HC Deb 03 March 1885 vol 294 cc1886-8
MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether, with reference to the following extract from the letter to him from Mr. William Ivory, Sheriff of Inverness-shire, dated 10th February 1885, Macpherson also said in the presence of the Marines that it was a good thing that I had no power to shoot them. I replied that he was quite mistaken; that I had the power; that if I considered it to be my duty to give the order to fire it would be obeyed; and that he might congratulate himself on having such a considerate and merciful Sheriff to deal with, the Law of Scotland confers any such powers as those claimed by the Sheriff?

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

I understand it to be the Law of Scotland, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom, that in the case of a riot the rioters may be dispersed by force, and, if absolutely necessary, by the use of fire-arms. If so extreme a measure becomes necessary, the proper person to give the order is the Civil Magistrate. The words of the Sheriff quoted in this Question can only have had reference to such an extreme emergency as would justify the use of firearms; and in such an emergency the Sheriff would be the proper person to give the order.

MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH

asked the Lord Advocate, in reference to the following paragraph in a Letter addressed to him by Mr. William Ivory, Sheriff of Inverness-shire, dated 10th February 1885, Your Lordship will observe, from the last-mentioned Report, that three of the parties whom we tried to apprehend escaped to the hills before the police reached their houses. Before leaving Staffin for Portree we carefully considered whether, after taking the Glendale prisoners to Portree on Saturday the 31st ult., we should return to Staffin on the following Monday, and renew our endeavours to apprehend the three runaways at Valtos. But, as we had apprehended Norman Stewart, alias 'Parnell,' the leading ringleader of the mob, and the principal promoter of the former lawless proceedings in the district, as Crown Counsel had not directed any person in particular to be arrested in this case, and as there was no evidence in the precognition to establish that the three absconding parties had been guilty of any special acts of violence to the Sheriff-Officer, we were unanimously of opinion that we should rest contented with what had been already accomplished, and that it was not expedient to make a second expedition to Valtos, at the risk of its proving wholly abortive, if he will inform the House whether by the Law of Scotland it is lawful to arrest by armed forces, or by ordinary criminal officers, lieges who are unnamed in any warrant or whose apprehension is unauthorized by Crown Counsel; and, whether persons against whom no order of seizure had been granted, alarmed by the appearance of armed forces in their midst and choosing to absent themselves, thereby fall to be classed by the chief legal authority of the county of Inverness as runaways and absconders?

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

In cases of riot, in which large numbers of persons have taken part, the practice is to arrest and try a limited number of those who appear to have been the ringleaders, as it is considered that by their trial the ends of justice will be satisfied. In the precognitions in the case to which the Questions relate, the names of a number of the persons alleged to have taken an active part were mentioned, and an order for the arrest of a limited number of them was given, and warrants for arrestment obtained in due course. I understand that no one was arrested without warrant, and that the observations of the Sheriff applied to persons included in the warrants, but who could not be found. I may explain that the armed forces were not intended to be employed, and they were not, in fact, employed, in making the arrests. They were merely present for the purpose of protecting the civil officers in performing their duty. The last part of the Question is one of nomenclature; and, probably, upon the facts stated, it will not be thought that the language employed by the Sheriff to describe the persons who were wanted, but who had disappeared, was inappropriate.