate which we have had and the relative narrowness of the proposal which is before the

457
House—that is to say, the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee. This is so much the case that some speakers—I think the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in particular—described the proposal as "tinkering with the constitution", and my noble friend Lord Teynham, pursuing the same line, even went so far as to say that he could not, unless he received certain assurances, support the proposal at all.
It is true, of course, that the proposal before the House is narrower, to give only one example, than the Motion which was earlier before another place and which was not ultimately debated. The reason for that, as the noble Viscount rightly said, was that the terms of this Motion have been negotiated between the Parties. I myself think with him that the advantages gained by agreement are probably greater than the advantages which have been lost by the narrower terms of reference. That, however, is something about which the House must judge. But I would repeat what I ventured to say in opening—namely, that where you have a traditional constitution, the method of reform by means of cancelling particular anomalies or injustices is one which has, in practice over a number of years, proved more capable of execution than more ambitious, and possibly more logically attractive, schemes. Therefore, I do not apologise for the terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee, although I think the narrowness of them has quite legitimately come in for a certain amount of comment and criticism.
However, I would not go quite so far as at one moment I thought the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition seemed disposed to go. In dealing in particular with one aspect of the subject matter for the Committee to discuss, he seemed almost to go as far as saying, "Agreement between the Parties is such a desirable thing that you "—he was speaking to the Benches opposite, which is to us—" must agree to what I say, otherwise you will get nothing at all ".
My Lords, I sincerely hope that within the terms of reference, such as they are, there will be a free discussion between the members of the Joint Select Committee. It was for that reason that I was very careful not to commit myself in any way to a conclusive view about any of the subjects open to discussion, and I
458
should hope very much that, when the Joint Select Committee comes to be appointed, members of the noble Viscount's Party will not, at any rate before considering some of the arguments, a few of which I have deployed this afternoon, commit themselves to a particular proposal simply in order to remedy what they conceive to be, and what has generally been conceded to be, an injustice to a member of their own Party who seeks election to another place. I should hope that the discussion would be open, and that minds would be kept uncommitted until they had found the advantage of consultation with others who serve on the Committee.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, as I said this afternoon, the point is that we have agreed to the terms which are on the Paper. They are agreed terms. I really only pointed out that the opening speech this afternoon from the noble and learned Viscount went much wider than had been the case in the other place, or in the speeches of those who opened the debate for each of the Parties in the other place. I should have thought that was a warning that we had not intended to go as widely as that. Of course, what is possible—and only the Joint Select Committee can decide what is possible within the terms of reference on the Paper—to he discussed within those terms of reference can be very freely discussed.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am very relieved to hear the noble Viscount say so, because at one time I understood him almost to be asserting that either a peerage must be extinguished completely or his Party would agree to nothing at all; and that certainly was a conclusive view which I personally would have deplored had he committed himself to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked about the size of the Joint Select Committee. What we had in mind was something of the order of 24; its exact composition as between Parties and Members of the Cross Benches, and as between the two Houses, is still, I understand, under negotiation through the usual channels.
The House had the privilege of listening to a notable speech from my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who sits below the Gangway and to whom the House,

459
if I may say so, owes so much, both for his tenure of the leadership in the earlier days of this Government and for his tenure of the leadership of the Opposition during the period of Socialist Administration, and to whom in particular the House owes a great deal in respect of the Life Peerages Act, whose results have been favourably commented upon, I think, by almost every speaker this afternoon. In particular, he asked me a little more about the way in which the terms of reference ought to be construed. In answering this debate—I do not want to take up a great deal of the time of the House—I think I ought really to try to confine myself as closely as possible to the question of those terms of reference in so far as it is proper for me to do so.
The first point I would make is that, as I think my noble friend Lord Swinton said, it is quite certainly the business of the Select Committee to construe those terms of reference, which they will do in the ordinary way, presumably receiving some guidance from their Chairman, but ultimately voting upon them if they disagree. In so doing they will, again as I think my noble friend Lord Swinton said, bring ordinary common sense to bear. They will apply the ordinary meaning of words. But they will also be entitled, I would think—although it is for them, and not for me, to decide—to take into account such matters as that to which my noble friend Lord Swinton referred: for instance, that there had been on the Order Paper of the House of Commons some months before another Motion, with an obviously wider context, containing in its first limb the proposed reference of the whole question of the composition of the House of Lords, and in its third limb the whole question of the remuneration for Members of the House of Lords.
I think that probably the Select Committee would be entitled to infer from the fact that the terms of reference, obviously advisedly and after negotiation, omit that first and that third limb that it was the intention of those who devised the terms of reference that those general subjects should be excluded from them. However, again, as I say, it is primarily the duty of the Select Committee to construe its terms of reference.
460
Then, again, I think it would be entitled to take into account what a court of law certainly could not—that is to say, statements made in another place between some of the principal participants in the negotiations prior to the drafting of these particular terms, as to what was in their minds when they did so. Such an argument might not necessarily be conclusive, but at any rate it would, I think, be something which the Select Committee might well wish to take into account in determining how far it should go within the general ambit of the terms of reference. And, of course, this would have some bearing on the question whether one could, for instance, include the possibility of Representative Peers for the United Kingdom, which has been referred to in more than one speech this afternoon. My Lords, so much for that aspect of the terms of reference.
I fundamentally agree with the general approach of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, that, in determining what one does about such questions as renunciation or surrender, one is not primarily concerned (although one must, among other things, be concerned, but not primarily concerned) with the grievance to the individual. That, I think, is profoundly true, and it was—if I may say so in parenthesis to the noble Viscount opposite—precisely because I thought so at the time that I did not think it right to pursue my own protest eleven years ago to the point to which some other so-called "reluctant heirs" have in fact done. Although the injustice to the individual may be acute, I think one should never lose sight of wider issues: amongst others, the simple fact that there are other more important things for Parliament to consider, other more important injustices to be righted, and other more instant dangers to be averted.
I would also agree that more important than the rights of the individual are the interests and authority of this House, although I would add to that something which I regard as more important still—namely, the ultimate public interest in the matter. For the public interest cannot disregard either the public utility of male primogeniture or its reverse, in excluding from a large part of public life those who do not wish to be excluded, or indeed the simple question of justice or

461
injustice which, as I agree, is not the largest matter in the issue.
I would associate myself with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in saying to my noble friend Lord Forbes that it simply is not true that those who at any period of their lives did not wish to come to your Lordships' House were consciously actuated either by a desire to evade a responsibility or a conscious desire to become Prime Minister. I once committed myself on television to saying that a man who wished to become Prime Minister was a fool. Perhaps that was going too far. At all events, as I tried to say in opening, what attracts young men to the House of Commons and the ordinary processes of democracy is not the glittering prizes—nobody but an ass would think at the age of 21 that he is likely to become Prime Minister—but the lust for political battle; the gleaming sword rather than the glittering prize. It is their wish to play a full part in the democratic processes of the House of Commons and not necessarily the desire to achieve the top. I think that this is true throughout public life.
The Prime Ministership is not the only office from which your Lordships are debarred. I have never heard of a Chancellor of the Exchequer coming from this House and I do not think that I ever shall. I doubt whether the President of the Board of Trade has ever been in this Chamber and certainly neither the Attorney General nor the Solicitor General, who are of some interest to lawyers, has ever been in your Lordships' House. Indeed, in going through the list of offices which can or cannot be held by Members of this House, quite distinct from the question of desirability, one would find a large number of Government offices excluded by tradition, by custom or by convenience for Members of this House. Therefore, I would say that one cannot altogether disregard or despise those who wish to play a full part in public life in another place.
It will be for the Committee, of course, to determine what penalty, if any, is to be attached to those who renounce, or desire to renounce. This is not something for me to pronounce upon. Some, like the noble Viscount opposite, have pronounced in favour of extinction. In my opening speech, I ventured to say
462
that I saw great difficulty in that, especially for the holders of peerages rather older than my own. Others have spoken of surrender for life. Others have said that the choice is between life peerages and no peerages at all—a sort of shuttle service between the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
I should have thought that there were a considerable number of alternative views that the Committee might conceivably take between a marriage terminable at will and a marriage "till death us do part." I should have thought that it was possible to devise a penalty not so extreme as either. However, this again is a matter for discussion. Both Irish and Scottish Peers will clearly come within the terms of reference of the proposed Select Committee and therefore I will not say anything more about that. Nor will I do more than say that the question of the hereditary principle as such, or of a two Chamber Legislature as such, is equally outside the terms of reference.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for what I thought was an amusing and vigorous defence of the proceedings of this House, which came particularly well, if he will allow me to say so, from a Life Peer and a member of the Labour Party. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and for the generally favourable reception that this proposal has had. I will not say more, except that I think that we shall have done the right thing in agreeing to the terms of reference, and that I hope, within those terms of reference, the whole discussion is open.
On Question, Motion agreed to and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

FUTURE BUSINESS
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, in rising to propose that the House do now adjourn, I should like to answer the Question which was put to me earlier

463
to-day regarding the Business of the House. Whilst we were debating this important subject, my noble friend beside me has been very busy, and I am happy now to tell the House that it has been agreed through the usual channels that the Report stage of the Pipe-lines Bill will be taken on Monday next, April 16. It will be continued on Tuesday next, April 17, and if not then finished, will be concluded on Thursday, April 19. It will probably be necessary to sit late both on Monday and Tuesday next. The Third Reading will be taken on Tuesday, May 1.
The Second Reading of the Housing (Scotland) Bill and of the Grangemouth Burghs Bill, which were to be taken on Monday next, April 16, will now be taken after Easter, on Monday, May 7.
464
I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I will not be caught to-night. I rise only to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the arrangement which has been made, which is much more satisfactory to us and to noble Lords opposite who supported our position in the Lobby yesterday. I will try to be at the debate on Monday to give all the help I can, because we shall greatly miss my noble friend Lord Silkin, who, unfortunately, has had to go abroad.
On Question, Motion agreed to and House adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes before eight o'clock.