§ MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will explain why John Maclean, a fisherman, 80 years of age, and two others, who were found guilty in their absence of the offence of having salmon trout in their nets, which were being used to catch herring, in an arm of the sea near Ullapool, on the 10th July last, were not charged with the said offence until the 9th December, on which day they received notices to appear for trial at Dingwall on the 12th December (Sunday intervening), their homes being about 50 miles distant, and 35 miles being over a rugged mountain road and an arm of the sea; whether he is aware that the delay in this case has given dissatisfaction to the people of Ullapool; and whether the Government propose to take steps to prevent similar delays in bringing alleged offenders to trial?
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,&c.) Clackmannan,The prosecution in this case was not at the instance of any Public Authority, but of the proprietor, and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland explained in a recent answer, the proceedings were delayed as a matter of convenience to the witnesses who had to attend. The Summary Jurisdiction Acts require only 48 hours' notice, but in the present case notice was given to the accused on Saturday morning that the trial would take place on the following Tuesday. I cannot doubt that if a motion for delay had been timeously made on the ground that the accused had not had sufficient notice to enable them to attend, or to prepare for their defence, the Sheriff would have granted it, but the agent for the accused only appeared in Court and asked for an adjournment after the evidence had been led, the accused found guilty by the, Sheriff, and sentence was being moved for. The delay in bringing the case to trial was certainly very great, and it would be possible to limit by legislation the lime for bringing such prosecutions; but if too short a time was limited, this might operate hardly in 1147 the other direction, as I have known of men charged with such offences asking that they should not be brought to trial until their fishing season or their harvest was over.
§ * MR. WEIRWill the right hon. Gentleman say whether these servants— one a gamekeeper and the other a gillie— were in the employ of Sir Arthur—
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERI have repeatedly had to call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that names in this case should not be mentioned. They were struck out on a former occasion.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)The Crown had no kind of responsibility for the prosecution. I believe the witnesses could not attend because their services were required elsewhere.
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURI suppose their master.
§ [No answer was given.]
§ DR. MACGREGORDo the Government intend to fulfil the promise made to me last summer to introduce next Session a Bill dealing with Scottish Salmon Laws?
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURThat is the intention of the Government.