37. Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Lord Advocate whether he has considered fully the circumstances relating to the failure to bring to trial the directors of Russell and Company, jewellers, Renfield Street, Glasgow, on a criminal charge in connection with the bankruptcy of the firm; whether depositions justifying a criminal charge were brought to his notice on 11th August, and it was not until 24th October that criminal proceedings were ordered; whether, after criminal proceedings were ordered, there was a further delay of three weeks before any arrests were made, and in the meantime the principal director had gone to Canada; whether it was intimated to the creditors that no steps would be taken to bring this director back from Canada unless they guaranteed the expenses of so doing; whether the proceedings against the other director have since been stopped, in view of the fact that proceedings were not thought advisable against him alone in the absence of the principal director; and whether, in view of the fact that the 578 failure to arrest the principal director was due to the delay in executing his instructions and of the desirability of protecting legitimate traders, he will now authorise his being brought back from Canada for trial at the public cost?
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro)I have fully considered the circumstances of the case referred to by my hon. and learned Friend. My attention was drawn to the case towards the end of August last by a letter from the Goldsmiths' Association, but I had then no information at my disposal, by way of deposition or otherwise, to justify a criminal charge. On consideration of further information obtained by the inquiries which I directed, I gave instructions on 15th October that criminal proceedings should be taken. Before these instructions were received in Glasgow one of the two directors against whom proceedings were contemplated had left for Canada. In accordance with the usual rule in such cases, the creditors were asked to guarantee the expenses of his extradition, and, on their refusal to do so, it was decided that extradition should not be made at the public expense. The evidence available did not in my judgment justify proceedings against the other of the two directors referred to. The failure to arrest the absconding director was not due to any delay in executing the instructions given by me. I am unable to find anything in the circumstances of this case to justify a departure from the usual rule that the expenses of extradition should not be defrayed out of public funds.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTHas the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that there was due diligence in executing the criminal proceedings which he authorised?