THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S POSITION.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] S IR,—I think that your correspondent "Political Independent" misses the real point which is troubling many of us with regard to the Attorney-General, which we should gladly see authoritatively set at rest. No one questions his undoubted honour, which forces us to accept the sincerity of his attitude before the Marconi Committee, but which also forces us into the dilemma of wondering whether he can really be constitu- tionally incapable of appreciating the meaning of the criticisms of want of discretion, delicacy, propriety, or whatever it may be called. This inference, if I read his evidence aright, appears far graver than any quibbling as to the degree in which a Person in the position of Attorney-General was involved in the transactions which he has described in his own evidence. Any belated admission now of possible indiscretion made as a concession to the censorious would be valueless, because we must accept the original sincerity of the Attorney-General's evidence based on his much-vaunted and admitted honour. Thus a graver consideration must be faced, which I may illustrate by asking, Would the apologists justify a certain notorious telegram being signed "Lord Chief Justice" instead of "Attorney-General"? I ask not for those who have lost money by being induced to participate in the Marconi gamble, but for the general body of taxpayers whose servant the Attorney-General is, so far as the responsi- bilities of his office are concerned, and who rightly or wrongly are under the impression that they pay their
Ministers salaries so high that they shall be removed from thi "poverty" which Mr. Lloyd George pleads. One despair; of anything in the House of Commons except insincere whites washing between the Front Benches. Is not this a crisis in which the House of Lords could reassert its old independence by a really honest debate of this lamentable affair, and the safeguards necessary for the future ? —I am, Sir, &e., A TUNBRIDGE WELLS READER.
[The House of Lords should, and we sincerely hope wi discuss the conduct of Ministers and express their opinion, but could not do so without discourtesy till the Commons Committee has reported.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
