§ MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross)To ask the Lord Advocate whether he or his Department have done anything to encourage or sanction the alleged violation of law and order in the island of Vatersay; whether he advised the Secretary for Scotland that Lady Gordon Cathcart should take the remedies open in a civil court to prevent invasion of her rights in the island; and, in view of the charges made against him, whether the advice tendered was in accordance with precedent.
§ MR. GULLAND (Dumfries Burghs)To ask the Lord Advocate whether Lady Gordon Cathcart was informed that the proper course, as advised by the law officers of the Crown in regard to the Vatersay squatters, was for her to proceed in the ordinary way by interdict against them; and whether her agent urged the authorities to take criminal proceedings, contrary to the advice received, in order to save her Ladyship trouble and expense.
(Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw) I propose to answer those two Questions together, and I have to ask the indulgence of the House in making a somewhat full reply. It is not usual to ask a Law Officer what advice he has given to a Department, and it would be irregular to enter upon the law of the case. In the special circumstances, and looking to certain charges made against the Government, I may be allowed, however, to say that it is the fact that the Secretary for Scotland was advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that the proper course to prevent invasion of civil rights in Vatersay was for the proprietor to take the remedy of interdict in a civil court with the consequent proceedings (in the event of the interdict not being obeyed) of a petition for breach thereof. The advice was completely in accord with precedent and, I may add, with practice. In the language of Lord Justice Clerk Moncreiff: "A proprietor is entitled to prevent strangers coming on his ground. That is his right; and persons who come 895 upon his ground must show their legal right to be there, otherwise he is entitled to exclude them. Trespass constitutes in the general case a civil wrong and not a criminal act, and the proprietor's remedy is by civil writ or action of damages." The present Lord Justice Clerk, while Lord Advocate, apprised this House of the same principle of administration in Scotland in this form: "That every man must defend his own property or we must turn every person sworn to be a trespasser into a criminal. The law in this free country (Scotland) says 'No' to that. It says that if a man trespasses on the property of another he can only be turned out on the operation of a civil court, and the owner of property has to suffer any damage done that may occur during the time necessary for that operation, because this is a free country, and because we believe that everybody will submit to the jurisdiction of those courts. "This law is elementary, and familiar to all acquainted with Scottish procedure; and it is difficult to understand the state of mind which, by reason of its being followed, has produced the totally baseless charge against the Government of encouraging or sanctioning violation of the law. With reference to the next Question, I have to admit that Lady Gordon Cathcart was informed by the Secretary for Scotland that he had been advised as above; and I deeply regret to have also to admit that she by her agent did bring forward the question of difficulty and expense to herself, and urged the Secretary for Scotland that the Scottish Office should proceed at once and criminally against squatters on her lands, although advised to a contrary effect by the Law Officers of the Crown. This course, which would have been one of the grossest impropriety, was declined. The House, perhaps, will allow me to add that a congestion of poor and landless people on this property, in close proximity to considerable tracts of land alleged to be available for small holdings, not unnaturally produces difficulties. Two recent facts increase those difficulties: (1) All private appeals and all the suggestions of public authorities to make land in Vatersay available for small holdings have, as the House will see from the White Paper (30), been refused by Lady Gordon Cathcart, but the rejection by the House of Lords of the Small Holders Bill, which would have 896 provided a remedy, increases the gravity of the position; (2) during the course of the correspondence the landlord has let the whole of Vatersay and two other islands—in all over 3,000 acres in extent—to one tenant on a lease of nineteen years, with a break at ten years. The interdict case, which, after much delay, has been proceeded with, is still sub judice, and it would be improper for me to make any comment upon it; but I may be allowed to express the earnest hope that all writs will be served, and these and the law in every respect obeyed, without disturbance, or attempt at, or threat of, disturbance. As to charges against the Lord-Advocate, I say nothing; most of them, it will be seen, arise from pure ignorance.