§ Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that two men were charged at Hawick, on the 8th April, with contravening the Corrupt Practices Act by driving two electors to the poll in a conveyance used for hire; that the men charged stated on oath that they were unaware that the conveyance was so used; that the sheriff in his judgment stated that he did not think anybody was a whit the worse for what transpired, but that he would fine them £1 each, as it was an utter failure on their part to realise their responsibility as committee men; whether this is the same sheriff who made a party speech at Pitlochry on 19th April; and, if so, will he take any steps to prevent in future sheriffs who are called upon to try political cases making party speeches.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure)I understand the sheriff convicted the offenders in the case in question in which a prosecution had been ordered 718 by the Crown) after hearing full evidence, and if my hon. Friend suggests that his decision was in any degree influenced by party considerations, I am satisfied that the suggestion is entirely without foundation. In regard to the concluding portion of the question, the answer, I am informed, is in the affirmative. Pitlochry, however, is not within the sheriff's sheriffdom, and there is no authority by which a sheriff can be restrained from making party speeches.
§ Mr. WATTDoes the hon. and learned Gentleman think that it is possible for this sheriff to make strong speeches one moment, and then on the next to decide cases without prejudice?
§ Mr. SPEAKEROrder, order.