HC Deb 05 June 1884 vol 288 cc1536-7
MR. J. W. BARCLAY

asked the Lord Advocate, with reference to the case of Donald Graham, committed to prison in Stornoway for a breach of the peace arising from an attempt by a sheriff's officer to pull down a house erected by Roderick Graham on his father's lot of laud; whether Murdo Graham, the father, was made a party to the sheriff's officer warrant without his authority; whether the warrant proceeded on an interdict which was not executed until the house was finished; whether it was this irregular warrant the sheriff's officer was attempting to execute when the breach of the peace occurred; whether, at the trial of Donald Graham, the sheriff substitute and procurator fiscal attempted to extract evidence from one of the witnesses incriminating persons not on trial; and, whether lie will make any special inquiry into the alleged irregularities in the proceedings referred to, and into the causes of the general dissatisfaction with the administration of justice which exists among the rural population in Lewis; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to satisfy the Crofters of the impartial administration of the law, considering that the agent for the estate is also the public prosecutor, and that the Crofters have difficulty in determining whether his acts are by authority of the landlord or of the Crown?

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

With reference to the first part of this Question, I am informed that the warrant was not obtained without the authority of Murdo Graham, father of Roderick Graham. Murdo Graham complained to the Chamberlain on the estate that his son was proceeding to erect a house on his (Murdo Graham's) croft, and he granted a mandate to the Chamberlain to petition for interdict against the son erecting the house, and also for warrant to pull down any building erected by the son. Murdo Graham was made a party to the petition in virtue of this mandate. My information in regard to the second head of the Question is that the house was roofed in, but not completed internally, when the interdict was served. It was an ordinary beehive hut, built of dry stone, and thatched with turf or straw, such as is usually erected in a few days. Before Roderick Graham began to build he had been warned that he would not be allowed to do so, and the petition, besides craving interdict, also prayed for warrant to pull down what had been built. No defence was offered; the Sheriff's interlocutors appear to have been warranted by the prayer of the petition; and I do not find any irregularity in them. There appears to be no ground for the suggestion that the Sheriff Substitute and Procurator Fiscal attempted to extract evidence from one of the witnesses for the purpose of incriminating persons not on trial. Three persons were tried for breach of the peace; and one of the witnesses, when pressed to state who were concerned in it, mentioned the names of other persons besides the prisoners. I see no impropriety in this fact having been brought out. I have already twice made inquiries in regard to the proceedings referred to, and no further inquiry seems to me to be necessary. I am not aware that general dissatisfaction with the administration of justice exists among the rural population in Lewis, nor do there appear to be any grounds for such dissatisfaction. There can be no difficulty in determining whether proceedings are taken by the proprietor of the estate or by the Crown, as in the former case the proceeding will bear to be at the instance of the proprietor, and in the latter at the instance of the Procurator Fiscal in his official capacity.