§ 46 and 47. Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister (1) whether His Majesty's Government propose to pay in full, as between client and solicitor, the costs of Mr. Gibson Bowles incurred in the case of Bowles v. the Bank of England, in which judgment was given in his favour with costs; and, if not, on what ground a distinction is made in this respect between the Bank of England and Mr. Bowles; and (2) whether in the case of Bowles v. the Bank of England, in which judgment was given against the bank with costs, His Majesty's Government have paid the costs of the Bank; whether they have paid these costs in full as between client and solicitor, or whether they have paid only the taxed costs, and what the amount thereof was; and on what ground His Majesty's Government have paid the costs of the Bank of England in defending their unlawful practice in levying Income Tax by deduction without the authority of an Act of Parliament?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMy right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this and the following question. Payment was made to Mr. Bowles in accordance with the order of Court, which directed, as is usual, that the defendants (the Bank of England) should pay to the plaintiff his costs of the action, such costs to be taxed by the Taxing Master. The costs of the Bank of England, amounting to £238 5s. 4d., have been paid by the Crown in full as between client and solicitor, because under the Income Tax Acts Governors of the Bank are constituted Commissioners for executing the Acts, and as such they were acting on behalf of the Crown in defending a long-established practice.
§ Mr. CASSELSeeing that Mr. Bowles was held to be right, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he might not be left out of pocket?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMr. Bowles has got exactly the same treatment as every successful litigant—he has got his taxed costs.