§ EARL SPENCERMy Lords, I rise to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House a Question of which I have given him private notice. Two days ago your Lordships may have noticed an announcement in the public Press with regard to a meeting of the Cabinet. Now the Question I wish to ask is one of considerable historical interest, and also, I should say, of considerable constitutional importance. In the list of those who attended the Cabinet I noticed the name of Lord Cawdor, who has lately been nominated to succeed the noble Earl Lord Selborne as First Lord of the Admiralty, though I believe the warrant has not yet been issued. I believe also that the noble Earl, Lord Cawdor, is not yet a member of His Majesty's Privy Council, and there can be no question that the Cabinet must consist entirely of members of the Privy Council. It is only on special occasions when non-members are present, as, for instance, when the Commander-in-Chief, or a general, or the Attorney-General is brought in to advise the Cabinet. Without saying anything more, and without pointing out what the consequences may be if I am correct, I would ask the noble Marquess the Question of which I have given him notice, namely, whether the statement in the Press that Lord Cawdor attended a Cabinet Council on March 7th is correct, and, if so, whether before his attendance he had been sworn of the Privy Council.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)My Lords, it is the case that my noble friend Lord Cawdor, although he has not yet assumed the high office for which he has been designated, and although he has not yet been sworn of the Privy Council, was present at a Cabinet meeting held on Tuesday last. The noble Earl regards this occurrence as one creating an historical incident of great importance, and as involving constitutional issues of a first-rate character. Surely, the noble Earl's experience as a Cabinet Minister must have made him aware that it is far from unusual for gentlemen, not members of the Privy Council, to be present at Cabinet meetings when their presence is desired for any particular reason. The noble Earl seemed to think that these occasional visits only took place in the case of generals, and, I think, he added Attorney-Generals.
§ EARL SPENCERAnd some others.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEBut I can assure the noble Earl that, within my own comparatively short experience as a Cabinet Minister, that category has been very considerably enlarged. Even if it be assumed, as the noble Earl is, no doubt, correct in assuming, that the Cabinet is a committee of members of the Privy Council, I cannot bring myself to believe that the presence of the noble Lord to whom this Question has reference, even if it be an irregularity, is an irregularity which deserves the importance which the noble Earl opposite attaches to it. It seems to me obvious that there were reasons of convenience for which it was very desirable that my noble friend Lord Cawdor should have an opportunity of being present during the discussion of subjects with which he is likely to have many opportunities of dealing when he has become formally installed in his position as a Cabinet Minister.
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONMy Lords, I do not wish to prolong this conversation, but I beg to point out that the statement that Lord Cawdor attended the Cabinet is not a mere statement in the newspapers, which might have been an error. His name was included in the official list of members of the Cabinet 865 who attended on that occasion, which was issued to the Press. That, I think makes a very considerable difference. The names of those who attend the Cabinet not being members of the Cabinet are not sent to the newspapers by His Majesty's Government. The name of Lord Cawdor did appear in the official list, and my noble friend is quite right in drawing attention to what is an irregularity and inconsistent with the fundamental constitution of the Cabinet.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)The noble Marquess refers to what he calls an official list of members who attend Cabinet Councils. I am not aware that it is official. I can only say that if it is it is very often most, inaccurate. I have repeatedly observed that people's names are inserted in it who were not at the Cabinet meeting at all, and that sometimes the names of people who were there are not mentioned. With regard to the practice, I may say that I attended a good many years ago the Cabinet Councils of Lord Beaconsfield when I was Solicitor-General.