HC Deb 16 March 1886 vol 303 cc967-8
DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is true that the Justiciary Appeal Court has unanimously quashed the sentence of imprisonment recently passed in the Orkney Sheriff Court on the Reverend Matthew Armour for his conduct at an election meeting; whether it is true, as reported, that Lord Young, in passing judgment, referred to the prosecution of Mr. Armour as follows:— If I were to express the opinion which I have of this prosecution, I am afraid I should have to use somewhat strong language. I never saw a more nimious prosecution; and, whether he can state the amount of expense incurred in the prosecution referred to?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (, &c.) Clackmannan

It is true that the High Court of Justiciary has unanimously quashed the sentence in question, and the newspaper report of Lord Young's opinion—the accuracy of which I have no reason to doubt—bears that his Lordship expressed himself in the terms quoted in the Question. I understand that there were no separate expenses of material amount incurred in the prosecution, the Procurator Fiscal being a salaried official, and the witnesses who were examined having been already in Kirkwall in connection with the trial of the Sanday rioters, the cost of detaining the witnesses, and probably some small Court fees, would apparently be the only separate expenses.