§ 2.43 p.m.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy 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 whether they will take appropriate measures to suggest an amendment of the Writ of Summons to Parliament so that recipients are commanded to advise regarding not only the Monarchy, the State and defence of the United Kingdom and the Church, but also the service of the people, human freedom and peace.
§ The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)My Lords, I must apologise for the length of this Answer. I think I owe it to the learned Clerks to thank them for much of the historical learning that has gone into the Answer.
The form of the Writ of Summons to Parliament is very ancient. The present form, but in Latin and not English, was used so long ago as the reign of Edward III. A writ of 3rd December 1376—more than 600 years ago—contains the words:
"…Pro quibusdam arduis et urgentibus negotiis, nos et statum et defensionem regni nostri Angliae ac ecclesiae Anglicanae contingentibus …".It is apparent that the word "state" refers to the state of the realm, and not State with a capital letter, as implied in the Question. In 1429 the word "contingentibus" was altered to "concernentibus" and has remained the same ever since, being carried into the English. At some time during the reign of Queen 224 Anne, the word "Anglicanae" qualifying "ecclesia" was dropped, no doubt in deference to the union between England and Scotland in 1707. After 1733 the writ was issued in English in precisely the same terms, so near as could be, as it had previously been issued in Latin, and no further changes have been made since that date.Before advising Her Majesty that a practice so long observed and well-established should be changed, Her Majesty's Ministers would need to be satisfied that there was some real and pressing reason to alter it. I do not believe that any such reason is apparent and know of no public demand for a change. My own view is that the traditional words I have quoted are wide enough to cover, and in fact are understood to cover, the various matters about which the noble Lord is rightly concerned.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply—most of which I did not understand—may I ask him whether the directive is a definition of the functions of Parliament in medieval times? Has not the function of Parliament been completely transformed in the 19th century and in this century, as illustrated in our debate on the gracious Speech dealing with economic, social, and international affairs?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I personally think that it is all covered in "the state of the realm", and very well and succinctly covered, too. But I must say that I rather echo the words of the medieval priest to whom was pointed out an error in his copy of the Mass book, "I prefer my old mumpsimus".