SUPPLY.—REPORT. (Hansard, 25 June 1872)

§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN
said, that on the Vote in Committee yesterday a sum of £2,000 was voted for the Judge 191 Advocate General. He then asked what position the office stood in at present; and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War stated that though they had asked for £2,000, the expense of the office was only £500. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, before any final decision was come to with reference to any alteration in the office, an opportunity would be given to the House to express an opinion on the proposed change? He himself entertained a strong opinion that the office of Judge Advocate General should not be abolished.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, he thought he ought not to be called on to enter into any engagement. What he meant yesterday, and what he would repeat now, was this—that the whole question of the duties and responsibilities of the office was to be considered by the Government in connection with the alteration and consolidation of the Military Law recommended by the Royal Commission of which his right hon. Friend (Colonel Wilson-Patten) was the Chairman. In order to take the whole question into consideration, no permanent arrangement with regard to the office had been made; and in the meantime the office was temporarily held by the Judge of the Admiralty Court.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
was very glad his right hon. Friend did not accede to the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It would be a bad thing for economy if, when a plan for the amalgamation of offices was proposed and an hon. Gentleman from Ireland objected, the Government were to give way.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he understood that last night the Postmaster General gave a pledge that some explanation should be given by one of the Law Officers on this matter. As far as he was concerned, he was not in the least aware that any question would be raised on the Vote, or he would have been in his place. He admitted that it was the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to be in the House when they knew or were informed of any matter coming on about which their advice might be required; but he could not 192 agree that it was their duty to be present "from early morn to dewy eve" in case they might be wanted. That would make the position of Law Officers one which no gentleman would accept. The explanation he had to give as to the form of the Vote was this—There had been disputes between former Governments and Mr. Churchward, and a suit was now pending in which Mr. Churchward was the appellant. That suit was hung up in the Court of Exchequer Chamber; Mr. Churchward had the conduct of it, and could at any moment withdraw his appeal and so put an end to the suit. As he did not choose to do so, it was necessary from time to time to insert this notice, in accordance with a solemn Resolution come to by the House of Commons. He felt that this notice, so appearing in the Votes year after year, had a disagreeable and an awkward look. Sir Robert Collier and he had been asked whether it could not be dropped. So had the Solicitor General and he; and in both cases they had advised the Government that it could not be dropped with safety, but that, in fulfilment of the pledge given to the House of Commons, it must appear in some shape or other, either in the Votes or—which would, perhaps, be better—in the Appropriation Bill.