§ MR. J. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid)I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, (1) whether, inasmuch as it is now admitted that no warrant existed for the eviction of the miner and his family from the dwelling house tenanted and occupied by him at Langmuir Rows, near Kirkin-tilloch, on the 29th ultimo, he intends to take any criminal proceedings against the parties concerned in carrying out the eviction; (2) Whether the presence of the police on the occasion referred to was the result of any request or communication from the evictors in anticipation of a probable or possible resistance; (3) whether, under the rules which presently regulate the police in Scotland, it is the duty of the police, when their presence is required or deemed expedient, to satisfy themselves that a legal warrant exists for the eviction; if not, whether the Secretary for Scotland will issue such rules or instructions for the guidance of the police in future; (4) whether the tenant and his friends on the occasion referred to being legally entitled to use physical force in resisting the eviction, the presence of the police on the occasion was intended to overawe and did overawe and overpower the tenant and his friends in their lawful resistance; (5) and, whether a special Inquiry will be made into the circumstances of the eviction and the action of the police?
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,) ButeshireAs at present advised I see nothing calling for any action by the criminal authorities in this case. The presence of the police was the result of a communication from the evictors stating that the eviction was to take place; but the police were specially instructed in no way to interfere, excepting to preserve the peace. There is no 1057 rule requiring the police in cases of eviction to satisfy themselves that a warrant exists, and the Secretary for Scotland does not at present see any necessity for altering the existing rules. I am not prepared to admit the accuracy of the hon. Member's opinion as to the legality of using physical force. There was, however, I am informed no intention of overawing or overpowering the tenant, who denies that he was overawed. I do not propose to order any special inquiry into the matter, as the facts appear to be now fully elicited. In reply to the supplementary question of which the hon. Member has given me private notice, I have to inform him that the notice to remove I referred to in a previous answer, was given on 21st March to remove at 28th May by a Sheriff's Officer, on the printed form used in such cases, and that all the houses in Langmuir Rows are held on weekly (not yearly) tenancies. The notice to remove was therefore ample. I desire to take this opportunity of correcting my previous statement that McDowall had not worked in the colliery for nine months prior to eviction. It now appears that he was very irregular in his work, and had only worked for about nine months out of the eighteen preceding the eviction. He had, however, worked for about five weeks prior to the 25th May, during which time his rent was as usual deducted. A small sum is still owing by him for rent.
§ MR. CALDWELLgave notice that he would call attention to this matter on the vote for Law and Justice.