HC Deb 24 April 1888 vol 325 cc341-2
COLONEL DUNCAN (Finsbury, Holborn)

asked the right hon. and learned Member for Brighton, What was the action of the Deputy Judge Advocate General in connection with the court martial of Major Templer?

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Sir WILLIAM MARRIOTT) Brighton)

I have received a letter from the Deputy Judge Advocate General, which I will read with the permission of the House— April 21, 1888. A misapprehension exists regarding my connection with the prosecution of Major Templer, and I think I may fairly ask to have it corrected in whatever manner you may think proper. I did not initiate, recommend, or in any way take part in that prosecution. My share in the matter consisted in little more than answering a Question as to whether certain conduct, if proved, would constitute any, and, if so, what, offence under the Army Act. The facts are shortly these:—On the 18th of January the case was sent to me by the Military Authorities for an opinion. It contained statements which appeared to me to show that Major Templer had brought himself within the penal sections of the Army Act. Of these statements some were made by officers, and some by persons who, though in a humble sphere of life, were not apparently unworthy of belief, and who, as far as could be judged, had no motive for falsehood in the matter. Upon the statements thus submitted to me, and, of course, upon the assumption that they could he substantiated, I gave an opinion in reply that there was, primâ facie, a case against Major Templer, and I indicated the form of charge that would apply. But I added that the evidence before me wanted strengthening in certain important respects, and that the prospect of a conviction would be affected by the ability or inability of the prosecution to show (even assuming the visits to Birmingham to be proved) that Major Templer had, in fact, disclosed secrets which it was his duty not to disclose. This opinion was sent to the Horse Guards on the 21st of January. Further than this it was not my duty to take any step, and I took no step whatever. The expediency of resorting to a court martial became a question for the Military Authorities, and the conduct of the case was for the Legal Department of the Treasury. Neither rested in the least degree with Yours very truly, J. C. O'Down. The Right Hon the Judge Advocate "General.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

May I ask why the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself did not advise in the matter?

SIR WILLIAM MARRIOTT

Because it is not the duty of the Judge Advocate General to advise in cases of courts martial until they are completed, and then his duty is to advise whether they have been carried on according to law; but the same Judge does not advise as to how they should be carried on.

MR. CHILDERS

On that arises the question why that duty is thrown upon the Deputy? I can say that no such arrangement existed when I was at the War Office.

SIR WILLIAM MARRIOTT

I can explain. There were formerly two Deputy Military Judge Advocates, and it was their duty to answer such Questions. Two years ago the office of one of them was abolished; and, there being only one Military Deputy, the Deputy Judge Advocate had to take his turn with him. The Military Deputy could not be present, and the duty fell on Mr. O'Dowd.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

Are the duties different which are thrown upon the Legal Deputy Judge Advocate and the Military Deputy Judge Advocate respectively?

SIR WILLIAM MARRIOTT

Yes.