It is difficult to imagine the feelings of injustice which filtered through the streets and closes of the royal burgh of Jedburgh in August 1916 after Scotland's Lord Advocate refused to reduce the "wicked and scandalous" fines imposed on poorer members of the community for breaching wartime lighting regulations.
An impassioned plea to the House of Commons by local Liberal MP Sir John Jardine - to be supported by a number of other disgusted members of various political persuasions - would ultimately fail, leaving otherwise law-abiding citizens who had been hit with financial penalties of up to £15 (£1,200 in today's values) to face the prospect of prison.
The lighting regulations were part of the defence of the realm, aimed at protecting communities from German air raids. The law demanded that lights inside households and businesses should not be able to be seen outside otherwise an offence had been committed.
It is interesting to recall the views expressed by some of those who took part in the House of Commons debate after Sir John, whose address was featured in part two of our story, sat down. He had highlighted the fact that the fines handed down in Jedburgh Court by the judge, Sheriff-Substitute Ronald Baillie were higher than those meted out anywhere else, five shillings to fifteen shillings having been the norm.
"It is a scandalous case of inequality of treatment as between one person and another, all being entitled to the same treatment according to the law", declared George Barnes, Labour MP for Blackfriars. In other words, one law for the wealthy and a different one for poor people.
In Mr Barnes' view Sir John had unearthed a rather bad case of Jedburgh justice.
"It is perfectly true, as he [Jardine] says, that there have been numerous cases of people who have been dealt with for this offence, and some of them rather glaring eases", said Mr Barnes. "The brother of the Lord Chief Justice, a few months ago, was fined, I believe, £2, and that was a rather glaring case, where the light was observable a considerable distance. I will not say that there was any wickedness in regard even to that case.
"But that was a case of some danger. There was a case of an hon. Member of the House, about the same time, who, I believe, was fined £1, and there have been other cases in which the fine has been considerably lower than that. I join in the protest which has been made by the hon. Member that poor people in Jedburgh, away from the entrance to the High Court in London, should be fined £15 for a trivial offence of this sort when other people get off so lightly."
Mr Barnes went on to attack the former Scottish Secretary (Thomas McKinnon Wood) for failing to stand up for the Jedburgh 'victims' of Sheriff Baillie's severity.
Said Mr Barnes: "There is a more important question—that is, the conduct of the Secretary for Scotland as the guardian of the interests of the Scottish people. I heard my hon. Friend say that Scotland was treated badly, that she did not get justice in many ways.
" I would attribute it to this fact, that there is no cohesion between Scottish Members, and that no pressure is brought to bear upon those who are supposed to be the guardians of the Scottish people, as there ought to be, in a collective manner. I trust that from to-day, having regard to what has happened, we shall exert a little more pressure in some organised way to see that people in Jedburgh and other places in Scotland get something like justice meted out to them."
"This is a scandalous case. There is no wickedness or premeditation about this thing. I hope that something will be done to see that these scandalous fines are reduced."
Edinburgh East MP James Hogge (Liberal) was equally scathing in condemning the level of the Jedburgh fines.
He told The Commons: "I think that the fines that were exacted in these particular cases were wicked, in fact they were monstrous fines, and I think that the ex-Secretary for Scotland did himself an injustice in not taking the matter up and having those fines reduced. I am extremely sorry to hear that the present Secretary for Scotland (Jack Tennant) has also refused to reopen this particular matter.
"I would suggest to him that if he wants a popular reception in Scotland he had better go to Jedburgh, and he will there find what the people of Scotland think of any Minister who refuses to take up a matter of this kind. It is common knowledge that a Member of this House was fined only a short time ago for not having his blinds drawn. Here we are dealing with humble people in Jedburgh".
Those thoughts were echoed by Lanarkshire Liberal MP William Pringle who said: "- I think there was a case for interference in this particular instance. I think the fines imposed were altogether out of proportion to the offences committed.
"Only last week an hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Bench was fined five shillings. He is a Minister in the Department that is very largely concerned in the administration of this particular Act. He ought to have known the law. These men (in Jedburgh), we are told, had been warned. Here was a man who should not have required to be warned at all. He ought to have known all the Regulations. Yet in spite of that he gets off with a paltry fine of five shillings."
But if the campaigners expected Lord Advocate Robert Munro to buckle and give ground on the issue they were very much mistaken. According to him the Jedburgh offenders may have been lucky to escape fines of up to £100 (£8,000 in today's money) or a prison term with or without hard labour. This is what he had to say (verbatim Hansard account of Parliamentary proceedings):
"I beg my hon. and learned Friend to remember that in
administering the law under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, the sheriff,
if he had so pleased, was empowered by Parliament to fine these people not only
£7 10 shillings. or £10, as the case might be, but he was authorised by this House, if
in his discretion, and looking to the circumstances of the particular case, he
thought fit to do so, to do what?—he was entitled to impose a fine of £100 with
imprisonment, with or without hard labour, and the forfeiture of goods.
"That
was the law which the sheriff-substitute had to administer. I want the
Committee to put to themselves this question: How are you to arrive at the
conclusion that this fine was exorbitant or excessive, to use the adjectives
which my hon. and learned Friend has used, if, in point of fact, the
sheriff-substitute had the power to impose infinitely more severe penalties
than he did?
"I must protest at once against the suggestion that a breach
of these Regulations is a trivial matter. That was said in the course of the debate, and I was surprised to hear it said especially when we read that only
last night on the South-East Coast of Scotland there was a Zeppelin raid. These
are not Regulations which are to be lightly treated or regarded as Regulations
which can be disobeyed without any serious consequences being entailed. I
protest against that theory at once, and emphatically.
"The situation was this:
in the particular district with which we are concerned—and no one has a higher
respect for that district than I have; I have visited it with my hon. and
learned Friend on, I think, more than one occasion—it is perfectly certain that
there was considerable carelessness in the observance of these Regulations
before these charges were made, and very considerable laxity, of which
complaint was made. Not only were these Regulations not properly observed, but
the very persons who were charged in these particular cases with breaches of
them had been specifically and repeatedly warned with regard to their breach of
the Regulations, and it was under these circumstances that the fines of which
complaint has been made were imposed.
"They were imposed in a locality where
these Regulations were not carefully observed, upon persons who had been
repeatedly warned of the serious consequences of breaking the Regulations, and
they were imposed for a breach of Regulations which are essentially important
in their observance.
"Since those sentences were imposed the result has been shown to be most salutary in this particular locality, and the observance of the Regulations has been infinitely better than before. To suggest that there was any partiality or respect of persons, or that heavy fines were imposed because the person charged was poor or in humble circumstances is quite idle and grotesque. The circumstances were considered quite apart from the financial or social position of the persons. It was partly as a punishment and partly as a deterrent."
So what became of those good folk of Jedburgh who were saddled with a criminal record and a large sum of money to find to avoid a jail term? What happened to David Cockburn (fined £15); or Matthew Noble (£7 10 shillings) and Mrs. Noble, his wife, (also £7 10shillings), or George Forbes (£10) or George Beveridge (£10), and James Hunter (£7 10 shillings). That's a combined sum of £4,750 in 2018 values.
They certainly seem to have been dealt a cruel hand by a vindictive judge and a merciless group of Government ministers. But then again perhaps you think differently.....
No comments:
Post a Comment