HC Deb 18 March 1886 vol 303 cc1153-4
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON (, &c.) Wick

asked the Lord Advocate for Scotland, Whether his attention has been called to a report of The Orkney Herald of the 23rd December last, of a case tried before Sheriff Thoms and Sheriffs Substitute Mellis and Mackenzie, in which seven men named Thomas Garrioch Tait, Robert Sinclair, James Mainland, James Cuff, Robert Dearness, John Wylie, and Robert Bremnar, were convicted of rioting; that the only evidence against Sinclair, as shown by the report alluded to, was that he was seen in the crowd, and only one witness saw a flour-bag coming from the point at which Sinclair stood, but could not swear that Sinclair threw it; is it the case that the Fiscal said he did not consider that there was evidence against the panel Robert Sinclair, and that he was prepared to desert the diet against him, but, in the face of this, the Sheriff passed one of the heaviest sentences on Sinclair; is it true that the Provost of Kirkwall had used threats against the postmaster of that town for supporting the present Member; and, will he cause an inquiry to be made into this case and furnish the House with copies of the evidence, and also into the general administration of justice in Kirkwall?

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

My attention has been called to this Report, and I have also seen the papers in the case. I cannot say that the evidence against Sinclair appears to have been confined solely to the point put in the Question; and what the Fiscal, in addressing the jury, is reported to have said, is— He had very seriously considered whether it would not have been consistent with his duty to withdraw the charges against Sinclair, but had felt that the proper course was to leave him in the hands of the Court. In passing sentence the Sheriff said that, as regarded Sinclair— He thought his position, influence, and the fact that he did not use it on the side of order, was an aggravation. I am informed that it is not true that the Provost of Kirkwall has used threats against the Postmaster of that town for supporting the present Member. I have to-day received statements signed by the Provost and the postmaster to this effect. I find that my hon. Friend who puts the Question had a correspondence with the Home Office, and I understand also an interview respecting the matter at the time, and that on the 5th of January an answer was sent to him to the effect that there was no ground for interference. I see no doubt as to the propriety of the conclusion thus arrived at by our Predecessors in Office.