HC Deb 14 February 1884 vol 284 cc851-3
DR. CAMERON

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is true that General Burroughs, a landed proprietor of Orkney, who refused to give the Royal Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty to inquire into the condition of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland any assurance that he would not dispossess his tenants in consequence of any statements made in evidence before the Commission, has since evicted two of the crofter witnesses; whether it is true that he has obtained in the sheriff court of the county a decree of eviction against the brother of one of the witnesses, to be carried out in case he sheltered his evicted brother or his family; and, whether, in all or any of the cases, the de-decree granted was one of summary ejectment?

MR. DALRYMPLE

Before the Lord Advocate answers the Question, I may be permitted to ask whether he has received information to the effect that the witnesses referred to in the Question were not crofters, but only relatives of the crofters, and only permitted to remain on the land temporarily as squatters, and whether the relations existing between General Burroughs and his tenants had been of a peaceful and friendly character up to the period of the unfortunate excitement caused by the inquiries of the Crofters' Commission?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

It is the ease that General Burroughs, in September last, raised two actions in the Sheriff Court, in each of which two defenders were called. One action was for the removal of Peter Leonard and James Leonard from the farms at Digro, at the term of Martinmas following. The father of Peter and James Leonard had been tenant of that farm. He had died within the year, and the object of the action appears to have been to obtain the removal of James Leonard as a squatter, occupying without title, Peter Leonard, who is a cabinet-maker in Kirkwall, having been called only as heir-at-law of his father. The other action was for the summary ejection of James Grieve, his brother, from the farm at Outerdykes, the object in this case having been to eject James Grieve as a squatter without title, Malcolm Grieve having been made a party to the action only to provide for the possible event of its turning out that he had sublet part of the farm to his brother, contrary to the rules of the estate. James Leonard and James Grieve both gave evidence before the Royal Commission. No appearance was entered or defence made in either action, and the Sheriff, therefore, as a matter of course, granted decree as craved in them both. In reply to the additional Question, I have to say that the point whether the men were tenants or squatters was not raised or disputed, as there was no defence; and on the last part of the Question, as to which opposing allegations have been made, it may be right to refer to the evidence given before the Royal Commission, and to the letters appearing in the newspapers, particularly to a letter dated 13th October, in which General Burroughs' explanations were given, and which, I believe, will form part of the print appended to the Report of the Commission.

DR. CAMERON

I beg to give Notice that on an early occasion I shall call the attention of the House to the conduct of General Burroughs in this matter.

MR. MACFARLANE

I understood the Lord Advocate to say that one of the witnesses was a tenant and the other a squatter. I wish to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that last year, in the Agricultural Holdings Act, he accepted an Amendment of mine requiring that in the case of a yearly tenant six months' notice must be given, and if that Act is in force, how does it happen that he can be ejected summarily?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

The hon. Member must have misunderstood what I said. I carefully avoided giving an opinion as to whether the men were tenants or squatters, not having information on which I could form a conclusive opinion. The matter has not come before the Courts for decision. The latter part of the Question is very easily answered. The Agricultural Holdings Act did not come into operation until the 1st of January of this year, while they were removed in October of last year.