HC Deb 14 July 1914 vol 64 cc1699-700
43. Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM

asked the Attorney-General whether, seeing that Mr. Justice Darling stated on the 27th May, when delivering sentence on the defendants in the Army Canteen case, that he, the learned judge, was satisfied that the defendants were acting upon a system which was known to the directorate, encouraged by the directorate, and persisted in by the directorate, he will say whether he has laid the papers in this case before the Public Prosecutor, with a view to criminal proceedings for fraud and bribery being instituted against Sir Thomas Lipton, chairman of Liptons, Limited, and his co-directors

Sir STANLEY BUCKMASTER

All the papers in this case have been before me and proceedings have already been taken against those persons against whom evidence existed, including one director of the company. There is no such evidence in the case of the director named in the question.

Sir A. MARKHAM

Is it not the fact that the learned judge, in the presence of the Attorney-General, stated that he was satisfied that the system was known to the directors and encouraged by them, and persisted in by them; and may I ask whether, having regard to that statement, the Law Officers of the Crown cannot find even a primâ facie case? Does the Solicitor-General not think that the directors are going to take all the steps they can to cover their trail?

Sir S. BUCKMASTER

The statement of the learned judge must be read in connection with the whole statement, and whether the learned judge was satisfied or not is not a question for the Law Officers.

Mr. JOHN WARD

Is it intended to proceed against the other defendants who were cited before the court martial?

Sir S. BUCKMASTER

I must have notice of that question.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that no further proceedings of any kind are to be taken in connection with this case?

Sir S. BUCKMASTER

So far as I know there is no evidence before the Law Officers to justify any proceedings being taken against any other person.

Sir A. MARKHAM

Is it not the fact that the Law Officers pressed for imprisonment against the persons who received the bribes, while the persons who gave the bribes were not sent to prison?