LIFE PEERAGES BILL [H.L.]

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, I feel that I can hardly continue the debate on the Life Peerages Bill without saying a word of sympathy for both the relatives of those injured and of those who have lost their lives in the accident, as well as for British Railways in the appalling chapter of misfortunes which occurred last night.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who spoke last in the debate, raised one or two points with which I would like to deal briefly. He mentioned single-Chamber government in New Zealand. I think that those of us who have been to New Zealand would feel that conditions in New Zealand are not an exact parallel with, or guide to, conditions in this country, if only because of the difference between two million and fifty million in the respective populations. There is the further point, already touched on by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, that in considering this Bill we are not planning for or against the possible activity of any particular Government, and certainly do not have in mind planning for anything that may happen in the immediately foreseeable future. Therefore, the fact that single-Chamber government has done no harm in New Zealand does not deter us from advocating, two Chambers in this country.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, talked about "independent" representatives on local government bodies. I would offer an alternative definition. "Independent" members of local government bodies are people who wish to give attention to local problems and use their local knowledge and common sense, refusing to be deterred or deflected by Party ideologies from doing things in their own local bodies. Then—and this is the last point on which I wish to follow him—as I listened to the noble Earl I felt that his idea of the future composition of your Lordships' House would not be unlike the composition of the consumer councils which were so popular at the time the coal and other industries were being nationalised. No one knew whom they represented and what their responsibilities were, but they did not look bad in the shop window.

871 In his speech opening the debate my noble friend Lord Hailsham took a certain amount of credit for Her Majesty's Government as being the first Government since 1910 to deal with this problem. I do not disagree with him, but I think that it might have been worth while looking a little further to see why it became possible for the present Government to take this action now, when other Governments were unable to do so before. I think that it is partly due to the general state of affairs. Every sort of social, technical and scientific development has taken place; and while, on the one hand, we wish to preserve our own traditions, our own way of life and our own way of doing things, on the other hand, we find that, if we mean to adhere to these principles, we need to change the practices. After all, the problem of the continuance of your Lordships' House is in some ways not very different from the problem of the continuance of local government organisations in this country. If it is not true that the "penny has dropped" so far in places like Church House and Transport House, that is not to say that the same problems do not exist over there. Unless I am much mistaken, these problems will have to be tackled, if we are not to fail in harnessing our old traditions to the needs of the modern world. I think that that is really what we are trying to do in this Bill.

We want to see that our practices, whatever they may be, are modern enough to meet the needs of the present day yet at the same time continue the principles on which we have gone in the past. If it were asked, "What are these principles?" I, for one, would reply that the principle involved here is that of two-Chamber government. I am glad that the noble Earl came out so clearly with his views on crypto-unicameralism. The reason why we want an efficient and properly constituted Second Chamber surely is that we wish to see two-Chamber government carried on properly. As my noble friend Lord Hailsham said—and I am sure that he never spoke a truer word of all the words he has spoken—we cannot afford to be without either two-Chamber government or a written Constitution. If we have neither of them, it is fair to prophesy that, perhaps not to-morrow, and perhaps not the next day, 872 but sooner or later, we shall wake up one morning and find that some bulwark of the Constitution has been knocked away by a snap Division in another place in a thin House at five o'clock in the morning; and whatever anybody says from the Benches opposite, I do not think that is a prospect we should wish to contemplate. Furthermore, I believe my noble friend Lord St. Oswald was absolutely right, when he spoke the day before yesterday and said that, in his opinion, some of his Left Wing friends in the South of Yorkshire, whatever they might say, knew that just as well as he did.

So, my Lords, we come to the question that we have all been asking for the last two days: whether the hereditary system is sufficient as it is to carry on the work of this House, even with the powers as they are, and no more. I am quite sure that the answer to that is "No". After all, we have heard a great deal said against the hereditary principle, and we shall hear a great deal more. We had this Bill described just now by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, as "an invasion of the hereditary principle"; and for that reason, I take it, he supports it. I myself, as I have already said, feel that a great many more people would support the hereditary principle than care to say so in public or to write in public, but that it is more fun to tilt at the windmills of privilege, especially if the tilters forget that privilege, as is the case in this House, is a question not only of enjoying certain rights but also of performing certain duties. And that is a point which most of the tilters at privilege seem not always to remember.

Anybody, of course, can make a perfectly good case in saying that the hereditary principle is illogical. So it is. But the question is not whether or not it is logical, but whether it supplies something of which this House is in need. The answer to that, I think, is "Yes"; and I believe that that answer would be given by anybody who had been long enough in this House to know how it works, what sort of things have to be done and what sort of people you want to do them. In all the time that I have been in this House—twenty-two years; and many noble Lords have been here much longer—it has always struck me that there is a great deal of what can only be described as "donkey work". There are Committees upstairs, the Whips' jobs, the Committee 873 stages on Bills, supporting Motions and this and that; and although you may get ex-tycoons and elder statesmen to learn the job, the people who do that job, or have done it in my experience, are the younger hereditary Peers, who are not too proud to take on the smaller jobs, and most of whom, indeed, enjoy doing them, at any rate for a time.

Whether this House has large powers or small, the business of the House will have to be carried on; and if Bills are to be revised, the details of the Bills will have to be worked out, discussed outside the House and spoken to. That was why I was glad to hear some remarks which fell two days ago from the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, and from the noble Lord, Lord Darwen. As they spoke, there came into my mind that story of Rudyard Kipling's, An Habitation Enforced; and it struck me that, although they had not been particularly pleased, from some points of view, to come here, they had found a job to do when they got here and were enjoying doing it. So much the better. That, my Lords, should go for any, except the very old men, who succeed to Peerages in this House.

That is not to say—and I am certainly not one who is going to say it—that because the hereditary system has worked up now, we do not want Life Peers. We certainly do. I am not going to repeat All the arguments used two days ago about the need to reinforce the Opposition Benches, not because I do not agree with them wholeheartedly but because I have nothing more to say on top of what was said then. I am certain it is right, just as I am certain that this Bill is a very good thing. But it does raise the question as to whether or not, in practice, hereditary creations will continue. I think there is a risk that they will stop altogether unless it is possible for those who succeed to hereditary Peerages, and who for some good reason or other find that they cannot fulfil their obligations, to be excused, and for those people who are in another place, or want to be there, to be allowed to stay there or to go there, and not to be forcibly removed or prevented, as some have been. In this respect, this Bill certainly does not meet all requirements. I do not think it meets all requirements even if it is taken together with which I may call the "Swinton proposals," which are to be debated by the House next Tuesday. I 874 think the Swinton proposals will need to be gone into in more detail, in order to make the arrangements for obtaining leave of absence more realistic than perhaps, on the bare information we have now, they are at the moment. But I certainly do not want to anticipate what ought to be said on Tuesday rather than now. I would simply say that I agree absolutely and wholeheartedly with everything that has been said by my noble friend Lord Salisbury and by others on the need to select the hereditary Peers.

I am not afraid, in practice, of "Backwoodsmen," because in all my time in this House I have never seen that often-threatened descent of hordes of "Backwoodsmen." On the two or three occasions when "Backwoodsmen" might have been expected to appear—the Abdication; the debates on the Parliament Bill, 1949, and on the Steel Bill—the number of "Backwoodsmen" who did appear, that is to say, the numbers who I knew had never come at any other time to take part in the Business of the House, were very small indeed; they were only fractional or marginal, as one might say. And the unlikelihood of the arrival of "Backwoodsmen" is, I think, immensely fortified by the practice that was set during the time of office of the last Government by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, when he advised those of us who supported him that if this or that measure was in the proposals placed before the country by a political Party at an Election, and legislation came up here which was in line with the proposals, it was no part of our business to vote against the principle. It was voting against a principle which caused the arrival of the "Backwoodsmen" in 1910, so far as I know. Nevertheless, although I do not think the "Backwoodsmen" are a real danger, I do think that they are a ghost. They are prayed in aid on every occasion by people who do not like the hereditary system; and there is a certain amount to be said for it. Like all other ghosts, I should think that they ought to be properly exorcised, by a process of selection. What that process of selection should be I feel that we might leave to a later stage, because it is not a matter included in the Bill, and we are supposed to be discussing what is in the Bill.

875 If noble Lords will cast their minds back to a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Reading a few days ago on tribunals, they will remember that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said a good deal about the care he so rightly takes in scrutinising the antecedents of candidates for the magistrates' bench, for tribunals and so forth. I am sure everybody will agree that that was absolutely right. But one could think—and I certainly do—that there is something faintly absurd in that careful scrutiny for these relatively minor offices, whereas at the same time people, by the process of heredity and technical processes in the Crown Office, could arrive in this House, although they could not possibly have survived for a moment the eagle eye of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had they been candidates for a magistrates' court or a land tribunal. I should like to leave that reflection with your Lordships as a possible argument at a future stage in support of some system of selection which will produce, by and large, the same result in respect of your Lordships' House. I think that that is a stage to which we shall have to come.

I would say only one word about women. I am one of those people who feel that the proposals are absolutely justified. I am not quite sure that if this debate had taken place in 1910, as I think it should have done, I should have said the same thing. I feel that I might have had a good deal more sympathy then with my noble friend Lord Airlie or even with my noble friend Lord Ferrers. In other words, I should not have wished to have associated myself with a system of providing Mrs. Pankhurst with any early laurels. But we are not in 1910 now, and we all know quite well what has been said many times—that it has become accepted practice that women should take part in all our assemblies and in all our professions, except for the High Court bench and the Churches, where other arguments of a religious and not a political nature come in and, therefore, where this proposal may not apply. So I feel that, whatever we might have done in 1910, this is no time of day to take up an attitude which I think arises not from looking forward in any way to what we should do, but from looking to the rear.

876 I should like to say one word on some remarks which fell from my noble friend Lord Hailsham when he was talking about the Rhondda judgment. I certainly should not attempt any legal argument with him—I am entirely unqualified to do that—but I should like to read the words which come from the Swinton Report at the top of page 5. It says: There is no doubt that the House could reconsider the issues raised in these cases and come to a different conclusion. Therefore, if we think it is right that hereditary Peeresses should take their seats in the House, I certainly do not think we could accept any suggestion that the Rhondda judgment can stand for ever and for all time. If it is right, we should take it up at the first opportunity and exercise the powers which, according to the Swinton Report, this House seems to have.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I think my noble friend would have to agree that that could arise only on a petition from the lady in question. The Rhondda judgment was in response, I think, to a petition for the right to sit in this House, and it was a decision through the Committee for Privileges. What I understood the Report of my noble friend to say was that these matters should be reconsidered, but only on the proper procedure in the proper way.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, I am not quite sure about that. I think they could be reconsidered without a petition from the Peeress in question. But I think we were driven to consider—although we were rather doubtful what were the principles which decided the Rhondda judgment—whether a Select Committee, sitting again, would be satisfied that, in accordance with law and custom, the decision taken in the Rhondda case was wrong, and in fact that the finding of the first Committee was wrong and the finding of the second Committee was right.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, the material point appears to be this: we are dealing with new legislation, and not with existing law. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether there is anything in the Report of the noble Earl's Committee which would stop this House from moving an 877 Amendment to reverse the Rhondda judgment and admit women Peeresses in their own right.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I think that that was the very point with which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack was dealing—if I apprehend aright the question the noble Viscount is asking.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, I will certainly not dispute what my noble friend Lord Hailsham has said—I am sure that must be right. Surely, then, the position is this. If any noble Lady wishes to make an appeal in the way that Lady Rhondda did in the old days, I hope the House will use all the powers it has to accede to it. If no noble Lady chooses to put forward a petition, then I would agree that there would be no need for the House to take the initiative.

I do not wish to detain the House much longer. I feel—and I am bound to say this—that this Bill represents a much more piecemeal approach to this problem than perhaps was necessary. I was reminded when I thought of that of the words which a Victorian novelist wrote in the preface to his book, Vice Versa, where he contented himself merely with the entreaty that his little fish might be spared the rebuke that it was not a whale. I would not rebuke this Bill for not being a whale. I mean to vote for it, if necessary, for what it is worth. But I would do that only in the hope that we can consider this Bill, not in isolation, but as part of a more grand design for the proper and satisfactory reform of this House.

I certainly would never take the view—though it is a matter for technicians and legalists—that we can do everything we want over the whole reform of your Lordships' House by one single Bill. It is perfectly clear that certain things will have to be done by a Parliamentary Bill which can be introduced in this House. It is also clear to me that certain things, like financial provisions, and the question of standing at Parliamentary elections, may be much better dealt with or initiated, at any rate, in another place. Likewise, we all know now from the Report of the Select Committee headed by my noble friend Lord Swinton that certain things are within the competence of the House itself. But all those things which produce a satisfactory reform of the House of Lords must be different 878 parts of one plan, and I cannot help feeling that it would have been better if this Bill had been presented, not so much as something in itself but as part of the bigger plan which I think is necessary. I am sure that many who feel as I do will wish to pursue such a plan at the earliest possible moment, until some of the things which have been advocated by my noble friends and which I have tried to advocate myself can be brought to fruition.

Having said that, I will conclude by saying this. All those points, although they are points of major detail, are none the less points of detail. The main thing is that it has been found possible, after forty-seven years, to take a constructive step in the reform of this House. There is no need to go into the past, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, did, and think why we have not done it before. We are doing it now, and that, in itself, is a great achievement and the first step in what I hope is the grand design.

LORD MORAN

My Lords, it is not the English way, I think, to set up a brand new Chamber when the Chamber already in existence is effective, or can be made effective. So the question arises: Is your Lordships' House effective or not? I think the answer comes from the Leaders of the Opposition, and is most reassuring. May I remind your Lordships of what they said? The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that against all probability this House works extremely well, as things in England do, and that we should be unwise to be too logical. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said that the influence and prestige of this House were considerable. The noble Viscount who leads the Opposition said that the standard of debate is such that it is the admiration of people all over the world.

You may wonder why, in these circumstances, we are sitting here debating the reform of this House. I suppose the answer is that those who were responsible for these proposals now before the House were anxious to reduce the vulnerability of the House to attack, and that they had in mind in particular public opinion and public criticism of this House in the past. If your Lordships would allow me, I may perhaps say one word on 879 the connection of public opinion and proposals that come, or may come, before this House for its reformation. It is extremely difficult to gauge public opinion. Newspapers with vast circulations are often completely wrong when they set out to predict the result of a General Election.

I am impressed with what the noble Earl, Lord Woolton said, with all his opportunities, about the respect in which this House is held throughout the country. For three months every year I wander round the country doing a certain job; I have many opportunities of talking to all sorts of people, and my opinion, for what it is worth, entirely corroborates that of Lord Elton and Lord Woolton about the opinion held of this House. Of course, we may be wrong. It may be that the caricature of this House which has appeared since 1911 has had some effect. The picture that has been drawn of this House is a mere travesty of the facts.

I remember in this connection the Secretary of State in America, Mr. Dean Acheson, saying to me that one of the great dangers of the modern world was the suggestibility of people; they will believe almost anything. When I spoke of the travesty of facts, I had in mind in particular the hereditary principle. A quarter of the peerage at the present time are first creations, and more than half of those who regularly attend the House are also new creations. The hereditary element is already in a minority in the proceedings of the House. I am not saying this because I am against that hereditary element; I am simply trying to expose that these pictures that are drawn of your Lordships' House are only a caricature.

Unfortunately, they are never really answered. Not only are we not, as it were, encouraged to answer in defence of the House, but sometimes I think we are even discouraged to make plans which might possibly increase the effectiveness of the House. If the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will forgive me, and I am sure he will, I question his advice given the other day, when he said that we ought to weigh (I think that was the word he used) very carefully any plan for increasing the prestige and influence of the House because it might stir up Party feeling. But if we set out to increase the effectiveness of this House 880 and at the same time we refrain from anything that might increase its influence and prestige—well you cannot have it both ways.

If sensitiveness to public opinion was one of the real reasons behind these proposals, the immediate reason was the statement that there will soon not be enough Opposition Peers to carry out the work of the House. A statement of that kind merits rather closer scrutiny. We are to suppose that the Opposition is suffering from a wasting disease and that it might presently die on its feet. Certain investigations that I made in Hansard of the figures in the Divisions fifty years ago entirely fail to support those fears. The numbers were very much the same as now. In 1867 Bagehot said that we were in danger not so much of abolition as of falling into a decline; that the reason was atrophy. You will see, my Lords, that the malady which the Opposition is supposed to be suffering from is a very chronic malady, because, going further back, to June, 1833, Macaulay, writing from the Smoking Room of the House of Commons to his sister said, The institution of the peerage is evidently dying a natural death"— that was a century and a quarter ago.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, it is a very interesting point. I think the noble Lord is forgetting that Bagehot pointed out that the thing which was killing attendance at that time was the institution of proxies, which was shortly afterwards abolished, and thereafter the attendance rose again.

LORD MORAN

I should like to deal with the noble Viscount's remarks in a moment, because I rather differed from him when he quoted Bagehot at great length the other day. Let that stand for one moment. Let us support my thesis by a few figures. I would remind you that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, created 86 new peerages. I should have thought that there would be enough to carry on the work of the House on the Opposition side, but I think many of them might find, as I do myself, that they are not particularly adapted or equipped for this work of revision and it is moreover not to us particularly attractive. We hear a great deal of the two or three members of the Opposition who do such valuable 881 work, but so far as numbers are concerned there are surely enough to reinforce them if it were not that they feel, as I do, that we are not very good at the job.

All old houses have a ghost story and our ghost is this question of the malady of the Opposition. The trouble is that the Government appear to believe in this particular ghost. In the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, we acted in order to recruit numbers sufficient to carry on the work of the House, a day-to-day quorum. It is for that reason that he wants Life Peers. But, as many of your Lordships have pointed out, that is not really the whole story. If we are to strengthen the Opposition, if we are to create Life Peers who will give up nearly all their erne to the work of the House, they must be paid adequately, and whatever the arguments of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, it is really a question of whether the proposal before the House will work; and if you do not pay them adequately it will not work. That means the consent of another place, and since we cannot pay 872 Peers adequately it means a reduction in the numbers and not an addition to them, and that again means getting the consent of another place.

So I come to this: that though the consent of another place is not the same thing as agreement with the Labour Party, nevertheless the more you ponder this problem the more convinced you become that nothing worth while can be done without an agreement with the Labour Party. How can we get that agreement? The Opposition are quite clear in their own minds that they are not prepared for any measure or step which will increase the effectiveness of the House by making it more rational, by increasing its influence and prestige, while that power may be used to hold up Labour legislation. That is true, and it was made abundantly clear that it is true by the Leader of the Opposition; I think he used the words "this cannot continue," referring to the power of delay.

So I come to the power of delay. Here I feel very diffident in saying anything at all. I came late in life into this House and my remarks on a matter of this kind like the power of delay may well, with my inadequate experience, be considered impertinence. Yet I feel that 882 what I want to say should be said. It is the more difficult to say since the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has made a reference to it, so that I may appear to be supporting one side of the House. But I am sure that your Lordships' tolerance is such that, in spite of what has been said from the Opposition Benches, you will listen to what I say, though you may not agree with it.

I believe that the power of delay means, in practice, that when the Labour Party are in power their legislation may be so hasty, so ill-considered and so full of ill-judgment that we ought to have the power to say "Think again"; but that when a Conservative Government holds office, so reasonable and so sensible is it that it is not necessary to say, "Think again." Broadly speaking, in spite of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, I believe that is true, and if it is true it seems to some of us not quite fair. If it is not fair, what are the consequences? If there is anything which is acting always to the detriment of one Party, that must in time affect the public conscience and its feeling of fair play and must undermine our moral authority.

After all, if we were to give up this power we should not be discarding anything that matters. The present Government, when in Opposition, said that a year's delay was no real safeguard. Then why retain it? Only once in forty-six years has this power been exercised. No doubt we could retain it for a few more years as a threat, a deterrent; but would that be wise? One of our younger Peers recently prayed the House to act before action was forced upon us, and speaker after speaker has got up and said that the present proposals do not go far enough. They feel quite certain that it is not worldly wisdom to leave the position as it is. I would liken the proposals before the House, which are quite innocuous in themselves, to what is called, in the jargon of my profession, a "tranquilliser." The proposals put off the future of this House, perhaps leaving it to another Government and giving it to less sympathetic and less understanding hands.

Suppose your Lordships did decide to give up the delaying power, what is left? There is, first, the function of revision which, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has said, is of supreme 883 importance. Incidentally, this revising power reconciles to a Second Chamber many who might be deaf to broader constitutional arguments. Then we come to the second and what I believe to be the most important function of this House at the present time: that of an Assembly which debates all the great questions that vex the nation and does so with a panel of experts. Whatever the debate before the House, we know we shall, before it ends, have heard three or four of the leading authorities in the country on the particular issue before us. This was what Bagehot had in mind when he pleaded for a panel of experts and wanted Life Peers. He wanted a more critical Assembly and proposed to get it by the introduction into the House of Lords of his time of thirty or forty of the choice intellects of that day, beginning with Macaulay.

I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was a little misleading, if he will forgive my saying so, when he quoted Bagehot in support of life peerages without fully explaining to your Lordships why Bagehot wanted them and why he failed to get them. He wanted them, not for revision, but to produce a panel of experts. He failed to get them from the hereditary Peerage, because, in the words of the Duke of Argyll in 1856, the House had till then held that it was incongruous to bestow an hereditary Peerage on anyone who could not support it by a private fortune. Bagehot failed to get life peerages because opinion was not then ripe to introduce into the House of Lords the leaders of industry and of the professions.

In the fifty years before Bagehot's time there were 189 new peerages. In the corresponding fifty years before 1955 there were 672 new peerages—four times as many. But it is not a matter of numbers. It is a fact that among that 672 were many who had been chosen because they were leaders in some branch of the national life. Since the Boer War, in my working lifetime, this House has had nearly 700 new peerages, and that has largely changed its whole aspect. It has become in high debate a panel of experts, as I have said; and I would remind your Lordships of the dictum of Lord Bryce on what he considered an ideal Second Chamber: 884 It need not have extensive legal powers so long as it possesses moral authority By "moral authority" he meant: The influence exerted on the mind of the nation which comes from the intellectual authority of the persons who compose the Chamber, from their experience, from their record in public life and from the respect which their character and their experience inspires. Is not that a picture of this Chamber when it is engaged in high debate on great issues of the day?

I have been trying to suggest that the composition of this House affects the quality of debate. Might I, for a moment, touch on the business that may most profitably come before such an Assembly? The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said that if the two Parties were made equal to-morrow, in six months' time they would be unequal, such is human nature. From that, the noble Lord deduced that your Lordships must always be rather biased in legislation, and from that, that the more we avoid politics, the stronger we are. I have read two or three times the speeches of noble Lords in the recent debate, to try to isolate the theme of each speaker and to get, if I could, the common denominator to the whole debate. What struck me was the sense of the urgent need in the political life of our time for more independence of thought, which is so very important. And the more changes we make in this House the more political we shall become. I believe that that would be an absolute disaster. In asking that the, other place, because of its want of time, perhaps because of the operation of Party discipline, can never deliberate in a manner so calm as in your Lordships' House.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, is the noble Lord arguing that the possession of a life peerage or membership by the female sex will necessarily make us more political? If so, I am not quite sure that I have understood why.

LORD MORAN

My Lords, I believe we shall become more political for the simple reason that those who are to choose additions to this House will be the Leaders of the Parties. There are many who sit on these Benches who do not really take part in any of these proposals. I do not know whether they were even asked to sit on the Committee of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, they were.

LORD MORAN

That was what I have in mind.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, is it really to be said that women are more political than men?

LORD MORAN

I did not bring in women at all. That is an irrelevant matter in my argument at the moment.

My Lords, it must have struck some of you that at the present time many of those who guide our destinies are largely living in the past. Our Generals in the last war could not get out of their minds the massacres of the Somme and Passchendaele; the representatives of the great trade unions live always under the shadow of the years of unemployment, and those who are thinking of the reform of this House are obsessed by 1911. For example, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, had to go back nearly fifty years to illustrate the sins of this House. He spoke more in sorrow than in anger. But, my Lords, when the historian comes to measure the contribution of this House and of another place to the political thought of our time and the political life of our times he can say of us that in 1911, by our want of judgment and lack of gumption, we stripped ourselves of most of our powers and put the whole future of our House in jeopardy. But what will be say of the other place? He must say that in the years immediately before the war, by the blindness to reality of all Parties, they put the security of the whole country at a risk. If we have sinned, it is not for anyone in the other place to throw stones.

I dwell on this living in the past. Why? Because it generates a mood of pessimism which is entirely wrong in considering the future of your Lordships' House. Our functions are plainly changing, but if we accept the alteration in emphasis on those functions then I have no fear of the future. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to clothe my conception of that future in the very eloquent words of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. He thought that these changes would enable the House to recover its past position as the home of oratory and high debate, a breeding ground for statesmen, an Assembly that will exalt its influence and 886 prestige and the dignity of the State and the fame of the Commonwealth.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

May I ask the noble Lord a question, before he sits down? The noble Lord has advocated the dropping of our power of delay. Does the noble Lord really feel that this House could adequately carry out its duty of revision without power of delay?

LORD MORAN

My Lords, I am not competent to answer that question, because to do so would require an experience which I do not possess. What I really had in mind—and this point was made on Tuesday—was that our functions of revision and deliberation are so supremely important, and we do them so supremely well, that I did not wish them to be sacrificed for a power which we never exercise. That is the real point. It is not that I want to give up the power of delay; it is a choice of evils. I believe that what I suggest is the lesser of the two.

LORD BRAND

My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only a short time as I am not a politician, and the speeches made to-day have been mainly by very eminent politicians who can judge these problems much better than I can. I was greatly interested to hear the speech we have just listened to from the noble Lord, Lord Moran. Nevertheless, I was not quite sure what final judgment he arrived at. As I understood him, it was that we should give up our power of delay and rely on our great powers of debate, and the wisdom of all that we said, which would influence the country very greatly in our favour. But supposing that the country never reads what we say—which is more or less the case. Twenty million people take papers, I suppose, who never, unless there is some scandal in this House, refer at all to our debates.

I am struck by the fact that television seems, anyhow among our younger people, to lead to the reading of no books or of hardly any books. It may be that they learn now, through their eyes, more from television than they do from books. Nevertheless, I do not think the way the modern generation is growing up will mean that they will study the pages of Hansard very thoroughly; and, 887 therefore, I rather doubt whether we shall have a great influence. No doubt we shall be innocuous if we are not political at all, and if we never cause any trouble at all to another place. But shall we be very fruitful? I would think it not advisable that this House should give up all questions of politics and not take a political line about anything.

As for the power of delay, I shall no doubt be regarded as prejudiced, but nearly all Upper Chambers, Upper Houses, are Conservative. They are meant to be Conservative. They are there not to initiate great radical reforms but to express perhaps another, a second, opinion, and possibly to lead to some delay. I think it is natural that a Labour Party should be enormously more radical than a Conservative Party. They are there for that purpose—certainly they are at this moment. One may expect, therefore, I think with reason, that this House, being naturally Conservative, will perform its functions by some delay, if necessary, as well as by some power of revision. I think that we should lead, according to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, a rather beautiful life of expressing words of wisdom, but I doubt whether anyone would read them.

I am certainly in favour of the Bill now before the House, because, as a matter of practical politics, I think we must proceed by degrees in strengthening and modernising your Lordships' House. The Bill is vague, but it has the definite project of the creation of Life Peers. I feel sure that we cannot rely now entirely on the hereditary principle. I have no wish to disparage that principle, and I think in some ways it leads to very good results. One very good result, I think, is that we get quite young Peers in this House who express, with ability, the views that they hold. Whether with Life Peers you would get young Peers I very much doubt; because Life Peers, though I hope they would not be old, would be of some "ripeness", I would say, and therefore we shall lose that quality.

Nevertheless, we have to recognise that the hereditary principle derives from a feudal society and from a land-owning class with great properties and great political powers. It was because of their great political power that the House of 888 Lords held the position it had. But only relics are left of such a society, and the monstrous taxation to which we are subject, and death duties, will shortly complete the work that has been going on for some centuries, or for a century or two. A brother of mine who sits in this House (he is now 89 years of age) told me the other day that he had found a letter from a great great grandfather of his and mine, Lord Dacre, which was written to his brother in 1826. In this letter our great great grandfather advised his brother who was going to succeed him—and who did succeed him—not to live in the big house that he lived in because it was too expensive and because: the days of landed splendour are over". If the days of landed splendour were over in 1826 what about 1957! And what about 2007? What will they be then? I feel sure, therefore, that we are right to proceed to the creation of Life Peers. The Bill, however, is silent as to the number of Life Peers, and about how they are to be created. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, two days ago, in what I thought was a remarkable speech, made a suggestion that the Privy Council should recommend the appointment of those Peers to the Sovereign. I think that may be a very good suggestion. But I have no idea what is in the minds of the Government about this matter.

Nevertheless, I feel sure that we cannot regard—I certainly do not—this present proposal as a minor one. If it is generally accepted by both Parties, it will in my view gradually—or, if the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, about the creation of Peers prove to be right, pretty quickly—transform your Lordships' House. I do not think we should deceive ourselves about that. And if the Labour Party accept this proposal for Life Peers, I think it follows that no hereditary Peers will be created, or be recommended for creation, by any Labour Prime Minister. Therefore, if there is another "Lord Attlee" as Prime Minister for a similar period he will create 86 Life Peers in that time. And if the Labour Party create nothing but Life Peers it seems to me that it will be very difficult for a Conservative Prime Minister to recommend nothing but hereditary Peers. In fact, I think it almost follows that new 889 hereditary Peers will not be created. For that reason I feel that this is a radical measure. I think that the composition of the House is likely to alter quite quickly. Whether a future House so constituted will be as good as this House, is something which I believe no one can say. It depends on how the choice is made, and what sort of men are created Life Peers. And who can say what they will be?

The other question which has been discussed to-day relates to a problem to which I think no one has found a solution. It is the question of remuneration. In my view, with taxation as it is, and the state of Society as it is going to develop, it will be necessary for Members of your Lordships' House to be remunerated. A great many of the hereditary Peers may not want to take remuneration, and perhaps it will have to be a matter of choice. But I think that remuneration will have to be offered to Life Peers if the right type of man is to be attracted to work in this House. So it seems to me that we are setting out—rightly I think—on a road which will lead to very great changes if this Bill is agreed to, and if my noble friend Lord Swinton can produce a satisfactory method, through the grant of leave of absence, of ensuring that the large number of Peers who do not at present attend this House will never come here. Then I think this might be quite a satisfactory House, and we might gradually transform ourselves into something which no one could criticise.

LORD LOVAT

My Lords, on Tuesday three speakers. I believe, said that the debate was already starting to run a trifle threadbare. I notice with surprise and alarm that I am, I think, the thirty-fifth man in. With thirty-four wickets down, there is not a great deal that can be added to this debate. But I stand before your Lordships as an unrepentant "Backwoodsman"—and "Backwoodsman" is probably the right word, because I grow trees for my living, and I come from the backwoods of the Highlands of Inverness-shire. This entails a round trip of 1,200 miles; the journey takes fifteen hours each way, and a paternal Government has seen fit to allow British Railways to charge £18 for the return ticket and sleeper accommodation. 890 May I say, in passing, how grateful we "Backwoodsmen" are to Her Majesty's Government for granting us a £3 a day allowance. "Any port in a storm"—even non-vintage variety!

I stand, I think, before your Lordships as a very typical hereditary Peer who has many fellows in this; House. In early manhood we served in the Forces, and when our fathers pass on we take up the duties of running our properties. The noble Lord, Lord Brand, took, I thought, a rather gloomy view of the message exchanged between two of his ancestors to the effect that it was impossible to live in the homes of our fathers. He is right, however, when he says that the crippling burden of taxation and death duties makes it increasingly difficult to run a big estate. But I think it can be done. Certainly I try to do that to the best of my ability. It means, probably, working from ten to twelve hours every day, and I think that is the reason why "Backwoodsmen" do not attend this House as often as they would like to do. I suggest, however—though I am a most unworthy spokesman for my colleagues in the backwoods—that when they do come down, taking trouble and giving up their time and all the things that go with work on the land and the seasons, they do speak and contribute their few, albeit important, remarks to your Lordships' deliberations. And I should like your Lordships to know how very proud we are to be allowed to share in your Lordships' business.

I understand that there are two schools of thought about the elimination or selection of hereditary Peers. As your Lordships may well understand, I myself hope that you will agree to the Resolution of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, which is down for debate next Tuesday. I cannot agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who has suggested that some form of Selection Committee should screen the individuals whose names go forward for nomination. I feel that, in fairness to those Peers who regularly attend this House, they would be given priority—and maybe rightly so.

I do not subscribe to the view which has been put forward, that some of your Lordships come here because they have nothing better to do. I still feel that my noble friend Lord Salisbury, if he were choosing a cricket eleven, runs the risk 891 of overlooking the "coats" and those who are training on. My noble friend Lord Hailsham, in a sporting comparison, said that the noble Marquess was using the wrong fly and mishandling the landing net. I know that the noble Marquess is familiar with the grouse moors of Scotland, as well as having a remarkably fine pheasant shoot of his own. It is considered by good keepers that old birds often become vermin. They are inclined to drive out healthy young stock; and young stock is as necessary in your Lordships' House, as a cross-section of public opinion, as it is on the grouse moor. My Lords, that is all I have to say in supporting this Bill. I am grateful to Her Majesty's Government for retaining the position that noble Lords in our situation, of Peers who cannot appear too often, are accepted on the hereditary principle, and I hope that we may continue to take part in the debates of this House.

LORD SAYE AND SELE

My Lords, speaking from these Benches, I wish to make my personal opinion perfectly clear. As a soldier I was taught to look after my line of retreat. On this occasion I propose to nail my flag to the mast. I am deeply convinced of the advantages which the country gains from the hereditary principle and I should vote against any attempt whatever to water it down. Your Lordships' House was quite effectively reformed in 1911, and we should do best now to leave it well alone. I agree that women should be eligible to accept an hereditary peerage, and it then becomes reasonable that Peeresses in their own right should also be admitted. Surely, to accept a life barony—for the Bill safeguards all other estates from dilution—is to accept only half the responsibility of a peerage. The full responsibility includes, God willing, the provision of heirs to maintain the reputation of your Lordships' House as free from interference by vote or by Party machine, yet always open to the views of other ordinary people.

In considering this attempt at reform, your Lordships must think not of the present or of a few years on, but of the effect twenty-five years forward, when the true results will begin to show. Do we want to see the Opposition Benches filled at the back with the children of those 892 distinguished men who are now before us, while the Front Bench is crowded with the remainder of twenty-five years of old "war horse" life barons. Through such a fog youth would be served only with the greatest difficulty. Can this be any improvement on the present system, which builds up a seed-bed of young unfettered opinion, balanced by the mature views of distinguished men of first creation? That youth is lacking on the present Opposition Benches is partly due to the fact that the Labour Party has not yet had time to establish itself. A generation is some twenty-five years, and a generation in the Labour Party has scarcely passed. As this begins to happen in the course of time, I believe that the Labour Benches will attain the new look of the Tory Front Bench, or even the youth and freshness of the Liberal.

This Bill is a gesture of impatience, of impatience with time, and in this respect will do the greatest harm. We have not been told how a Life Baron is to be selected, and may therefore reasonably presume that the system will be as at present. In the past, Prime Ministers have hesitated to create Peers to force a Bill through your Lordships' House, and your Lordships have compromised rather than drive them to it. In this respect have your Lordships considered the temptation latent in the power to make Life Peers with short expectation of existence, whose vote may be here to-day, but conveniently "gone to Heaven" tomorrow? Such a plan might become a political manœuvre which would stultify your Lordships' vote. I have no sympathy whatever with the theory that heredity is hard on the son who is doing well in another place. We need that man here, where indeed he may find that hem can serve his country and himself better than in another place. In any case, he has a duty which is now inescapable and which, in my opinion, should remain inescapable. I believe that there is no wish in the country for the suggested change.

"Backwoodsmen" are now better understood than they used to be—whether because they are seen on the television or not, I do not know. Moreover, they belong to all Parties. All that is asked by the ordinary man and woman is that the obviously unsuitable Member of your Lordships' House should be ruled out. The country is proud to possess this 893 unique Second Chamber and your Lordships know, in your inmost hearts, that wherever you move as individuals you form a centre of interest and influence because you are Members of the House of Lords. The practical crux of the whole matter lies in finance. If the Government can devise a method of payment for those willing to do the work, with expense allowances for those who come on occasions to the House, then our problems will be solved.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, the noble Viscount. Lord Samuel, in his delightful speech last Tuesday coined a new English word, by describing a letter in The Times by a Labour Member about the reform of this House as "blurtmanship". I think the attitude of all political Parties in this country towards the reform of the House of Lords, which was said in 1911 by the Leader of the Liberal Party to "brook no delay", might perhaps be described as "brookmanship"; and after listening to this debate, I am doubtful whether there is any more agreement on the subject now than there was in 1911.

The Bill which is now before us, if it goes through to the Statute Book, will have to be approved not only by your Lordships, but also by the other place, where the Government have a majority of fifty or sixty; and, in drafting this Bill, the Government had to consider what is likely to be acceptable in the other place. If the Conservative Back-Benchers in another place are presented with a measure of constitutional reform which they do not particularly like and which they think is likely to lose votes in their constituencies, they will undoubtedly go to the Chief Whip and tell him that the Bill must be dropped. That is more or less what happened exactly thirty years ago, in 1927. The Government then did not actually go to the length of producing a Bill, but the late Lord Salisbury, who was then Leader of this House, and Lord Birkenhead, who was Secretary of State for India, announced that a comprehensive measure of reform was going to be introduced in that Session. At that time the Conservative Party had a majority in the House of Commons, not of 50, as now, but of 200; but when the proposals which had been adumbrated were put to them the Conservative Back-Benchers disliked them so much that they 894 had to be abandoned, and they were killed, not by the Labour Opposition, but by Conservative opposition in the other place.

I have always been told that the late Lard Salisbury took the view that we ought not to agree to a partial measure; that we ought to have comprehensive reform, or nothing. We have had nothing all this time, and that is the reason why I feel strongly that it is true to say about this Bill that half a loaf is better than no bread. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, suggested on Tuesday that half a loaf was totally insufficient for us to live on. If that is so, it surely follows that we shall die much sooner if we get nothing to eat at all.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I was not advocating that!

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I entirely sympathise with the desire of the noble Marquess to have more, but I feel that the Government have done the right thing in confining themselves to a measure which can be put on the Statute Book without serious difficulty in the present Session of this Parliament.

Your Lordships have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I think that many of us will have read with equal interest the couple of articles on the subject of the reform of this House which the noble Earl contributed not long ago to The Times. In those articles the noble Earl said that the chance of getting Party agreement about the reform of this House had been finally lost in 1948; and, without going into any of the merits of the question, I think it is true to say, as the noble Earl said, that the chance of Party agreement was then lost, at least for the time being, although I hope not permanently.

When this Bill was introduced I expected that the Labour Party, after a long period of discussion and disagreement among themselves, would probably end up by opposing it; and I do not yet know whether that is going to happen. However, I do not think it matters in the least if it does happen on this Bill, because the only argument on which opposition to this Bill could be based is that a considerable section of the Labour Party want to abolish this House, and they are fearful that if anything is done to improve 895 this House in any way it will then become a little more difficult to abolish; and that is not an argument which will ever have the slightest appeal to the electors in the constituencies. It is too paradoxical; and no Conservative Back Bencher in the other place need have the slightest fear that he is endangering his seat by supporting this Bill. If the Government had brought forward the more comprehensive proposals which are very much desired by some of your Lordships the position would then have been a very different one. I think the opposition of the Labour Party, instead of being divided and uncertain, as it is now, would have been strong and unanimous, and the misgivings on the part of the Conservative Back Bench Members in the other place would have been correspondingly deep. I think the argument which we should then have had to face would have been this: that to restrict membership of this House to a small number of Peers, either by self-election, or by selection, or nomination, is very much less democratic than unselected hereditary right.

Some noble Lords, on both sides of the House, have stated in this debate that the hereditary principle is indefensible. But I do not think they really meant that. I think what they really meant was that the right to legislate by birth is less democratic than the right to legislate by popular election. That is not at all the same thing as saying that it is indefensible. The theory of the British Constitution has always been that power, whoever it is held by, and however it is acquired, is always likely to be abused; and that our liberties and freedom in this country will be most effectively safeguarded by a balanced, mixed Constitution in which we shall have one Legislative Chamber which has the preponderating and final legislative power, and which is elected by the people; and another Legislative Chamber, which has less power but which is not elected by the people, and whose Members are therefore always able to say exactly what they think is right without the slightest fear that anything they say in Parliament may prejudice their chances of continuing to be a Member of Parliament.

I think that if one compares our own country with other Western democracies in any part of the world, either in America or in Western Europe, it can be 896 claimed that human liberty and civil rights are more carefully regarded and more effectively upheld in our own country than in any other. In my own belief, the ability of some Members of Parliament, who are not elected, to speak in Parliament without any regard to the effect of their words on some excitable constituency organisation, or on some monolithic Party machine, or on any Prime Minister or any political "Big Wig" of any kind, even although it is not accompanied by a great deal of legislative power, is one of the most precious safeguards of our freedom in this country.

Of course, the right to legislate by the accident of birth is less democratic than the right to legislate by the accident of popular approval. But it is not entirely undemocratic. After all, birth is one of the most democratic things in the world, and the accident of birth is an accident which happens to everybody at one time or another. It is not an accident which requires any great intellectual attainments—or, at least, not on behalf of the person who is born. Neither does it require any great intellectual attainments to be elected to the House of Commons. I have been elected to the House of Commons twice and I have been born once; and I do not remember any particular difficulty about either operation.

The result is that in this House, whose membership depends partly on birth and partly on creation, the average level of intelligence is only slightly higher than the average level of intelligence in the House of Commons. But if you were to restrict membership of this House to a small number of Peers who were nominated by the "head boys" of the Party system, or anything of that kind, this House would then become an "Assembly of Superior Persons". That is a thing which the British public hates, because it really is undemocratic; and the House of Commons hate it, too. I do not think the Government would have much chance of getting such a scheme through a democratically elected House of Commons, even if their majority were to be increased to 200, which is not in accordance with the expectations of every political prophet.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggested that there was no more reason why a man should be born a legislator than be born a major-general. I would rather have an hereditary legislator than a 897 non-hereditary major-general to conduct my affairs. There was a time in history when this country was governed by major-generals under Oliver Cromwell. The whole country was divided up into districts, each one governed by a major-general. These major-generals abolished Parliament, including the hereditary legislators—with the most unhappy effects on the liberties of this country for the time being. I would rather entrust my own liberty to a man whose right to legislate depends upon his birth than to any major-general, either born or created.

I have paid particular attention to what has been said by noble Lords opposite, because I do not think we ought to abandon the hope of having in this House a constitution which is fundamentally approved by all Parties in the State. It seems to me that the main argument of noble Lords opposite has been that it is very unfair that, when there is a Conservative Government, they always have a large majority in this House, and when there is a Labour Government they always have a small minority. I entirely understand that argument, and I can entirely understand the feelings of noble Lords opposite about it. All that I could say in reply is that it would not worry me in the slightest if the Conservative Party were in a permanent minority in this House. The House of Lords would not be able to hold up important Conservative legislation for longer than six months, and I think it would be a good thing if a Conservative Government were subjected to a much wider volume of criticism, and perhaps even antagonism, in the Second Chamber than is usually the case.

I think this Bill is capable of doing an enormous amount of good, not only to this House but to our Parliamentary life as a whole. Whether it will in fact do a great deal of good will, of course, depend partly on the people to whom life peerages are offered, partly on whether they have any prejudice against accepting them, and partly on the question of expense, on which I do not propose to take up any time now. I think your Lordships will agree that it is an extremely important question, especially for the reason that in the House of Commons it is becoming much more difficult to have people who are not professional politicians. I think it is a remarkable thing, considering the tremendous 898 intolerable burden of work which the House of Commons has to carry out, how many people there still are in that House who are not professional politicians. But it is very difficult to be a non-professional in the House of Commons unless you have large private means; and that is a great pity. Fifty years ago, a man like Cincinnatus could have sat in the House of Commons. Now I do not think he could. He would not have enough time to attend to his plough. But in the House of Lords Cincinnatus can serve a highly useful purpose, and can do a real service for his country.

I was interested in what the noble Earl. Lord Woolton, said the other day about the sittings of this House. He suggested that we should have them at a different time, but he did not say when. I was not quite sure whether he meant we should sit before breakfast or after dinner, but I did ask him this afternoon, and he said that he meant about four o'clock. I am sure that we should always be ready to do whatever might be desirable to help Back Bench members of any Party who are able to come here as often as they can, who are not professional politicians and who get only their expenses paid, but who have to earn their ordinary living apart from their Parliamentary work. We want a great deal more of them in both Houses. The fact that there must, of necessity, be fewer in the other House is all the more reason for having more of them here. Therefore, I think this Bill will do a great deal of good, and I congratulate the Government upon it.

A question was asked before the debate began about red deer, which put into my mind a parallel in relation to this Bill. I think the Government are rather like a deer-stalker who is not a very good shot, and who comes in sight of two stags, one a magnificent beast, at the extreme range of 250 yards, with a fine head, moving about and fidgeting, and difficult to hit, and the other one a smaller beast standing perfectly still at a potty range of 100 yards. If the stalker is not a "dead-eye Dick" I do not think you could accuse him of being unsporting if he decides not to fire at the more difficult target but takes the shot that is easy. I hope that the Government now have their eye along the sights and their finger on the trigger.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)

And on the hinds.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I hope my noble friend is not proposing to use a tommy-gun, because I think that really would be a bit unsporting. But I hope his finger is on the trigger, and I hope that nothing will happen now to make the Government miss this very easy target.

LORD GREENHILL

My Lords, after hearing on Tuesday the opinion of the noble Earl the Leader of this House about the large measure of agreement on this Bill, it was interesting, and even amusing, to hear the friendly interchange of views between the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. One rather feels that perhaps this Bill is not quite the acceptable measure, even to Members on the other side, that we were led to believe on Tuesday. It seems to me that, instead of the degree of agreement about which we heard, such comment as there is is about the paradoxical situation of a Conservative Government—whose aim presumably is to conserve—seeking change in our composition, whereas my noble friends on this side of the House, usually regarded mainly as wanting change, are questioning the wisdom, if not resisting the attempt, to support this measure.

Speaking for myself—and being independent in outlook is, I think, one of the most valuable aspects of membership of your Lordships' House—I am not in favour of any present change, because I regard this measure as being not only ill-timed but, in spite of the considerable amount of interesting information that we have heard, not adequately considered. It is ill-timed, I feel, for a number of reasons. I think that noble Lords in all parts of the House will agree that at no time within living memory has the reputation of your Lordships' House in the estimation of the people of this country been as high as it is to-day, and I ask myself what has prompted the Government at this time to put forward this measure.

Further, at a time when independent self-governing Commonwealth Legislatures are striving to build up their Parliamentary buildings on the pattern estab- 900 lished by the Mother of Parliaments, it can only have a disturbing effect when they observe that in your Lordships' House there is all this doubt and questioning about the adequacy of its present composition. And, thirdly, at a time when Russia and China, temporarily enjoying a tremendous influence in the world's populations, appear to be operating successfully with a legislative system different from, and in many respects opposed to, our own democratically based system, it seems to me quite inopportune to proceed with this tinkering or tampering Bill.

It has, I feel, been inadequately considered because, as we have been told, the ostensible reason for its introduction is to strengthen the Opposition. Is the inference that the volume of argument influences Government decisions? Is the assumption that logic determines the outcome of our debates? Is it not obvious that all come here with their own deep-rooted prejudices which no argument can shake, and that what we strive for is such measure of consensus of opinion as is possible? If numerical strength is the criterion of effectiveness, the present difficulty could surely be remedied by giving a kind of statistical weighting to each minority vote in keeping with the strength of representation throughout the country.

But I do not accept that the ostensible reason is the true reason. I regard this Bill as inadequately considered because the underlying assumption seems to be that, given a logical structure, assuming that to be possible, we should get logical functioning. One has only to think of other Legislatures—that of France, for example. France has a logical structure and is said to have a logical people. But would anyone say that it had logical functioning? Have the French discovered how to achieve stable government? Or consider the United States. They have a carefuly constructed Constitution, with its checks and balances to maintain an even keel. Is it making for world security, now that she is one of the two great Powers of the world, with the weakened physique of one good man, her President, weakened because of the unbearable burden loaded upon his shoulders; is it making for world security. I ask, that at this critical juncture a N.A.T.O. Conference, affecting literally the survival of millions, should be weakened in its 901 decisions by the absence of this one man? Can any mere deputy act as an equivalent to his voice? Is their Constitution flexible enough to meet such situations'? Or, consider the recent bank debate in Australia, It seemed to me, my Lords, inhuman that a dangerously ill member, recently operated on, should have been carried into the Parliament there in order to record his vote, endangering his life. Is it beyond the ingenuity of man to devise a system whereby his opinion could be adequately recorded, without that cruelty? Are not such logical contrivances the antithesis of logical, rational functioning?

Your Lordships' House, it is said, suffers from many anomalies, and of course we all admit there are many anomalies. But who suffers or what suffers? We say that the hereditary system is anomalous, and, in spite of what has been said by many noble Lords here, I think we shall all agree that it is in present circumstances an anomalous system. But we are not considering the introduction of a hereditary system: it is here. The question before us is whether there is anything we should do about that hereditary system at the moment, either to improve it or to abolish it. We are not, however, at the moment considering the introduction of this anomaly.

There are in your Lordships' House five distinct groupings. There is the Government grouping there is the official Opposition grouping; there is the Liberal grouping; there are the Bishops, and there are what I sometimes think are the most valuable part of your Lordships' House, the Cross-Benchers. Would anyone say that there was any logic in this particular composition of groups which constitutes your Lordships' House? Yet, at the same time, would anyone say that any one of those groups is not contributing valuable opinions, valuable information, for the benefit of the House as a whole? One does not wish to be impolite, but is not the Woolsack itself an anomaly? Do we not sympathise greatly with the noble and learned Viscount who has to sit on that inconvenient structure?

Is not this beautiful House itself, in a -sense, an anomaly? Do we require this beautiful Chamber for purposes of our deliberations? Would it not be very much more convenient to have that small room in which we conducted our deliberations before the House of Commons 902 deserted this place—that kindly, intimate atmosphere in which each one of us felt that he was talking to other noble Lords individually instead of addressing a huge audience? Is it not an anomaly that nowadays we should regard debating as being the most suitable method of arriving at agreed decisions? Is riot the whole idea of debate merely to bring out all the facts you know in favour of your case—ignoring, if you like, the facts which are against your case—and, by a mere show of hands or otherwise, arrive at a decision though not necessarily the best decision? Finally, my Lords, is not hand reporting of our deliberations here an anomaly, in an age in which almost every house has a tape recorder, when not merely the words but the very intonations of one's voice are adequately recorded, instead of the dry and, very occasionally, incorrect reporting we get? Is the remedy to remove these anomalies? And if we remove them, what then? Shall we get rid of the other anomalies? Is it the structure of the building or is it the behaviour of Members within the building that determines the value of our function?

In this Bill, two remedies have been suggested. One is the creation of life peerages and the other the inclusion of women as Peeresses. On the question of life peerages, I do not think there is much that can be objected to in principle; but, in spite of the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, the other day, one sees a great many practical difficulties. We are surely realists enough to recognise that patronage cannot be completely overcome; that—thank goodness!—there is in our country a tremendous demand for what is regarded as an honour—membership of this House. One wonders what kind of qualification would be sought in the selection or choice of the particular Members who are to become Life Peers. We are told that the solution is to aim at getting the right man. But is not that begging the whole question? Who is the right man? And who is to select him? What are the qualities of the right man? Would be differ very much in his qualities from those of us who are called first creations? So that in the case of Life Peers, while I can see no objection in principle, it seems to me that your Lordships are being faced 903 with the same kind of difficulties in selecting Life Peers as you would have in choosing any representative to come into your Lordships' House.

When we speak of the creation of women Members of your Lordships' House, I have an awful suspicion that probably I stand quite alone. It seems to me that the present atmosphere and spirit of your Lordships' House is the outcome of many generations, many centuries, of influence brought to bear by philosophers, by lawyers and, more recently, by politicians; and if there is one inadequacy in the composition of your Lordships' House in these days, it is that although we have some, we have not nearly enough, men with what, for want of a better term, is called the "scientific outlook," the outlook which is not concerned about the rightness or wrongness of a particular theory but is very much concerned with the facts of a situation. I know that a great many noble Lords have expressed in private a view which they have not so far expressed in public: that is, that for reasons which they appear to be unable to express they would rather not have women as Members of your Lordships' House. I have tried to find out what it is that accounts for this objection, and whether there is not some acceptable scientific point of view.

I want to submit to your Lordships that of the many studies which scientists cover, there is one which is nowadays free from its original philosophic connection and is sufficiently accepted as a science as to have its findings regarded as true facts. I refer to the science of the study of behaviour—animal, human, normal, abnormal, individual or group behaviour; and your Lordships will observe that I have tried so far to avoid the word "psychology". I have done so because, again, I have a feeling that among numbers of Members in your Lordships' House the mere word "psychology" and, what is worse, the word "psychiatrist", have a horrible and unpopular connotation. I believe the time will come—and is coming rapidly—when we shall pay more attention to what the psychologist has discovered as a result of his scientific procedure and not as a result of his philosophic introspections.

904 If we do that, I am inclined to take this view. It cannot be gainsaid that intellectually, intelligently and in physical strength, men and women are, on the whole, more or less equal, always remembering, of course, constitutional factors which make for differences within each group. If your Lordships accept that view and ask, "What is the objection to the inclusion of women in this Chamber?", the answer is that in considering a problem in which all that is necessary is its careful intellectual consideration, it appears that, whether we have men or women considering that problem, we shall arrive at more or less the same kind of answer. But when, as in a deliberative Chamber, we are dealing with issues which arouse all the emotion, passion, hates and fears which are inseparable from some of the problems that are discussed, then it seems to me that there is an instance of that kind of difference, sometimes conscious, sometimes unconscious, which separates those basic qualities in the sexes, and where, therefore, the objective arrival at a solution is, to that extent, distorted.

I do not know whether I have made my views clear to your Lordships, but I feel that if that line of thought were pursued a little more closely it might be found to contain more than a mere grain of truth. I am very reluctant to take up your Lordships' time any longer with my own kind of deliberations, but should say that in reading the series of contributions in that publication called The Future of the House of Lords, which many of your Lordships will have seen. I was impressed by the views of two of the contributors, writing on the delaying powers. One view was that of the right honourable Walter Elliot, and the other the view of the right honourable Patrick Gordon Walker, both Members of another place. If your Lordships will permit me, I should like to read some part of the conclusions arrived at by Mr. Gordon Walker. They are these: Just as the Crown has evolved into a constitutional monarchy that is very different indeed from the original purpose or function of monarchy, so the House of Lords has evolved into something new but extremely useful. Both illustrate the wisdom of leaving the Constitution alone as much as possible. A little later he says: … I want to keep it"— 905 that is the Second Chamber— as it is, because it is now perfectly fitted to the job that a Second Chamber should do in a parliamentary democracy. Admittedly no one could ever have deliberately designed such a Chamber of set purpose; but things that grow are often better than things that are built. And finally, may I give you this somewhat longer quotation: This is a conservative attitude for a member of the Labour Party to adopt. But only in appearance. My real purpose is to retain the sovereignty of the House of Commons. If any changes were made in the House of Lords, it would begin to be a more effective conservative body. And further changes would result that would upset the whole functioning of our parliamentary constitution and raise the sort of problem that led to the abolition of the Upper Chamber in New Zealand and Queensland. So I say: Leave the Lords alone. They do their job very well. If any changes are to be made, then I would go the whole way and abolish the House of Lords. But I do not want to do that. I am quite happy to leave things as they are.

VISCOUNT SOULBURY

My Lords, were it not for what I think is a very important and, in fact, overriding consideration., a good case could be made for leaving the composition of this House precisely as it is. If public opinion is a criterion—and, indeed, it is the most important criterion of the need for reform—it is very hard to find any worthwhile evidence of a desire on the part of the general public for the reform of the composition of this House, let alone its powers. So far as I am aware, the reform of this House has not, since the war, been an issue at any General Election or, indeed, by-election. It is true that the powers of this House suffered further curtailment in 1948, but that was not the result of any popular mandate. As regards the period prior to the last war, I can speak from a certain amount of personal experience, because I was myself a candidate in five General Elections, and, with one exception, I do not think I ever had to open my mouth to the electors on the subject of this House, either its corn-position or its powers. The one exception was at the second General Election in 1910, when, for very obvious reasons, I had to devote a good deal of time to the subject.

is legitimate to say that, in the light of more than forty years of history, it is reasonable to infer, first, that there is not—and there has not been—any noticeable 906 desire on the part of the electorate for the reform of this House, either its composition or its powers. I think it is equally legitimate to infer from that history that the country is not dissatisfied with your Lordships' conduct of the business in this place. In fact, there are many people. I think, who would be perfectly willing to say that, on the whole, as a result of the quality of your Lordships' debates, this House has acquired more authority in the country during the last decade than it has had for some time and has definitely enhanced its prestige. Incidentally, I may have misunderstood him, but the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, I think, took the view that an attempt by this House as a largely hereditary Chamber to enhance its prestige was slightly reprehensible. But I should have thought it was the duty not only of this House but of the other place also to have that as one of its chief aims.

If I am right in thinking the electorate are not feeling any particular anxiety to disturb the present situation of the powers of your Lordships' House, I should imagine it is for the reason that the British public, with their innate good sense, common sense and dislike of logic, do not wish to disturb or to alter an institution which, on the whole, works, and works pretty well. But the public will soon have to take account of the important consideration to which I have briefly referred—namely, that if things go on as at present, then at no very distant time this House will not work well—in fact, if it goes on as at present it will not work at all.

The reason is this. We are all well aware—we can see it, and see it with admiration—that the Opposition are largely sustained by the efforts, the remarkable efforts, and the assiduity and diligence of a small handful of noble Lords. In fact (I hope I am not saying anything that will upset noble Lords opposite) the successful conduct of their Opposition has depended, and is dependent, largely on the work of those noble Lords; and I am sure we all wish them the utmost good health and long lives. I do, not only because of the personal regard I have for them, but also in order to enable the Opposition to carry on the normal functions of an Opposition. And, my Lords, a debating Chamber without an Opposition is a negation of parliamentary government. Therefore, it occurs 907 to me, and, I am sure, to other noble Lords, that something must be done, and done fairly quickly, to relieve the stress and the strain placed upon those members of the Front Bench. Alas! they are not immortal. If they were, it might not be necessary to produce this Bill. But they are not.

The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, if I understood him rightly, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, just now, indicated there might be a possibility of amending or postponing this Bill. I have some sympathy in that regard—and for this reason. I should like to make the object of this Bill more obvious, and I would suggest, as an alternative Title, "The Socialist Opposition Reinforcement Bill." That, my Lords, in my view, is really the main, if not the sole, justification for the Bill we are now discussing. The question then arises: how are we to get these reinforcements? Will it be possible, and what should be their number and their qualifications? In the first place, of course, the peerages to be offered to them, and, indeed, the only ones they are likely to accept, must be life peerages. There are sound and intelligible reasons for assuming that they would otherwise be unacceptable—

LORD PAKENHAM

May I ask the noble Viscount one question? Since so many noble Lords of the Labour Party have accepted hereditary peerages since the war, why does he think it will be impossible to obtain such people in the future? Or does he think the present lot are such a poor crowd that he hopes to get very much better people?

VISCOUNT SOULBURY

I am not aware of all their financial circumstances, but I should have thought that the heavier taxation which has been enforced in recent times would have been felt by them, as by other people, and would make it difficult for them to give up their time to come here.

Then, my Lords, we come to the question of numbers. I should like to see the numbers on the Front Benches opposite doubled. And preference, I think, should be given—indeed, would have to be given—to those who share the views of the noble Lords sitting opposite, for clearly there is no point in reinforcing the Benches on this side of the House when, 908 in my view, the object of this Bill is to reinforce the Benches opposite.

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount ought to appreciate that this Bill has not been asked for by this side of the House. He is quite in error in putting it forward that we on this side are asking for it as a benefit to ourselves.

VISCOUNT SOULBURY

I propose to deal with that point a little later, but perhaps I may say now that, even if the noble Lord has not asked for it, it is good for him. I think I ought also to mention that we cannot guarantee that the recruits, the reinforcing troops, will man indefinitely the trenches to which they are summoned. Some of them may possibly desert to the enemy; some may even go so far as to entrench themselves in no man's land.

As regards the qualifications, I imagine that those appointed would be men of distinction in the realms of politics, industry, science, the social services, the Arts and so forth. But I think we are assuming rather light-heartedly that it is going to be easy to find these recruits, to discover suitable people to become Life Peers and, having discovered them, to attract them to this House. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, referred—very appositely, I thought—to some lines of Shakespeare. They are so apposite that I am going to quote them again, because the noble Earl the Leader of the House seems to me in some ways to resemble Glendower as portrayed in Shakespeare's Henry IV. Noble Lords will remember his claim: I can call spirits from the vasty deep, and Hotspur's reply: Why so can I, and so can any man. But will they come when you do call for them? At the present moment I think the more likely answer would be: By no means—at £315 per annum. I do not think that answer would apply to women—certainly not to married women, for in their case there is a reason able expectation that, if they happen to share their husbands' political views, they can expect a moderate subvention for their activities.

The question then arises: if it is possible to have increased remuneration, where should we get the recruits from? 909 I presume that we should get them from the ranks of a number of elderly politicians who are rather tired of the rough and tumble of the House of Commons, of late hours, and of the strain that their constituencies put upon them. They might certainly be useful recruits, but what we want, I am sure—and what the Opposition also want—are the younger men. And that presents a very serious problem. If they are young men of political talent, clearly they will wish to display that talent in another place. If they are young men making their way, and building their reputations in science and industry and so forth, they will be at about the age when they would be least likely to wish to abandon their careers, or even to jeopardise them, by part-time occupation here.

As has been pointed out, the hereditary principle avoids that difficulty, because on this side the Benches are constantly reinforced by young, able men—as we have clear examples from time to time. But if the Party opposite are not reinforced by younger men, who will there be to do their Committee work, both on the Floor of the House and upstairs? So my conclusion is that the reinforcement of the Party opposite is going to be a difficult affair and rather expensive. But it must be attempted, and I shall certainly vote for this Bill. If I were in favour of single-Chamber government I should vote against this or any other Bill which set out to improve or strengthen the composition of this House, for the simple reason than, if things are left alone, in a few years' time this House will die, and there will not be the necessity of bringing forward legislation on the subject with all the political controversy and bitterness which that would mean. One last word as regards women. I do not wish to be thought ungallant if I prophesy that their arrival here will not be received with any wholehearted acclamation. On the other hand, I cannot find any argument to justly my opposing it. Such arguments as I have heard do not amount to much more than the sentiment expressed in the old couplet: I do not love thee, Doctor Fell The reason why I cannot tell.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH

My Lords, it is perhaps inevitable, when one finds oneself placed about fortieth in the list of speakers in a debate of this kind, that 910 a great deal of what one was going to say should already have been said. Certainly a great deal of what I was proposing to say has been said very much better than I could say it. I welcome the proposals in this Bill for the creation of life peerages; but I fear that the Government have lost a great chance (I hope it wilt not be their last chance) in not doing something more realistic to meet the needs of the House in regard to its composition. Clearly, if the Government are going to wait until they get all-Party agreement they will have to wait for ever. They have not even got it on this small measure which is before us to-day.

I think it is generally agreed, on the whole, that if this House is open to criticism on any account it is because of the principle of the hereditary composition of the House. In the last few years, I have from time to time spoken at a number of meetings here and there in the country, and I have formed an impression which is somewhat different from that which I think is held by the noble Viscount, Lord Soulbury. I realise that he speaks with a great many more years of experience than I have.

On the whole I feel that perhaps rather more interest is taken in this House than some noble Lords who have spoken appear to think, judging by what they have said in this debate. I think that whilst many people in the country appreciate our difficulties, they believe that we do a difficult job well, and that we have undoubtedly a useful part to play in the working of the (Constitution. Nevertheless, I do not think that they are prepared to take us 100 per cent. seriously so long as the composition of the House remains 100 per cent. hereditary; and if this House is to have even the very limited powers which it has to-day it must be able to use them. I think the general feeling is that there must be broader representation in the House than there is at the moment. I myself, whilst I am very much in favour of the hereditary principle, feel that all the many points in favour of that principle fade into the utmost insignificance if the public have not the necessary confidence and respect for it as virtually the sole basis of the composition of your Lordships' House. From my limited experience, I think that that is the position to-day.

I think I am right in saying that some half a century ago your Lordships' House 911 passed a famous Resolution to the effect that a peerage should no longer of itself give the right to sit and vote in your Lordships' House. Things have certainly changed since then. The matter may not have been so urgent fifty years ago, but since then the whole structure of our social life has totally changed. Even after this Bill has been passed, I think that the position will be exactly the same. Now that the Government at last have proposed something, it seems to me a great pity that all they have done is to give the patient a jab with the needle, a blood transfusion, rather than undertake a firmer measure, which I believe would have more support in the country than the Government appear to think. As it is, I fear the Government may have done a dangerous thing. They have opened the breach t they have thrown the matter wide open to the winds of hitter Party controversy, and without achieving a sufficiently worthwhile measure of reform.

As I see it, there well may be grave dangers, assuming that nothing more be done during the lifetime of this Government, which I should have thought would be very unlikely. In a year or so, I think it is likely, without being unduly pessimistic, we shall be faced by a period of Socialist administration. If that is the case, one of two things will happen. Either nothing will happen, in which case your Lordships' House will increasingly become, in the words of some members of the Socialist Party, not much more than an ancient monument or a historic hangover. Or (though I hope it will not be the case), there may be a clash of wills between your Lordships' House and another place and something so drastic may happen that we may find ourselves overtaken by a measure of so-called reform the result of which will be that your Lordships' House will no longer exist in the form in which we know it to-day. At best, we should have a nominated assembly of Party hacks, nominated through the Prime Minister and thereby, to all intents and purposes, we should have single-Chamber government. I believe that that would be a great disaster.

It has always been our proud achievement in the past that we have shown great ability and powers for slowly adapting and adjusting through the ages our Parliamentary institutions, which 912 have long been the envy of the world, according to our changing needs and circumstances. I feel that what is required now is another chapter, and not just a foreword. I am convinced that there would not be any support for your Lordships' House which overnight, or in a matter of a few months or years, changed beyond all recognition. Such a thing would be against all our past traditions. What I believe is required, and required now, before it is too late, and what I believe would receive as general a measure of support in the country as anything, is a firm yet reasonable and moderate measure of reform, incorporating the best of the old with the best that can be found new.

The House I envisage would consist partly of Life Peers and partly of hereditary Peers, but the hereditary Peers would be limited to, say, 250 or some such number, on the basis of selection by a House of Lords Committee. I believe that that is the kind of proposal which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has in mind. I feel that a reformed composition of your Lordships' House on these lines would have two main advantages. First of all, it would get rid of the "Backwoodsmen" bogy, which still does untold harm to the respect and prestige of your Lordships' House and is a most serious defect in its constitution. I do not think that it is any good saying that we ourselves know that the "Backwoodsmen" Peers will not turn up. Of course, they will not; but the people of the country are not convinced of that. Whilst I should certainly give my support next week to what are now known as the Swinton Committee proposals, I do not think they go far enough. I do not think that the country will completely understand them. The position seems to me to be that a noble Lord will be locking himself out of the House yet still keeping the key in his pocket.

Another advantage of limiting the number of hereditary Members to about 250 is that we should be able to make certain not only to include those who make regular appearances but also all those other Peers who come at one time or another, and who, when they do come, have a valuable contribution to make. In the course of time I believe also that some limitation would lead to the sort of House which would not have a permanent huge majority for one political 913 Party. I believe that a reformed House on these lines would be able to look the public straight in the eye and, if it came to the acid test, would be able to use its limited powers to restrain either Left or Right. If your Lordships' House is unable to do that, then, as I have said, we might as well be done with it and have single-Chamber government.

I hope that the Government will not rest content with this measure, which is only a start. I do not think that there is the slightest chance that they will get agreement to do any more, because they have not full agreement on this Bill. But I am confident that, faced with the alternative of an imaginative scheme of reform, on the one hand, or abolition or decay, on the other, the Government can have faith that it will be the former alternative that will be chosen and supported by the people of this country.

Before I sit down, may I make one point on a different matter? I should like to give my support to a suggestion, expressed much more ably than I can hope to do by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in the debate last Session. The noble Viscount said that he hoped advantage would be taken of the creation of Life Peers to appoint substantially more Members from Commonwealth countries. I hope that the Government will give urgent consideration to that when they come to create the first Life Peers. I am sure that Members from Commonwealth countries will be of much more use to your Lordships' House than a bevy of ladies. I hope that they will try to bring in not just one or two but several Commonwealth Life Peers, not only from the older Dominions but also from the new Commonwealth countries in Asia and Africa. Such a course, I hope, would be acceptable to most of the Commonwealth countries. Only this autumn I had the privilege of addressing one or two meetings in Canada on the subject of your Lordships' House, and I was both surprised and impressed at the interest and enthusiasm shown in the subject—probably a greater enthusiasm, indeed, than is shown within this country. I am sure that if we could get more Commonwealth Members in your Lordships' House, a fine and splendid link between the Commonwealth and its centre would be opened. It would not only give your Lordships' House an enhanced prestige and dignity 914 but, above all, would render incalculable service to the Commonwealth as a whole.

LORD LAYTON

My Lords, I shall not detain the House for many moments. I think I am forty-first in the batting order, and when you get to number forty-one you can overdo a matter of this sort, and the sooner the batsman gets out the better. Indeed, I have only one point to make. My noble friend Lord Rea referred on Tuesday to the contradictory ideas that prevail as to the effects of this Bill. I do not desire to add to the confusion. My general view is the view taken by many others: that this is an inadequate measure. But I also take the view that it does start a new chapter; it diverts the course of evolution in a new direction, and for a reason which was referred to (I think it is the only reference that has been made to the point in this debate) by the noble Lord, Lord Brand. I hope and believe, with him, that if this Bill passes, the creation of new hereditary peerages will quickly cease altogether or will take place only in the rarest of cases.

The Labour Party would obviously take advantage of the new provision for life peerages to readjust the balance in this House. Speaking with no authority whatever as to what they are going to do, but simply as an outside observer. I believe it is highly improbable that the Labour Party will create hereditary peerages, except in the most exceptional circumstances. This means that when a Labour Government next comes into power—and it may be quite soon, or perhaps later—the hereditary principle will be in abeyance during the period of office of that Government. Will the principle be revived by some future Government? I rather doubt it. It seems to me unlikely that, say, in the next twenty years there will be alternate periods of four or five years when the Labour Party are in office, with no new creations, and other periods of some years when the creation of hereditary peerages will start up again, only to cease once more. As I say, I cannot picture that kind or thing happening over a period of years; it is not the sort of thing that does happen. It seems to me that it would be contrary to the climate of opinion, not merely in the Labour Party but in the country generally, in a country where life 915 peerages are being created to replace and refill this House as a matter of course. If, by any chance, some certain small number of peerages of a hereditary kind are created, I do not believe that they will, as it were, come into the same grouping or carry any political significance in relation to the membership of this House.

If I am right in this view, it seems to me that this Bill will initiate a change in our social structure comparable to the dying out of the hereditary fortune—for that is dying out as a result of taxation and the reassessment of wealth which it is causing. It seems to me that those two things are going to run in parallel lines, because I cannot see the creation of a series of hereditary peerages in a world where this great change is taking place on the economic plane. I believe that history will regard the cessation of the creation of hereditary peerages as one of those changes that Britain has a genius for carrying out with the minimum of disturbance and fuss.