HC Deb 20 July 1888 vol 329 cc37-9
MR. A. SUTHERLAND

(Sutherland asked the Lord Advocate, Whether ratepayers in Scotland who are in arrear of poor rate at the time of the election of a Parochial Board are entitled to vote for candidates at such election, or to sit at such Board if elected; whether Evan Sutherland, esquire, of Skibo, in the County of Sutherland, being in arrear of his poor rate at the time of the election of the present Parochial Board of Creich, in the said County of Sutherland, now sits as a member of that Board, and has been elected its Chairman in the face of the protest of several members; and, whether, in these circumstances, his election is valid?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)

This is a purely legal Question; and, in reply, I beg to refer the hon. Member to Sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Poor Law Act of 1845, which deals with the qualifications of members of Parochial Boards and electors. I beg also to refer him to Section 27, which provides a means of testing the validity of any disputed election. Mr. Sutherland is, I have no doubt, a member of the Parochial Board, in virtue of his qualification as an owner under Section 22, and is not an elected member. The electing of a Chairman is left entirely to the Board by Section 31 of the said Act.

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

asked, whether it was not the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to answer legal Questions put to them across the Table of the House?

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

said, he did not consider it was the duty of the Law Officers to do so.

MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

asked, whether it was not the case that this rule as to the payment of rates applied only to occupiers and not to heritors?

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

said, he stated that he had no doubt Mr. Sather- land was put upon the Board as an owner, and not as an elected member.

MR. ANDERSON

repeated his Question to the First Lord of the Treasury as to the duty of the Law Officers to answer legal Questions.

THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I have always understood that a Question on a point of law is one which it is not compulsory upon any Law Officer of the Crown to answer. There are methods of obtaining decisions upon points of law; and it would be inconvenient if the Law Officers of the Crown expressed an opinion upon questions which might become sub judice.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

asked, whether it was not the fact that sometimes owners were ten times more numerous on Parochial Boards than elected members?

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

I think that might certainly happen sometimes.