PEERS' LEAVE OF ABSENCE

THE EARL OF HOME

The noble Viscount pleaded with me to make this a Committee stage. The noble Viscount is now, as I understand it, himself making a speech which he says he is going to make on "Second Reading" later. I hope he will stick to the Committee stage on individual Amendments.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I certainly will reserve what I have to say. I have no desire to diverge. I thought it extremely relevant that it should be made clear that the Lords Spiritual have always been included in these arrangements. I shall therefore merely content myself, in order to put myself strictly in order, because I must refer later to this matter again, with saying that this is what the House resolved in 1820: Resolved, That the Lord Chancellor do write a letter to the several Peers and Prelates of the House in the following terms and then was set out the Resolution; I shall read it when it is in order— and that a copy of the said Resolution do accompany the same. It maybe that the Amendment can be withdrawn at once, so long as I am assured that the position of the Bishops is going to be exactly the same as the position of the Temporal Lords in this matter. I beg to move.

THE EARL OF HOME

I should always desire to give the noble Viscount immediate and absolute satisfaction. In this case I can. There is no need for this Amendment, as the word "Lords" in Standing Orders undoubtedly covers both Temporal and Spiritual Lords.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Then the noble Earl can assure me that the same procedure in the way of communication and reply and publication of names, and so on, will be adopted for the Lords Spiritual as for the Lords Temporal?

THE EARL OF HOME

Exactly the same.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Then I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Viscount the immediate satisfaction that he got on the last Amendment, and I hope he will bear with me if I follow him into one or two of the historical researches which obviously have occupied his leisure so profitably. It is quite true that the words which he wishes to add occurred in the older Standing Orders, and in the proceedings that Queen Caroline took in 1820 the House, as I think he was beginning to tell us, resolved that no excuse be admitted save liability from age "— that is, being of the age of 70 years and upwards, a provision which would be a great depriver to this House in the case of the noble Viscount this afternoon— or from sickness, or from having been out of the Realm in foreign parts or on account of the death of a parent, wife or child, and that every Peer absenting himself from age or sickness do address a letter to the Lord Chancellor stating upon his honour that he is so disabled. But in the proceedings in the time of Lord Cardigan, in 1841, the Lord Chancellor was requested to write letters to all Lords to acquaint them that the House expected their attendance on certain dates, and certain Lords sent in excuses. I think I ought briefly to condole with my noble friends on the various indispositions of their ancestors. At that time the Earl of Home said that he cannot in his state of health travel from Scotland at this time of year. 896 In relation to my noble friend Lord Perth, the Lord Strathallan said: He is in Scotland and cannot take so long a journey in this inclement season without endangering his health. The predecessor of the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, just said "Illness". The noble Lord, Lord Stourton, just said "Gout"; and the predecessor of the then Lord Seaton, with the military terseness and discipline that one would expect, just said, "Unable to attend", as did a number of other noble Lords. That is the background of the historical position.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Not the full background. The Lord Chancellor has omitted the other column in the return. There are three or four pages of this return in the Journals of the House saying what penalties were inflicted when the excuse was not accepted.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes, but I thought that at the moment we were considering the excuses. I assure the noble Viscount that I am charged with that information as well, but I will leave it to him to make that point. But I must proceed to the present position.

The Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Merthyr considered whether it was any longer necessary or expedient that Peers should give reasons in their applications for leave of absence, and they came to the conclusion that the normal reasons for which, in modern times, a number of Peers did not attend the House, were set out in paragraph 20 of the Swinton Report. Perhaps I may trouble your Lordships with just a sentence of that paragraph, because I think it is most relevant—the noble Viscount will find the paragraph in question at page (viii) of the Report. After setting out the change in the number of Peers—and, if I may take the relevant years, in 1800 there were 150, in 1830 363, and in 1955, 846, which shows the difference in the size of the House—the Swinton Committee went on to say: The Committee have felt obliged to recognise that at present, out of so large a number, there must be many who are unable to attend, either because they are fully occupied with other important duties, or because they feel themselves unfitted for parliamentary work, or for reasons of age, health or expense. Recognition of the undoubted fact that many Peers are thus debarred or prevented from attending the House is not, in the view of the Committee, to be taken as a criticism of such Peers. 897 These are the reasons which commended themselves to the Merthyr Committee, and, in view of those reasons, I consider, and I ask the House to accept, that it would really be embarrassing and undesirable for those reasons to be stated.

I put this in all seriousness to the noble Viscount, because he knows, and I know, of cases where it has been expense. I do not think one ought to dwell on that. We are living in very changed conditions from the times that the noble Viscount has been considering, and I think it would be batter if that were not demanded and that we should proceed to accept the recommendation of the Merthyr Committee, that reasons be not disclosed.

There is just one other point I should like to make with regard to that matter. The Merthyr Committee say at paragraph 3 (8), at page 4: That while leave of absence would normally be granted automatically on application, it requires to be formally granted by the House. The paragraph then goes on to say that the action should be recorded. Then it was suggested that the next paragraph of their Report should be quoted in the Lord Chancellor's letter to the Lords of Parliament. I will read that paragraph to your Lordships because it will be a matter that we shall have to refer to in this discussion. It says: The Committee have given much consideration to the question of whether there should be a closer definition of. 'regular attendance'. The Committee considered that this was neither possible nor desirable. They recognise that this must be a matter for individual interpretation. But in framing the Standing Order the Committee have taken account of the position of Peers who are engaged whole time in the professions and in industry and of others who have extensive commitments in local government or in other voluntary work. They realise that these are unable to devote more than a partial service to the House. They recall that such Peers have in the past made valuable contributions, based on their own knowledge and experience, to the work of the House in Debates, it the revision of the Bills and in Private Bill and other Select Committees. They believe that the House would be reluctant to lose the services of such Peers and that Peers in this position need not feel themselves under any obligation, in consequence of their inability to attend regularly, to apply for leave of absence I fully agree, and I should be willing to include that paragraph, which I think would be most helpful, in the letter which I send off if the Standing Order is approved.

898 On the general point, the Swinton Committee have given the reasons very fully—I need not go through them again—why this House is entitled to adapt its procedure for giving leave, which is excusing absence and which it has exercised certainly for 333 years, to modern conditions; and it is entitled, in my view, to grant leave without cause shown, as was the intention of the two Committees which this House set up. Therefore, in view largely of the quotation from paragraph 20 and what I have said on it, I would ask the noble Viscount not to press this Amendment.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I think the Lord Chancellor has completely made the case that I am trying to advance before the House. He has shown us that the Writ of Summons is nothing at all—that we may get it in the most insistent, terms and that, because somebody has written a paragraph saying that people are engaged in business, or that there are so many Lords you cannot expect them to do their duty, or 800 cannot do their duty in the way that 300 may do it—here I am being driven into the Second Reading speech that the noble Earl, Lord Home, complained of, because I am following the Lord Chancellor—the whole basis of the House should be altered.

I am riot in favour of the rigid enforcement of the Writ of Summons, because it has broken down. I would not support the House of Lords as it is, for one moment. I want to clear the site; but that is not the point. The point is that this is an attempt to substitute for the Writ of Summons a number of reasons which I find are really quite unworthy and are, in fact, revolutionary. If no reasons are given, but the list is simply presented, I do not know what will happen. I believe there is to be a list published, but no one will know why the Members are absent or for how long. The words: "If he proposes to attend as often as he reasonably can", but there is no definition of "reasonably can". If a man is in business and he says, "I have to go to China for two years, but I shall come as often as I reasonably can", how is that to be considered? The House retains no sort of control. With great respect, I could not possibly accept the Lord Chancellor's appeal. I do not, naturally, intend to ask Members to go into the Lobby, 899 although I hope that we shall have an opportunity of voting on some Amendments which will be moved under more reasonable auspices, but I shall insist on this Amendment.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

I intervene for only one moment to remind noble Lords that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was a member of the Swinton Committee. He was a most helpful member of that Committee and was deeply interested in it, but he never took any exception to the Report which the Swinton Committee made and which, as this House knows, was a unanimous Report which has been approved. We went into this matter very carefully in the Swinton Committee, as indeed it was carefully gone into by the Merthyr Committee. That Committee included learned Law Lords as well as perhaps the greatest authority on Parliamentary procedure of our time, the late Lord Campion. We had not the slightest doubt that it was clearly competent for the House to grant leave of absence; that it was the duty of those who could not attend to apply for leave of absence; and that it was well within our powers and would be a satisfactory compliance with the Writ of Summons in the circumstances of to-day if people who could not attend regularly attended as often as they reasonably could. We deliberately set out in paragraph 20, to which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor referred, the reasons for which Members of the House would be likely to, and could reasonably apply for, leave of absence.

Surely nobody can doubt for a moment, that the House has a right to make a Standing Order about leave of absence. In fact, we have had one for years in the Standing Orders. Equally, nobody can have any doubt that we can vary the form of that Standing Order about whether people should state in terms their reasons, or that reasons can be stated for them, as they are in the Standing Order. I remind the House of that only because I think that noble Lords can be satisfied that it is well within their competence.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

The noble Earl has repeated the Report in interesting terms, and he is quite right when he says that I was a member of his Committee. I admit that in the early days of the 900 Committee I had hoped, for certain family reasons of my own, that there might be an escape for my own heir; but I did not attend the concluding sessions of the Committee. I was abroad. Therefore, when the vote was taken that this be the Report, I was not there, and I will take up the position of one who has fallen from grace. However, it is quite irrelevant.

What the noble Earl is saying is that we have the right to grant leave of absence; but I wish we could have more information regarding Standing Order 21. It has been claimed that we have a right to grant leave of absence upon cause shown. What does this mean? It means that if there is the right to grant a leave of absence, by and large, which overrides the demand of the Writ, surely it strikes at the very root, the foundation, of this House. Therefore, to say that we have always had the right to grant leave of absence is doubtful. This Amendment seeks to clarify what is the root objection to this Committee's Report. It is that it is substituting for a feudal House of Lords, which I do not support, something which is a Committee House of Lords; a closed corporation in which Members among themselves meet and decide who is entitled to come and who is not. That is revolutionary. I am afraid that this is a Second Reading speech again, but it will crop up on every one of these Amendments. Therefore, on this Amendment, with great respect, I shall raise my voice in support.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The noble Viscount does not wish to move the Amendment?

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

No.

LORD SALTOUN

I think the noble Viscount has proved too much. He has emphasised the terms of the Writ, and they are very extreme. The noble Viscount, although he is here very often, is not here every day, and I think that he must himself take the terms of the Writ with a certain grain of salt. In fact, we all find it quite impossible, under conditions of modern life, to be here every day. Yet the terms of the Writ are very extreme. I suggest, as I say, that he has preyed too much, and that if the terms of the Writ were meant to be taken literally they would long ago have been modified.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Could the noble Lord find a minute or two to address himself to the Amendment which I have moved, which is that the terms of the Lord Chancellor's letter should be published?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to say to the noble Viscount that I think that he has raised an important point, and I am prepared to accept his Amendment in this form—to add to paragraph (3): The terms of the letter which he has written shall be reported to the House 902 May I just say why I put it that way—because the Amendment implies that such letters from the Lord Chancellor have always been reported. This is not in accordance with my researches, and therefore I do not like the words "in accordance with precedent" when they are not strictly accurate. I want to be absolutely fair to the argument of the noble Viscount. At certain times, as he has pointed out, the form of the letter has been laid down in detail beforehand, and if the House would bear with me I should just like to give the result of my researches into this matter.

The most usual form of entry was: Ordered that letters be written by the Lord Keeper to the absent Lords. That wording I have actually taken from 1705, but the terms of the letter were not reported. Occasionally the Order was more detailed. I read this because it is interesting to show how the House did attach conditions to the Order. I take one entry of March 11, 1678: Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled that the Lord Chancellor do forthwith write letters to all the Peers and Prelates and Members of the House who have not attended the House of Peers since the beginning of this Parliament requiring the said Lords to come and attend His Majesty's service in the House of Peers intimating in the said letters that such of the said Lords as are within 50 miles of this place do give their said attendance within one week after the receipt of the letters to them respectively sent; and that those Lords who are at a greater distance from this place give their attendance here within a fortnight. Then it goes on to deal with age and sickness.

So far as I can find out, on ten occasions an Order was made for a letter to be written in specific terms—for example, the letter about Queen Caroline's Bill in 1820. These are the only letters of which the terms are recorded. In all the other numerous cases they were not, and no letter was subsequently recorded. The letter which I propose to write, if the House decides in favour of this Standing Order for the purpose of bringing leave of absence into effect during this Parliament was submitted to, and examined by, the Merthyr Committee, and secured their approval. It is all conditional, of course, on the Standing Order being approved. I shall, if I am directed to send it, gladly report this first letter—that as the letter which is dealt with in the next Motion on the Paper—and, for the future, my 903 directions are clear in the Standing Order. I shall write the letter in accordance with them. I shall, in accordance with my Amendment to the noble Viscount's Amendment, if he is prepared to accept it, report it to the House; and then, if anyone does not like the form of my letter, that matter can be raised.

That is with regard to the future, after the Standing Order has been approved. I should also undertake—and I hope your Lordships will find it reasonable—to submit to the Supervisory Committee, a draft of the letter which I propose to write at the beginning of each new Parliament, and I am sure that my successors will be equally glad to do so. The first letter, therefore, has been before the Merthyr Committee; I shall submit any other letter to the Supervisory Committee, and I shall report to the House the letter I have sent, so that the House may have both anticipatory and subsequent method of seeing what I have done.

I hope that the noble Viscount will take the view that I have tried to meet his point, because, even with the noble Viscount in the House and delighting us with every speech, the idea that we should have perhaps a two-day debate, making this House a drafting Committee, on the letter which I send out, is a prospect which appalls me, and I am sure appalls the House. I hope the noble Viscount will think that I have met him fairly. I suggest that we agree on this variation of his Amendment: The terms of the letter which he has written shall be reported to the House.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I did not quite understand what the Lord Chancellor said. Did he say that the Merthyr Committee had published the terms of his letter?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No. I said that I had shown a draft to the Merthyr Committee, so that they would see the sort of letter I had in mind. But I pointed out that it was entirely conditional, because, of course, this House has not yet approved the Standing Order. But I wanted the Committee to know what sort of letter I had it in mind to send out; and they think that it is the right sort of letter. As I said, that letter has been before the Merthyr Committee, and 904 I propose that in the future the letters should be submitted to the new Supervisory Committee, so I think I am meeting the spirit of the noble Viscount.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I am very grateful. I accept the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor to my Amendment, but why is this matter so secret? Why should the letter be submitted to the Merthyr Committee and then to this other Committee? Why cannot we know what the Lord Chancellor is going to say to Members of this House? Surely we can be told the terms of the letter? Are they lengthy?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not know if the noble Viscount heard what I said. I said that I thought it would be undesirable, and intensely boring, for this House to form itself into a drafting Committee—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

—in order to occupy perhaps two days in debating word for word the letter I am to send out. There are certain things which it is convenient to do through a Committee of the House, and if noble Lords have any observations to make on my draft letters they know me well enough to know that I shall be pleased to make any improvements in those letters.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I do not want to pursue this aspect, but on this business of working through a Committee, we had an example the other day of someone saying that because a Statutory Order had passed through a committee, your Lordships need not debate it. That idea is a mistake. Power resides in this House, and inasmuch as I attach enormous importance to the terms of the letter and the replies made to it, and the action taken on those replies, I consider that it is a constitutional point of the first order. I should therefore like the terms of the letter to be disclosed. If that is not possible, I will say "No".

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Will the noble Viscount accept my variation of his Amendment, which goes some way to meet him?

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

May I ask the Lord Chancellor to read it again?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The words are: The terms of the letter which he has written shall be reported to the House.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Then presumably the letter can be discussed in the House, in which case I accept the Amendment to my Amendment. I believe that it meets my point and I gratefully thank the noble and learned Viscount.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

Before we leave this Amendment and the paragraph to which it refers there is a point that I should like to raise with the noble and learned Viscount, although it is rather awkward because I do not know if I am in order. The noble and learned Viscount is going to write a letter to every Peer asking each whether or not he wishes to apply for leave of absence

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

We do not know what he is going to say.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

It says that much on this Paper. Apparently the noble and learned Viscount takes the initiative. He does not wait for a noble Lord to say that he is occupied and cannot perform the duties of the Peerage. Taking the initiative, he asks each noble Lord: "Do you want to have leave of absence?" And the terms of this letter—although the noble and learned Viscount has undertaken to submit it to the House, presumably before he sends it—

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

The noble and learned Viscount did not say so.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

It seems to me that if the noble and learned Viscount proposes to submit the letter after he has sent it there is not much point in it. Can he answer that now, because if we are not to see the letter before it is sent, I suggest that there is no point at all in seeing it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have submitted to the Merthyr Committee—

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

Is it in the Report?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is not. I have submitted a form of letter to the Merthyr Committee, and they have approved it; and that seems to cover us 906 for the first occasion, which is really the one concerned in the next Motion. I feel that it is more convenient that what is really a matter of drafting should be dealt with by a Committee; but the terms of the letter will be reported to your Lordships' House, and it will then be possible for any noble Lord to raise a point if I have gone wrong. But, of course, it will also be possible (and this is a point which your Lordships have to bear in mind) for anyone to answer my letter saying, "I do not apply for leave of absence," in which case the whole scheme will not apply to him. That is why I say that it is, in fact, a voluntary scheme.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

If I may interrupt the noble and learned Viscount for a moment, surely the Peer has simply to say "I do not apply for leave." He need not say that he has some reason for not applying.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Then what has become of the Writ? What happens if, having received a Writ from Her Majesty the Queen, I inform the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that I do not intend to obey?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Obviously I am speaking indistinctly: a noble Lord can say, "I do not apply for leave of absence", and then the scheme does not apply to him at all.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

But he has to attend.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

I am very much indebted to the noble and learned Viscount. I agree that this is not something to draft in this House. I am on the question of principle—what, in principle, the letter is going to say: and I am surprised that an initiative is taken under this scheme. Here are Members of Parliament, Peers who have the duty to attend Parliament, and it seems odd that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, of all people, should say, before they have a chance to come to the House, "Would you like leave of absence?" That is an odd thing to do. It is odd that if a Member of Parliament seeks to escape from his constitutional obligations, perhaps because he cannot carry them out for some reason, the initiative craving leave of absence should not be on him. He should rot be, as it were, invited— 907 and perhaps incited—by the Lord Chancellor to ask for leave of absence.

What happens if a Peer feels slightly affronted by receiving this letter—as I believe I should feel—and does not answer it? This document says: A Lord who fails to answer within twenty-eight days of being requested to do so may be granted leave of absence for the remainder of the Parliament. Who decides whether he "may be granted" leave? It seems to me that nobody has the right to give him leave of absence against any intimation from him that he wishes to receive it. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will say that this is a Second Reading speech, but it comes immediately upon the question of the text of the invitation to apply for leave of absence, and I thought that perhaps the noble and learned Viscount might care to develop the matter a little here.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

May I add a word? This again is a matter which the House has already twice debated and decided. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is not arrogating to himself some special right without the authority of the House to communicate. I do not know whether the noble Lord attended all the earlier debates—

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

No.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

I do not know whether he attended the debate in which your Lordships' House carried a Resolution adopting the ten paragraphs of what is called the Swinton Report and directed the Standing Order to be made—which was all that the Merthyr Committee did. Paragraph 33 (b) which the House has already approved in terms says: That a communication be addressed to all Members of the House at the beginning of every Parliament, stating that if they desire to be relieved of the obligation of attendance they should apply for leave of absence, either for the duration of the Parliament or for any shorter period, and further that they should state in reply to such communication whether they do or do not desire to apply for leave of absence. That has already been approved by this House and all the new Standing Order does is what the House resolved some months ago to do—that is, to say to the Committee: "Will you please draft a 908 Standing Order in terms carrying out what we have now instructed you to do." The noble Lord is really starting a complete mare's nest, because in writing this letter the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will only be doing in writing what your Lordships have already instructed should be done.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

The noble Earl has forgotten already the first words of his own Report, that It is not our business to say what ought to be done but what can be done.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

Of course I have not at all forgotten that, and I am not referring to what was merely said in the Report. I am referring to the decision taken by this House, which passed a Resolution saying: "We approve of the Swinton Report and we instruct the Merthyr Committee, and we decide that that should be carried into effect by a Standing Order; and we instruct the Merthyr Committee to present us with such a Standing Order." Of course our Committee do not decide what the House should do. Our Committee told the House what it could do, and then the House considered the Report and said, "We think this is a good and practical Report; we wish it carried out, and we so instruct you.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I am surprised that a former Member of another place can make such a speech. The noble Earl knows perfectly well that a Report cannot be approved "globally" in that way. We must have put before us something to which we can move Amendments and examine clause by clause. Of course the House approved it in general.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

The House did not in the least approve it in general. Really, the noble Viscount must not mislead the House, either wilfully or by accident. The Motion before the House was quite specific: "That this House approves certain sections of the Swinton Report "—naming those sections—" and directs that that be carried out by Standing Order."

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

It may allay the noble Earl's heat if I remind him that my question was asked, in all sincerity, of the Lord Chancellor, and it is the Lord Chancellor who has been courteous enough to answer it. The second point is that the noble Earl was 909 a Member of another place long enough, as I was, to learn that on the Committee stage on any business one is fully entitled to seek certain assurances.

LORD GIFFORD

May I raise one point for clarification? As I recollect it, the original wording was: A Lord who fails to answer within twenty-eight days … shall be deemed to have asked for leave of absence for the remainder of the Parliament. Is that not so?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am very anxious that there should be not the slightest doubt on this point. My noble friend Lord Swinton is correct as to procedure, and if the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, will look at the next Motion on the Paper (I am anticipating it. but I want to keep the matter in order) he will see that my noble friend Lord Home is to move: That, for the purpose of giving effect to the above Standing Order during the present Parliament, the Lord Chancellor shall forthwith send a copy of the Standing Order to every Lord to whom he has issued a Writ of Summons to this Parliament and who has not during this session attended a sitting of the House (except for the purpose of taking the Oath of Allegiance) … and shall request every such Lord to answer whether he wishes to apply for leave of absence for the next session of this Parliament or for the remainder of this Parliament or whether he does not wish so to apply. If a Lord fails to answer within twenty-eight days of being required to do so he may be granted leave of absence for the remainder of this Parliament. We shall be considering that Motion in a moment. If the House passes it, I shall send out accordingly the letter I have undertaken to send, because that is the first procedure. That letter, which is the letter that has been considered by the Merthyr Committee, will be reported to the House. The last thing I want to do is to keep any letter from the House; but I think, as I have said (I am sorry to repeat it), that in all quarters of the House noble Lords would be intensely bored if we got into a drafting session on the Amendment. I hope I have made the position clear.

Lotto WILMOT OF SELMESTON

It was clear, and I am the last to want to deal with a draft. The point raised by the noble Earl was completely wrong. The important point has been altered since we received the Committee's Report, and it is that point on which I wish to speak. 910 The Report from the Select Committee, Paragraph (c), states: that any Member of the House who fails to reply to such a communication should be regarded as having applied for leave of absence". That is very different from the present wording which is put forward: that a Lord who fails to answer within twenty-eight days "may be granted" leave of absence. Does that mean that the Lord Chancellor has discretion? If he has not got discretion, who has it? And what does "may be" mean, if not "may be"?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is at the House's discretion. That was put in to answer a point raised in one of our earlier debates. It was suggested that it was bouleversement, on giving leave of absence, to say, "If you do not apply for leave of absence, or do not say you do not want it, then you get it." So the form was altered into a permissive form, so that the House could, despite the fact that the noble Lord had not answered, not deem him to have applied for leave of absence and not put him on the leave of absence list. It means that if he communicated to the House and said, "I have not answered because my letters have gone astray," or, "I have been pressed. Would you communicate my desire?" the House has the discretion not to put him on the list.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

That is very important. I am indebted to the Lord Chancellor. It means that if someone does not answer he will not have leave of absence imposed upon him.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No. It is at the discretion of the House to grant leave of absence, but the House can decide either way.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Does it mean that we are going to revert to the old practice of the seventeenth century, when individual cases were dealt with? There may be a case of recalcitrance: someone is angry and says, "I am not going, and I am not answering your letter." What do you do then? The Lord Chancellor says that it will be for the House to decide. Will an individual case be brought forward that Lord X, not having replied to the Lord Chancellor's letter, shall be excluded from attendance for the remainder of the Parliament? Is it individual, and is it in effect mandatory?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is not mandatory. Would the noble Viscount look at paragraph 3 (2) of the Merthyr Report. That paragraph reads: That the communication mentioned in paragraph (b) should be issued by the Lord Chancellor and that Peers should be requested to reply to it within twenty-eight days of its issue; and that a further letter be sent by the Lord Chancellor to any Peer who fails to reply within this period, stating that unless within a further period of seven days he notifies his desire to the contrary he will be considered to have applied for leave of absence for the remainder of the Parliament. On that, the original Standing Order was framed. The point was developed that we did not want him to be automatically deemed to have applied for leave of absence, but we wanted it left to the discretion of the House, so that if he raised the point, or if someone else did, the House could say, dealing with the individual case, that he would not be considered to have applied for leave of absence and would not get it. It was to give more flexibility and to protect the individual all the more.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

This is a very interesting prospect. It means that people who do not apply may get leave automatically, and then you go on to say that if a man complains that he has leave of absence without asking for it, then the House has to decide. I do not know how long it is since this House took the case of Lord "So-and-So" and decided whether he should have leave of absence. It must be a long time ago. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor would tell us something about that historically.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

We shall have a full opportunity of discussing the position on a subsequent Amendment. On this Amendment I have gone far towards meeting the noble Viscount, and he has said he will accept my form, so we will deal with this point and consider the others later on.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

In that case I will not insist on my original form.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I put the Amendment as amended.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

May I ask one question on the proposed Standing Order 21 (1)? It says: … proposes to attend as often as he reasonably can. This is my second visit to the House this year, and I should like to know—

THE EARL OF HOME

Would the noble Marquess mind raising this point at a later stage? I do not think this is quite the place at which to raise this particular point.

THE EARL OF HOME

There was a choice of words before us at an earlier stage of these proceedings. The House has no power to prescribe that a Peer should not attend. Therefore, the Standing Order deliberately uses the words "is expected", so as to avoid any implication that we want to order a Peer. The idea is to establish a convention. The question at the earlier stage was whether the word used should be "should". My noble friend Lord Saltoun objected to "should" as being too mandatory. I have never been sure myself, possibly like the noble Viscount, of what is the difference between "should" 913 and "is expected." It so happened that a number of my colleagues and I were talking about this, when the Prime Minister reminded me of an extract from the old Army Manual, which will probably be familiar to your Lordships, and which reads: Officers of field rank on entering balloons are not expected to wear spurs.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

There is another quotation: England expects every man to do his duty.

THE EARL OF HOME

I am bound to say that I wobbled between the word "should" and "is expected." On the previous occasion the majority of your Lordships felt that we should use the term which was less mandatory, and I hope that the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment. I "should expect" that he would not press his Amendment.

VISCOUNT SIMONDS

My Lords, this discussion is very relevant to the Amendment which I propose to move later. I do not think that it would be convenient for me now to say anything about the use of the single word "expected". If I say nothing, it is because I reserve what I have to say on that point until we come to my Amendment.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

On the advice of an ex-Lord Chancellor, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

I wonder if I may reassure the noble Lord …

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Order, order! The noble Lord is making a maiden speech.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

I beg the noble Lord's pardon.

LORD WRENBURY

I am very anxious that no difference should be made between working and non-working Peers. It seem to me that, if this scheme goes through, that will be the result, although it does not specifically say so.

I feel that tradition is capable of springing up more quickly in these surroundings than anywhere else, and the danger is that it will become taken for granted that there are certain professional Peers, who do their duty and turn up regularly, and certain Peers who do not do so. It is perfectly true that the remedy lies with a Peer himself, but my own view is that for some of them there is more virtue in staying away than in attending. I am still thinking particularly of those who are either in professions or in business, where often it is not possible, especially if a noble Lord is in the position of an employee, to make arrangements for attending, certainly not for attending regularly, unless "regularly" means something very different from what we all take it to mean. It is not good enough to say that the Peers to whom I refer are not going to be in a position to make some useful contribution to the work of the House. They 915 may well be able to do so in future. All credit to them if they now say that they are not in a position to make a contribution of much value, because they are either in training or not in a position to do so; because in a few years' time they may be in that position.

So far as I can see, the Merthyr Committee's recommendations take account of the fact that valuable contributions have been made by Peers who are not elevated from another place or professional politicians in some other way. I believe that people drawn from all walks of life can usefully attend, and I feel that they should not be debarred from the educational, and I should say pleasurable, opportunities of attending debates in this House until they reach a particular stage in their careers. Certainly I gain a great deal of pleasure from listening to speakers here, and I think it would be a mistake to stop that process of education. I once attended a party in this House and at the end of it a Peer came to me and said: "Do you often attend the House?" I said: "As a matter of fact, it is very difficult for me to attend, because my office closes at quarter to six." He then said: "You are exactly the sort of person we want. The Benches in the House become so empty round about that time, the more people we can get to attend then, the better." If that view is seriously held, then it is illogical to say that noble Lords may not attend debates. That is the point I have in mind.

I think it might go even further. Once there is this dichotomy between working and non-working Peers, I think there will rather to devolve on those who attend be a temptation for Peers' privileges regularly, as opposed to those who do not. I admit that it does not say so, but I can see tickets for the Trooping the Colour and various other ceremonies going to those who attend regularly. I should have thought that that point was worth considering, because the whole essence of this scheme takes it for granted that it is a virtue to attend the House as regularly as possible. The purpose of my Amendments is to recognise that in many cases it may be a virtue to stay away, not because a Peer is old or infirm, but because he takes his job seriously and does not feel in a position to make a worthwhile contribution until he knows 916 it properly. I beg to move the first Amendment.

THE EARL or HOME

I am sure your Lordships will hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, having taken his courage in his hands and made such an excellent maiden speech, will come and address us often, and that we shall see and hear him as often as he can reasonably get here. I rather think that I agree with most of the noble Lord's objectives. He wants the young Peers to come here and be able to make a contribution to our proceedings; and I think all your Lordships would wish to see that. He does not want the House to become hardened into a hard core of regular attenders, without any dilution from outside of those who have experience of outside interests and outside work. We should certainly agree with that, too. But I do not know whether the noble Lord has realised what would be the effect of his Amendment. What he is really asking is a special form of leave of absence for a Peer who in fact he wishes to be present. He really wants this young Peer to be present and to be able to sit here and learn wisdom from all he hears round about him.

I am bound to confess that for a long time I was attracted by the theory of the two Writs: that there might be a Writ which enabled a Peer to sit and speak, and another Writ which enabled a Peer to sit and speak and also to vote. I think that only one other noble Lord was attracted by the idea, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and therefore I dropped it. I do not really think it is possible for the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, as he would do by his Amendment, to create a type of Peer, a creature unknown in Parliament before, who would simply sit here and never speak or vote. I do not believe—and I have given the matter further examination—that we can really divorce sitting and speaking and voting. Therefore, I cannot encourage the noble Lord to think that I can accept the series of Amendments he has put on the Paper—and I take it that he is discussing them altogether.

I would say, however, that I am perfectly certain that the words of the Standing Order need not discourage any 917 young Peer in business from coming to this House. The interpretation of as often as he reasonably can" in such a case would possibly be no more than once or twice a Session if the young Peer was exceptionally busy. I should like to make it clear at this point that I feel there is nothing in this Standing Order which would prevent such a young Peer from coming, and that "as often as he reasonably can" would be interpreted by the rest of his Peers as "as often as he can fit it into his career outside the House".

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

This would seem to be a convenient moment to ask the noble Earl what happens to a man who gets leave of absence and turns up. Where does he sit? Is he entitled to go about the House? Can he come into the House? What is "inside the House"? Is it below the Bar, or above the Bar?

A NOBLE LORD

In the bar!

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Can we have some explanation about the position of the disinherited Peer?

THE EARL OF HOME

The joke of the noble Lord behind me was so good that I could not hear what the noble Viscount said.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I was making a practical point. In the other place, when a man who has not taken the Oath appears (it happened to me once, by accident), he can be told that he is subject, under information, to a forfeit of £100 a day. What happens to a Peer who has been told that, willy-nilly, he is on leave of absence and who says: "I should like to go down to the House"—perhaps because he has friends there? Does he sit in the Gallery? Does he sit on the steps of the Throne? I only ask this for information.

THE EARL OF HOME

I think a question is to be asked on this point later. I believe the answer is that the Merthyr Committee considered the point and felt that such a Peer should have all the facilities of the House; but if he attempts to go into the Chamber, then he has to take the Oath before he can sit.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I do not see how you can take the Oath without attending a Sitting. A noble Lord takes the Oath, but he has a leave of absence, being in possession of the Oath. He then sits on the steps of the Throne. Is he 918 allowed to do that? I do not know. I do not believe that anyone has given thought to this matter at all; they have put the whole thing into a basket and shaken it up, because they wanted to get the scandal of the absent Peers dealt with, and I think they have made the case worse.

THE EARL OF HOME

Some thought has been given to this matter, and I feel quite certain that a Peer who takes the Oath will not be able to sit in the Chamber although he will be able to sit on the steps of the Throne. I speak subject to corroboration, but I feel reasonably certain that that is correct.

LORD WRENBURY

I cannot quite see why. Quite clearly, the object is not to save space. These seats are so much more comfortable than the steps of the Throne, and I cannot see why one should not sit in them.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

Perhaps I can answer that question—and I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, on his speech. We on the main Committee did consider this point carefully—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, will, I think, confirm it. It really arose on whether "speech" and "vote" could be treated as separate things. That was really the proposal of the late Lord Exeter, which was debated in this House some years ago. We came to the conclusion, advised by Lord Morton of Henryton and others, that it was not possible to make a distinction between the speech and the vote. Therefore I think the short answer to the noble Lord is that it would not be possible by a Standing Order—it would require an Act of Parliament—to create the two new kinds of Peers which my noble friend the Leader of the House has suggested, the non-vocal Peer and the vocal voting Peer. That certainly could not be done by the House by its own Standing Order. But the whole object of the Report of the Committee was that those who could attend occasionally—and I hope everybody who attends this House will not think he has got to make a speech whenever he attends—of course would not apply for leave of absence, and that would apply to the noble Lord, who, when he receives the Lord Chancellor's letter, will say, "I am going to go as often as I can "—and I hope that it will be fairly often.

LORD WRENBURY

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I wonder if the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to ask whether it would be convenient for him that we should discuss his two Amendments together, and then he can decide whether to move them.

VISCOUNT SIMONDS

If the House accepts my view of paragraph (4) probably little discussion will be necessary on paragraph (5). On the other hand, if it rejects my view of paragraph (4) I do not think I shall bother to move paragraph (5).

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Would the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, permit some of his camp followers to vote against paragraph (5) if they like?

VISCOUNT SIMONDS

I will give the noble Viscount the opportunity of taking part in two Divisions. My Amendment proceeds on the footing that paragraph (1) of the Standing Order is accepted, and there has been no Motion to delete it. Therefore, I am dealing in paragraph (4) with a Lord who under that Order has to attend the sittings of the House or, if he cannot do so, obtain leave of absence. That is, of course, mandatory. I am omitting the people who, for one reason or another, do not come within that because they are within the proviso and 920 do not require to get leave; I am dealing only with people who have obtained leave.

Before I come to what I have to say myself, I want to say this. My noble friend Lord Salisbury has been prevented, quite unavoidably, from coming here today. He regrets it very much because he wished to put his views upon this Amendment before the House. He called me out of the House the other day. We had a long discussion and he asked me to put his views before the House. I think your Lordships would all desire to have the views of the noble Marquess who, I suppose, more than anybody in this House is imbued with its ancient traditions and anxious for its future, and whose wisdom and counsel has guided us through so many years.

What the noble Marquess wished me to say was this. First, that his views broadly—and I use his very words—coincide with mine. Let me say that I hope I am pretty well word perfect in this, because I am anxious not to misrepresent in any way what falls from a noble Lord whose influence is so great. I asked him to commit it to writing; and although I cannot make his speech in this House I can tell you as accurately as possible what are his views. His views are, first of all, these: that leave of absence given by this House on the authority, the delegation, of the Sovereign, cannot override in importance the peremptory terms of the Writ. Therefore, if any Peer, notwithstanding that he has leave of absence, yet finds unexpectedly that he can take his place in this House—it may be that for some strong reasons of conscience he feels impelled, whatever his other obligations, to come here and take his seat—he should, notwithstanding that the period of absence has not expired, be entitled to do it without any moral stigma (these, again, are the noble Marquess's words) attaching to him.

The words in paragraph (4), "a Lord who has been granted leave of absence is expected not …", convey to him, as they do to me, a moral flavour, and he feels most strongly that those words ought to find no place in the Standing Order. They do, of course, to some people, apparently, not convey any moral flavour, and to those persons the words are not objectionable; but if they suggest in any way a moral stigma, the flavour that the Peer who comes is doing something that 921 he ought not to do, then to the noble Marquess, as to me, they ought to find no place in the Standing Order of this House.

It is only right that I should go on to say, and this again is what the noble Marquess told me, that in view of the concessions which the noble Earl who leads the House had made in attempting to meet the objections of the noble Marquess and many of his friends, though he could not vote for the new Standing Order he did not propose to take any part, if he had been here, in the Division. That is out of friendship and loyalty to the noble Earl the Leader of the House. But his last words were these. He said, "I hope you will make it absolutely clear that a Peer who has received a Writ of Summons has a right to attend which is not to be qualified or nullified by any action of the House." Those are his words as near as I can recollect. I think they must have great weight with all your Lordships, even though, as it appears, contrary to what I understood was to be the position, a Government Whip has been issued in this matter. That is nothing to do with me, except to say that I sit on the Cross-Benches and am unmoved by Whips from one side or the other.

THE EARL OF HOME

I think we have had three debates in this House deliberately without a Government Whip, but there must come a point where a Government must make up its mind.

VISCOUNT SIMONDS

I quite agree. I understood—and this is relevant to something the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said more than once—that this matter was down for consideration on Committee in order that we might have the opportunity of moving Amendments, and it seems to me to be worth nothing that on previous occasions noble Lords have made speeches or, indeed, committees hive reported. We are here to consider now whether this should be the Standing Order of the House. If we are told "It is no use saying that", I really do not know why we have a debate at all.

I believe that if I were a good advocate I should leave the matter with the indication of the noble Marquess's views to the House. But I do not think that he would wish me to do that, and so I will, with your Lordships' permission, somewhat elaborate (though it is nothing more) what the noble Marquess has said. 922 I think that all your Lordships would at once see how the last words that I used—that the right of a Peer to attend and speak and vote, should not be qualified or nullified by any action of this House—in effect repeat what the Swinton Committee itself said. I thought the most salient point in the whole of that Report was where it said that it is not legitimate for the House, under the guise of granting leave of absence to a Peer, in effect to deprive him of his right to sit and vote. What else do you do when you say to a Peer, "You have got to get leave of absence. You can get leave of absence only for a term, which may be the rest of the Session or the rest of this Parliament; and when you have got that leave you are not to come back except upon three "(now one) "months' notice."

I use the words "are not to come back." The words in the Standing Order, as amended, are "is expected not to come back." That is an Amendment to the original form of the Order" should not come back." I have not heard from anybody—I suppose I have not had the opportunity of hearing from anybody—what the difference is between those two things. It is quite clear that to many people there is a significant difference. There is not to me, although, of course, there may be to others. There is not to me any more than there was, and I suppose still is, to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton—

THE EARL OF SWINTON

Not merely to me, but the whole of my Committee.

VISCOUNT SIMONDS

I am choosing the noble Earl because I attach so much weight to what he says. What the noble Earl said was—I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208, col. 1063: There is not the least doubt that the word ' should ' has, in fact, the same legal interpretation as ' is expected '. I am happy to agree with him. I am the more happy to agree with him because I am not agreeing with him in a good deal, and he has been rather sharp with me at times, although I hope that sixty years of friendship will stand the strain. But whether the words are "is expected" or "should," it is quite clear, I would suppose to anybody, that those words are put in with some intention. What is the intention? Are they 923 not intended to deter the Peer who, during the period of his leave of absence, finds he can come back? Why else is he told that he is "not expected"? As I say, it is possible for a different view to be taken; but that that view is taken will appear very clearly.

Now I venture to cite the words of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. I do so not only because his speeches on their merit carry so much weight, but because I know that he speaks for a representative and respectable body of Peers. What the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said was this—I quote from column 1020: It was precisely for this reason that the proposed Standing Orders have been drafted, so that a Peer who had obtained leave of absence would be unable to attend the House and vote without giving three months' notice. I think, if I may say so, that Lord Teynham is quite right. But that is not the view accepted by everybody, because consider what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr said.

LORD TEYNHAM

May I interrupt the noble Viscount for one moment? What I intended to indicate was—and I think the noble Viscount will agree—that the whole question is entirely one of a voluntary basis, and therefore a noble Lord is not in any way prevented from coming back to the House.

VISCOUNT SIMONDS

I will deal with the question of a voluntary basis later. As the noble Lord has challenged me on that, I must point out that he goes on to say that it becomes a Standing Order. What he said was: As your Lordships know, in the past, for many years now, we have never had any trouble about the breaking of Standing Orders. On the other hand,"— observe how military the noble Lord is— I suggest we should remember that it would in fact be possible for a Resolution to be moved in the House for ' contempt' should a Peer break a Standing Order". Then he refers to a Report of the Select Committee.

I cannot doubt that many noble Lords, on being told that they are not expected to attend the House, would regard themselves as under a moral obligation. I cannot help reminding the noble Lord who sits on my left that he has immortalised himself by saying that he would rather commit any offence against the law 924 than break a Standing Order. What is the position of the Peer who is told that if he comes to this House before his period of absence has expired he is breaking a Standing Order, and, in the view of Lord Teynham, a Resolution may be moved to commit him for "contempt"? Who can doubt but that that has the same force as has summoning Black Rod and telling him to exclude a Peer who is breaking a Standing Order?

In view of that, how very unreal it is for the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who takes quite a different view, of course, of the meaning of the words "is expected", to say what he said in the House. What Lord Merthyr said will be found at column 1048 [Vol. 208] of the OFFICIAL REPORT. There he said: If there is one thing that I particularly want to say this afternoon, with considerable emphasis, it is that there is not a word in this Report which will in any way, if it is adopted, take away the rights of your Lordships' House or the Members thereof. He goes on to say that he wants to emphasise that point particularly because he is differing from me. Then he says: I believe that this question is vital, and if I thought for one moment that this Standing Order did take away a right which has been enjoyed by your Lordships' House for centuries I should not be standing here supporting it or proposing it. But in fact I have no doubt whatever that it does nothing of the kind. How can that be said? In the one case, if there is not this Standing Order, a noble Lord is as free as air to come into the House. Pass this Standing Order and he is under the menace that he may be committed for contempt. At any rate, if he is not committed for contempt he comes under the severe condemnation of this House because he is breaking a Standing Order, and then the noble Lord may find his rights are taken away. In one case he is a free man; in the other he is in bondage.

Which is the right view? I do not think it much matters which is the right view, if there is such a thing as a right view when you are construing words of this kind. What matters is that to many people it must appear plain that these words do restrict their right to come into this House. If they take that view—and it is a reasonable view to take—it cannot matter that other people take a different view. Therefore, such words as these 925 ought not to find any place in a Standing Order of this House. If one person can sensibly say, "I have my Writ. It is true that I have leave of absence and that might affect my duty, but it does not affect my right and I propose to come", and he is told: "No, you are not expected surely that cannot be a constitutional exercise of the rights of this House.

When I spoke on the last occasion it was somewhat early in the debate, and I said then, with all sincerity, that I had not seen any effective answer to the constitutional point which I then raised and indeed, raised on a previous occasion, many years before I occupied the Woolsack. I said, with all sincerity, that if the Lord Chancellor, who I presumed would answer me, could convince me, I would willingly withdraw. My Lords, I can only say, with great respect and perhaps sorrow, that I was never less convinced by anything than by the speech of the Lord Chancellor on that occasion. Apart from frequent citation of authorities, which, I venture to suggest, was not what the House wanted as much as reason, the noble and learned Viscount made two material contributions to our debate. The first is contained in Hansard, Vol. 208, col. 1073, when the noble and learned Viscount was answering a point that I had made. He was good enough to say that the point which I had made really did "not become any the stronger however often it was repeated". I am sorry if I trespassed too much upon his patience. He said: That is the view of the noble and learned Viscount. My view is that it does not deprive anyone of the right to sit and vote but lays down the manner in which that right shall be exercised. That is the difference between us. Then Hansard reports that several noble Lords cried "No, No." That does not surprise me. It is said that a noble Lord can come to the House and be told: "You are not expected; you cannot come and sit and vote," and the noble and learned Viscount says that that is a way of directing the method in which he shall vote! It is a curious way of directing the method in which he shall vote during the next three months. The method of directing that Peer how he is to vote is, apparently, to tell him to get out. With great respect, I cannot help feeling that if the noble and learned Viscount reflects upon that argument, he 926 will think that it is hardly worth while putting before the House. To tell a Peer that he cannot come and that he is not expected to come is equivalent to excluding him and depriving him of his vote.

The other contribution which the noble and learned Viscount made is prefaced by reminding Members that the Lord who has obtained leave of absence has done so under the direction of the House. That is the Order which I read at the opening of my speech. A Peer having obtained leave of absence, it is suggested that some sort of scheme is entered into as a result of which he is bound by any other conditions, lawful or unlawful, which the House chooses to impose. The noble Viscount is reported at column 1076 of Hansard as saying: … if a Peer voluntarily comes into a scheme like this, then he should not be able to give up and return to the House without some period being involved, and that that period should be of some length of time. That is a condition on which one gets into a scheme. Those noble Lords who were present may remember that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, intervened and said to his noble and learned friend that his conception was slightly different. A Peer comes into the scheme because under the Standing Order of this House he does what he is told to do. He has asked for leave of absence. He is told that he must get leave; he gets leave and then he is told, "You have entered into a scheme and you must stay away for as long as we want you to stay away." That is an argument which ought not and cannot, in my submission, weigh anywhere.

I simply want to emphasise what to me seems so clear, namely, that when such words as "are not expected", "should not", "ought not", or whatever they may be, are used, it is in effect placing a grave obstacle in the way of a Peer who wishes to do his duty. I do not see how it can be done. When we say that a Peer is not expected, let us be more vivid about it. He comes with his Writ prepared to do his duty and anxious to exercise his right, but the Lord Chancellor says, "You may be anxious and willing, but I do not expect you." It will not hold water. Therefore, I venture to move the Amendment which stands in my name, which will exclude 927 this threat and leave the House in the position in which it ought to be of seeing that noble Lords obtain leave of absence when they apply and, having obtained it, stay away just as long as they feel they cannot do their duty and exercise their right.

I have found frequently in this debate the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton occurring. The noble and learned Lord is most anxious at the earliest possible moment to make clear what he intended when he took part in the Committee proceedings of this House, and I hope that he may be allowed to do so at an early stage.

LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON

This proposed Standing Order is, of course, founded on the