HC Deb 07 May 1883 vol 279 cc26-7
DR. CAMERON

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to a Petition for inquiry into his case, sent to the Home Secretary by William Meikle, accountant in Edinburgh, convicted, in April 1881, of breach of trust and embezzlement; and, whether there is any truth in the statement made therein that Robert Laidlaw Stuart, Procurator Fiscal of Court of Midlothian, at whose instance the prosecution against Meikle was undertaken, was a partner in the firm of Messrs. Stuart and Cheyne, W.S., who had been employed as agents in the civil disputes out of which the charge of breach of trust and embezzlement originated; and, if so, whether he will urge upon the Government the necessity of adopting means to prevent public prosecutors compromising their position of neutrality by engaging in private practice in districts where they prosecute in the public interest?

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

A Petition was received from William Meikle, who was convicted of breach of trust and embezzlement in 1881 by the unanimous verdict of the jury. The presiding Judge reports the case to have been a very bad one, and Meikle was twice previously convicted of the same offence in the Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire in 1876 and 1877. Mr. Stuart, Procurator Fiscal of Mid Lothian, is a partner of the firm of Stuart and Cheyne, W.S. Mr. Stuart reports that his firm never were, to his knowledge, employed as agents in any civil dispute connected with the matters out of which the charge of breach of trust and embezzlement arose. But Meikle has forwarded a letter which shows that he had had correspondence with that firm on a subject which had a connection, though not a very direct connection, with the criminal charge. In the present case, I cannot find the slightest indication that the interests of justice have suffered by Mr. Stuart's partnership in a professional firm. But I am of opinion that it is desirable, where possible, that Procurators Fiscal should not engage in private practice as solicitors. An absolute rule to this effect would involve a heavy demand on the Treasury. But on the occurrence of recent vacancies, wherever the salary has admitted of it, provision has been made for the separation of the public duties from private practice.