§ 61. Mr. CURRIEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the recent criminal prosecution, lasting for several days in the Edinburgh High Court, of the officials of a railway company; whether he is aware that the sum of money at stake was 19s. 2d. and that the costs of the trial, which engaged the attention of the Lord President of the Court of Session, six counsel, and several naval officers of high rank, are estimated at about £2,000; whether the case for the prosecution broke down on every single point; whether the whole costs now fall to be paid by the taxpayers of the country or by the defendants found guiltless of any offence; whether he is aware that the parties prosecuted have received the thanks of the Government for their services in connection with the mobilisation of troops; and whether his Department has any power to prevent such actions in Scotland?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)The suggestion that the sum of money at stake was 19s. 2d. proceeds on a misapprehension of the proceedings. The proceedings were criminal proceedings for a contravention of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and not for the recovery in the Civil Courts of the sum of 19s. 2d.
My hon. Friend is, I believe, incorrect as to the costs of the trial, but upon that, no doubt, the Lord Advocate could inform him.
The object of the Admiralty in instituting these proceedings was to establish the principle that no local authority or 1195 person shall have the power to hamper the movements of any ship engaged in His Majesty's Service upon war work. This principle we still think of vital importance.
As regards the last paragraph of the question the Admiralty is always glad to acknowledge the great services performed by Mr. Whitelaw, as general manager of the North British Railway, in the transport of troops and war-like stores.
§ Mr. PRINGLEDid the Admiralty think it necessary to spend all this money to establish a principle?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe amount of money, I think, has not been quite correctly stated; but, as I have said, it was necessary to establish the principle.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWas it denied?
§ Mr. HOGGEMay I inquire whether one of the accused persons was the manager of one of the railways that is now controlled by the Government, and therefore one of the Government's own servants? Will the right hon. Gentleman see in future that one servant of the Government in one Department does not quarrel with another servant in another Department, so involving this kind of action?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAAs I have said, the Lord Advocate can give the facts, but I understand the figure is very much smaller—something in the region of £30—because counsel for the Crown, including the Lord Advocate, are paid an inclusive salary, and do not receive any fees for such proceedings as do English law officers.
§ Mr. CURRIEArising out of that question—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere are many questions on the Paper.