UNDER SECRETARIES OF STATE BILL. (Hansard, 4 December 1929)

LORD GORELL
My Lords, we pass from a debate on a most important international subject to one which is primarily of domestic concern, and though it is of great interest and importance I do not propose at this hour of the evening to detain your Lordships very long. I have been asked by the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, to appear metaphysically and vicariously in a white sheet and to ask your Lordships to extend the forgiveness of Parliament to seven unfortunate gentlemen, his colleagues in another place. If it be an axiom of human nature that we appreciate most those whom we can benefit and that we find most merit in those who give us an opportunity of pardoning them, then your Lordships have an opportunity to-night of appreciating to a higher extent than perhaps you might otherwise be inclined to do the merits of seven Under-Secretaries. I have to ask your Lordships to recognise, I have at any rate to admit, that for once His Majesty's Government have made a mistake—what the Prime Minister in another place described as "a very innocent inadvertence "—and the amazing and surprising thing is that the eyes of the political opponents of His Majesty's Government have been so fixed upon the errors which His Majesty's Government in their view have committed, are committing and will, no doubt, commit, that this particular mistake entirely escaped their notice.
Fortunately in this country there are always those who constitute themselves the guardians of our Constitution and the lynxes of law, and they are sometimes to be found in unexpected places. In this particular instance one was found in the house of a country clergyman, and he wrote to point out that a mistake had been made. Under the law as it now stands there may be no more than six Under-Secretaries in another place, and, in fact, seven had been appointed. As soon as this was brought to the notice 924 of the Prime Minister on his return from America he took steps to rectify the error. I do not think that your Lordships can altogether complain of the rectification, because there has been what I think we must agree is a beneficial by product of inadvertence, if I may use that description for one moment of my noble friend Earl Russell. Up to the rectification my noble friend had been applying his industry and gifts to the elucidation of the problems of a Bill to which I understand that he will ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading tomorrow. He has not parted with those experiences and gifts but, owing to the rectification, your Lordships now have the benefit of having in him a direct representative in this House of the India Office.
The error has arisen solely from the fact that some time ago, in 1925, two Under-Secretaries were appointed for the Dominions Office, whereas previously there had been only one. I understand that it is the privilege of some of the lower orders (and I use that expression solely in connection with natural science) to perform what I believe is described as a fissiparous operation—that is to say, they are able to divide themselves, and the result of the division is not two halves but two wholes. I should be very loth to apply such an adjective to any great Department of State, but that is the process which happened in connection with the Dominions Office, and the inadvertence arose in that it was not noticed in the formation of the Government that a complementary Act had not been passed in connection with the increase of Under-Secretaries enabling a larger number of Under-Secretaries than before to sit in another place, and the only inadvertence is in that respect.
The Bill to which I have the honour to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading is extremely simple. I regret that by a lack of prevision the godparents of the seven gentlemen referred to did not realise at their christening that the time would come when the Christian names of the seven would be recited in full in an Act of Parliament. Had they done so, they would have seen that uniformity of nomenclature was followed. That is the only respect in which there can be the slightest degree of inequality. It has been judged impossible to decide 925 which was actually the last of the Under-Secretaries to be appointed, when, in fact all were appointed at the same time. Therefore you have in this Bill a perfect example of confraternity in trouble, and even of the principle of absolute equality. There is neither first nor last. I venture to think also that this Bill cannot fall under any of the strictures applied to the legislation that we were considering earlier this week, on the ground of its obscurity. I think it might, in respect of simplicity, even be praised by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. In fact, considering the number of gentlemen in question, one might even say that there is a simplicity almost Wordsworthian about the Bill.
At this hour I do not feel that it is desirable, especially in view of the simplicity, which is indeed so straightforward that I think no one, not even those primarily concerned, though they be Ministers of State, can fail to understand all the clauses, that I should deal further with the actual provisions of the Bill. The Preamble sets out the full history, and the two next clauses indemnify the seven Under-Secretaries of State in question against the penalties and pains to which they inadvertently have made themselves liable at law. I venture to hope that the mistake which has been frankly admitted, and which Mr. Baldwin has declared was in his view understandable, especially in view of the extraordinary pressure upon the first Minister of the Crown in these days—I venture to hope that the error having been admitted and having now been rectified, your Lordships will not think it necessary to inflict penalties upon gentlemen who have incurred them without any primary responsibility of their own, but will be ready to give the Bill a Second Reading to-night.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I have no objection to the contents of the Bill itself, and I think he might well have spared nine minutes of the time which he has spent in addressing us, so far as the provisions of the Bill are concerned. I think, however, I should point out that it is an anomaly that the noble Lord himself, who is not a member of the Government, should be moving a Bill on 926 behalf of the Government. That is a very unusual position, and I cannot recall any precedent for it at all. It is obvious that there are very grave difficulties and I might even say objections to anyone not a member of the Government taking over any of the responsibility of the Government. How is it possible, if he makes a mistake, for Parliament to censure him? It is obvious that the methods of censuring in another place, where people are in enjoyment of a salary, are impossible in the case of the noble Lord, who occupies no position in the Government. Those who have been in Parliament for a long time know that if Parliament is a jealous mistress, Government is a still more jealous mistress, and I do think that anybody speaking on behalf of the Government ought to be able to place the whole of his time at the disposal of the Government. I hope that that may be the case in the future. If the noble Lord is going to place his abilities entirely at the disposal of the Government, he will be able to take part freely in all the discussions of the House, attend regularly, and perform all the usual obligations which fall upon a member of the Government.

THE MAEQUBSS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I need not say that I do not rise to offer any opposition to the Bill, but I recognise, as the noble Earl does, that the position of the noble Lord is rather anomalous. It is not that he has spoken on behalf of the Government, but that he does not form part of the Government. So far as we are concerned we are always delighted to hear the noble Lord, and are anxious that he should have full opportunity for developing the abilities which undoubtedly he possesses. But I think the position is a little strange at the present moment. With regard to the Bill itself the noble Lord addressed himself to it in rather a light-hearted fashion. It is not a very serious matter. A mistake has been made and has been rectified, but I think it should be recognised that it was not because the Prime Minister merely spontaneously found out he had made a mistake and wanted to rectify it. It was because he found that his colleagues were incurring very heavy fines, and went on incurring them every day. The Prime Minister with his usual courtesy has treated us extremely well in the matter, but he was 927 not an entirely free agent, but was acting under a sense of very heavy obligation. The noble Lord has made it a reproach to us that we did not find out this illegality. We have had to put up with so much from the want of representation in this House that one more or less did not impress itself very much upon our minds. I am glad the matter has been put right, and of course I offer no opposition to the Indemnity Bill.

LORD GORELL
I desire to thank the noble Marquess for the observations he has addressed to us. I did not address myself, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, in any spirit of levity, but I felt that it was hardly becoming at this 928 hour that I should deal with it at any great length. With regard to the observations of the noble Earl, I will take due and serious cognisance of them. I was asked by the Leader of the House to undertake the duty, and it may be that he was actuated by a feeling that it might be possible for some one who was not a member of the Government to ask for pardon more freely than might have been possible from one who was a member of the Government.