HC Deb 30 November 1888 vol 331 cc602-4
DR. CLARK (Caithness)

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that Hugh Matheson, of Clashmore, who was convicted and sentenced for rioting, has since been liberated, and another person named M'Leod has been convicted, and also sentenced for the offence, Matheson having been mistaken for M'Leod; whether Matheson, in consequence of his conviction, has been dismissed from the Royal Naval Reserve; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to grant a free pardon and to give compensation to Matheson?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON) (Bute)

Hugh Matheson, who was convicted and sentenced for rioting, was liberated after having undergone six months' imprisonment, the Secretary for Scotland considering that this punishment might suffice. Another person, named M'Leod, has been convicted and sentenced for the offence, which was committed by several persons. The Secretary for Scotland has very fully considered this case on an application for a free pardon and compensation to Matheson. His Lordship has decided that there are no adequate grounds for believing that there has been a miscarriage of justice through M'Leod being mistaken for Matheson, or for recommending that a free pardon should be granted for the offence of which he was found guilty. From inquiries I have made at the Admiralty, there does not appear to be any record of the dismissal of anyone named Hugh Matheson from the Naval Reserve. I have no further information on the subject.

DR. CLARK

asked, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that 13 jurors had intimated to the Marquess of Lothian that they believed this man was innocent, and that the two individuals were very similar to each other?

MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON

As regards the latter point, the information which the Secretary for Scotland has is not to the effect that the prisoners are similar in appearance to one another. As regards the other point, a Memorial identical in terms has been sent up from each of the jurymen, commenting on the material sent to the Secretary for Scotland since the trial. They express the opinion that that material proves the innocence of Matheson; but upon that I would say that their position as jurymen in the case does not afford them any special qualification.

DR. CLARK

gave Notice that he would raise the question on the voting of the salary of the Secretary for Scotland.