HC Deb 27 November 1917 vol 99 c1811
14. Mr. KING

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he is aware that the Attorney-General contributed to the "Times" newspaper of 19th November a letter on the case of the China Mutual Steam Company versus Macleay; and whether, in view of the unusual character of the letter, written by a counsel who appeared in the case, and reflecting on the judgment delivered, he will say whether the Shipping Controller instructed this letter to be written or consulted the Attorney-General concerning it?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith)

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The letter referred to did not in any way reflect upon the judgment delivered by the learned judge, and it is surprising that the hon. Member did not read or understand this letter before making a suggestion wholly without foundation. The Attorney-General does not either require or receive instructions as to the letters he thinks proper to write in relation to his official duties, and none were, in fact, given. The Shipping Controller had no occasion to consult him in relation to the letter, and did not, in fact, do so. It may perhaps be added that the public spirit and reasonableness of the parties concerned in this serious controversy, much assisted by the suggestions of the learned judge, afford great promise of a settlement which will be greatly in the public interest.

Mr. KING

Is the Attorney-General aware of the consternation occasioned by this new departure in setting up a new standard of professional etiquette?

Sir F. SMITH

I am not aware of any consternation, and there is no new departure.

Mr. HOGGE

Did the right hon. Gentleman read and understand the comment of the "Times" on his letter?

Sir F. SMITH

Certainly I did, and I was astonished at the ignorance on technical questions which was disclosed in the "Times."