§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, with reference to the conversation which passed upon the Second Reading of the Under Secretaries of State Bill last night, I desire to put a question to the Leader of the House. He may remember that when that short discussion took place the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, called attention to the fact that the Second Reading was being moved on behalf of His Majesty's Government by a noble Lord who was not a member of His Majesty's Government. I need not tell your Lordships, for I said it last night, that the House is always extremely pleased to hear Lord Gorell on any subject. He has a great facility for addressing your Lordships, and his talents would be very much missed if he did not take part in our debates. But I thought—as the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, thought—that it was distinctly irregular for a noble Lord who was not a member of the Government to be responsible for moving a Government Bill. I am not, of course, surprised that the noble and learned Lord last night was not in a position to give any reply. But no doubt he has arrived at a decision in the time that has elapsed since that debate, and I beg to ask him now what decision the Government have arrived at with reference to the incident which arose last night, and with reference to any possible repetition of it in the future.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for affording me an opportunity of giving an explanation 930 on this subject. I think all of us on both sides of the House are pleased to hear Lord Gorell, who has very often spoken in this House. As I think Lord Gorell stated last night, it was my fault that this incident happened. It did not occur to me that it was an irregularity, but since the noble Earl and the noble Marquess have called my attention to it, I have done what I could to make myself familiar with what I may call the traditions of this House in a matter of this character—and, as the noble Marquess knows, it is not a matter of a Standing Order, but a matter of the traditions of this House. I think I was wrong; it was my fault, it was not the fault of the Government. Certainly, so far as I have in the future control of the procedure in this House, I shall be guided by the advice which has now-been given me by the noble Marquess and the noble Earl, and there need be no fear of a repetition of the incident on my part.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, I only desire to follow once more the lead of the noble Marquess in the objection he raised to the action that took place last night. It is not by any means the first occasion on which this matter has been considered in this House. I remember it more than twenty years ago. It was then raised, though I am not quite sure whether any decision was come to on the floor of the House. The only thing I would say is that, though the matter seems trivial, I think there is a real point of substance in it, because if it was carried to its extreme at any moment, it might happen that there was nobody sitting on the Government Bench at all holding any office except those which by law are obliged to be held in this House, and all the work would be carried on by supporters of the Government, none of whom would be holding office in the Government. Obviously that would be a ridiculous position, and I think it is just as well that we should guard against it. I should like to express my thanks to the noble Marquess for having guarded the traditions of the House in this matter.