DR. CAMEEONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the trial before Sheriff Substitute Black at Stornoway, on the 20th inst., of three crofters and an apprentice baker for mobbing a tacksman named Martin in that town on the 29th December; whether it is the case, as stated by the 1747 sheriff, that Martin had recently mutilated some sheep belonging to crofters which he had found on his land, and had himself wantonly provoked the demonstration against him by denouncing the crofters of the island as "thieves and robbers;" whether the sheriff discharged the principal accused on the ground that Martin had "metaphorically speaking flown at his throat;" whether he sentenced the other crofters to 30 days, and the apprentice baker to 14 days' imprisonment, without option of a fine, on the ground that there was no evidence that they had heard the provocative language used; and, whether, taking into consideration the fact that the crowd which hooted Martin consisted of 200persons, that he was not physically assaulted, and that there was no evidence to show that the men imprisoned were ringleaders or exceptionally active members of the mob, he will consider the propriety of revising the severe sentences passed upon them?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he would ask that the Question might be postponed until the official Report was received.
DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, What sentence was passed upon Roderick Martin for mutilating the crofters' sheep in the manner described by Sheriff Black; and whether it is intended to take proceedings against him for having, according to the statement of the same Judge, so conducted himself as to provoke a breach of the peace?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)The matter referred to in the first part of this Question has been made the subject of a civil, but not of a criminal trial. The case was fully investigated by the criminal authorities, and, briefly stated, the following appear to be the facts:—Martin had a stock of high-bred ewes which he had put into a place specially adapted for securing that there should be no interference with the purity of the breed. He found two tups of inferior breed amongst them, which, from the nature of the place, there was strong reason to believe must have been put there on purpose, and he j castrated the tups which he so found. In so doing, ho was going beyond his legal right; but it appeared, upon the evidence, that there exists in the Island a cruel custom of so treating tups which 1748 are found amongst the ewes belonging to other persons, and the question came to be whether, under these circumstances, there was ground for a criminal charge of what is known in law as malicious mischief. If it had appeared that what Martin did was done merely for the sake of injuring the owners of the tups, and not for the purpose of protecting his own stock by means which he believed to be legitimate, such a charge would have been preferred against him. But upon the evidence there seemed to be no doubt that Martin in bonâ fide, although mistakenly, believed that it was within his right in adopting this step, in accordance with the local custom already referred to; and this being so, the facts would not have sustained a criminal charge of malicious mischief. The case was, however, tried in the Civil Court, where, on the one hand, the owner of the tups claimed their value from Martin, and he, on the other hand, made a counter-claim for the damage which the tups had done to his ewes; and the Sheriff found that equal amounts were due by the litigant parties to each other on these heads. The Sheriff quiterightly, in my judgment, held that this custom, although apparently universal in the Island, was not a good defence to a civil action, and I hope that now that it has been authoritatively declared to be illegal it will not again be acted upon. After the warning thus given, it cannot be assumed that an assertion of a bonâ fide, though mistaken, idea of right will again protect anyone adopting so cruel a course from criminal proceedings. Before answering the second part of the Question, I should desire to have an opportunity of obtaining an official Report on the case to which it relates.
DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the manner in which the trial at Stornoway of certain crofters charged with deforcing a messenger-at-arms is reported to have been conducted by Sheriff Substitute Black, and the speech made by him in pronouncing judgment; whether it is true, as stated by the solicitor for the accused, the procurator fiscal in charge of the case is also estate agent to the proprietor at whose instance the deforced messenger was serving summonses; and, whether, taking into account the importance in the pre- 1749 sent excited state of the Highlands of securing the administration of justice in a manner calculated to command public confidence in its impartiality, he will consider the propriety of reviewing the sentences passed in the case in question, and direct that in future persons accused of agrarian offences in the island of Lewis should be tried before some other court?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), who replied, said: Attention has been called to this trial. The position of the Procurator Fiscal has been repeatedly explained in this House. He is not estate agent to the proprietor at whose instance the deforced messenger was serving summonses. The summons, in the course of serving which the deforcement occurred, was at the instance of James Mackenzie, a tacksman, with concurrence of Lady Matheson. It was prepared by Edinburgh agents, under whose direction the whole proceedings were carried out. The partner of the Procurator Fiscal occasionally acts in local Court matters for Lady Matheson, as well as for other clients, including crofters; but for some time past the Procurator Fiscal has not himself engaged in any civil law business; and communications are in progress which, it is hoped, will result in an arrangement being made for his devoting himself exclusively to the business of his public office, and his ceasing to be connected, even as a partner, with anyone engaged in private practice. The sentences do not seem to have been excessive, and there does not appear to be any sufficient reason for reviewing them on this ground.
§ MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a letter from the Rev. Donald M'Callum, published in The Oban Times of the 7th February, reflecting on legal proceedings at Glendale; and, if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the truth of the allegations made by the reverend gentleman above named? In putting the Question, the hon. Member added: I wish to explain that I put it upon the action of a legal functionary—namely, Sheriff Ivory; and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, whether, in putting a Question about a public official, it is not permitted to state the name of the public official? The name has been 1750 struck out of my Question as it appears in the Papers.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman asks me a Question on a point of Order. The Question could not be received in that form, because it impugned the conduct of a Judge, and that would not be the proper form to impugn the conduct of such an official.
§ MR. MACFARLANEIf I impugned the conduct of the Judge in question, no doubt you were quite right, but——
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I have given my ruling on the point of Order in reply to your Question, and it is scarcely for the hon. Member to question that ruling.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), who replied, said: I quite understand the matter, and I have seen the statement in the letter to which attention has been called. The statements of the Sheriff on the subject to which it relates will be found in his Report, with respect to which a Question is on the Paper for to-morrow. No further inquiry seems to be necessary.