§ Mr. JAMES HOGGEIn the ten minutes that remain, I want to raise the question of the Scottish cottars. Last night we were not able to hear a complete statement from the Secretary for Scotland. I observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here leading the House. It is extremely appropriate, and I hope that he will give me his attention. The crofter, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is a celt, and the right hon. Gentleman must therefore understand his feelings and those of the men who are in gaol at the present time. We have been going through very exciting times, drawing up all sorts of orders to keep a few officers present at the War Office; but this Government has absolutely no time to pay attention to the fact that eleven Scotsmen are languishing in prison clothes in Calton Gaol. We are not at all concerned in Scotland with this question of the Army. We are concerned with the liberty of our fellow Scotsmen. The Secretary of State last night complained that he had not sufficient time to make the reply he wanted to make. I propose therefore to draw my remarks to a conclusion at once in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us that reply. If his statement is not satisfactory, there are many of us who will be able to continue the discussion.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYA statement has been made in this matter that there has not been any precedent for the release of a prisoner for contempt. That statement is incorrect. I think it will be found that just previous to the occasion on which His late Majesty King Edward VII. visited Ireland a Member of this House, who sat for North Sligo (Mr. P. A. McHugh), who was then in gaol—I am almost certain for contempt of Court—by some means (in my opinion, by the exercise of the Royal prerogative) was discharged from prison, and the Irish judges took no offence. I am pretty sure that Lord Strathclyde, if the matter were presented to him, would take a like view with regard to the exercise of the clemency of His Majesty in this case.
The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood)The statement I made yesterday referred to the practice in England and Scotland. As to the case mentioned by the hon. and learned Member who last spoke, the House will observe that he guarded himself very carefully when saying that the release was effected by the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. Nor did I make the unqualified statement that there were no cases in regard to which that prerogative might have been exercised. What I said was that where it is a case like this, in which the Court passed the sentence because the subject before it would not give an undertaking to obey its injunction, there was no precedent for the exercise of the prerogative. [An HON. MEMBER "Create one !"] I will not create one. I think it would be a serious innovation on the rights of Courts of Justice in this country. As I was beginning to tell the House last night—it is very difficult to discuss a question like this in a few minutes—on this subject the Home Office was advised by such great legal authorities as Lord Herschell, Sir Henry James, and Mr. Justice A. L. Smith, and they all agreed it would be most impossible for the Executive to interfere with the action of the Court. If the House considers it for a moment, without any legal argument but with the mere exercise of ordinary common sense, it will see that there is a great deal of importance and principle in that question. It is not at all like a question of interfering with punitive cases. Here is a case in which a man, a small farmer, after patiently suffering for some time, applies to the Court to prevent his neighbours from driving his sheep and cattle off his farm. He was a man renting a small pastoral farm at £75 a year, and his neighbours desired to have that farm. It was land such as you would find on a golf course at the seaside—sandy land with rough grass. This man appealed to the Court for protection after his cattle and sheep had been driven off several times. When the case came into Court the counsel for the landlord and the tenant said they did not wish to ask for any punishment if the men would only undertake not to go on disturbing the cattle and sheep, and seizing his land. That undertaking was refused. The Court was presided over by a man very well known in this House, a man against whom no charge of brutality, such as has been made in resolutions I 791 have received on this subject, could be sustained for a moment—the Lord President of the Court of Session. The judges were very patient with the crofters. They asked, "Will you give this undertaking?" Their counsel said that they would not. The judge then said, "I want to know if you have asked them individually, because I do not want to imprison any one who will give the undertaking. We will adjourn this until after lunch for you to speak to them." My hon. Friend says they were Gaelic-speaking people. But they were represented by solicitor and counsel of standing at the Scottish Bar. Counsel came back and said, "I have interrogated them one by one, and they will not give the undertaking."
§ Lord HUGH CECILWill they give it now?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThey have been asked since the trial if they will give the undertaking. They have only to give the undertaking, and, though I cannot speak for the Court, I am perfectly certain that the Court will immediately release them. They will not give the undertaking.
§ Mr. MACMASTERHow does that appear?
Mr. McKINNON WOODIt appears because they have not given it. They have been seen, and they have so far declined to give it. I do not blame the crofters, but I think they are ill-advised. I think they have been advised not to give that undertaking.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONDoes my right hon. Friend suggest that I gave them that advice?
§ Mr. MACMASTERHow do you know that they refused to give the undertaking?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThat is a ridiculous question. They refused it in open Court, and they have not given the undertaking even now. If they will give the undertaking there is not the least doubt that the Court will release them. They were not sentenced for driving cattle, but because they would not promise not to drive cattle. Here is a small, respectable farmer, a law-abiding, decent man—
Mr. McKINNON WOODWhat right have you to say that that man is not to get the protection of the law when people interfere with him in the lawful carrying on of his daily business. I cannot take that land. [HON. MEMBERS: "You can."] I cannot. That is the sort of unfair position hon. Members take up. They blame me for not releasing the men.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONWill my right hon. Friend assist these men and help them to give an undertaking, by saying that he will do whatever he can at the Board of Agriculture to give them land?
Mr. McKINNON WOODMy hon. and learned Friend knows—we have been discussing this question for days—that I have been most anxious to get them settled, but I am not going to bribe them. I get every week threats from men that if they do not get land where they want it, and at the time they want it, that they will seize it. I have no right to take that land compulsorily; it is below the limit.
Mr. McKINNON WOODIt is below the limit, and I cannot. I have had advice on the point, and am advised that I have no power to take the land. There is not the slightest doubt about it that we have not that power.
§ It being half-past Five of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
§ Adjourned at Half after Five o'clock. till Monday next, 30th March.