Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Despatch to London
Kennedy, Arthur to Pelham-Clinton, 5th Duke of Newcastle Henry Pelham Fiennes 13 May 1864, CO 305:22, no. 6013, 223.
Abstract
Kennedy, Arthur to Pelham-Clinton, 5th Duke of Newcastle Henry Pelham Fiennes 13 May 1864, CO 305:22, no. 6013, 223.
Despatch to London.
Minutes (3), Enclosures (untranscribed) (1), Other documents (1).
No. 25
13th May 1864
My Lord Duke,
I have the honor to lay before you a Statement of Fees paid to
Lawyers and Attorneys on account of Public prosecutions in this
Colony, from April 1863 to present date, with a view to obtain Your
Grace's opinion upon the regularity of these charges.
2. I am induced to make this application under the following
circumstances: The Colonial Secretary some days ago, submitted for
my approval a Bill from the Attorney General (Mr Cary) amounting to
$340 dollars, which he informed me was in the usual course.
3. I
3. I found upon inquiry that there was no authority beyond that of
Custom for these charges, and no rule or scale for the Amount of Fee
charged, and is therefore subject to no check.
4. Your Grace is of course aware that the Attorney General is a
Salaried officer, and also that there is not any Crown Solicitor—as
in other Colonies.
5. I confess I do not understand for what purpose an Attorney
General receives a Salary, if not for the purpose of conducting Crown
prosecutions. I also think that the Legal Staff of the Colony is
incomplete withouta
a Crown Solicitor.
a Crown Solicitor.
Minutes by CO staff
TFE
28 June
This is virtually a complaint against the Attorney General. I think
that while on the one hand all complaints against a Governor should
go through the Governor, so on the other complaints of this kind by a
Governor against a public officer shd not be made without giving
that public officer a means of explanation.
I should answer that no doubt a colonial Attorney General is
generally speaking not at liberty to charge the Govt for his
services. But that before pronouncing any opinion on Mr Cary's case
Mr Cardwell would be glad that he should be requested to explain on
what grounds, being a salaried officer, he advanced a charge for
particular services.
I suppose the answer will be that he is bound as Atty G. to do
barrister's work—but that his charge is for doing attorney's work.
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
"Statement of Fees paid to Lawyers Attorneys &c from 1st
January 1863 to 7th May 1864," dated Treasury, 7 May 1864.
