HC Deb 19 March 1894 vol 22 cc585-6
ME. HANBURY (Preston)

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, to enable a comparison to be made between the old and the present system of remuneration to the Law Officers of the Crown, he will consent to a Return showing the effect of the Treasury Minute of December, 1892, in respect of fees received by each of the Law Officers during the year 1898, on account of contentious business, complimentary briefs, fees from persons unconnected with the Public Service for business other than contentious done by them as Law Officers, and special fees named in the Minute; whether the arrangement named in the Minute, in consideration of which the new system was sanctioned limiting the business in which a Law Officer may appear as counsel for a private client to cases in the House of Lords and before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, has been strictly observed in all cases, or, if not, in what cases has it been departed from, and what were the reasons for such departure; whether the abolition of the right to appear for a private client is limited to appearance in Court, or includes also Chamber practice; whether the abolition of that right has been modified by any regulation as to old or standing retainers; and, if so, what is the modification, and will he lay the terms of it upon the Table; and whether it is true that one of the Law Officers has been retained in the case of "Sutherland v. Sutherland," or in the Salt Union case?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W.HARCOURT,) Derby

I have been requested by the Attorney General to give the following answer:—I There are no longer any complimentary briefs to the Law Officers, and no fees from persons unconnected with the Public Service for business other than contentions are paid to them. No special fees have been paid to the existing Law Officers. The figures asked for were given on January 12, in answer to a question by the hon. Member, and there appears to be no reason for a Return. 2. The arrangement referred to has been strictly observed. 3. The arrangement in question is not understood to forbid giving opinions in Chambers. 4. It excepts retainers delivered before acceptance of office. 5. The answer to the last question is, yes; but in each of the cases a retaining fee had been given before the acceptance of office, and with reference to the litigation referred to in the question.

MR. HANBURY

Do they come strictly within the Treasury Minute?

SIR W. HARCOURT

I suppose so.

MR. HANBURY

Is that so?

SIR W. HARCOURT

I have given all the information I possess.

MR. HANBURY

Did I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the retainer in the Sutherland case was given before the Attorney General took office? If so, is he aware that the late Duke of Sutherland died since the Government came into office?

SIR W. HARCOURT

I have given the information as I have it before me in the absence of the Attorney General. No cross-examination will extract from me knowledge which I do not possess.