§ 18. Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the personal property taken from Mr. Oscar Slater at the time of his arrest has now been found and returned to him?
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson)I am not aware what particular property the hon. Member has in mind. Personal property taken by the police or the prosecution was disposed of in accordance with Mr. Slater'e directions during his imprisonment, or was returned to him on his release, or (in the case of certain articles which formed part of the production at the trial in 1909) remains in the custody of the Clerk of Justiciary.
§ Mr. DAYIs the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Slater says that a, considerable amount of jewellery was taken from him and that he has not been able to get it back again, and will he make inquiries as to what has happened to that property?
§ The LORD ADVOCATENo, Sir. I am riot aware of any such goods, but, if Mr. Slater sends in a letter specifying 2791 anything which he alleges has not been returned to him, the matter will receive attention.
§ 19. Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the letter sent by his Department, dated the 4th August, to Mr. Oscar Slater, suggesting a payment of £6,000, contained any mention that this amount should cover costs or expenses, or whether the reply of the 7th August, received from Mr. Oscar Slater, mentioned either of these two items; whether any recent correspondence has passed between his Department and Mr. Oscar Slater with regard to the outstanding costs to which Mr. Slater has been put; and whether any further payment is contemplated by the Government towards the costs of Mr. Slater's appeal?
§ The LORD ADVOCATEAs regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 27th November to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). My right hon. Friend has recently received a letter from Mr. Slater regarding loss and expense alleged to have been incurred by him prior to and in connection with his appeal case. It is not the intention of the Government to make any payment in addition to the ex gratia sum already paid to Mr. Slater, and he has been so informed.
§ Mr. DAYDoes not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it would be better in cases like this that, when making ex gratia payments, to state fully that they cover expenses rather than leave people in the unhappy position of not having their costs defrayed?
§ The LORD ADVOCATENo, Sir. I have nothing to add to the statement which has been made, and I do not accept the hon. Member's contention.
§ Mr. MACLEANIs it not definitely stated in communications which passed between Oscar Slater and the Government relating to this payment of £6,000 that the payment of this sum was because of imprisonment as a result of the sentence passed upon him?
§ The LORD ADVOCATEI have nothing to add to the answer previously made on these very points.
§ Mr. MACLEANWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House why, if he takes up the attitude which he is now doing with regard to expenses, no mention was made in any letter which passed between them that the expenses of cases of this kind were considered to be defrayed out of the money given to Oscar Slater?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe answer has been given, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has nothing to add.
§ Mr. MACLEANHe has never said anything. Nothing to nothing makes nothing.