HC Deb 15 February 1887 vol 310 cc1552-4
DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his atten- tion has been called to the following certificate as to the mental condition of Myles Martin, a crofter, at present undergoing three months' imprisonment (in addition to two months' confinement previous to trial) for having been one of a crowd guilty of mobbing and rioting— Manse of Kilmuir, December 4th, 1886. Myles Martin, now in the prison of Inverness, and indicted to stand his trial in the High Court of Justiciary on the 13th, is a weakling and the son of a weakling, and a pauper the son of a pauper. A deceased uncle was a reported lunatic. Certified at Kilmuir, this fourth day of December, 1880, by Jas. Grant, Minister of the Parish and Chair- man of the Parochial Board; whether Mr. M'Phail, Free Church minister at Kilmuir, corroborated this by a written statement, dated 3rd December, 1886— That Myles Martin is a poor weak-minded lad, who has been regarded as imbecile from his birth, and has been supported by the Parochial Board of the parish; whether these Certificates had been communicated to the Crown authorities when they authorized Martin's prosecution; and, whether, considering that Martin committed no act of violence, and if an imbecile could hardly be supposed to understand the law of mobbing and rioting, he will, if he finds the facts stated in the certificates to be well founded, take steps for the remission of the remaining term of his sentence?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

I have seen the certificates in question; and I am informed by the Lord Advocate that they were intimated to the Crown Authorities four days before the commencement of the trial. An inquiry was at once ordered by the Lord Advocate, and was undertaken by a medical officer of long experience and high reputation, who reported that there was no ground for holding the prisoner to be imbecile or unfit for trial. It also came to the knowledge of the Lord Advocate that this same man had a short time previously conducted his own defence in a trial for theft in the Summary Court very intelligibly and successfully. I concur with the Lord Advocate in thinking that there was no reason to believe the prisoner was not fully aware of every act he was doing, and I can advise no interference.

DR. CAMERON

asked, whether any evidence had been tendered as to the man's condition before the decision was pronounced?

MR. MATTHEWS

said, that, so far as he was aware, no such evidence had been tendered.