Mr Parris MarrThe Earl of Scarsdale
c/o Foreign Office
Whitehall
c/o House of Lords
Westminster
5th February, 1956
Dear Mr. Marr,
While I understand the good intentions of your proposal regarding life peerages, the simple fact is that the House of Lords has always operated as an institution built largely around hereditary succession of office. This has the significant benefit of removing a great deal of partisanship from this body, creating an atmosphere of cooperation - quite different from the House of Commons, although I am certain you could espouse many more stories of partisanship within that chamber - and mutual respect. Thus, my qualms with life peerages are twofold.
The first of these points about the traditions of the body may seem a relatively weak argument in the modern era, but it holds significantly more weight once it is considered that the House of Lords is an institution with relatively little authority over British affairs beyond the postponement of legislation and the power to make decisions as to its own composition. Perhaps an argument could be made for changing the historical composition of this body by the addition of non-hereditary seats were this body given genuine legislative authority, however, it does not, and likely never will again. As the body's existence at this point seems to primarily be a function of history - of course Law Lords prove somewhat of an exception, although, for all intents and purposes, they would be just as effective as a separate body - it seems natural that its historical composition should be retained.
The second argument against life peerages that I will raise is that of partisanship. The House of Lords is largely a non-partisan body composed of individuals who have often had access to Britain's finest educational opportunities, have distinguished careers, and, in other cases, have performed a great duty to this country of such scale that the Crown has seen fit to award them a hereditary title. By giving the Prime Minister such authority in appointing lesser peers, the legitimacy of this body will be reduced by the presence of political appointees added not out of a great service to their nation, but to a political party. As it stands, granting a hereditary title to a citizen of this nation is often a reflective challenge. Life peerages will, quite simply, create members of the House of Lords who are not present for service or a hereditary obligation, but instead were given a throwaway title from a committee that was ready to call it a day and did not consider in depth the possible implications of their decision beyond the elimination of delays from the Peers.
Therefore, I can not endorse life peerages and will work in close cooperation with my fellow Peers to defeat this proposal out of the interests of history and keeping some degree of partisanship out of the British government for the people.
Yours Sincerely,
The Earl of Scarsdale
c/o House of Lords
Westminster
Mr Parris Marrc/o House of Lords
Westminster
Foreign Office
Whitehall
6th February, 1956
Dear Earl,
Thank you for your last letter (dated 5th inst.). I was interested in reading your explanation to find that, as I had suspected, our worries are over the same things.
Your first argument is an interesting one: The Lords have no purpose other than as guardians of history, hence their history should be guarded. An original point, I must say. Though surely the argument exists that the Lords' historical composition has never been set in concrete? (Unless you are referring more broadly to the fact of it being filled by hereditary peers in general, in which case I concede – though reserve my rights of cynicism.) The Lords has, over the centuries, and as with many other bodies that can boast as long and proud a history, shifted in its composition. Peers come and go, as do titles themselves. We see swellings in numbers and emancipated reductions. What legitimacy has any one moment in claiming a right to be immortalised?
Your second argument, more worldly, also happens to be my prime interests – though, I hasten to add, not in the febrile iconoclastic manner you may believe. I recognise the Lords not as partisan (which I neither believe it nor desire it to be) but as homogeneous in its outlook. When a body draws from so scarce a pool of talent as the various peerages of the British Isles, incestuous as this is (which I mention as fact and not as libel), it is only natural that we see a gradual solidifying of views and a merging of approaches. You are a wonderful and rare exception in that you are not a Conservative. I say this not as evidence of the existence of an anti-liberal, anti-socialist conspiracy rife on the red benches, but to highlight the plain truth that the Lords are about as diverse as the Nuremberg rallies.
In order that Britain and her democracy be served as well as possible, it is necessary that diverse and disparate views and philosophies be represented in her democratic functions. Would you not rather that the Lords, in its existence as a scrutinising body, executed its job unbothered by biases or prejudices that come from having been shaped by a similar – if not identical – upbringing?
This is the meritocratising desire of the life peerage. I wish neither to dilute nor debase the prestige of the Lords, but I do want it modernised so that it might survive the coming decades. This is not a century for aristocrats, Lord Scarsdale. I do not believe, as some in my party do, in the idea that the titled classes should be swept aside completely, but neither do I believe that they should be allowed to continue to live as if 1938 never ended.
You worry that “Life peerages will, quite simply, create members of the House of Lords who are not present for service or a hereditary obligation”. It is ironic then, perhaps, that the hereditary House of Lords is one where members are simply not present at all. Attendance rates are frighteningly low and it is becoming ever more of a struggle to find men (and soon, I hope, women) willing to accept the burden – for most, do not forget, the practical implications are a burden – of an hereditary peerage in order to inject new blood and fresh oxygen into the chamber. (This, incidentally, is the logic behind making a seat in the Lords salaried: As happened to the Commons relatively recently in its history, we want anyone to be able to participate in democracy without worrying over the cost.)
Yes, many of your Romantic peers might accept inheritance as a challenge to live by a set of certain ideals, but to consider this redundant in life peerages is to look at the issue from the wrong end. Life peers (far from the vulgarity of being mere political appointments) will be men and women of talent and means who have shown themselves to be at the top of their field and so will provide vital – and diverse – expertise to the process of government. Putting captains of industry, while diplomats and formidable intellectuals in the Commons constricts their talent (yes, I speak behind the veil) with party lines and all that comes with maintaining a position in active politics. To allow them to go into the Lords is to give their knowledge and experience the respect and freedom it deserves.
I do not wish to exhort you to support my reforms if you, in your heart of hearts, find them truly reprehensible, but I would ask that you consider the fact that I act (unusually amongst my colleagues, I think) out of a desire to see the Lords and their valuable work survive into the modern age. The House is a mighty oak of British democracy. It would do better to be bamboo.
Yours sincerely,
Parris Marr
Rt Hon Parris Marr
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
Rt Hon Parris Marr
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
