§ SIR C. CAMERON (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Dr. Lamont (recently unanimously acquitted of certain charges of issuing false certificates of vaccination brought against him by the procurator fiscal at Lochmaddy) who was arrested in his mother's house in Glasgow at 12 o'clock p.m. on the 17th of last September, and locked up in a police cell in Glasgow till the mornnig of 19th September, and on being taken to Lochmaddy was again locked up in a police cell during the nights of 20th and 21st September; whether he is aware that the charge is dated Lochmaddy, the 19th September, or two days after Dr. Lamont was arrested in Glasgow, and the warrant for his apprehension is dated the 21st September, or four days after he was apprehended; 524 and will he explain on what authority Dr. Lamont was apprehended and locked up; whether the warrant in question was granted by Dr. W. P. Mackenzie, an honorary sheriff-substitute, who was subsequently one of the witnesses for the Crown against Dr. Lamont; what right had the procurator fiscal to cause Dr. Lamont's arrest and imprisonment four days before the issue of a warrant for his apprehension; whether, if such an irregularity took place, he will cancel Dr. Mackenzie's commission as honorary sheriff-substitute and remove the procurator fiscal in question from his office; and whether the Scotch Office has submitted to the Treasury the recommendation unanimously made by the jury which tried Dr. Lamont, that the Crown should make him pecuniary compensation for the loss and indignities to which he had been subjected; and, if so, with what result?
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,) Buteshire
The honourable Baronet called my attention to the subject-matter of this Question on the 27th ultimo, and I refer him to the answer I then gave, to the terms of which I adhere. The statement in the second paragraph of this Question is not correct. The original charge against Dr. Lamont was dated, Lochmaddy, 10th September, with warrant for apprehension of same date; and it was on this charge and warrant that his apprehension was ordered and was executed in Glasgow on the 17th. The charge mentioned in the Question was a subsequent charge including further cases, the warrant upon which did not need to be executed as Dr. Lamont was already in custody. I have already explained that the warrant was issued in ordinary course by the honorary sheriff-substitute; there was therefore no irregularity in the apprehension. As regards the last paragraph, the recommendation of the jury was not as stated, but was that Dr. Lamont's expenses should be paid. I have already expressed my regret that Dr. Lamont should have been arrested, but as I also said that in my judgment in the circumstances the arrest was justifiable, there is no precedent for asking the Treasury to make any such payment.