LIFE PEERAGES BILL [H.L.]

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, on the occasion, about a fortnight ago, when I followed my noble friend Lord Teynham, who introduced a Motion concerning the reform of the House of Lords, I advanced to your Lordships the proposition that it was desirable, if at all possible, that when we concerned ourselves with changes in the powers or the composition or the practice of Parliament we should proceed by agreement between the main political Parties. The Government of the day must, of course, retain the right to legislate to alter the Constitution, and it may have to do so against the wishes of the Opposition and against the votes of the Opposition; and it may indeed be in the public interest that it should do so.

But I would suggest that before embarking on an exercise of that kind, there is an obligation on the Government of the day to discover how far towards their objectives they can go by common consent. Both from the national point of view and against the international background of an unstable and an insecure world, that obligation seems to me personally to be almost a duty. With the history of the past fifty years very much in our minds, and with the knowledge that the enemy of progress in this matter of the evolution of your Lordships' House 610 has been not so much apathy as the fact that there have been so many plans so passionately fathered that there has been no agreement, my noble friends and I set out to discover, in discussion and through debate, whether there was in fact sufficient common ground to allow us to propose reforms which would lead to the greater efficiency of this House and therefore to the better working of Parliament, and which would bring this House more nearly abreast of the times. For the first time for many years, it seems to us, we can detect an area of agreement—and a significant area of agreement.

First, I would suggest to your Lordships that the debate which we lately held has revealed a large measure of agreement, if not unanimity, on the introduction to this House of Life Peers. For this the arguments are strictly and severely practical. There is, as all your Lordships know, a small number of noble Lords opposite who enable us to present to the world a picture of a House which is efficient and informed and which maintains a high level of debate. But, equally, we know that this is a brave facade and that on a small number of noble Lords opposite there is falling a strain which they cannot and should not be asked to carry much longer, and that this House is perilously near a breakdown in its machinery. That situation can, in the opinion of the Government and I think of all your Lordships, be eased if the Prime Minister is given the discretion to offer life peerages to those persons who feel, for various good reasons, that they cannot accept hereditary peerages to-day.

In the selection and appointment of Life Peers the emphasis will be on the appointment of persons who can help the working of Parliament. In discovering such persons, when the Prime Minister is looking for persons who might be able to help the Opposition he would desire, when and where appropriate, to seek the advice of the Leader of the Opposition; and, in general, quite apart from the problems of the Opposition in this House, if the Prime Minister has discretion to offer a life peerage I think it will give him a wider range of persons from whom to draw those who can contribute to Parliament from their expert knowledge of this or that aspect of our national life. So the Government have concluded, I 611 think with your Lordships' general support, that there is agreement on the introduction of Life Peers.

Secondly, we believe that there is substantial agreement on the introduction of women to your Lordships' House. The need to keep this House up to date is perhaps the most powerful argument for the introduction of women. There are some of your Lordships who may contend—indeed, some have—that women have not made the mark on the political life of this country that was expected of them. Some of our instincts against surrendering this, one of the last sanctuaries of the male, may be very strong. Some may say that women do not understand how golden is silence, particularly when seven o'clock in the evening is approaching. My trouble is that I cannot see any argument in logic or in reason, why, if women are in another place, they should not be here.

I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Airlie will be more successful in finding arguments against the introduction of women than I have been. He may be, because, if I remember aright, there is in his family a considerable history behind this matter. Your Lordships may not be so familiar as I am with his coat of arms, but, if I am not wrong, I seem to remember that right at the top of it is a lady, and the lady is described, I think, as a lady from the waist upwards "affrontée." She is blue. She is standing behind a portcullis with her arms on the bar, looking miserably and pitifully and wistfully to the day when she will be released from her bondage and able to move freely among her equals. So when we come to the Committee stage, each of your Lordships may fancy himself as Prince Charming, releasing this lady to move, as is her right, among her peers. When, added to that, there is the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, was unable to get a Teller when he considered an Amendment of this kind in a recent debate, I believe Her Majesty's Government are further justified in believing that there is substantial agreement on the admission of women.

In our discussions and debates there has been revealed a deep division in regard to legislation to limit the numbers in this House, and in particular the 612 number of hereditary Peers; but I believe that all of us have recognised that the existence of the large number of Peers who seldom, if ever, attend this House but who, if they did attend, could in theory dominate a vote exposes this House to criticism. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and his Committee proposed a method whereby under our own Standing Orders we might grant a Peer leave of absence or, where a Peer did not apply for leave of absence within a suitable time, he might be deemed to have so applied. This is a matter solely for the House, and I should not like to prejudge the debate which we shall have on the Motion of the noble Earl, I believe next week, but I believe that, should we take advantage of the recommendations of the Committee, some hundreds of Peers would avail themselves of this leave of absence, and that, once they had accepted the conditions, the Peers concerned would keep the bargain. That would give us the opportunity, over the next few years, of watching in action a House which would consist in the main of regularly attending and working Peers. That experiment may well assist us to decide whether further action defining the limits of membership more formally, is necessary or wise.

As I have said, I believe that there is a significant area of agreement of which we should take advantage, and that we should do so now. During our debate a fortnight ago one Member or another asked Her Majesty's Government whether, in a Bill reforming your Lordships' House, there could not be included various categories of persons who might benefit under the Bill, in one way or another, in regard to membership of your Lordships' House. There was, for example, the case of Peeresses in their own right; the case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, of Scottish Peers who are not Peers of the United Kingdom and are not elected, but yet are not allowed to vote in a General Election. There was the case of an eldest son sitting in another place who might wish to renounce his peerage; and there was the question of the inclusion of representatives of the Churches as such, or the direct representation in this House of one section or another of the community.

A good case has been made for many of these categories and the pleas were eloquent; but your Lordships will notice 613 that Her Majesty's Government, with some regret, have left them all outside the scope of this Bill. That has been done because all of them excite opposition and controversy in varying degrees. Her Majesty's Government have therefore deliberately confined this Bill to life peerages for men and women, because we are convinced, after the lesson of fifty years, that if we try to get more we shall end up by getting nothing at all. The major criticism that. Her Majesty's Government have to answer is that they have failed to bring in a more comprehensive scheme. Both sides of the House made that criticism of Her Majesty's Government in our last debate, and if a casual visitor had walked into the Gallery he might have been given the impression that there was unity on the nature of a comprehensive plan. If he had, it would have been utterly misleading, because any proposal to limit the number of your Lordships' House and in particular to limit the number of hereditary Peers, raises at the present time the most acute controversy. I feel that when we are discussing our own affairs in this House it is best to be quite frank, and I wish to be frank on the situation as it is now.

There is one school of thought that is not prepared at present for so rigorous a pruning as is proposed in some quarters of the right of the hereditary Peer to sit in Parliament; and there is another school of thought, represented by noble Lords opposite, who at the present time are not prepared to vote for a scheme of reform involving a limitation of numbers and which includes an hereditary element. I gather that there are those—some on this side of the House—who, because of that Socialist attitude, would argue that Her Majesty's Government should assert some such scheme and use its majority to do so. I must warn the House that that could be done only at the cost of bitter and sustained controversy on a Constitutional issue; that it not only would involve controversy about the composition of this House but would renew the controversy about its powers; and in my opinion such controversy would extend far beyond this Parliament. Pledges would be given from which there could be no retreat and positions would be taken up which would be rigid and fixed, when what is needed, above all, on this question is flexibility, adaptation and open minds. If I thought for one moment that the situation of your 614 Lordships' House or the state of the country required it I would not hesitate to advise my noble friends to issue a challenge to the Socialist Party here and now. But I am not convinced that this controversy is either necessary or desirable; and I am certain that it is not in the national interest.

I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Salisbury, after further consideration, would wish to press the House—because that is what would have to be done, with the use of the Conservative majority—to adopt a comprehensive scheme now, at this moment. It is a matter of judgment. I am a newcomer to this House and I hesitate to set my judgment against that of the noble Marquess. Very surprisingly, and most unwillingly, I stepped into his shoes; and I should like nothing better than to follow his footsteps wherever he goes. But, if I may use the same analogy, he has up till now suggested a hop which would result in too many broken bones, and I am therefore deliberately recommending to your Lordships that we should proceed one step at a time.

I gather that the Socialist Party may take advantage of the occasion of this Bill to declare (as they say) their attitude. Well, by all means. It is nothing new. They have been declaring their attitude on this matter, to my knowledge, for thirty years. But, Party manifestoes—fortunately for the people of all Parties—are not sacrosanct Party manifestoes, and are capable of modification. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, may have something to tell us about the findings of recent meetings of his Party on this subject. Until I hear him, all I can say, reading them, as I do, is that I have never in my life seen more "undecided decisions." Of course, the Socialist Party, if they were in power, could abolish the hereditary peerage. But, if and when that distant glory dawned, would they really want to do so?

Their proposal as I understand it, or their alternative, is for a nominated Chamber—a Chamber nominated by the Prime Minister for each Parliament. I do not believe that such a system would receive the support of the people, that they would be willing to put such power 615 into the hands of one man and so to disrupt the continuity of Parliament, which is one of our greatest assets in this country. If they are, therefore, driven away as I believe they will be—from a nominated Chamber, they will come back to another alternative: an elected Chamber. Then they will be driven from that, because they know that an elected Chamber would be a rival to another place—to the House of Commons—and nobody wants that. So I suggest to your Lordships that there is a very good chance that they will be driven back to using the two ingredients which by then will be seen to be working well—namely, the hereditary Peers and the Life Peers, in some combination, in this existing House. I suggest, therefore, that there is a good chance that we shall arrive by agreement in some years' time at a solution which will be dictated by fact, by experience, by common sense and by the force of public opinion.

My Lords, whatever else he does today, I hope that the noble Viscount opposite will not chide the Government with accusations of "tinkering". if this is "tinkering," whose fault is it? Our Government, the Government of noble Lords on this side of the House, have offered time and again to have discussions with the Opposition on this matter in order to arrive at a comprehensive scheme of reform, and it is the other side of the House that has turned those conversations down. Further, my Lords, I hope they will not press the point that the hereditary element in this House is clinging to excessive powers, because I would remind the noble Viscount that the powers which we enjoy to-day are the powers on which his Government insisted in 1948. I have no wish to be unduly controversial, but I thought I would give him notice that he should not use those arguments. I hope I have not spoilt his speech for him.

I would further make this point. We on this side of the House, believing as we do that the hereditary Peerage has a part to play in the Upper House of Parliament, have willingly modified the hereditary principle by the introduction of Life Peers so as to enable the Socialist point of view to be put more effectively from the other side of the House. We have been willing to make that modification and that compromise and if noble Lords opposite in the years to come (I am not asking them 616 to do so to-day), after the passage of this Bill, will show a similar spirit of compromise, and be willing to include in a reformed House an element of hereditary Peers, then we can arrive without much difficulty at the kind of scheme which is outlined by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, at the present time; and arrive at a solution for the composition of this House which will appeal to the common sense of the country.

This debate and this Bill are not the end of the story. Our Constitution has taken us many hundreds of years to build, and it is ours in trust to-day to improve if we can. I am asking your Lordships to take this one step to-day, because I hope and believe that, before very long, compromise will prevail, common sense will dictate a solution and agreement will come. And to-day, my Lords, I ask your Lordships to be content with this Bill because, for its immediate merits and in the long run, agreement on these Constitutional matters is so clearly in the interest of the nation. I beg to move.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, we have once more had a charming and a would-be quite disarming speech from the noble leader of the House. As he has made reference to his predecessor, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, I think it is about time that we congratulated the Party opposite on having found such an able successor to one who was for years an able leader. We in this House extend such courtesies more often than is perhaps done in other places in debate.

The Bill before us to-day is a Bill to extend the area of the Royal Prerogative for the appointment of Peers by adding to that area the appointment of Life Peers, including women in such appointments. It is really a one-clause Bill: the other clause concerns merely the Title. In view of the speech that the noble Leader has just made, I am inclined to ask at once a question which I was going to ask at the end of my speech—namely, whether it is the intention to follow a practice which is often followed in this House. When we come to deal with a Bill in Committee the Chairman of Committees moves that the Title be reserved. Is it the intention that that course may 617 be followed this time? And may an Amendment to the Title be accepted? That is a matter of procedure to which perhaps some immediate thought and consideration will be given. We shall all have to consider whether we want to amend the Bill and, if so, to what degree and in what particular area.

The fact that this Bill is a short one cannot possibly hide from us the fact that it is a very important Bill. It will achieve something which has not happened for a very long period: it will achieve a change in, and amendment to, the composition of the House of Lords. In view of one or two of the phrases used in: he speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House to-day, and in view of the possibility that there may arise a great controversy if certain kinds of proposals are made other than those which are confined in the breadth of this Bill, I am wondering why a Bill of such constitutional importance should first be introduced in this House. If it is a Bill which would create very great interest in another place, and one likely to lead, in one or two of the matters pointed out by the noble Leader, to quite acute and prolonged controversy (and I think I am using terms which he used), why was the Bill not introduced in another place first? Was it the belief of the Leader of the House that there would be such unanimity in this House upon the matters which arose out of consideration of even the limited proposals that he would be able to go to the other place and say, "This is literally an agreed Bill in the House of Lords"? I think it is important to point that Out.

However, as I have indicated on a previous occasion, I do not propose to ask my colleagues in this House to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, because it has become a convention in this House not to vote against the Second Reading of a Government Bill. That is the reason. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, if he will forgive my saying so, limited somewhat his view of this conventional practice by confining it to: Bills passed by another place that have been publicly proclaimed in the programme of the Parties behind the Government. That is in the OFFICIAL REPORT (Vol. 705, No. 103) for October 31 last at Column

618 The words seem to me to have been chosen, perhaps, to justify the action of this House in throwing out during the last Session of Parliament a Bill to abolish capital punishment which had been passed in another place after prolonged debate by a majority composed of representatives of all Parties in that House. The Government on that occasion chose to accept the vote in this House as being superior to the representative vote in another place. It is not surprising, therefore, that there are many people in another place who regard the Bill which we are considering now—and here I am going to say what the noble Earl the Leader of the House did not want me to say—as tinkering with the problem of the reform of the House of Lords, in that it makes no attempt to deal with the need, advanced now for many years by large numbers of the population, for the abolition of the hereditary principle (and that, as the noble Earl has indicated, has been going on for at least fifty years) nor to give relief to the heirs of Peers who do not desire to receive the Writ of Summons of this House but to be enabled, by Statute, to make a once-and-for-all decision, in their individual cases, to exercise the privilege of Parliamentary service, if they are chosen by the electors, in another place.

I would ask, therefore, what is the real object of the Government in introducing a Bill of the limited nature of the one which we are now considering? The noble Earl the Leader of the House has endeavoured to show again this afternoon, and to prove by various arguments, that it is because there has as yet been no agreement—which, in the last debate, he regarded as essential—between the principal Parties in the State for anything like a measure of reform. Therefore, as was emphasised by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack in the last debate, they are aiming to come to a point of the least possible disagreement. That seems to me to be of certain virtue, but it has not convinced at any rate a large part of the people in another place.

Now what is the Bill for? I have read through the Reports of the other debates very carefully, and I have listened carefully this afternoon to what the noble Earl the Leader of the House has had to say. I would not have gathered from the previous debates that a principal object of the Bill was to strengthen the 619 Opposition. That is what has been said this afternoon, and I begin to think that there has been some more detailed examination of the case, if a principal object of the Bill is to strengthen the Opposition. So I should like an answer as to the real object of the Bill. The noble Earl seemed to think that unless the Opposition were strengthened there was grave danger of a complete collapse in the kind of use which this Chamber of Government has served in the past and would hope to continue to serve. I should like to have an answer to that question.

As I see it, the great volume of opinion in the country which favours a reform of this House does so on a much wider basis. It accepts the principle that was clearly stated by the late Mr. Ramsay Muir, who I think sat for a time in the other place as a Liberal, and who had great distinction as an author, writing on constitutional and other Government questions. I have been reading again his book How Britain is Governed which he published in 1930. We are kindly in our manners here, and this afternoon we have had put to us very gently and courteously something about lack of decision on the part of the Socialists. Therefore I would point out that in this book Mr. Ramsay Muir reminds us that there was an absolute pledge to deal with House of Lords reform by the Tory Government which existed with a great majority from 1924 to 1929, but in fact they never touched it. Once you begin to throw about charges of decision or indecision I think it should be pointed out that such charges cannot be confined to one particular Parliamentary group. I think that that particular case is proved.

Mr. Ramsay Muir says this—if the House will allow me I will quote from his book: However it is constituted, and whatever its powers, the Second Chamber ought to be definitely subordinate to the House of Commons. Any claim to co-ordinate powers, and still more to superiority of power in any field."— that does not limit it to Acts supported by the Parties behind the Government— would inevitably lead to confusion, deadlock and uncertainty in Government. The supremacy of the House of Commons as the representative of the whole nation in exercising 'control on behalf of the nation' over all the organs of government must be beyond question. 620 Is there anything of that kind as a reason for reforming the House of Lords present in this Bill?

From one point of view we can be thankful that there is no reference at all to the powers of the House. Why I say "we can be thankful" is that there is no reference to an extension of the powers of the House: of Lords. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack felt, on October 31, that I had shown how easy it would be to rouse Party feeling on a proposal of comprehensive reform which, although it cut down the number of hereditary Peers who sit and vote in this House, increased the prestige and influence of the House itself. In saying that I am almost quoting word for word. I do not need to apologise for having given that impression, because it is simply the fact.

A number of different suggestions have been put to us. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has been wider in his interpretation of how the election of hereditary Peers could be brought about, but many of the schemes have suggested election of hereditary Peers to Parliament by hereditary Peers in Parliament, with the right to receive the Writ of Summons and to speak and to vote. But to elect Peers to this House because they are hereditary Peers, and by the votes of hereditary Peers, would not remove the views of those who hold that the House of Lords in its present form, and with its hereditary foundation, is an anachronism in a democratic State. Now this Bill does not touch the hereditary principle. Is it introduced to enhance the prestige of the House while retaining the hereditary principle? I feel certain that that is a question which will be asked and debated strongly in another place when the Bill leaves this House. I think that the answer is, Yes.

The other day, the noble Earl the Leader of the House suggested that Life Peers of distinction and eminence would bring added authority and influence. I thought for a little time over that word "authority", which I am sure he chose very carefully, as he is always careful. I accept that there are two different circumstances in which one may use the word "authority" to try and explain what one means; but once we begin to talk about increasing the authority of your Lordships' House we do not invite an extension of popular support for the 621 House. I suppose that it could be interpreted as being the kind of superior authority which was claimed over the Bill for the abolition of capital punishment, because the opposition to it was led in part by eminent lawyers and judges. But what particular authority should they have over the rest of the constituents in a democratic state? In their legal function they have the right to be exclusive and completely authoritarian in carrying out the rule of justice, but it cannot be claimed that that kind of authority should be added to the influence and powers of your Lordships' House. It may be necessary to say again that perhaps that was one of the reasons why Her Majesty's Government chose to accept the vote of your Lordships' House on the capital punishment Bill as being superior to the vote of the elected representatives in another place, the majority vote of all Parties.

is the proposal to be merely a steppingstone to reducing the number of hereditary Peers and thereby to enhance in some way the hereditary principle? I was interested in the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Samuel.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

My Lords, the noble Viscount is not "learned"—not in a technical sense.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I do not put forward any false claims, but to me the noble Viscount is learned—very learned indeed. have so often sat and listened to him with great benefit. I was interested to hear the noble Viscount draw attention to the possibility of a growth in the number of Peers in your Lordships' House as being a problem which obviously beset the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I am asking whether this Bill is merely a stepping-stone. I am not quite so much inclined to think that it is as I was then, since comparing the remarks in our last debate of the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack. There seemed to me to be just a little difference between the two.

The noble Earl said that before we limit the number of hereditary Peers [OFFICIAL. REPORT, Vol. 205 (NO. 102) Col. 592]: …we have to prove to ourselves…that there is a great measure of agreement between the Parties. 622 In my view, putting it simply and frankly, there is no hope of getting such agreement from the Labour Party, which is entirely opposed to the maintenance in any form or size of the hereditary principle in the Second Chamber. On the other hand the noble and learned Viscount, who was anxious, I think, to meet the views expressed by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and others, said this (Col. 772): I believe, and the Government believe, that the British Constitution is an organic and a dynamic thing, and when we have made this change in the composition of the House, if we reach that position, the Government must—I repeat, must—consider the effect of the change, and whether and when the time has come for a further change. Whether that statement succeeded in bringing any satisfaction to the noble Marquess is another matter, but it seemed to me to be of some significance. It might almost have been described as a strong hint. Maybe there was no such subtlety intended at all, but I noted the difference in language.

Will this Bill, then, bring added prestige to your Lordships' House? I think that that depends largely upon how this purely enabling legislation is operated. How much do we really know, at this stage of the consideration of the matter, of the extent to which the Bill is to be operated? I listened carefully to the noble Earl the Leader of the House this afternoon. What do we know, except that the Royal Prerogative, as always in such circumstances, will be in the discretion of the Prime Minister? If I may say so, I think that in the carefully chosen language of the noble Earl on this point there was a retreat into something not much more than half a promise: when it comes to the question of strengthening the Opposition in this matter, which is essential in maintaining the work of the House, there may be consultations with the Leader of the Opposition. Looking at the noble Earl's language again, I feel that he has not been really so forthcoming to-day as he was on the previous occasion.

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount to get this right? I think that the language I used was that, where and when appropriate, the Prime Minister would wish to consult with, or take the advice of, the Leader of the Opposition.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

"Where and when appropriate"? Yet I should have thought, if he had been talking about strengthening the Opposition, that he would have said "at all times". However, I am sure that the noble Earl does not want to be unfriendly about it and I certainly do not wish to be unfriendly, if we can get the matter right, But the answer to the question I was putting, "Will this Bill add to the prestige of your Lordships' House?" will depend on how this enabling legislation is operated.

Another matter on which I should like more information than we had on the last occasion is this: how many Life Peers is it proposed to appoint? We have arrived at the situation now where the Government make no interference with the number of hereditary Peers. Apparently we shall not face an increased number of hereditary Peers by appointment; but how many new Life Peers are to be appointed? If there is to be a strengthened Opposition, then there should be a rapid increase in the number of Labour Peers, if anything like a reasonable position of oppositional power is to exist in your Lordships' House, which so often comes to important decisions. May we have some more information, before this debate comes to an end, on what the Government have in mind upon this matter? I think we are entitled to that.

I wrote down in my notes (I hope that I was not unfair when I was considering this point) that, if I were to interpret the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House on October 30, I should say that at present he does not know; and I doubt whether the Government know. They do not appear yet, from any statement they have made to the House on the matter, to have thought how many, when and in what area? We cannot be expected to believe that the only Life Peers to be appointed for a Session or two will be to strengthen the Opposition, either this section of it or, on such occasions as noble Lords on the other side of the gangway wish to oppose the Government, the other section. We in this House ought to have more information, as the Government have introduced the Bill here, of what are their intentions. I cannot expect to be given figures of the annual programme the Government propose, but we should 624 be told approximately what the Government consider should be the maximum number of Life Peers to be appointed while the basic position of hereditary Peers remains unaltered.

I rather agree with the noble Earl the Leader of the House that there is not likely to be a large waiting list of candidates at the Bar of the House—I thought he put that most appropriately—all awaiting appointment for admission as Life Peers. For one thing, if the basic qualification is to be "eminence and distinction" (and I use the noble Earl's words), there will not be much inducement to Life Peers to give their time to help, as it was put, "in the chores of the House ", unless they are already at the retirement age, if they be offered, as he was alone able to mention in his speech, merely a daily expense allowance. If the Government are sincere in the proposal to assist all Parties in the House by the appointment of Life Peers, I think they must rapidly find an alternative method of adequate remuneration. It would be too bad if this Bill became law and, so far as strengthening the Members of my Party in this House was concerned, it was limited to a very small field of choice, because in that field of choice there would be very few indeed who could afford to come to this House in any circumstances other than those of adequate annual remuneration. We have had no firm statement on that aspect.

I was going to speak rather strongly this afternoon about some of the wider suggestions made by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester, in a speech of considerable interest on the last occasion, but the reference made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House to the kind of controversies which were likely to be aroused this afternoon perhaps renders that less necessary. However, there are certain things that I should like to point out to the right reverend Prelate. In the 37th Article of Religion, in his own Prayer Book, it is stated, for example, that The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm. If the right reverend Prelate wanted to introduce Roman Catholic bishops, or Roman Catholics of equal power, as Life Peers, he would certainly be raising a very fierce controversy indeed. And it might well be that with some of the other 625 categories of persons who have been suggested controversy would also arise. On that point, therefore, I agree with what the Leader of the House has said this afternoon.

I now come to the question of the admission of women in the category of Life Peers. I have heard many people, in all parts of the House, say that they thought it unfair that, in giving for the first time the suffrage use of this House to women, the Government should exclude those who already have a right to a current peerage but who are denied the right of coming to this hereditary House. However, I am bound to say that I agree with the Government in not extending that privilege, because I think it would add very much to the prestige of the hereditary principle in the House.

The noble Earl, Lord Home, was kinder to the women than one or two other speakers have been. If it is suggested, as some might suggest after read-Mg his speech, that women have been altogether a failure in Parliamentary life, or at least, have not reached the standard that some. thought they might, I would say, as an article of personal faith, that I would not wish for better Parliamentary colleagues, or more able Parliamentary colleagues than Margaret Bondfield, Susan Lawrence, Ellen Wilkinson and Mrs. Wintringham, one of the ablest persons I ever had the pleasure of associating with in Parliamentary comradeship in the other place. Therefore, I feel convinced that the Government, in their proposal for the appointment of Life Peers, are right in granting women the same privilege as men.

Finally, no amendment of the composition of the House of Lords which leaves the powers of the House of Lords as they are now can be universally accepted. In spite of the Parliament Act, 1948, the present situation is that the legislation of all Labour Governments can be unduly delayed; and indeed. in the last fifteen months of the lifetime of a Labour Government now, if they came into office tomorrow for a period, they would be faced virtually with an antagonistic single Chamber. That is not a position that we can lie down under or allow to remain. I think that requires to be said.

As to our own course of action in the later stages of the Bill in this House, that must be considered at the end of this debate. But I would resist the suggestion 626 made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House that it is entirely the fault of my colleagues on this side of the House, and in their Party generally, that it has not been possible to come to an agreement in dealing with the reform of the House of Lords. I hurriedly consulted my noble friend Lord Attlee, and he says that on the last occasion when conversations broke down they were broken down by the other side and not by us. So, while we need not quarrel about when and why these conversations have broken down, I resist the impeachment that it has been entirely due to the Party which I have the honour to lead in this House.

When it conies to dealing with the later stages of the Bill, we shall have to await what statement the noble Earl the Leader of the House may feel able to make about how the Committee stage is to be dealt with. I have already asked the question, and I repeat it: Will it be the case, when the Bill is in Committee, that the very common practice of reserving the Title will be adopted; and will it be possible, within that provision, for us to move an Amendment to the Title of such a character as will enable the matters in the minds of your Lordships to be thoroughly canvassed through any Amendments which they desire to put down. I wish to thank the noble Earl for his speech in introducing the Bill, and to say that, whatever conies out of it, we shall all hope and pray that the future of our country in this, what he called, "insecure world", will lead ultimately, through its Parliamentary system, properly amended and properly pursued, to a state of security, justice and prosperity.

LORD REA

My Lords, I intend to be brief. From conversations which I have heard, both inside and outside your Lordships' House, it seems to me that the Bill before us to-day can be supported for two distinct reasons: first, that it accelerates the prospect of further reform of your Lordships' House, and, Secondly, that it retards the prospect of the further reform of your Lordships' House. I understand that there are two equally good reasons for voting against this Bill, which are exactly the same reasons. Since a measure of reform has been advocated from these Benches for the last forty years, I personally find no difficulty in 627 supporting this Bill as a small advance to that reform which we, in this quarter of your Lordships' House, consider to be desirable.

I support it because although, unfortunately, it avoids—and, indeed, it is not attempting to take into account—most of the points which were arrived at unanimously at the Leaders' Conference in 1948, it does bring before us two of those agreed conclusions: that there should be life peerages, and that women should be eligible equally with men. In a secondary manner I would suggest that it paves the way for consequential implementation of some of the others of those nine important points, although at present, of course, it does no more than pave the way, and it does not pretend to do more than that. But I derive comfort and satisfaction from the fact that at least it does not negative the recommendations which still remain to be dealt with. It has not shut the door on them and, indeed, in some measure I think it impinges on them in support rather than in negation.

For instance, this Bill is, I think, quite consistent with the first recommendation, which was that, since the Second Chamber should be complementary to and not a rival to the Lower House, any modification here should be based on its existing Constitution as opposed to some system of election. I think that that is a very important point. That recommendation is supported, rather than undermined, by the terms of this small Bill. The second recommendation, aimed towards a more representative balance of the Parties, as the noble Viscount has just pointed out, would certainly seem to be implicit in this Bill and, indeed, I support the Bill only with this interpretation. The third recommendation, that heredity alone should not in itself constitute a qualification, is to many of us probably the most important of the nine agreed points, and if this Bill does not very positively establish that principle it at least goes a long way towards doing it, and it does not deny it. The two remaining major recommendations, about the occupation of your Lordships in another place if not occupied here, and the means of reducing overlarge numbers, particularly of noble Lords who do not attend, are quite different, and I hope will be brought up at a different time.

628 I understand from the noble Earl the Leader of the House that the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, may at a later stage be moving an Amendment designed to exclude women from eligibility to sit in this House. Perhaps he will forgive me if I am wrong, but I hope my comment will neither shock nor offend him. It is this. I am extremely pleased. I congratulate him, and I think he is fulfilling a public duty in putting to your Lordships a point of view which I know to be held much more widely than would appear from the reports of debates held in your Lordships' House. Indeed, have been puzzled and rather worried that this matter should, by default, give the appearance of being uncontroversial. when both inside and outside your Lordships' House there is a case to be put and a case to be met. I can only hope that the diffidence hitherto shown by those who presumably agree with the noble Earl is not attributable to any timidity engendered perhaps by some secret infiltration of the matriarchal system of some foreign Power.

I will not anticipate the noble Earl's argument, but I think he may have a well-founded point if he deplores, as I do, the tendency to take into political account the spurious division of the wellbeing of the State into either anti-male or anti-female camps. Although I and the Party to which I belong have advocated, and will continue to advocate, the equality of men and women in all spheres in which they can contribute equally, or approximately equally—and I think there is no need to point out the spheres in which that is not the case—I do concede that, from a personal point of view, the House of Lords is a peculiar anomaly in a sense to which ordinary tests do not apply, and one whose real idiosyncracy (which I have learnt in ten years to appreciate) is not only beyond definition but can be understood only after a period of service in your Lordships' House. Indeed, on coming to this Chamber one has not only something to learn but something to "unlearn." It is sometimes said that Members of your Lordships' House who have not had the advantage of being a Member of another place are in that sense handicapped. I hope I may say, without offence, that while that may well be true, there is also a soupcon of "unlearning" to be done by those who have been 629 Members of the first Chamber which, of course, is an elected Chamber, but in the opinion of many people is not nearly as representative a Chamber as it ought to be.

In saying this, I seek merely to make this point. I am glad that this Bill does not aim at making this House an elected Chamber, for the very good reason, among other reasons, that the prerogative of being the nation's only elected Chamber belongs to the House of Commons. But none of this, I think, precludes on that account the admission of men and women Life Peers in accordance with the fourth and fifth proposals arrived at unanimously by the Party Leaders in 1948. Perhaps your Lordships would like to know whether ladies who will become Members of this Chamber are to have approximately the same communal style as present wives of Peers, Baronets and Knights, or whether there will be some distinctive title, which I hope may be more happily chosen than the word "Dame" In reference books the alternatives to "Lady" or "Dame" are various and, indeed, your Lordships may have to decide between "Matron" and "Sultana." I shall not detain your Lordships further. The Bill is a slightly disappointing Bill to me in the narrowness of its scope, but there is no reason for spurning the crumb because one does not get the whole loaf. I hope that further legislation to implement the 1948 recommendations will soon be with us, and in the meantime I support this Bill.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, this Bill is one which affects the composition of your Lordships' House, and it is because we have to consider the composition of your Lordships' House in definite relation to the duties which your Lordships' House has to perform that I propose to-day to concern myself with that aspect of the matter. We have a definite part to play in the Constitution—a great deal more definite than is recognised by noble Lords of the Party opposite.

I begin by saying that we recognise that one part of our Constitution is an all-powerful House of Commons. I do not dispute that for a moment. But I should like to add that that power is derived by direct mandate from the sovereign people; it is not derived from 630 Heaven—and here I come into direct conflict with the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, because he gave your Lordships an example, as I understood it, of a case where this House had illegitimately come into conflict with another place. His example was the Capital Punishment Bill. If my recollection is right, the Capital Punishment Bill was a Private Member's Bill introduced in the course of the Session, and was never put before the electorate prior to the General Election. There you see, my Lords, the claim of the Opposition that the House of Commons has not a mandate from the people but a divine right from Heaven. That is a thing which is quite inadmissible and which no student of constitutional history could ever have advanced. It was stated, I think by the noble Viscount, that this House was definitely subordinate to the House of Commons. Of course we are; but it is part of the facade which the noble Lords put up in the country and elsewhere that we are always trying to interfere with what the House of Commons do. My Lords, it is an impossible claim that we here should accept as a matter of course any casual Motion, Resolution or Bill which is put to us by a casual majority in the House of Commons, whether that has been before the people or not.

Leaving that for a moment, I concede that the principal duty of the House of Lords is revision. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, paid a tribute only last week to the manner in which this House carries out its duty of revision. I should like to point out to the noble Lord that even for the duty of revision a certain power of delay is essential. No effective revision of Bills such as we get from another House can possibly be carried out in your Lordships' House or in any kind of Second Chamber unless there is inherent in the Constitution some power of delay by a revising Chamber. We claim that over the last forty years our duty of revision and our constitutional duty generally has been well carried out. I believe—and I am not ashamed to say it—that that is attributable to the beneficent working of the 1911 Act. I wonder whether even the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, one of the few survivors of the 1911 Parliament, when that Act was going through foresaw the really remarkable effect it would have upon the constitutional history of this country; for I believe 631 it was that Act and the acquired wisdom of experience which enabled your Lordships to pass, as I think, the supreme test of having a Socialist majority in another place with an overwhelming advantage. I do not think it can be denied that this House carried out its duty of revision of those Socialist Bills, many of which we did not like, in what really was an exemplary manner. It would not be fair to say that without paying tribute to the two men principally concerned, my noble friend Lord Salisbury and the then Leader of the House, Lord Addison.

My Lords, one more thing about revision. It has been said that everybody agrees that there should be a Second Chamber. It is one of those generalities which is true but conceals a great untruth. There are those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, are confessedly unicameralists. But those of your Lordships—and they sit on the other side of the House—who believe that the only function of your Lordships' House is revision are nothing but single-Chamber men themselves.

I now pass to what is—and I insist that it is—a second essential function of your Lordships' House, having regard to the kind of Constitution under which we live. It is not an everyday affair, but an essential part of the constitutional machinery. That is that your Lordships should be ready—if I may adopt a cricketing metaphor—in case of need to act as a long-stop to wild or erratic bowling, whether delivered by a left-handed bowler or a right-handed bowler. Please note that this is not in any sense a claim to interpret the will of the people. That is what noble Lords opposite always will say: that in exercising that function we should be interpreting the will of the people. If I may change the metaphor to a motoring one, we do not put up a "Halt" sign; what we do is to put up a sign "Danger, drive slowly", in order that the electorate should have a chance to know what is going on.

How wrong is the attitude of the Opposition, in my opinion, I illustrate by two short quotations from the debate only the other day. Our noble Leader made a reference to a cooling process, and the noble Viscount opposite made the comment that this indicated that we might hold up fundamentally the ascertained, collective wish of the sovereign people. 632 Nothing could be further from the truth. Various phrases have been used to describe this particular function. It was described as a brake. The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, said that what is really meant is to prevent the elected Chamber from doing the job which the electorate has sent it to Westminster to do. The whole point is that this function of your Lordships' Chamber cannot come into play unless and until the House of Commons exceeds the mandate which the people have given it. If the noble Viscount opposite thinks the House of Commons has a divine right, can never lose touch with the electorate, can do what it likes irrespective of what the electorate says, he has a very different view of the constitutional position from the view I hold.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

What is the divine right given to Members of this hereditary Chamber to say that the other place has exceeded its mandate from the people?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Would the noble Viscount say on what particular point?

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

On what you have just said, as to exercising the mandate of the people. What is this House of Lords, constituted as it is, to restrain decisions or halt decisions of the House of Commons, pleading that it thinks—on what authority I do not know—here in this House that the House of Commons has exceeded its mandate?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Let me repeat to the noble Viscount my original argument. Where does the House of Commons get its mandate from?

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

The people.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The people, quite so; and when they exceed the mandate it is for this House to say, "Stop a minute. Have the people considered this?"

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I am asking the noble Lord, where do you get your mandate from?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

From the ancient Constitution of this country. And please God the noble Lords opposite will never have the temerity to alter it!

EARL ATTLEE

Might I ask the noble Lord one question? Could he give me any instance where this House has ever turned down something sent by a Conservative Government?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Certainly; the noble Earl is perfectly entitled to ask that. They often did it before 1911. I do not think they have ever exceeded their constitutional duty since 1911. Now the noble Earl is touching on a constitutional point about composition which, if I may, I will come to later.

EARL ATTLEE

The noble Lord has not given an instance. He said there have not been any since 1911. Were there any before then?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Oh yes. Before 1911 this House frequently did what was wrong, and earned the retribution of the Parliament Act of 1911. Nobody here, I think—least of all I—would say that what the House of Lords did in 1909 and 1910 was right. All I am saying is that for the last forty years your Lordships' House has carried out its duties in an exemplary manner.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

Is the noble Lord saying that prior to 1911 they were reversals of a Conservative Government action? Were they not reversals of a Liberal Government action?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Yes, certainly; I did not intend to say that they were reversals of a Conservative Government. I did not want to stand in a white sheet and say that before 1911 the House of Lords did not behave as it should constitutionally have done.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

But the noble Lord has not given us a single instance when this House has reversed the decision of a Conservative Government.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Probably because the measures were very good ones.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Like the Rent Bill, I suppose.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I have tried to make the point that we have a constitutional duty to "put on the brake," and I want your 634 Lordships to consider that there is a danger of some extreme body or faction getting control of the House of Commons. I want to refer quite briefly to what happened in Germany between the wars. Hitler started as a Socialist—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

No.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Yes, he did—a National Socialist.

EARL ATTLEE

I think the term "National Socialist" in Austria was never really Socialist, but merely meant anti-Semite.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

All I can say is that Hitler called himself a Socialist. Perhaps he really was not one. I am quite prepared to concede to noble Lords opposite that his rise in power was aided by elements of the Right Wing. I seem to remember that Sir Oswald Mosley's Fascist "Black-shirts" were ardent supporters of Hitler. However, it happened—perhaps by a combination of wicked people of the Left and the Right—that Hitler established the most foul despotism in history, complete suppression of all the prized freedoms that we hold dear. I maintain that that would have been more difficult in a Parliamentary democracy, such as Germany was, had there been a strong, independent, and authoritative Second Chamber.

I shall be told that that could not happen here. I think it could. One of the pointers which I think is a dangerous symptom of the times is the tyranny of the Party Whip in another place. I am not going to develop that suggestion, but I am quite certain that the tyranny of the Party Whip, the monolithic character of the Party, is a dangerous factor and one which might be of assistance to people who wished to establish their own personal power.

I was interested to see a quotation from an article in Tribune. I must confess to your Lordships that Tribune is not part of my daily reading, but the article was quoted in one or two other papers. It was by a prominent lady member of the Party opposite in another place, and the author of this article said that Life Peers were bad for two reasons: first, that they escaped Party control; and secondly, that they very rapidly become Conservative after they 635 get here. I am not sure whether the article meant Conservative, with a big "C", or conservative with a little "c". If it was a big "C" it is, of course, quite untrue, because noble Lords opposite are just as loyal to their Party after they sit here as they were before. But I think it is true that they do tend to become conservative with a small 'c", and that is another excellent reason why they make good Members of your Lordships' House.

My Lords, truly we must agree that the House of Commons tend to lose touch after a few years in power. A House of Commons so disposed might be tempted to put forward measures for which they had no mandate whatever—they might start, to use a vulgar expression, "fiddling with the franchise"; they might pass a Bill which would exclude people who had not had a particular kind of education, or they might do it the other way round, include only people who had a particular education. This is not a fanciful idea. Your Lordships have only to look round Her Majesty's Dominions to find that very thing going on in one of Her Majesty's Dominions at this particular moment. In those circumstances, with these possibilities, what sort of Second Chamber do we really need? I say emphatically, not a Chamber where Parties are going to be equally divided! We do not want to reproduce acute Party conflicts here; but we do need—I say this in spite of the denunciation of the noble Viscount opposite—added authority. Here we are detached from Party and we already have a very good spirit of detachment. The noble Leader of the House has, I think, more than once said that he is able, as it were, to "call spirits from the vasty deep." They come, but the noble Leader does not know how they are going to vote when they do come.

What is that due to?—here again, I am going to cross swords with the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. It is due in large measure to the hereditary principle, which is the "King Charles' head" of noble Lords opposite. I am not decrying the value of the great infusion that we have had of first creations. But the virtues of this House, such as they are, are due to some extent to the hereditary Peerage, and I believe 636 that the hereditary Peerage—although the noble Viscount called it a rather rude kind of anachronism—is a unique and precious possession, and in the very independence that it gives to your Lordships' House it is a real protection of the liberties of the subject.

This is a Life Peerages Bill; it is not a Bill for the reform of your Lordships' House, and I do not think any sweet reasonable approach such as that which was made by the noble Leader of the House has ever met with quite such a rough handling as came from the other side. I agree that even if the House of Lords works well at present the addition of Life Peers will improve it. But I hold also that reform requires that we should get rid of the reproach of the absentees. After the reception of this Bill by the noble Viscount opposite, I do not think our noble Leader can have much hope of agreement, and so I would ask him: which is more vulnerable to attack, a reformed House or an unreformed House? What hope of agreement can there be with that Party, even apart from what was said to-day by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who declared absolute war on the hereditary principle and declared war on anything which will really add to the authority—not the power—of this House? With the greatest respect to the noble Viscount, that is really a misreading of the British Constitution.

In the light of the hope of the noble Leader of the House for agreement, may I just recall the record of the Party opposite in this matter? They refused to enter into conference on the subject, and while they were in power they passed, without a mandate, the Parliament Act of 1948. It was never before the electors. Moreover, it was passed by the illegitimate and improper use of the powers contained in the 1911 Act. It was not concealed that one of the objects was to secure the passage of another Bill for which their mandate was, shall we say, shadowy, at its very best.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Which Bill was that?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am speaking of the Steel Bill.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that that Bill was not 637 very properly mentioned in Let us Face the Future, Labour's Election manifesto?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I use my words very carefully. I said that the mandate was a shadowy one. There was nothing in the programme put before the electors to give in any detail the kind of nationalisation Bill which eventually came forward for steel.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, in Let us Face the Future there was a phrase which said that we should take whatever steps might be necessary to deal with the House of Lords in order to secure the passage of our legislation.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, may I intervene for a moment, as I have a recollection of this part of our recent history? If I remember correctly, the case made in this House was not that the Labour Government had not a mandate to introduce an Iron and Steel Bill but that in the terms of their manifesto they limited themselves to a certain extent, and that the Bill which they promoted went beyond the mandate of the manifesto.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend, but of course his words will have no effect on noble Lords opposite——

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

None whatever.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

—because obviously they think that the House of Commons derives its inspiration front Heaven. There is no other possible explanation of the claim that they are making about the way in which this House ought to handle what they do.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, equally might I ask whether the brief reference to reform of the House of Lords in the Election manifesto of the Party opposite gave details of the Bill now before the House?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, it was not a brief reference but a definite pledge to put before the House proposals for reform of the House. What could be more definite?

My Lords, I have detained you too long. All I want to say, in summing up, is that 638 reform of the House of Lords has two essential components. One is the introduction of Life Peers; the other is getting rid of the reproach of the absentees. It is a fact that, under our Constitution, with an all-powerful House of Commons there must be a House of Lords to play the part which all constitutional authorities have always regarded as the duty of that House—that is, the duty of being a Second Chamber with sufficient authority to sound a warning note to which the country would give heed if ever a majority in another place, of whatever Party, were to put forward proposals which threatened the liberties of the people and which the electorate had had no opportunity of considering.

LORD TEYNHAM

My Lords, as the noble Leader of the House reminded us, only a short time ago we debated in this Chamber almost every possible reform which could be thought of, and I suggest it is only too clear that the only reform which appeared to have any kind of agreement in this House was the creation of life peerages. For that and other reasons I should like to add my support for this Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said that many Members of another place considered that this Bill was really tinkering with the whole problem. I entirely disagree. It is certainly a very small Bill, but it may well create a great change in this House as time goes on, and, on the whole, if the powers are used wisely, it may strengthen the House in many directions and in prestige. This Bill is certainly designed to strengthen the Opposition quite considerably, for the reasons that have been given by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh.

During the recent debate on the proposals of Her Majesty's Government I was one of those who were very disturbed, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, was disturbed to-day, about the number of Life Peers who might be created in any one year. I have always thought that there should be some limitation; but I am not quite so strong on that point now as I understand that there is to be no limitation on the creation of hereditary Peers. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention that the proposed recipient of a peerage 639 should be asked whether he is prepared to accept a life peerage or an hereditary peerage. I suggest that this should be done, and I hope that on this question the reply of Her Majesty's Government will be in the affirmative.

I can certainly conceive many Amendments which might improve this Bill, such as one permitting Peers to renounce their right to sit in this House and to stand for election in another place, but I agree with Her Majesty's Government that such proposals should be the subject of another Bill rather than put forward as Amendments to this one. As we know, many possible Amendments are very contentious, and it is important, as a first step in the reform of this Chamber, to get as much agreement as possible and to build slowly on a sound foundation.

I believe that there is one great weakness in the proposals in this Bill, one which at the moment would seem difficult to overcome, and that is the financial question, mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, which will arise when the comparatively young and efficient candidate for a life peerage is approached. I was very glad that the noble Viscount raised that point. An expense account of some three guineas a day, as it is at present. is hardly likely to attract the type of person we want in this House and who would be of great benefit to us. It may be possible to adopt a plan of payment on the basis of percentage of attendance: that is, 25 per cent. of an agreed annual figure for 25 per cent. attendance; 50 per cent, of the amount for a similar attendance, and so on. Perhaps something on those lines could be considered. If the House decides to set up a Select Committee on leave of absence, as has been foreshadowed in the forthcoming debate next week, it is possible that the financial position for Peers could be improved, provided that the proposals for leave of absence are found to work satisfactorily. I am quite sure that something must be done in this direction if the House is to benefit from this Bill in any sound way.

That will certainly apply to male life peerages, but I am not so sure about the ladies, because even three guineas a day would be useful "pin-money" for some of them but I do not propose to say anything further about the inclusion of 640 women. I agree that on few grounds would it be possible to justify their exclusion and I would accept the Bill as it stands. On the other hand, I feel that perhaps they will not add much to the type of debate which we are accustomed to have in this House and also that they may well impart more of a Party feeling, which now, as your Lordships are aware, is rightly of a restrained nature, as I think behoves a good Second Chamber.

This Bill may well be only the "end of the beginning" and we may see further reforms added from time to time. I am sure we on this side all hope, and perhaps even the Opposition do also, that this Bill will be a helpful reform and that it will add prestige to the House. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said that we on this side of the House claim superiority (I think that was his word) over another place. That is not true at all. What we do claim is the right to delay the passing of a controversial measure so that people of the country may have another look at it. It is no use having a Second Chamber with no powers at all. But this Bill is not concerned with powers, and I hope—I am pretty sure it will be of benefit to the Chamber as a whole.

A great deal has been said by the Opposition against the hereditary principle. May I say just one thing about it which I do not think has often been mentioned before? I would say that our strength and prestige are bound up in the fact that we are really a group of ordinary people—in fact, of men in the street—and that we have not sought political membership like those in another place in any way at all. Therefore, I think we can claim to delay a controversial measure to enable the people of the country to think again.

The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, emphasised also that the Opposition has placed no difficulty in the way of reform so far as discussions are concerned. May I remind him that in February, 1953, the then Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill. approached the leaders of the Opposition for a meeting to consider the reform of this Chamber; but he was, as we all know, heavily rebuffed and told that, in view of the fact that the previous discussions of 1947 had revealed a fundamental cleavage of opinion on what was 641 the proper part to be played by the House of Lords, they had come to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served by entering into any discussions. Would the noble Viscount agree that that is a fact? I hope that in the course of time the Opposition will change their attitude and perhaps consider a more extensive reform by agreement amongst the Parties.

LORD REA

My Lords, may I take it that the noble Lord does not mean Liberal Opposition, on which side I think there has been co-operation.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords. I know that an almost unprecedented number of noble Lords are anxious to speak to-day, and therefore I propose to detain the House for only a 'very few minutes. Indeed, I should not have intervened at all, but for the fact that I have an engagement to speak in the North of England on Thursday, and this is my only opportunity of speaking in this important debate on a subject on which. I have worked for so very many years.

It has been suggested to me that I ought to take this opportunity of expounding rather more fully a scheme for the reform of your Lordships House which I was bold enough to adumbrate not long ago in The Times. But I do not intend to do that, because, after all, this is a debate on the Government's proposals as set out in their Bill, and there would be no point in my adverting to others unless I intended to vote against the Bill; and I do not so intend. For I am not against the proposals themselves, though I regard them as sadly inadequate. In particular, I disagree with the provision, which has already been mentioned, by which ladies shall be able to become Members of this House as Life Peeresses, whereas ladies who have a hereditary right to sit cannot become Members under the Bill. It seems to me that there is no rhyme or reason in that distinction, and it is surely quite inequitable Nor can I believe that the Leader of the House is correct in suggesting that the fate of the Bill might well rest on the treatment of these very few ladies. Therefore, on that point I am not in agreement with the Government. But that, I can assure your Lordships, is not the main reason why I 642 am addressing your Lordships this afternoon. My main reason—which I think is the same reason which prompted my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh in speaking just now--is to utter a warning, rather like Cassandra, and I expect with very much the same result. However, it is a warning that I cannot refrain from giving, feeling, as I do, as to what is likely to be the future of this House as a result of failure of the Government really to tackle this problem.

The limited character of the Government's proposals appears to me to derive almost equally from two old proverbs: "Half a loaf is better than no bread," and "Let sleeping dogs lie," and personally, if I may say so, I do not believe that either of those proverbs, however admirable, is applicable to this particular case. So far as "Half a loaf is better than no bread" is concerned, it should, I imagine, be an essential requirement of any diet, whether large or small, that it must be sufficient to keep the patient alive; and I very much doubt whether this particular diet will do that. For as I see it, whatever its other merits, the Government's plan has this fatal defect: that it does not deal (and I think the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has already pointed this out) with any financial provisions to enable Life Peers to undertake active membership of the House.

I presume that this new category of Peers, like hereditary Peers, will, under the Government's proposals, receive three guineas a day on each day that they attend the House. As the House sits for only 100 days in the year, that would amount, at the maximum, to £315 per annum. Noble Lords opposite can say better than I can whether that is likely to attract young and energetic recruits to their ranks. In my view, it will not attract anybody on either side of the House. It would not by itself attract the lowest paid labourer in this country at the present time. That, my Lords, means, in effect, that it will be necessary for anybody who accepts a Life Peerage under this Bill to have independent means; and that, I should have thought, goes a long way towards destroying the main object of the Bill. And yet we must all, if we are frank with ourselves, realise that it would be impossible even to consider a more substantial remuneration for Peers while 643 the House contains a number of hereditary Peers who seldom, or never, attend at all. That being so, the essential prerequisite of any viable scheme for Life Peers must be to limit the number of hereditary Peers to those who really mean to attend, and can therefore justify payment of rather larger remuneration to them too. As I see it, on this question, on the financial aspect of this question, Life Peers and Hereditary Peers hang together. Yet that is completely ignored by the Government's scheme.

Nor can I personally place any reliance on the other proverb which have mentioned: "Let sleeping dogs lie". I see no reason to suppose that these dogs are sleeping as soundly, even now, as all that. A meeting of the Labour Party a few days ago announced, I believe, that they were opposed to the hereditary principle and also of any delaying power by your Lordships House; and I think I heard some not excessively somnolent snarls even in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. In these circumstances, do the Government really believe, and do they really expect the House to believe, that if your Lordships are as quiet as mice, so as not to disturb the slumbers of the Socialist Party, a Socialist Government, if it came into power, would remain quiescent and allow us to perform our constitutional functions, as we believe we ought to do, without hindrance?

My Lords, that is the situation as I see it. I think it is formidable: I think it is extremely distressing and depressing. I cannot look at the position with the same airy optimism that seems to govern the view of the noble Earl the Leader of the House—I have had far too long experience for that. The noble Earl said that there was a broad area of agreement. He did not say how much wider was the area of disagreement. But that, since he spoke, has been underlined pretty effectively by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. If the noble Earl, Lord Home, and his colleagues really think, after listening to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that they can find—or that there is any probability of finding—a solution of this problem which will be acceptable both to the Conservative Party and to the Labour Party, then, if I may say so, I 644 think they must be living in a world of illusions which must seem absolutely staggering to most of us.

THE EARL OF HOME

My political life has not been a very long one, but I remember the Socialist Party being absolutely pledged to abolition of the House of Lords. They have moved from that, and they have moved a little further in one or two other matters. So I thought it was possible that they might move a little further yet.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

They have not moved very far. They are still against the hereditary principle; they are still against any delaying powers for the Second Chamber. I should have thought that it would be fair to say that they had not narrowed the gap excessively. That being the case, I believe—and I am afraid that I must say so—that the Government (and it applies also to my Party in this House), by failing to grasp the nettle while there is yet time, are putting in jeopardy not only the hereditary system, to which many of us attach importance, but, what is even more important, the whole basis of the bicameral system, which is, as I see it, the only protection a country like ours, with an unwritten Constitution, can have.

My Lords, that is my view, and I have felt bound to express it. I would add this—and it is the last thing I want to say. Those who feel as I do will, of course, continue, in the years that lie ahead of us, to press for a more effective scheme of reform, while time still remains. But as the Government have already made clear that they are going to embark on a more extensive measure of reform only when they get the agreement of the Labour Party, I am not very hopeful that anything effective will be done. And if we fail, and this House passes, as an effective body, into the limbo of the past, let us not delude ourselves; it will be a Conservative Government and your Lordships' House—I say it with great grief—on whom, above all will rest the responsibility for killing it.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

May I ask the noble Marquess a question? Would he explain, in a sentence, why he is going to vote for this Bill?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Yes, I will explain. It is because the 645 purpose of this Bill is to create Life Peers, and I am in favour of the creation of Life Peers. But I do not think that that is enough. However, I am in favour of the creation of Life Peers and it would therefore be rather foolish for me to vote against the Bill.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I do not think the noble Marquess need apologise for addressing this House on this particular subject. Whether we agree with him or not, we all appreciate the immense love which he has for this Chamber, and the immense amount of work he has done for Parliament as a whole. Of course we welcome his intervention, and we have been most interested in what he has had to say. This House, to-day and on Thursday, is indulging in a favourite occupation of most people—introspection. I think that there is nothing people like more than thinking and talking about themselves—and that is what we are going to do. Whether there is enough justification for two days' discussion or not—and I am very doubtful whether there is—nevertheless, I imagine that we shall be embarking on one of the longest debates in the history of this House.

We had a two day's debate at the end of last month. The purpose of that debate was, as I understood it, to enable the Government to get the views of this House upon the reform which they were proposing to introduce. Well, I think they got it in thirty-five speeches. The result of all this discussion was that the Government stood exactly where they were. They have introduced exactly the measure which they forecast, although they could have had very little comfort from the discussion in October, because few noble Lords who spoke agreed with what the Government were proposing to do. Some thought it was too much, some thought it was too little. Some—even on the side of the noble Lords opposite—thought that the hereditary system was wrong. The condemnation of the hereditary system did not come solely from this side of the House. At least two noble Lords on the opposite side of the House—and I hope we shall be hearing them in the course of this debate—also condemned the system.

I hope that I may be able to condense what I have to say into a fairly short summary. I imagine that at the end of 646 the day the real essence will be our views on the hereditary system. Let me put it beyond doubt—if there was any doubt before. We on this side think that the hereditary system is not only illogical but also that it cannot really be justified. And no one has attempted to justify it—not even the noble Marquess who has just spoken—with the single exception of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I say to him that I did not fail to justify it because I had not got justification, but merely because I did not wish to take up more time of the House.

LORD SILKIN

I think that what I say is nevertheless true; it has not been justified. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, tried to justify it, and I think he made up for logic by the emphatic way in which he spoke. But I do not think he was at all convincing in his attempted justification of the hereditary system. He seemed to imagine that there was some divine right on the part of the hereditary legislators to warn the country of dangers at the hands of people who were the elected representatives of the people. He seemed to think that people who had been elected were in danger of getting out of touch with the general public, whereas we, who are not elected, are, by some means, placed in the position of being able to give this warning and to halt their activities.

There is not, in our view, any justification for a Second Chamber being an hereditary one. I am quite prepared to hear the arguments that may be put forward. I imagine it will be said that there have been produced very public spirited men like the noble Marquess—but the noble Marquess is a law unto himself; he is an exception. Divine Providence does not ensure that the hereditary Peer is the most suitable legislator. And even if the system can be said to have worked—and so far as I can gather the most that may be said for it is that it does work—there is no evidence that it would not have worked better if you had properly selected people, appointed for their suitability for the task of legislating. The question is, has it worked? Is it working? I would say it has neither worked in the past nor is it working to-day.

That brings me to the second point. This House works most successfully when 647 there is a Conservative majority. Then there is complete harmony; there is no interference with legislation; there is no hold-up; there is no reason why it should do anything but revise. When it comes to a Labour majority, then the very fact that there is a Conservative majority in this House is a handicap. I readily admit that the present Conservative leadership—and I include in that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Home—have acted with great restraint. Nevertheless, the fact that there is a permanent majority against us when we are in office means that we often have to bear in mind the possibility that a Bill will be "mauled" in Committee. We have to accept Amendments which otherwise we should feel we ought not to accept, and generally we are not able to deal with matters entirely on their merits, because of this permanent hostile majority in your Lordships' House.

Therefore, this Bill is unacceptable—except as some kind of palliative, about which I will say something in a moment—not for the reasons which the noble Marquess has given, but, first, because it maintains the hereditary system, and secondly, because it does nothing about the permanent Conservative majority. I wonder how noble Lords opposite can justify a Chamber which is constituted as this is, in a two-Party system of Government, with a permanent majority on the side of one of the Parties. How can they possibly justify it? I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will apply himself to this question. I wonder whether the noble Lords opposite would be so content if we had a majority and were able to say that we had "acted with great restraint" and that we had been "very reasonable." There is an element of patronage about that, under which self-respecting people are not very willing to sit. We do not want noble Lords opposite to act under restraint or to be very reasonable with us; we want them to do justice to their point of view, not to restrain themselves, and we should like to do the same. When there is a Labour Government, we want a Labour majority, and vice versa.

This Bill does nothing to deal with the great hardship of young men who enter another place or have ambitions to get into another place and who are the heirs 648 to peerages. So far as I can see from the terms of the Bill, it is not even possible to put down an Amendment to deal with this matter. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will be able to tell your Lordships if that is so. I find that the Title is so restricted that one cannot even put down an Amendment to enable Peers—not even Life Peers—to renounce their peerages. It may not help very much in the case of Life Peers, but what is wanted is something to enable the heir to a peerage to renounce it on becoming a member of the peerage, and an actual Peer to renounce his peerage, so that his son will not be encumbered, as a number of them are.

There is nothing in the Bill to limit the number of Peers. All that will happen under the Bill is that it will be possible to go on creating hereditary Peers and a number of Life Peers will be created as well. The position will become really intolerable. Next week we shall be discussing the possibility of inviting Peers to ask for leave of absence. So far as it goes, that is all right, but I have grave doubts about whether it is going to lead to any worthwhile results. In any case, it does not do away with the fact that soon we shall have a Chamber of Peers whose number will approach four figures. Unless we do something about it, I feel that we are in danger of making your Lordships' House ridiculous.

There is nothing in the Bill about payment. I would offer a slight correction to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I think that his general thesis on payment was right, but the fact is that the three guineas is intended to be a reimbursement of actual money expended. In theory, and I hope in practice, not one single penny of that three guineas goes into the pockets of any Peer, so that there is no payment of any kind at the moment. I do not know how we can expect to get Life Peers who are really worth having and who will enable the work of the House to be done more effectively without adequate payment. The noble Earl, Lord Home, justified this measure by saying that it had the general support of your Lordships' House. On reading the debate of October 30 and 31 last, I must confess that I have hardly ever seen a Bill which had less general support. Almost every speaker in that debate criticised in one form or another the Government's proposals. Even the noble Lord, 649 Lord Balfour of Burleigh, was critical, because he thought that this went too far.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Not far enough.

LORD SILKIN

Have it which way he likes, even the noble Lord is critical. Last night I read the debate of those two days and did not find a single speaker who stood up and said, simpliciter, "I support the Bill," or "I support the principle of what it is proposed to introduce." It surprised me then that the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, could not find a seconder for his proposal that women should not be eligible for life peerages. I am bound to say that in my conversations with noble Lords outside the Chamber, I found a large number who were against the appointment of women Life Peers. Why they were not prepared to back their views by supporting the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, I do not know. I am sure that there is a large number who are against women Life Peers in your Lordships' House. That is not exactly supporting the Bill. I think that it is difficult to say that there is general support for it. The noble Earl referred to the appointment of women Peers as logical, and I fully agree with him. But if we are going to introduce the element of logic into this Chamber, I do not understand how we can stop short at peerages for women; we have to go much further and question the whole raison d'être of the constituted composition of Otis House—and when we start to do that, we get into some difficulties.

Like many other noble Lords, I have no idea of the kind of persons we are going to get as Life Peers. I am sceptical about whether we are going to get anybody worth while at all. I want to enter one or two caveats. I have heard names canvassed outside this Chamber particularly of possible women Life Peers. I hope that nobody over the age of fifty-five, at any rate will be appointed as a Life Peer either male or female. I hope that this will not be used as a reward for past services but that Life Peers will coin e here capable of rendering services in the future. If the noble Earl the Leader of the House is really sincere in wanting to strengthen the Opposition in this House as I believe he is and as I believe the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was, not out of any tenderness for the Opposition as such, but because they feel, as 650 I do, that it is a good thing for the House that there should be an effective Opposition, then they must ensure that the people to be appointed as Life Peers will be the right kind of people.

I wish it were possible to put something in the Bill in the way of qualifications. I know that that might present difficulties, but I hope the Government will not rule out the idea altogether. I would certainly have an age limit. I should myself, mentally, at any rate, require a good many other qualifications. One thing I want to ask the Government to ensure in the appointment of Life Peers is that the people who are appointed are people who are really going to help in the work of the House. If it be a fact that the Opposition in this House needs strengthening, then they must be people who will strengthen the Opposition, and, therefore, they should be appointed on the basis of men and women who have a reasonable expectation of useful service in this House and are prepared to give the necessary time to it.

In the course of the previous debate a good deal was said about this House as a debating chamber; as a forum; as a place where people could, once a year or once in two years, come and deliver themselves of a great speech, with great authority, and then walk out without even listening to the reply, and come again in a year or two. That may have its uses, although I am not certain that it has. I think this House is a place where one has got to know and feel the atmosphere. It is no good coming here and delivering yourself of an address as if you were giving a lecture to the House; we can read those statements without being burdened by listening to them. What we want is that people who come and talk to us should be one of us, and members of this group in the real sense of the word. Therefore, I hope that we shall not have people of distinction in other fields, whose sole claim to being Life Peers will be that they have distinguished themselves in other walks of life and are prepared to make distinguished speeches in this House once in two years.

I do not expect noble Lords opposite to agree with the views of those on this side of the House on the hereditary system. So far as we are concerned, as 651 my noble Leader said, we will not oppose the Bill. For myself, in so far as the Bill goes, and if it is really going to do what I hope it will do—but there is no guarantee of that from its terms—I offer it a welcome, and I hope that it can be made a success. However, I am sure that it will not be made a success unless the two qualifications I have mentioned are fully satisfied: first, that you get the right kind of people here and secondly, that simultaneously you provide for payment. Without those two qualifications this Bill will be worse than useless, because we shall have put up a facade that will make people think we are getting an improved House when, in fact, we are not.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, none of us who spoke last time can fail to remember the words of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, when he enjoined on us that if we had spoken before and were speaking again we should at least be short. Therefore, if I am a little brief, I trust your Lordships will realise that it is not because of any lack of respect for the subject or for your Lordships' House, but simply because of that enjoinder. I rise to support this measure as being essential for the effective future working of this House. That support is none the less wholehearted in that, in company with many others, including the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, I wish it could have gone further by limiting the numbers by cutting out absentees However, this Bill does not do that, and I do not think it is helpful at the moment to carry that question further. I should, however, like to support many noble Lords on the point they have made about the need for reconsidering the question of payment of Members. It would indeed be a tragedy if, after the discussions and the work necessitated by the introduction of this Bill, at the end of it all we found that there was an insufficient number of men of real standing and, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, sufficient youth prepared to accept the new life peerages.

There are two points I want to make, without going back on the point of regretting that this Bill does not go further. I think it is desirable that it should be said in this House, and said with a loud voice, 652 that it is not due to any obstruction on the part of Members of the House of Lords that the Bill has not gone further; indeed, there are many of us who regret it. It is true that it is hoped next week to discuss what we call, briefly the "Swinton proposals" for asking leave to be absolved from the obligations of the Summons. Though, I personally have always felt that those proposals do not take us very far, I suppose we can say that they are a beginning. My own view of these proposals will be greatly affected by the recommendations of (I suppose it will be) the Select Committee appointed for this purpose as to what notice will have to be given for the withdrawal of the request for leave of absence. If it will be possible for a Peer simply to pick up an Order Paper, see that a subject in which he is interested is coming up for debate in a week or a fortnight, and instantly write a letter withdrawing the request, then the scheme will not be worth the paper it is written on. If, on the other hand, there has to be a reasonable notice of, say, one, two or three months, or, as some of us may think, even a Session, then the scheme might be made to mean something.

There is one other thing that I feel needs to be said with a loud voice—it has been said before, and I apologise to your Lordships for repeating what I said in the last debate only a short time ago, but so much has been said on the point by noble Lords opposite, and by the Labour Party as a whole, that I think it needs repeating: we are not now debating the constitution of a House that can overrule—and that is the word repeatedly used—the House of Commons. That power has not existed since 1911. From 1911 to 1948 it was a matter of delay for three Sessions, and since 1948 it has been delay