CONSTITUTION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS

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

My Lords, the Navy, as we know, is indomitable and indefatigable, and the noble Lord. Lord Teynham has piloted us through the currents and the cross-currents of the reform of the House of Lords with a skill which would challenge any navigator. If he has not brought his ship into harbour, at least he has kept it off the rocks. Since 1911, experience and intelligence have sought a scheme of reform of the Upper House. In that year of 1911 it seemed that the House of Lords was condemned to early extinction, but in fact we have survived two world wars and a social revolution in this country and as my noble friend has reminded us, we are still here as an essential, and. I believe, respected part of the British Constitution. I do not know what lesson we should learn from 1911 and the debates that have followed, except possibly that prophecy in the preamble to an Act of Parliament is politically unwise and I think, certainly in a world that becomes daily more unstable we should take ever greater care to guard our political institutions in this country.

That leads me to invite your Lordships to consider one or two general considerations as a background to any particular measures that I or any other noble Lord might propose. As my noble friend says, our Constitution has been built up over many centuries and continuity in the structure and conduct of our political institutions has been one of its most valued features and if. in our familiarity with our Parliamentary and democratic processes in this country, we are apt to forget that fact. then certainly if one goes abroad one is quickly cured of one's forgetfulness because the continuity in our political institutions is, I am certain—and I have had a good deal of experience of this—a characteristic that is most admired, and even envied, in other countries.

The process has been one of adaptation rather than revolution. This, after all, reflects the character and outlook of the 588 British people, who are not interested in change unless they can be assured that change is going to bring a demonstrable advantage over what has gone before. And therefore, although in theory, and even in logic, it is perhaps difficult to justify a Parliamentary system which includes the hereditary principle, nevertheless it works: and, by and large, that is the test which the British public apply, As my noble friend has reminded us, since at least 1657 this House has served the public well and if my analysis is correct. I believe that we shall be in tune with public opinion in this country if we see that any changes we make are closely related to the practical needs of to-day.

The second general consideration to which I would invite your Lordships' attention is this: I believe that the great majority of people in this country are convinced that in this complex society there must be a Second Chamber. No one wishes to have an elected rival to another place, but there is daily proof that another place could not do without a complementary Chamber responsible for revising legislation. In these days, the House of Commons is hard pressed, and the long list of Amendments which we are able to insert into Bills, and which are gratefully accepted by another place, is a complete vindication of the existence of the Second Chamber and of the value to the public of this House of Lords. It is certain that the public would not be served so well if this House were not part of the Parliamentary machinery. Nor, I believe, would the people be wise to scrap a Second Chamber which allows time for second thoughts. There are from time to time matters of national controversy; they very often emerge from another place overcharged and overheated. Then, when they are passed through the cooling process of your Lordships' debates, they can be seen by everybody in a better perspective.

There are two more general considerations. I think there are two matters which, in the debate over these two days, we can probably agree to by-pass. The first is any alteration in the powers of this House, and the second is the abolition or reduction of the right of hereditary Peers to legislate. I do not propose to argue the merits or drawbacks of either of those matters, or to forecast what the future may hold, but it does not seem to Her Majesty's Government that there is 589 at present sufficient agreement either between the main political Parties, or even within the main political Parties, for these questions to be pursued now with any profit to any of us.

There are, however, certain measures which can bring this House abreast of the reeds of to-day and add to its efficiency, and which I believe will command a wide measure of agreement. The first is the reinforcement of the House of Lords by Life Peers. The second is the inclusion of Life Peerages for women. The third, which we began in the summer of this year, is the payment of expenses, so as to make it possible for a Peer to pursue his Parliamentary duties without personal financial hardship to himself.

The first proposal which Her Majesty's Government put before your Lordships for your consideration is that there should be the admission of Life Peers. This seems to us to recognise the undoubted fact that there are persons of distinction and eminence who would brine added authority and influence to our discussions but who do not feel able, in the changed social conditions of today, to accept an hereditary peerage. If that is the position—and I believe that all of us must agree that that is certainly so—it would seem to be common sense to meet that situation. My noble friend Lord Teynham has told us that various schemes have been put forward in the pest for the admission of Life Peers. That is true, and I do not at all visualise that there would be very large numbers of life peerages created quickly which would transform the character of this House.

The picture of cohorts of frustrated talent waiting at the Bar is a quite unrealistic one. It seems to me much more likely that the difficulty will be to find sufficient people who are able to give their time, and so I anticipate that Life Peers would be selected with the same scrupulous care as Peers of first creation are selected now. But there would be, this great advantage, that the Prime Minister of the day would have discretion. He could offer a life peerage or an hereditary peerage. He could offer a life peerage (and in these suggestions I am in no way trying to limit the categories) to people of distinction in the public service, to those who could represent some aspect of the nation's life with 590 a peculiar authority, or to persons who could assist Government or Opposition Parties in the conduct of Parliamentary business. And therefore it would seem to me that there is a strong and almost unanswerable case under present conditions for the appointment of Life Peers.

As to whether or not there should be a limit on numbers—either a total limit or a limit to the number who might be appointed in one year—I shall be interested to hear the views of your Lordships. I would merely add that limits are apt to become targets. It might be that we should want more Life Peers in the early years and considerably fewer in the later years of this experiment; and there would seem to be a great deal to be said for flexibility. I know that people always see Prime Ministers in the wings who may flood the House of Lords or swamp the House of Lords. I am not so much impressed by that bogy, I am bound to say, If ever a Prime Minister wished to swamp the House of Lords or abolish it, he could find many ways of doing it without creating great additional numbers of Life Peers.

That brings me to the admission of women. This I would represent to your Lordships as being a recognition of the place which women have commanded for themselves as of right in modern society, and I do not think the House of Lords could be behind the times in admitting women to its membership. I understand that there are some noble Lords who are totally opposed to this idea. Of course one must admit the facts of history. Most of the troubles of the modern world date from the time when women were given the vote. But I am willing to treat that as coincidence rather than consequence. I think, if I may put it this way, that the noble Lord Lord Teynham did not seem too keen on women in the precincts of Parliament. In these days one must not be demonstrative; emotions, I am told, must be strictly controlled. Therefore, no content of gallantry or chivalry must enter into anything I have to say. But I would suggest to Lord Teynham that taking women into a Parliamentary embrace would seem to be only a modest extension of the normal functions and privileges of a Peer.

If, as the Government hope, there is general support for these changes, there 591 remains the question whether we should attempt by legislation to limit the number of hereditary Peers; whether, for instance, by some device we should achieve a House consisting half of hereditary Peers and half of Life Peers. The case for limiting the number of hereditary Peers can be argued—it has been argued many times. I wonder whether it is either urgent or wise, In theory, some 900 hereditary Peers could attend this House at once. In practice, nothing like that ever happens. A Peer uses Parliament when he has some first-hand knowledge to contribute to our debates, and as he is not under the necessity of proving to his constituents at regular intervals that he is in fact alive, he does not have to come here and assert himself at regular intervals. But he does come and use the House of Lords for the proper purpose of contributing first-hand knowledge to our debates. and we profit from that exceedingly, and particularly, if I may say so, from the contributions of backwoodsmen; people who come from the country, people who do not live in London, and who know intimately the conditions of the country people among whom they do live.

We profit, too, from those people who live in the Colonies or Commonwealth countries and who come among us from time to time. They may well be Commonwealth citizens, and I should like to see more of them in this House. Time and again we realise in our debates what we owe to these people, who come here occasionally and who, when they do come, make a decisive contribution to our discussions and to our thought. I have not yet seen any scheme of limitation involving election or selection which does not run the risk of cutting us off from the advice of these people who serve us and. through us, the nation. With regard to any scheme involving election or selection there is another weighty consideration. How, by a process of selection or election, do you find the young men who at present serve their political apprenticeships in this House and through experience of the cut-and-thrust of debate gain experience of Government and administration?

I yield to no one in my respect for the value to this House of retired Admirals and Generals, civil servants 592 and politicians. They add dignity, distinction, eminence and lustre to our debates. But they have reached a point of no return when it comes to the chores of politics. Put an Admiral in charge of a fiat fish Bill—I beg your Lordships' pardon, I mean a white fish Bill—or a senior economist in charge of a Treasury Brief, and I would not myself answer for the results. The piloting of Bills through long, detailed, tedious Committee and Report stages is of the very essence of government. And, in addition, if we are properly to interpret the people's will we must have a significant percentage of young Members in this House. There might be an alternative way of finding young men. But I still have to see a scheme which would not deprive us of those recruits whose political form has not been exposed and whom we should therefore find extremely difficult to assess.

So, although we may come to a comprehensive reform which will limit the numbers of hereditary Peers in some way, I think there are two things which we have to prove to ourselves before we can do it. The first is that there is a great measure of agreement between the Parties. I do not believe it would be possible to carry a comprehensive measure of reform without that. Secondly it has to be proved that the scheme offers us a better future than our present system. I personally have seen no scheme which does that. As my noble friend has reminded us, the late Lord Exeter always held that the great proportion of what I may call non-attending Peers could best be dealt with by Standing Orders of the House. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and his Committee have confirmed that, although, short of legislation, there can be no absolute bar which can be imposed upon a Peer to keep him from attending, nevertheless on request he might be given leave of absence for a period. I agree with my noble friend that if we adopted that system—and it is for your Lordships' House and no one else to decide—if a Peer asked for leave of absence he would not break that Standing Order once it was established. That is not the way we work in this House. I am certain that that would work. It is for your Lordships to decide if you consider that such a scheme is desirable and should be tried.

Meanwhile, before we have had the advantage of hearing your Lordships' 593 opinions, the Government feel that we should not embark on a scheme of comprehensive reform until there is a wide degree of agreement among the Parties, because on these matters which touch our precious Constitution responsibility should be shared by the Parties; and secondly, because no comprehensive scheme which we have seen yet seems to be an improvement on our present state, This debate will be of great value to help us to assess whether in the main we have correctly interpreted the majority view. And I would sum up this first stage in our two-day discussion in this way: that the Government believe that the addition of life Peers and the admission of women to this House would be a significant advance on the present; that the reimbursement of expenses, which enables a Peer to come to this House and do his duty without financial loss, is an important addition; and that the three measures taken together represent a sensible and practical stage in the evolution of Parliament.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I make no complaint about the manner in which the noble Earl the Leader of the House, in opening the debate, stated his case. I think- we must give some recognition to the fact that he has sought to meet a difficult situation in a frame of mind and by a touch of humour which bring happiness into the debate, and we have enjoyed listening to a Parliamentary speech which has been of some distinction, On the other hand. I must say that the Opposition have a legitimate ground for complaint about the circumstances in which this debate is staged. Certainly we had no intimation through the usual channels before the House adjourned for the Recess that this debate was likely to obtain, and when we came, quite late, to discussions through the usual channels about what was to be the Business for this week there was no suggestion that we were to have a debate of this kind on these two final days of this Parliamentary Session, which falls to be prorogued this week. I think that we have a genuine basis of complaint in this matter.

In view of the fact that it has been widely forecast in the Press that the Government have in mind fairly fixed proposals on how far they propose to go 594 with House of Lords reform, I suggest that it would have been much more calculated to ascertain the true feeling of Parliament as a whole on the matter, as well as obtaining the views of your Lordships, if a Government Motion on the matter bad been brought before both Houses of Parliament simultaneously for discussion in the current Session. Therefore it falls for me to say, speaking on behalf of my Party as a whole, that, the matter having been brought: before your Lordships' House in this rather extraordinary way, on the submission of a private Member, I could not possibly commit my Party on the suggestions which have been put fairly categorically by the noble Earl the Leader of the House in his speech this afternoon. I hasten to say. in fairness, as we have made it clear recently that my Party do not feel at all in the position of entering into discussions upon this matter, that if the Government have fixed intentions in their mind with regard to the reform of the House of Lords, they would have to bring their suggestions before Parliament some time or the other. I only regret that this was not done simultaneously in both Houses.

As I have said, I cannot commit my Party in any respect whatsoever in regard to the categorical submissions which the noble Earl has made this afternoon—not because there is nothing attractive to be found in any of the suggestions, but because directly we begin to get down to full discussion and full drafting of the proposals for the reform of this Chamber we are up against considerable volumes of opinion in Parliament, and in interested circles outside, on whether suggestions of the kind that have been made by the noble Earl this afternoon go far enough to meet the situation. Take, for example, the first major proposal—that there should be a limit to the number of Life Peers. I took great note of the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, about the fundamental importance of limiting the number of Peers, and as I listened to the noble Earl afterwards. it seemed to me that he had spotted the bogy in the mind of his noble friend Lord Teynham—the fear that. perhaps some wicked Socialist Government might be inclined to use this method of the appointment of Peers to rectify any gross abuse which they might think had arisen in the handling of matters in this House.

595 As soon as we put before another place the question of now, at once, proceeding to amend the constitution of your Lordships' House by the addition of Life Peers it will inevitably raise at the same time all the other questions which have bewitched this matter over the whole of the forty-six years during which attempts have been made to find a solution of the kind referred to in the Preamble to the original Act. Speaking for myself, I am not nearly so anxious as some people for the reform of the House of Lords on some of the bases which have been suggested. I believe that there is a case for strengthening the actual practical use of the House in discussion day by day by the addition of Life Peers, but I think that it is fundamental to a Chamber of this kind to remember, whether members of the Conservative Party like it or not, that the Party, of which I am proud to be a member and which I represent this afternoon, have come into their present constitutional position to stop. We are here, and we are not going to recede: we are far more likely to expand.

The noble Earl the Leader of the House himself has said that the House of Lords has so far survived during what he terms "a social revolution". That social revolution has been largely due to the careful, prolonged and devoted propaganda and political education of the people by the Party which I am proud to represent. That being so, as long as the present position continues, when we have a Labour Government in a majority producing, as we see it. the progressive legislation urgently required, then the kind of function of this House which seemed to be suggested this afternoon as urgently required to allow the feelings, the ideas, the hopes and everything else in another place, in the elected Chamber that represents the people, to be cooled down in some way or another, might hold up fundamentally the ascertained collective wish of the sovereign people. That is something which must be retained in our minds as a fundamental consideration when we come to discuss matters of this kind.

I think that the noble Earl has been very wise in his choice of words in regard to the appointment of Life Peers. Of course, I should like an opportunity of seeing his speech on paper and studying it carefully upon that particular point. 596 But even in respect of this particular section of his suggestions I cannot possibly commit my Party to agreement this afternoon. I turn to the second suggestion contained in his speech this afternoon, the appointment of a number of women Peers. Certainly, in principle, the admission of women's right to sit in this House, if they are qualified to sit here by ability, public service or other attainment, is something which I accept entirely, On that question, although again I do not wish to commit my Party at all formally this afternoon. I feel quite certain that the majority of the members of my Party—if not the unanimity of my Party—would support the admission of women when it comes to appointing Life Peers. I do not think I need press that point any further.

Then we come to another question which was referred to by the noble Lord, and that is the question of possibly limiting, by one means or another, the attendance at the House of hereditary Peers. That is a point which was made with some stress by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. I speak now for myself first of all, but I feel confident that I speak also for my Party, when I say that if there is to be fundamental reform of the House of Lords we shall be against the maintenance of the hereditary principle. That is my view, and I think there is no doubt at all that the great Party that we have gathered in the country as a whole will be against it.

So far as actual resolutions of Party conference are concerned, the resolutions (the last of which was formally passed in 1934, it is true) are not for even fundamental reform of the House of Lords: they are for the abolition of the House of Lords in regard to the actual consideration of and judgment upon Parliamentary legislation. That should be made perfectly clear, and until the annual conference of the Labour Party, which makes the policy, passes it, and does not leave it to a group afterwards to settle what the policy arrived at really was—until that is done at the Party conference there can be no actual recession from that, Again, therefore. I am unable to commit my Party by one iota in respect of that reform.

Of course, it was very charming to hear a noble Lord of great breadth in experience of life, on land and on sea, as is the 597 noble Lord, Lord Teynham, bring forward for the support of his argument for the hereditary principle the famous example of the racehorses and their offspring. I agree that when one is running a racing stud there is a pretty rigid inspection and a very severe observation of the offspring, for even the most tender-hearted man towards animals certainly does not want to keep in a racing stable a dud which is going to bring no return. But I really fail to follow the argument when it is brought to a consideration of what should be the composition of this Chamber. I fail to see why it should be said that because racehorses often produce good offspring we ought to adopt the hereditary principle for the peerage of this country. It is rather nice for it to have been said. I can imagine it being chewed round with relish in a great many Labour Party gatherings and trade union lodges. They will not easily forget that one!

As to whether there should or should not be a special use of the Standing Orders of the House, or decision under the Standing Orders of the House, to grant long leaves of absence, I think that should be a matter for separate discussion in the Chamber. It should be properly tabled and discussed. It might first of all be considered by a Committee of the House in detail, because that. obviously, would be a matter within the judgment of the House of Lords itself, within its constitution and Standing Orders; so I need not express further opinion on that.

Let me say this: nobody has a greater respect than I have for a great number of the services which are rendered in the House of Lords. There is a high quality of debate here, based upon experience, which is one thing the noble Leader left out of his appreciation of the classes of people from which selection might be made. Experience is rather fundamental, as one realises when one thinks of all the ex-officers, as well as ex-politicians, of whom the House is often made up in its working attendances. There is such a standard of debate in this House that it has become the admiration of people all over the world. It has earned great appreciation from those in the country who hear debates conducted upon technical mild professional matters at a level probably not to be found in any other 598 debating Chamber, simply because of the qualification and experience of many of the people who happen to sit in the House of Lords.

It is, however, fundamental, in this age in which democracy is marching on and will inevitably march on, that toe will of the people, uttered at the poll, must be made to function. All the history of our country teaches us that. I would refer to the position such as we had over the Bill for the abolition of capital punishment when a decision was arrived at in another place, with the support of the majority of all the Parties in that House; we then threw it out, and the Government, without taking it back, introduced a new and compromise measure. That is not the sort of thing which will bring confidence to those who believe in the working of a great democratic principle in this country.

I would say, in conclusion, that it is quite impossible, of course, to bind any of the individual Members on the Benches this side, who do whatever they may think proper in expressing in this House, in free debate, their own personal opinions. But I want to stress, particularly because of what the noble Earl the Leader of the House said in regard to the necessity of having major agreement between the main Parties of the State before there is any really fundamental reform, that it is impossible for us to accept the propositions which have been put up to-day until they have been further considered by my Party as a whole and before the full view of my Party in another place has there been ascertained. In this matter it is of no use for the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, to say that this House is the judge of its own powers. That may apply to the working of the Standing Orders of the House as they apply at present; but in formulating methods of amendment to the Constitution of the House we are not the judge of our own power.

LORD TEYNHAM

If I may interrupt, may I say that I certainly never suggested that we had the sole right to alter the powers of the House.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I am much obliged. I shall read the text carefully tomorrow so as to be quite sure that I have not misunderstood what was said. But in this matter we must obtain agreement for any major 599 reform from both Houses of Parliament and from all the main Parties. On that point I am in agreement with the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I suggest, therefore, that for this matter to be the subject of a kind of Resolution to be put to the House of Lords to-morrow night, as if we are going to approve what has been laid before the House now, would be quite inappropriate. The Government have stated their views on the matter, but we, as a Party, are not in that position. Nor do I believe that the other Party in opposition have had the chance to go into this matter in the circumstances that the Party opposite have, with a full meeting last night, I understand, and able to know what was going to be discussed to-day. We are not in that position; we have not had that opportunity. To have a Resolution committing us in this way would, I feel, be wholly inappropriate, and I beg the noble Earl the Leader of the House not to proceed with the matter in that style.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, I think we should thank the Government for the procedure that they have adopted on this occasion. It is very much to the convenience of the House that we should have a preliminary discussion of their proposals before they put them into final shape and before they crystallise them and are ready to move that they be passed into law. It is true. as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, was good enough to say, that I come before your Lordships today as the only survivor in your Lordships' House of the Cabinet that was concerned with the Parliament Bill of 1911—very much to my own surprise I find myself surviving, more or less, well after the central point of the 20th century. But it is not on that ground that I would wish to occupy your Lordships' attention. I am not concerned to vindicate the past; I am not animated by pious memory of Mr. Asquith in a desire to fulfil the promise or the threat in the Preamble of the Parliament Act, 1911: I am not, in fact, interested at all in 1911, but much more interested in 1957, and more still, perhaps, in trying to foresee and provide for the requirements of 1967, although I shall not live to see that day.

I have been anxious to-day to make a non-controversial speech, although I 600 find it difficult to remain in that frame of mind after some observations of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I agree that in matters of constitutional change, as in matters of foreign policy, it is very desirable for this country to act, whenever possible, by general agreement rather than after violent controversies. But when the noble Earl quietly remarked that he thought—and he seemed to take it as a matter of course—that the House of Lords had served the country well since 1657 (I think I remember correctly his words): when I go back to those years that have been gently recalled of 1907 to 1916; when I remember how your Lordships' predecessors in this House threw out almost all the main Bills of a Government that had been sent to the House of Commons with a majority larger than any since the Great Reform Bill; when I remember that their Lordships of those days threw out the Budget of the year, in defiance of the long-established practice of the Constitution; when I remember that they forced two General Elections on that one issue, and then only surrendered by a small majority of seventeen votes in a critical Division, then I have some doubts whether the House of Lords has always served the country quite so well. I know that Sir Austen Chamberlain, who was one of the leaders of the diehards, wrote afterwards in his memoirs that he supposed, after all, that their policy had been a mistake, and he left it at that. Well. I leave it at that, also.

The question of House of Lords reform has not been a very lively or exciting issue for many years past. About every five or ten years I have proposed a Resolution with regard to it, and there have been discussions and debates and even a conference of the three Parties, But it is rather like a slow-motion film of perhaps a prima ballerina: it is not marked by agility or grace but, on the contrary, by a languid exhibition of almost elephantine deliberation. So it has been with the House of Lords question. I think the Government have been both courageous and foresighted in bringing up this question, although at the present time it cannot be called an especially live issue. All Governments of all Parties at all times are very much tempted, whenever they are confronted with some difficult and troublesome problem, to say, if the issue is quiescent 601 and nobody saying much about it, that it is not necessary to do anything at all; and if, in the opposite case, the subject is highly controversial and people are very excited, that obviously it is not possible to get any agreement and it is not the moment to proceed. As a consequence, changes that are obviously desirable are postponed decade after decade and even, as in this case, generation after generation. But now the Government, stirred, I think, by the wisdom and energy of the late Lord President and Leader of the House, Lord Salisbury, have taken their courage in both hands and are putting forward proposals; and I, for one, cordially welcome the fact that they have.

The chief reason why I am interested in this subject is not partisan or, indeed, political, in the narrow sense, but it touches fundamental questions relating to principles and practice in political matters. I can give that reason in a single sentence. I believe that a democracy can succeed only if it provides itself with good leadership in all the activities of the national life: that it must seek out its ablest and best in order to influence opinions, to spread sound ideas and to guide the nation. The House of Lords has in bygone days played a great part in this sphere, although I do not think it does so to the same degree now, certainly not adequately.

We often hear it said that it is inevitable that leadership should not be forthcoming in what is called the century of the common man. It is taken for granted that the domination of the common man means the domination of the average: the lowly ought to be brought up to the average, but the higher ought to be brought down to it. We are to accept average standards everywhere—in education, manners, books. newspapers, radio, commercial television, in all the arts, in our homes and cities and in Parliament and the Government. Gone is the possibility, in the modern world, of an age of greatness. We are making certain of an age of mediocrity. I think that that is a misreading of the true character and potentialities of democracy. There must be equality of rights before the law. There must be sharing by all of ultimate authority. There must be equality of opportunity, but it must be the equal opportunity to display unequal merit, for there is no such thing as equality of talent 602 of character or of usefulness to the community. That does not exist, and a community which seeks to impose such an equality is certain to come to decadence and to ruin.

Now that is the standpoint from which I approach all these problems. The great change in our democratic Constitution in the latter part of the 19th and the first part of the 20th century has not come about, in my view, from the gradual establishment of universal suffrage, and it has not come about owing to the conflict, and its result, between the Commons and the Lords, but it has come about through the rapid and almost complete domination of the Party system. I am myself a Party man and for many years have spent my political life in Party warfare. Parties are necessary in a democracy, to organise and to give stability both to the electorate and to the Legislature. But when it goes so far as to crush out independent minds, then it does enormous mischief, and it is quite certain that under our present regime, with the almost equality in Parliament of two Parties and a strict Parliamentary discipline, the disappearance of university Members and other changes, there has been a considerable crushing out of the independent mind. There is no doubt that in the nation at large, in all classes and in all parts of the country, there are men and women who might be of the greatest value to the community, but who have not the time or the temperament or the willingness to face the turmoil, the strains and the preoccupations of strenuous Parliamentary life and who can never hope to appear in the forefront of affairs; and, for the great part, large numbers of them never wish to do so.

Now here is my main point to-day. The reason why I am addressing your Lordships is to urge that we should, without doubt, now, at long last, take steps to recruit and, indeed, to a great extent, change the character of your Lordships' House, which might play an immense part in giving leadership to the nation and to public opinion, not only in matters of politics but in all the great questions that vex the public mind. Not a Second Chamber which should rival the House of Commons: not one which would have power to levy taxes without representation: not to overrule the elected representatives of the people, but to use the ancient status, traditions and prestige of 603 your Lordships' House which should make it a privilege to enter it, and which provide a platform and a sounding board through which even a whisper can reach the whole nation.

Now the House of Lords does, to some extent, fulfil that part, but, to my mind, only dimly and occasionally. Hundreds and hundreds of its Members who sit here by solely hereditary right have none of the qualifications which I have said it is essential to evoke. The only ones who have personal qualifications by virtue of which they are 'members of a Parliament in the Second Chamber—many of them may, indeed, have high personal capacities—are the Law Lords, the Bishops, the Scottish Peers in so far as direct selection is concerned, and the first creations. This great bulk of hereditary Peers is continually being renewed faster than hereditaries become extinct. It has been suggested that the matter might be changed by inviting voluntary withdrawals, in accordance with the Report of the Swinton Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member. No harm can be done in trying that and sending out such an invitation, but whether it would result in any considerable change I. for my part, am inclined to doubt.

When I first came into your Lordships' House just twenty years ago it numbered 772 Peers. To-day, with the addition of the noble Lord who has just taken his seat, the number is 872—in other words, precisely 100 additional peerages have been created, on balance, in the period of twenty years. If that noble Lord sees the House again twenty years hence, as he has every reason to expect to do, he will find, if the growth goes on in the same ratio, that it will have reached a membership of 1,000. In a swollen membership of that kind, is there room for any large addition of new elements? That is the question we have to consider to-day.

The All-Party conference of 1948, consisting of almost all the principal leaders' of all three Parties in both Houses, unanimously included in their conclusions this paragraph. They all agreed as a matter of principle, apart from the question of whether it could be applied—and I quote the words of the conclusion of the Conference: The present right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber. 604 Why have the Government so easily abandoned that principle? The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, said very quietly that he proposed to by-pass that question and, I think. another—I forget at the moment which it was—of the most thorny questions that face him, and possibly to reserve what he has to say until the matter comes to be debated again. He was not proposing to argue the case in any degree. It was an instance in this matter of "heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter." I shall await his speech on the second occasion, but meantime I would enter a strong protest against the suggestion that he can, with a wave of the hand. by-pass the most difficult and perhaps the most important question that is now before the House and the country. How can we find place in a Chamber which will soon have a thousand members for any large element which might be of the greatest influence and the greatest value?

As to the Government's specific proposals, of course I cordially accept the proposal to create Life Peers. The noble Earl asked whether we should wish to see a limit imposed. On the whole. personally—and I speak for myself: my noble friend, Lord Rea, will be speaking tomorrow for the Liberal Peers—I think it would be advisable not to have any limit. It would not be feasible to put a limit on new Life Peers and not limit the hereditary Peers. If you put a limit on hereditary Peers. it would have a most important constitutional effect, because the creation of Peers is the only way in which this branch of the Constitution can be controlled if the country desires it to be controlled. The Crown is subject to disabilities and restraint. The House of Commons may have a General Election forced upon it, but unless, as in the time of Queen Anne and again in the time of 1911, there remains the power to create Peers without limit, then the House of Lords would be given an absolute authority which is contrary to the whole principle of a free Constitution.

The noble Earl the Leader of the House asked what is to be said with regard to the value of the House of Lords as a panel of experts. There are 800 or 1,000 Members and it may be found in any particular debate that ten 605 or twelve of them know more than anybody else outside in the country. I agree, there is great force in this theory of the panel. But it can be carried too far. Very often such persons could be brought in as Life Peers, and very often many of the hereditary Peers are of no value to any panel. As for the young men, there again they could be brought in as Life Peers. I certainly hope that the new entries will not be aged people of sixty or seventy or even touching the extreme senility of the octogenarian. Further, on that point of the young man, care should be taken that it should be dealt with, though, as recent experience has shown, I think, it is a mistake to suppose that every young Peer is gifted with good sense or even with good manners. I think that expenses should be provided, but that would go only a little way towards meeting the case, because the question at the most of £200 or £300 a year could not make the difference between people of the kind we have in mind coming into the House or staying out. Still, no doubt it should be done.

I was delighted to hear the uncompromising views of the Government in favour of the admission of women at long last. The House of Lords now is. I believe, the Only institution in this country, apart from the ecclesiastical organisations, which excludes women on the ground of principle. Local authorities, professional and industrial organisations, even what would have been thought impossible a hundred years ago, the Army. Navy and Air Force, and now, Civil Defence, eagerly recruit women and are most grateful for their services. This exclusion on our part is directly contrary to the principle of the Sex Disqualification Removal Act, which was passed into law by your Lordships' House forty years ago, and which your Lordships ever since have refused to obey. No such exclusion, fortunately, bars the Throne, and for that reason this country has known the reigns of three Queens which have been illustrious in its history, and because there is no such exclusion to-slay we have the blessing of a Sovereign who is as devoted and as well loved as any who have sat upon the Throne in all the long centuries of English history.

I trust that when these new Peers are appointed and when the women are in 606 cluded among them there may be perhaps one or two of the hereditary Peeresses who are Peeresses in their own right but who have been excluded from sitting. I do not say that necessarily they ought all to be brought in—that would be a surrender again to the hereditary principle but there may be some who might well be brought in with advantage to the nation and to end what they regard as the injustice of their long exclusion.

One further point. There have been two great changes in our politics: one, the predominance of the Party and the transfer of the seat of power really to Party organisations, the other the change of our military Empire by the peaceable evolution to something much better, a free association of independent nations, and this might have a special bearing on our discussion of to-day. The question arises, what is the best link to be created between the Commonwealth and its centre? The ancient monarchy is the best link. The Privy Council served it to some extent, but no longer. It is often felt that there ought to be some personal link with Westminster. When the question arose lately in a concrete form with regard to Malta, the House of Commons appointed a Select Committee and, to my great surprise, unanimously recommended that three Maltese should be elected by Malta to sit in the House of Commons itself. That seems to me entirely wrong in principle. It is to pretend that the Maltese are citizens of Great Britain when they are not citizens of Great Britain. It would lend itself politically to log-roiling of the worst kind.

The right solution of that question, to my mind, is that among the Life Peers there should be not one or two but a considerable number of Canadians, Australians and South Africans. We have already enjoyed the advantage of the presence of more than one from those Dominions, and one from India in Lord Sinha. That principle should be extended to African and Asian Commonwealth members in general. In this way the House of Lords might add to its ancient traditions a new, great service to what used to be the Empire and is now the Commonwealth. I was glad to hear the noble Earl say he would like to see more such on our Benches. I trust that that will be made an object of policy, if it is acceptable to Canada, Australia and the rest. There is no element of subjection in 607 this House; there is no question of exercising power over the British people or of submitting to power in the Dominions or Colonies; but if that is agreed on their part it should, to my mind, he done as one of the present changes that are in store.

All these changes. I hope, will exalt the influence and the value of leadership without enlarging the legal powers of this House, so that it may revive in greater degree its place as the home of oratory and high debate and a breeding ground of statesmen. We, who are the trustees in these latter days of these traditions, should, I think, scorn the part that has been assigned to us by some speakers in the debates a few years ago that this House should exist simply to supply the House of Commons with an additional Parliamentary Committee to save them the time and the trouble necessary to deal with the details of complicated and technical Bills. Let that be done—it is a very useful scheme—but it is not an adequate proposal for the reform of this House. Indeed, if noble Lords were to surrender their views and revert to such a pettifogging Second Chamber as that they would be doing far less than their duty in this contingency. So the prospect now mooted by the Government proposals, which I trust that the House will accept and mould into legislative form, without any harm to the nation's liberties, will, I hope, help to exalt the dignity of the State and the fame of the Commonwealth.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I have hesitated very much as to whether to take part in this debate. For your Lordships have heard so many speeches from me during the last fifteen years on the subject of the reform of this House that I was reluctant to inflict yet another upon you. especially as the subject was likely to be amply covered by other speakers—and, indeed, it has been very well covered by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in the most remarkable speech which he has just delivered. But, my Lords. I have lived so long with this problem—for the greater part of my life—that I felt I could not be entirely silent when, at long last, it looked as if something was actually going to be done.

I should like to say at the very outset of my remarks that I personally shall cer- 608 tainly support the Government's proposals, which the Leader of the House has recommended to your Lordships with such charm and such persuasive power. Indeed, I feel, like, I think, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. that the Government are greatly to be congratulated on their courage in making an attempt to grasp a nettle which has frightened off successive Governments, of every political colour, for the last forty years. They have recognised that something needed to be done if the House of Lords was to continue to be able to perform the vital constitutional functions that fall upon it; and having recognised that fact, unlike their predecessors, they have decided to act—in sharp contradistinction, if I may say so, to what I am afraid I thought was the very sterile attitude of the Leader of the Opposition who, so far as I could see, made it clear that his Party was likely to be against any change whatever, even in the direction of improvement.

My Lords, for what they have done in this respect I think the Government deserve our thanks; and I am sure they will receive them. Moreover, the value of the main step which I understand they are recommending to the House—that is, the legislation of life peerages—should not. I feel, in any way be underestimated. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. has just said. it should make it possible to recruit to the service of this House large numbers of men—and, I personally was very glad to hear, women—who could not, for various reasons, accept hereditary peerages, yet whose experiences and abilities in many walks of our national life would well fit them for membership of what has often been described as a "Council of State." The legalisation of life peerages is, I believe, a step which has been long overdue, and I am sure it cannot but be for the benefit both of this House and of the country at large. I therefore warmly welcome the Government's proposals—so far as they go.

But, having said that, I must add—and here I am afraid that I find myself at issue with the Leader of the House—that I wish they had gone very much further: and I wish, in particular, that they had dealt with the problem of those absentee hereditary Peers who have come to be known as "backwoodsmen". I thought the Leader of the House treated that problem too lightly. I would assure noble 609 Lords that I am not going to be so impertinent as to point the finger of scorn, or even of criticism, at the backwoodsmen. The last thing I desire to do is to lend any support to the picture so often presented to the public, and regarded apparently by journalists and caricaturists as so excruciatingly funny, of futile old men tottering and doddering through the rooms of vast and remote country mansions. No doubt there are in every walk of life old men who, by reason of age, totter and dodder. That may be regarded as the Act of God. But it certainly is not an accurate picture of the average backwoodsman.

The great majority of noble Lords who do not attend the sittings of this House—the membership of which, I would remind your Lordships (indeed, we all know it) is unpaid—do not do so only because, like the rest of their fellow citizens in these days of extremely heavy taxation, their lives are fully occupied by the primary task of earning enough money to maintain their homes, their wives and their families. Some are to be found working in various capacities in the great industries of this country. Others are engaged in agriculture, or in the personal management of their estates. Yet more devote their lives to local administration, which they can combine with their other work; and not a few are to be found in the City of London. Those are the ways in which the great majority of the backwoodsmen spend their lives—and I say: all credit to them! But the fact remains that, for whatever reason, they do not attend the sittings of this House.

There is, I know, a comfortable doctrine, which I was rather sorry to hear advanced by the Leader of the House this afternoon, that they are only waiting until subjects on which they are experts come up for discussion, and then they all appear and make impressive contributions. My Lords, there are indeed cases of that kind—we all know them; but there are far more cases of absentees who never turn up, whatever subjects are under discussion.

THE EARL OF HOME

Perhaps I may intervene for a moment. I do not think I have really treated this matter lightly. What I suggested, I think, was, that if we could not, without arriving in the field of controversy, deal with this particular question of the backwoodsmen by legis 610 lation, then, if the House wished to do so, we might try the Swinton Committee proposal.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

All the same, I think that the noble Earl did treat it a little lightly—he passed over it. And yet the fact that they' do not turn up, and yet constitutionally could, is, I believe, the most serious defect to the present constitution of the House in the eyes of the general public. For it gives a specious substance to the charge that the House can always be swamped by a sudden inrush of reactionary forces which are concerned only to defend their own personal interests. I have said that is a specious charge, because I do not personally believe that there is any real substance in it. I sat, as did a great many others of your Lordships, all through those three debates in this House which since the war have attracted the greatest attendance of your Lordships—the debate on the Parliament Bill in 1948 and, more recently, the debates on television and capital punishment; and even in the case of the Parliament Bill, which directly affected the future both of this House and of its Members, I saw very few unknown faces. The vast majority of those who were here were at least fairly regular attenders at the House. But I submit that it is entirely wrong that anybody should be in a position to suggest that decisions of this House, on issues of the first importance, could be swayed by a sudden inrush of normally absentee Peers. And that is not only my own view, which might be said to count for very little: it has been the convinced view of many of the most eminent leaders of opinion in this House for many years past. Indeed. it has been the main purpose of almost every scheme of reform put forward in this House since 1911 to remove that particular reproach.

I do not pretend to the noble Leader of the House that it is going to be easy to devise a scheme for that purpose which will be generally acceptable. Let us look at the last two proposals which have been seriously considered. There was first the proposal of 1947–48. It is quite true that the inter-Party talks of 1947 broke down on the question of powers, and not on the question of composition, but I have since been convinced, as I believe Parliament too is convinced, than our proposals with regard to composition (which, I 611 would say to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, were not agreed between the Parties) were also open to serious objection.

The essence of those proposals, as the House will remember, is that only those hereditary Peers who were also Privy Counsellors should automatically become members of the new reformed House. But my Lords, Privy Counsellors are nearly always elderly people and, therefore, younger Peers would have been largely excluded under that proposal. Looking back, that appears to me (and here I strongly agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham) to have been a fatal blemish in our proposals. For the House of Lords, just as much as another place, needs a fair proportion of young men to do the humdrum day-to-day work of the House, the drafting and moving of Amendments on the Committee stage of Bills and so on. Such work will never be done by heads of universities, ex-ambassadors or great trade union leaders, and so on, who will presumably form the greater part of am reformed House. They have neither the time nor the training for it. To my mind, therefore, a lack of provision for younger men rules out that, or indeed any other, scheme which is based purely on the possession of a Privy Counsellorship as a necessary qualification for membership of a reformed Upper House.

Nor were those who concern themselves with these matters any more successful with an alternative scheme, based on extending the system of election of Peers by Peers which, as your Lordships will know, has applied in the case of Scottish Peers ever since the Act of Union. It was suggested that this plan, which had been so successful with regard to Scottish Peers, should be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom. At first sight, that proposal, appeared to many of us to be very attractive. But here again, as noble Lords will remember, serious difficulties emerged on further examination. Scotland—in area, though of course in no other way—is a fairly small country. Broadly speaking, everybody knows everybody else or can find out about him, and it was therefore fairly easy for Scottish Peers to select the best list of representatives to serve in this House. But 612 England and Wales are together far larger. The electoral body would presumably have to be the whole body of United Kingdom Peers. Yet there are numbers of those who never attend this House. How would they know for whom to vote, or what was needed in a Representative Peer? How could they be depended upon to pick the best list of 100 or 200, whatever the number was, for this purpose? In view of the force of this criticism, it proved necessary to discard that particular scheme also.

But, my Lords, the fact that these two schemes have not been found feasible does not seem to me an adequate reason for confessing ourselves defeated and retaining as Members of this House a very large number of Peers who never have attended our sittings, and never mean to, especially as, in my belief, other lines of approach exist which have never yet been put before the House and the country. On this point I find myself this afternoon in a position of some considerable difficulty. As the noble Leader of the House knows, I had sponsored a scheme which I believed would surmount most of the difficulties which he and others have raised, and I was quite prepared to expound it to the House to-day. But I decided not to put it forward, because I did not want to cause division among your Lordships, some of whom I know would agree with me, rather than with the noble Leader of the House. Yet now, in his speech, the noble Earl practically challenges me and others to produce an effective scheme, if it exists, which he says he does not believe. In spite of what the noble Leader of the House has said, I do not intend to alter my position, for I have made up my mind to support Her Majesty's Government on their present proposals as being at any rate better than nothing; and, as has been well said in an old adage. "Too many cooks spoil the broth."

I will therefore merely re-emphasise that, while life peerages must clearly be an element in any scheme of reform, they are only one element—and not necessarily the most important. It is, of course, possible that Her Majesty's Government are relying, to deal with the "backwoodsmen" on the most valuable proposal of the Swinton Committee that the House should itself take powers to grant leave of absence to Peers applying for it. Every 613 one of us welcomes the reference by the noble Earl the Leader of the House to that particular proposal, which, I believe. had the support of the representatives of all Parties on the Swinton Committee—I would point that out particularly to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who seemed to be ignorant of this—and, personally, I hope that it will be put into effect. But I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, himself would agree that this proposal was, in a sense. faute de mieux. It is not meant, and never has been meant, to take the place of a comprehensive scheme of reform which I believe, he, like myself, would much have preferred.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether it is not possible for noble Lords who are vastly interested in what he has said in some way to secure particulars of the scheme that he has in mind?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I will think whether that can be done; but in politics one always has to make up one's mind what is the right thing to do, and not necessarily to press one's own view. And the last thing I want to do is to cause embarrassment to Her Majesty's Government who I believe are themselves trying to do the right thing. Moreover, the noble Earl, Lord Home, rightly stressed—and personally I thank Heaven for it—that we live in an evolutionary country, and that means that we must very often be content to proceed by stages. To any evolutionary—and I am a confirmed one—half a loaf is always better than no bread; and I personally should infinitely prefer to have what is now offered by Her Majesty's Government rather than to get nothing at all as a result of opposition raised in this House.

I am therefore, I repeat, prepared to accept the broad principles underlying the proposals which have been put forward by the noble Leader of the House, although, like everyone else, I shall want to look at the details when they come forward in a Bill. But I say, quite frankly, that I regard this as only a first stage in the process of reform, and it is only as such that I can accept it at all. I believe profoundly that the legalisation of life peerages is not enough in itself, and that a further stage of reform of the composition of the House will ultimately prove necessary if it is to meet the needs 614 of the difficult times through which we are now moving. I believe, too—like the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—that the financial assistance which the Government are offering to Peers under the recent announcement is not sufficient to enable those without any financial resources of their own to accept membership of this House: yet I do not see how that difficulty can be rectified, while there are an unlimited number of hereditary Peers with no obligation to attend at all. Therefore (and this is the last thing I want to say), I hope most sincerely that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who is, I understand, to reply to the debate, will be able to make it clear that the Government do not rule out the possibility of taking further steps in the direction of a more radical reform of the composition of the House, should that prove necessary in the light of their experience of the measures on which they are now embarking.

VISCOUNT INGLEBY

My Lords, in speaking here to-day for the first time—and briefly, I can assure you, if only on account of the prevailing laryngitis—I am sure that I shall have the indulgence and the sympathy of your Lordships in having to follow two such wise, trusted and well-beloved counsellors as my noble friend Lord Salisbury and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, whose prematurely written life story—so far as it goes—now decorates my bookshelves. It is nearly two years since I found myself—a little unexpectedly—one of your Lordships, and in mitigation of the delay in making my maiden speech I can only say, first, that I desired and needed a longish period for acclimatisation, to get myself used to the standards of courtesy and understatement which are the hallmark of your Lordships debates; secondly, that throughout the unhappy events of 1956 any speech of mine could only have been critical of my former colleagues, and unhelpful in its effects; and lastly, that this is the first occasion on which I feel I can give the Government wholehearted support and possibly make a suggestion which I believe could enhance the value of their proposals.

As a newcomer to your Lordships' House, I have felt bound to ask myself the question: what is wrong with the House of Lords? And the answer is, I 615 think, clear beyond argument. It is the lack of balance in numbers, and consequently in debating power, between the Parties on either side of the Chamber. There are too few of noble Lords opposite, and, what is perhaps even more important, many of the most eminent Socialist leaders, men who have held high office, men whose names are household words, remain in the House of Commons—where they constitute, I imagine, an embarrassment to the more youthful Party leaders—when their proper place, by virtue of their distinction and their public services, lies in this Chamber.

For my part, I would join in the tribute which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, the Leader of the Opposition, paid to his supporters in the debate here on July 8 on the expenses allowances, when he expressed gratitude to a number of noble Lords of my own small Party for the sacrifices they have made—year after year—in order to attend and make she business of the House as real as possible. The proposal for the creation of life peerages is to me entirely welcome. It will enable, or it could enable, the lack of balance in numbers to which I have referred to be gradually rectified. Those who have been kept away by dislike of the hereditary principle will be able to come here without regret and without remorse. But there is another obstacle to be tackled before the road is opened for all those distinguished ex-Ministers who should be here. It is a practical issue which I think must be faced: it is the question of finance.

There is little opportunity—indeed, I think, no opportunity—on the salary of a Member of Parliament, in the other place, for any saving. The salary of a Member of Parliament has never been a generous one, and translation to this place would, for many, involve virtually total loss of income. One of these gentlemen I have in mind, when I met him casually not long ago, remarked upon my change of status, and I said to him: "You ought to be there, too." He replied, "I would come like a shot if they paid the rate for the job". In the House of Commons the new rate since July is £1,750 a year—that is, salary £1,000, with an additional £750 for what are considered to be an average of necessary expenses involved. But what is a Member 616 of Parliament's lot on retirement or defeat? If his means are negligible—and only if his means are negligible—he can apply—f he has put in the minimum of ten years' service—to the House of Commons Members' Fund. Now the House of Commons Members' Fund helps only where need can be established. A means test is applied. In my view, this system is wholly out of date, and a change-over to a pension as of right, commensurate with length of service should be introduced.

I would suggest, using what is a popular phrase nowadays, half-pay on retirement, after twenty-five years' service in another place, with, of course, a smaller pension proportionate to shorter service. Why should this not be acceptable? All other salaried employments to-day carry a pension with them. Indeed, something like 40 per cent, of weekly wage-earners are now included in vocational pension schemes. This change should, in my opinion, have been made years ago. It should now be made quickly, and it should be made with early effect. We are all conscious of the cost in doing something of this kind of dealing with the "old cases" as they are called. That is always a trouble when a new pension scheme is introduced. But I do not think we can wait till the year 2000 A.D. for a system of this kind for which I am arguing to become effective. The House of Commons Members' Fund now gives a maximum of £500 a year where need is established, and £300 to a Member's widow. The trustees—eminent Members of another place—hate the discharge of these duties which are thrust upon them. I would suggest that a pension as of right of £500 a year for twenty-five years' service should be given—that is, about half that element of Member of Parliament's pay which is regarded as being truly salary. One must also recall—and here I speak with some authority—that as from July next year National Insurance pension of about £150 to £200 a year will be available to all persons who have ten years' contributions to their credit.

Further, I am confident that what is called the expenses allowance for which Members of your Lordships' House can now qualify must be substantially raised. I believe that with these three sources of income—the expenses allowance, the pension as of right for long service in 617 another place, and the National Insurance pension—one might attain an income figure which would overcome the financial obstacle which is preventing these gentlemen from joining your Lordships' House. In this way we can avoid the necessity of embarking on a complex and artificial scheme of creating a class of professional legislator, which would be the inevitable consequence of providing regular salaries for those Peers who attend here. Of course, my proposal would not enable a youthful Peer without any other means to devote himself entirely and exclusively to the service of your Lordships' House, but for my part—and here I think I differ from my noble friend Lord Salisbury—I should doubt the wisdom of making such a life possible, and I should be confident that public opinion could never be brought to accept it.

As I have said, I believe that there are ways now opened by the Government proposal for life peerages of attracting here those whose names are household words; who are powerful advocates of the causes in which they believe, and whose presence here would be of the utmost value. Some loss of present income to them would be involved, and I have no doubt would be accepted—because life here is not altogether without its pleasures and its advantages. One of them is the freedom from constituents Which one gains by the change. If I may give your Lordships just one example of that, it was with indescribable satisfaction that I received the other day a letter from a former constituent, who was unaware of what had occurred to me. Dear Mr. Peake,"— the letter said— I and my wife and our Edith all voted for you last time. Now our rent has gone up by 3s. 2d., and we are never going to vote for you again. I forwarded that letter to my successor with my compliments and with the greatest possible satisfaction.

My Lords, I trust that I have made my point clear. We shall be told that my proposal for giving pension as of right, instead of on the basis of need, would cost a lot of money; that the House of Commons Members' Fund, with£80,000 invested at the present time, is actuarially bankrupt; and, as we are always told, that the time is not ripe for a scheme for improving the pensions of Members of 618 Parliament. I hope that the Government will take courage. They could carry through this reform at the same time as the promised review of war, insurance and other pensions, which has been referred to by Ministers from time to time, and I am sure that this proposal would be generally welcomed. I have observed that perorations here are generally out of place. I conclude, therefore, by saying that the reform announced to-day by my noble friend Lord Home, if followed by the action I venture to suggest, can do much to maintain and enhance the high reputation of your Lordships' House; and it is on trial reputation that the influence and power of this House must ultimately depend.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, it is in the tradition of your Lordships' House that I should afford myself the pleasure of congratulating the noble Viscount who has just spoken upon the quality of his speech, and of expressing the hope that we shall hear him upon many occasions in future. I trust the noble Viscount will not think that, traditional though these words be, they lack anything in sincerity. Maiden speeches are supposed to be non-controversial: I find the noble Viscount's speech eminently non-controversial. Being one of what the Press now habitually call the "aged and ageing" Members of Her Majesty's Opposition Front Bench in your Lordships' House, I confess that the prospect of a pension stirs a ready response in my heart, and I hope that the noble Viscount will continue to press the eloquent plea he has made. May I also say this to him? I hope that he will not follow the example of many of his predecessors, who seem to have looked at the great honour of elevation to your Lordship's House as the crown on their past careers and never even attend. I hope that he will look upon it, as we should have liked the others to look upon it, as the beginning of another career and that your Lordships will have the benefit of his counsel for many years to come.

I had better preface my contribution to this debate by saying that I speak for myself, and for myself alone. Though I think that I could claim that a number of my colleagues would agree with me, I have no authority to speak on their behalf. My remarks have been shortened by the speech that we heard with great interest 619 from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I find myself in almost complete agreement with what he said. I find it easy to accept the principle of Life Peerages but, with the noble Marquess, I would ask the Government seriously to consider whether that is enough, even as a preliminary step. I regret very much that the Government have run away from what I have always considered to be the principle which is most acceptable to the British people, that hereditary birth does not constitute an automatic right to sit in a Legislative Chamber. However, I can leave that point, as I can leave other points, to noble Lords who are more versed in the Constitution than I can pretend to be.

But, my Lords, I hold the view that the prime—or if not the prime, then almost the prime—function of your Lordships' House in a two-Chamber Constitution is that of a Revising Chamber. That is the function which, since I have been here, I have always been told is paramount; and with the rush of legislation of modern times it is, and has been, patent to us all that without a second. Revising Chamber legislation would find its way on to the Statute Book that would do little credit to this country. I want to ask the Government whether they think that the creation of Life Peers alone will really satisfy the dire need of your Lordships' House. The dire need of your Lordships' House is a stronger Opposition. In a democracy we carry legislation through after argument. I speak as one who has borne some of the burden on the Opposition Front Bench—and I can assure you, my Lords, that at times it is an intolerable burden—with my colleagues, of trying to do a public duty, in opposing Bills with meticulous care; not light-heartedly, and not with opposition for opposition's sake. To think out hundreds and hundreds of Amendments, to sit on this Bench from half past two until nearly nine or ten o'clock at night without being able to move off—that is the lot of an Opposition in your Lordships' House that tries to do the job properly. That means that there must always be a hard core who are prepared to give their whole time to that one particular task.

With regard to Life Peers, you may, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, bring into this Chamber all the ex-vice-chancellors of all the universities of 620 this country, and all the past presidents of all the learned societies of this country; you may bring here all the eminent folk of whom you can think: they will not do that job—the chores, the un-relenting chores, of Parliamentary opposition. After you have worked yourself to death, your only epitaph is one line in The Times, that such-and-such a Bill that was passed through the Commons "was considered on Committee". That is your epilogue. It is humorous now, but it is not at the time. Will the advent of Life Peers of the calibre and the quality I have just mentioned, all adding only to the aged, solve the problem of your Lordships' House? As two or three speakers have said, what we want is youth. We do not want the older men. Frankly, they have not the ability; they are tired, and they have not the inclination either. What is wanted in your Lordships' House to do the job which I have just described—and I speak from many years' experience now—is men in the forties and fifties.

How are we to get them into this House in the prime of their life, in the prime of their earning capacity in industry? I agree with the noble Viscount who made his maiden speech. While the present expense allowance is a help surely Her Majesty's Opposition cannot be allowed to rest upon a few folk who, by the grace of God, happen to be economically well endowed; and, of course, the number of those folk is getting increasingly smaller. When noble Lords on the Government side of your Lordships' House take our place, which they assuredly will, they will be up against the same difficulties. So, my Lords, I think the noble Leader of the House has got to revise his ideas upon this matter.

For myself, and again I speak only for myself. I have never been entirely convinced that the handicap, or the supposed handicap, of the hereditary principle is a deterrent to elevation on this side of the House. There are examples to contradict me. The outstanding examples, of course, are families in which there is a long line of political tradition and political ambition. If the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, happened to be in his place, I could say, after all his exposition of the disadvantages of the hereditary principle in his family, that he has not 621 done too badly. But that, to my mind, is not the deterrent factor. The deterrent factor is the hard factor of economics. Dodge it if you will, but you will never get a young and virile Opposition, a young and virile Front Bench on the Opposition side, until you match the economic remuneration for them with that which you have on the Government Front Bench. If you had the same economic status on the Government Front Bench as on the Opposition Front Bench you would be just as hard put as we are. This, to my mind, comes above all the trimmings of whether you have life peerages, whether you carry hereditary peerages, or whether you accept the "Swinton scheme" Whatever you do, you will sooner or later come up against the hard economic facts, and they will grow.

So I find it very easy to accept the principle of life peerages. With my noble leader, I can also accept the principle of females in your Lordships' House—and view the prospect with unmitigated horror. But that may be prejudice. I do not know what one would call the House. But perhaps the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will tell us—the "House of Lords and Ladies"? It cannot remain the "House of Lords," can it? They are Peeresses, surely. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who had one racing stable simile to offer, can also find an answer to that one. I ask the Government to look at this problem, including the economics. I hope the, noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will give us the answer to it, if he can make this calculation, because, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said, if you are going to increase the hereditary peerage content of this House by about a hundred a year and are not going to have any kind of limitation on the number of Life Peers, I hope I shall not he accused of being facetious when I say that it will not be many years before your Lordships will have to move either to the Albert Hall or to Harringay Arena, because you will be hopelessly overcrowded. Any increase, any reimbursement, even of expenses, is quite out of the question unless something is done to limit the numbers. That is the simple point upon which I wish to focus attention. I think we shall find it difficult, but I do not think we should find it any more difficult to augment Her Majesty's 622 Opposition in this House by Hereditary Peerages than by Life Peerages.

On the question of numbers, there is one other point that I would ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to consider. It has always been supposed to be one of the underlying ideas of any reform of this House that you would in some way equate, or nearly equate, the strength of the Parties. Noble Lords on the other side of the House have never had the experience which noble Lords on this side of the House have had of arguing and arguing and doing their best to oppose, knowing from the word. "Go" that they do not stand a dog's chance of ever winning: knowing, all the time, that the Division bell will ring and the unshackled hordes will teem into the Division Lobby against them. That has been a matter of protest, from these Benches on many occasions. Fortunately, there are times when the reverse operates, and I have happy memories of finding the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in charge of a Bill when conciliation could not go very much further. But that is not always the case. Whatever happens, if any limitation is put on life peerages, we on this side, shall always be in that dilemma. It is a serious dilemma. I ask for nothing that is not fair, but I think that at some time the Government of the day will have to try to devise a method of equating the numbers in your Lordships' House; they must be a trifle more equal than they are, or seem likely to be. I will not go so far as to say that we should reflect the Opposition and the Government sides in another place, but the House is ill-balanced at the present time, and it is a most disheartening experience for anyone but the toughest individual to stand up and argue a case from this side.

That is all I have to say. I have spoken purely for myself. I welcome the Government's proposal, so far as it goes, although I do not think it goes far enough. I hope that we may think of it, when it does come, as only one step. I agree with the noble Earl the Leader of the House, with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, that to try to revise this House radically at one swoop would be heading for disaster. I think we must be patient. However, I feel that the noble Earl might dip at least his other toe into the water 623 and go a little further than he has gone this afternoon, and if he did, so far as I am concerned, he would have my support.

LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH

My Lords, at the outset I should like to add my congratulations to those which fell from the noble Lord who has just sat down to my noble friend Lord Ingleby. I am sure we all hope that he will not wait another two years before addressing your Lordships again. On the question which is before the House, I want to say at once that I approach it as a convinced and unrepentant supporter of the hereditary principle. I call to witness in support of that belief the qualities of your Lordships' House, because I believe it will be generally agreed that your Lordships' House as a Second Chamber in our Constitution possesses great qualities. I understood the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition to say that his Party was more interested in abolishing the House of Lords than in reforming it: but, in spite of that, he went on, as I thought, to pay a generous and hearty tribute to the qualities of your Lordships' House. I did not think that the two parts of the speech quite held together, but as the noble Viscount has had to leave the House I will not pursue that further.

Then may I refer to the extraordinarily interesting speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel? He, too, I thought, after being slightly overcome by bitterness in his recollection of what happened in 1911, paid a real tribute to the qualities of your Lordships' House. Let me say at once that the events from 1907 to 1911 to which the noble Viscount referred included many things which were mistakes made by your Lordships' House; but I do not suppose there is any institution in the world which has not made mistakes. However, that is all past history, and I think that now, particularly over the last twenty years, this House has performed a most valuable service in the part it has to play in our constitutional affairs. If that is so, it is a tribute to the quality of the hereditary system. It is the hereditary system which has produced a great deal of what this House is; and I add to that, of course, that the House could not have been what it is without a valuable flow of first creations.

624 The fact that there is difficulty in recruiting first creations because of the hereditary principle is the justification for the proposals which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has put before us I was surprised to hear the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, say that he did not think the hereditary element in the Peerage was a deterrent, and I can only say that that is not the impression I have gained. But while I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on that point, I thoroughly agree with what he said about the economic side of it. When the noble Earl the Leader of the House mentioned remuneration. I ventured to tell your Lordships that I thought it did not go far enough, and I entirely agree that that is an clement in the matter which has to be looked at again.

There is only one other point I wish to comment upon with regard to the constructive proposal, and that is the proposal to include women. I was delighted to hear the noble Earl say that that was the intention, and I only hope that it will extend also to Peeresses in their own right. It seems to me entirely illogical to exclude them, and the addition to the hereditary element would be so small as to be negligible. As to nomenclature, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, need worry. Ladies can be Lords of Parliament, just as much as they can be chairmen of a county council or chairmen of any other body. "Madam Chairman" is a common term.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Yes, why not? I hope and assume that, in addition to Life Peers, there will continue to be a creation of hereditary Peers, but to a very much less extent, because I differ from those who think that the existence of a large number of hereditary Peers who never come is something which does not matter. I think it is a reproach to the hereditary principle, and therefore I feel most strongly that a necessary concomitant of the creation of Life Peers is some system, such as was outlined by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, for a reduction of the hereditary element.

I should like to say to my noble friends on this side of the House who dislike this proposal—and I know there are 625 some—that I am certain that they and I have the same object at heart. We wish to maintain and buttress the authority of your Lordships' House. I think there is nothing which undermines more the authority of this House than the existence of some hundreds of noble Lords who have not even taken the trouble to take the Oath, and the existence of further hundreds who, having taken the Oath, seldom or never assist your Lordships' House. I believe that. far from weakening the hereditary principle, such a weeding-out and selection of the fittest, by whatever method it is done, would do a great deal to strengthen the hereditary principle in which believe, and also to foster the authority of your Lordships' House. I absolutely agree with what the noble Earl the Leader of the House said about the necessity of ha \ Mg young men in the House. That. I think, is something which could be combined with such a proposal as I have mentioned.

I therefore sum up. I am entirely in favour of the creation of Life Peers, but I hope that the Government will not close their eyes to a further scheme on the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, to reduce the number of hereditary Peers who have the right to attend your Lordships' House as Lords of Parliament.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

My Lords, I should like to say at the beginning that I am in favour of the proposals outlined by the Leader of the House as a first stage to reform the House of Lords. I find myself in sympathy with the proposals of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, about pensions and also with the restriction on then.amber of hereditary Peers in view of the service or lack of service which many render.

I wish to speak particularly of that small group of Spiritual Peers who, in the words of the noble Viscount. Lord Samuel, constitute one of the independent categories of the Members of this Chamber. The Spiritual Peers are part of the oldest portion of Parliament, and this historical connection with the origins of the Second Chamber is of considerable importance, but if that were the only grounds for their retention in the House 626 of Lords I would fully appreciate the force of the argument which claims that Bishops have no place in the House of Lords to-day. But conditions have been revolutionised so far as the Spiritual Peers are concerned, not only since the Middle Ages but since the earlier years of the 19th century. Thus, besides representing a tradition, the Spiritual Peers now fulfil a special function in your Lordships' House for which the actual work they do and the actual experience they possess in modern conditions of English life peculiarly fits them.

I will refer briefly to the historical facts in order the better to emphasise the changed character of the present rôle of Archbishops and Bishops, and the great change which has come about in their relation to Governments and to political Parties. In the Middle Ages the Spiritual Peers owed their presence in the Great Council of the Nation to the fact that they were magnates owning land, and often Bishops and Abbots outnumbered the Temporal Peers. As J. R. Green says in his Short History of England, their character as independent Spiritual Peers tended more and more to merge into their position as Barons. Later Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and Bishops, became the occupants of very important positions in the State, such as that of the Chancellor and other high offices, and they assisted the King in a powerful way in his government of the nation.

At the time of the Reformation. the Bishops were closely involved in the Government—less strongly, perhaps, but some of them, to put it mildly, were too much in the service of the Monarch. In the 18th century Bishops generally considered themselves under an obligation to the Party at whose hands, when in power, they had received their Bishoprics. Bishops were supposed to be particularly subservient to the Ministry and to the House of Lords, and Party members would often make gibes at their expense. In his book King George III and the Politicians, Mr. Richard Pares remarks thus: The Bishops were almost a laughing stock for their subservience. They could not even stay away without exciting comment. When only seven of the twenty-six appeared in Parliament during the ticklish Regency crisis of 1788, Lord Bulkely remarked that it was a proof that crows soon smell powder. 627 George IV, in 1827, gave Canning a written authority to ensure that the Bishops behaved properly in the House of Lords, and the record of the Bishops led by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the debates on the