HC Deb 21 July 1890 vol 347 cc358-9
MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)

I beg to ask the Attorney General, with reference to contentious business in England, what are the rules which regulate the employment of the Law Officers of the Crown in actions to which the Crown is a party, either as plaintiff or defendant; do both of them claim to receive a brief in every such case; if not, how is it determined whether both of them, or only one, and which one of them, shall receive the brief; who fixes the fees to be marked on the briefs; are the fees, however simple the case, larger than would be paid in similar cases to other Queen's Counsel; if so, does the Junior Counsel who appears with the Law Officer receive a fee proportionate to the higher fee paid to his leader, or only such a fee as he would receive if his leader was an ordinary Queen's Counsel, and not the Attorney or Solicitor General; and if the Crown succeeds, and the other party to the action has to pay the costs, has he to pay all these higher fees?

* THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight

The question whether one or both of the Law Officers shall appear in actions to which the Crown is a party depends entirely upon the nature of the case. The standing rule for some time past has been that only one Law Officer is instructed except in cases where, owing to the number of witnesses or difficulty of questions raised, the services of both are considered necessary, and the personal directions of the Attorney General are taken before a second Law Officer is instructed. The brief fees are fixed by the solicitor instructing the Law Officers in the ordinary way, but they are on a scale lower than would be paid in similar cases to other Queen's Counsel. The Junior Counsel receives fees in the ordinary proportion to those fees. If the Crown succeeds the costs are taxed as between party and party in the ordinary way.

MR. SYDNEY GEDGE

Does the Attorney General decide whether he or the Solicitor General shall be briefed?

* SIR R. WEBSTER

Under ordinary circumstances they are taken in rotation; but if any question at all arises the directions of the Attorney General are taken.

MR. PICKERSGILL

Is it not the fact that in the case of "The Queen v. the East and West India Docks" the Master of the Queen's Bench cut down the fees from 77 guineas to 12 guineas, that there was an appeal, and that the Divisional Court refused to review the Master's taxation.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I have had no notice of this, but I remember that something of the kind occurred after I had made a rule not to go into Court under a certain fee. The Master was, in my opinion, right in not allowing those costs against the other party.