A Conservative contemporary has thought to impale Mr._ Gladstone and
Sir John Coleridge on the horns of a dilemma suggested by a cursory perusal of the Law Officers' Fees Act of last year. The statute which takes away certain valuable fees from the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General is not to apply, it is provided, " to the person who is Attorney-General at the- time of the passing of this Act." It is suggested that by Mr. Gladstone's recent resignation Sir John Coleridge ceased to be Attorney-General, and on Mr. Gladstone's return to power receives the Attorney-Generalship on the new conditions of tenure.. Will the Act be construed, it is asked, by Mr. Gladstone so as to save Sir John Coleridge's fees ? Of course Conservative good- nature predicts another Ewehne Rectory affair. We imagine the way out of the supposed difficulty is very simple. Mr. Glad- stone's resignation did not technically terminate his own or his colleagues' tenure of office, which he and they continued to hold till they were to surrender them to their successors. Accord- ingly there has been no " solution of continuity" in the Attorney- General's tenure of office, and the proviso referred to saves his vested interest. To be sure, the defence is technical, but the objection is much more so ; and the former is quite a match for the latter.
Previous page
