§ 45. Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether the Law Officers, having been in error in recommending a course for which there was no legal warrant and in defending the case of Bowles v. the Bank of England, have drawn, in addition to their salaries, extra fees for pursuing that course; and, if so, whether they have offered to return those fees?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe question whether a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means imposing Income Tax had the force of law was one which had not been judicially decided until the case of Bowles v. Bank of England. The Crown was represented in the legal proceedings, on the suggestion of the Court, by the Law Officers, to whom, fees were consequently paid in pursuance of the ordinary arrangement as to their remuneration. The answer to the last part. of the question is in the negative.
§ Mr. GINNELLMay I ask whether it is usual for Ministers to profit by their own errors, as in this case, and to vote the profit to themselves in this House?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir. The point had never been decided before, and the Court thought fit to invoke the assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown.
§ Mr. GINNELLWas not the case resisted on the advice of the Law Officers?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat is another question.
§ Mr. WATTWill the right hon. Gentleman say why the anomaly exists that the English and Irish Law Officers are allowed extra fees, while the Scotch Law Officers are confined to their salary?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat is one of those very simple arrangements by which Scotland does not always profit as much as she seems.