HC Deb 15 May 1899 vol 71 cc598-600
SIR CHARLES CAMERON (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the amount of fees paid to Dr. Mackenzie for reports made at the instance of the Procurator-Fiscal of Lochmaddy in connection with the prosecution of Dr. Lamont, recently public vaccinator in the Island of Uist, for issuing false vaccination certificates, and the amount, if any, paid him for giving evidence at Dr. Lamont's trial at Inverness on the 15th of March last.


From the Procurator-Fiscal at Lochmaddy Dr. Mackenzie received 16 guineas for medical inspections in September and October, 1899, being payment at two guineas a day for eight days' work (inclusive of subsistence). He also received £4 15s. 6d. for travelling expenses. From the Procurator-Fiscal at Inverness he received 16 guineas for eight days work and £3 13s. 1d. for travelling. The charges are still subject to audit.


I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, with reference to the arrest of Dr. Lamont on 17th September, 1898, whether he is aware that Dr. Lamont denies that he was ever informed that he should be arrested if he left the island of Uist, and asserts that in deference to Police Sergeant Philip's request he remained in the island for nearly a week after the date of the first warrant by him that there was not; whether Sergeant Philip ever received the warrant of 10th September for Dr. Lamont's arrest; and. with reference to Dr. Lamont's attempted re-arrest on 8th December, whether at that date Dr. Lamont was out on bail; if so, whether either the bailee or bailor was, between the issue of the new warrant on 25th October and the date of hit attempted re-arrest, informed that Dr. Lamont's re-arrest was contemplated; whether he is aware that neither Dr. Lamont nor his law agent knew of the existence of a warrant dated 25th October until it was mentioned in the House or the 8th instant; whether the police officer in Glasgow, who proceeded to Dr. Lamont's mother's house, for the purpose of arresting him, on 8th December had been furnished with the warrant of 25th October for Dr. Lamont's arrest; and, whether the information sent to the Crown Office to the effect that Dr. Lamont's agent would be responsible for his appearing for trial, on which the Crown Office ordered that Dr. Lamont should not be re-arrested, was sent to the Crown Office by the Procurator-Fiscal at Lochmaddy or by Mr. Kennedy, Dr. Lamont's agent.


I accept the facts of the first paragraph from the honourable Member; I have recently received statements from Dr. Lamont's agent to a similar effect. In regard to all the points raised in the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the question I have no accurate knowledge, and in no case, whether answered in the affirmative or the negative, would any one of these points be material. In reply to the last paragraph the information was received by the Crown Office from Dr. Lamont's agents.