HC Deb 19 April 1951 vol 486 cc1993-5
28. Mr. Henderson Stewart

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement about the Coronation Stone.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross)

I have been asked to answer this Question. The police conducted very full and, if I may say so, very able inquiries into this deplorable affair and I have now considered their report. The report included statements by three out of the four persons who are believed to have been concerned in removing the Stone from Westminster Abbey in which each admitted the part he himself had played but did not implicate others, or indicate the then whereabouts of the Stone. The clandestine removal of the Stone from Westminster Abbey, the manner of its taking and the manifest disregard for the sanctity of the Abbey were vulgar acts of vandalism which have caused great distress and offence both in England and Scotland and have brought the individuals concerned in them into great disrepute. I do not think, however, that the public interest requires that I should direct criminal proceedings to be taken.

Mr. Stewart

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention it, are we to take it that the Stone, having now been returned to Westminster Abbey, it is the view of the Government that it ought to be allowed to remain there?

The Attorney-General

That is another question for the answer to which I cannot be responsible.

Mr. Grimond

In view of the anxiety in Scotland over this matter and the criticism of the handling of the Stone since it was returned to Arbroath, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that if he makes recommendations about its future, public opinion and the opinion of the Secretary of State for Scotland will fully be taken into account?

The Attorney-General

That is another matter, quite outside my jurisdiction.

Mr. Rankin

Has my right hon. and learned Friend been made aware of the proposal of the Church and Nation Committee of the Church Assembly of the Church of Scotland that the Stone should be returned to Scotland and placed in the custody of the Church of Scotland? Would he give consideration to that proposal?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that if, in this case, a crime of sacrilege has been committed, it is a crime which the law of this country recognises as one of the most serious and that the law is supported in this important matter by the great majority of the people in this country?

The Attorney-General

I hope no one will think from the answer I have given that the crime of sacrilege is not a very grave one and one which is deplored by the mass of the people of this country, and, I am sure, of Scotland, as well.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that apart from regarding this act as an act of vandalism, a lot of people in Scotland regard it as an attempt to recover stolen property? Is he aware that if he had prosecuted, the defendants would have been admirably defended by the hon. Member for Nelson and Scone—[Laughter.]—and the lady K.C.?

The Attorney-General

I confess that these considerations were not absent from my mind. It is certainly impossible to forecast the decisions of juries in cases where no actual dishonesty in the ordinary sense is involved and I have no desire to provide these individuals with the opportunity either of being regarded by their followers as martyrs if convicted, or as heroes if they are not convicted.