HC Deb 27 February 1888 vol 322 cc1483-4
MR. DEASY(for Mr. T. M. HEALY) (Longford, N.)

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the report in The Cork Herald, of 10th February, of the proceedings at Rath-more Petty Sessions, from which it appears that Mr. Cecil Roche endeavoured to secure precedence to cases under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, in opposition to the unpaid magistrates sitting with him; whether the following is a correct report of a portion of the proceedings:— Mr. Roche: The local magistrates did not attend for two months, and the result is that the Crimes Act cases have been delayed by the hearing of the others. Mr. Coltsman: I don't consider that the Crimes Court is entitled to take precedence of the ordinary Petty Sessions Court. Mr. Leonard: Neither do I. Mr. Roche: We will see what the Lord Chancellor has to say on the matter. Mr. Coltsman: I must enter my strongest protest against the conduct of Mr. Roche. He endeavoured to intimidate the local magistrates from proceeding with the ordinary business of the Court, and he has threatened Mr. Leonard and myself with the Lord Chancellor. I need scarcely say that both Mr. Leonard and I disregard this threat, and we will do what we consider our duty; whether the Government intend to take any notice of the language of Mr. Roche; if Mr. Roche did complain to the Lord Chancellor what reply he received; and, what power the Lord Chancellor has, and under what statute, to regulate the precedence of Petty Sessions cases?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN) (Dublin University)

My attention has been called, by the Question of the hon. and learned Member, to the report in The Cork Herald referred to in the Question. I am unable to state whether the report is accurate in every particular; but it is the fact that a difference of opinion arose between the members of the Bench on the occasion in question as to the order in which the business before the Bench should be proceeded with. The Government do not intend to take any notice of what occurred on that occasion. Both parties represented their views to the Lord Chancellor, who, however, does not regulate the precedence of cases before Courts of Petty Sessions. I believe that the incident has now completely terminated.

MR. DEASY

May I ask—and my Question arises out of the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman—whether he will not consider it to be his duty to see that the paid magistrates—the officers under the direction of Dublin Castle—are not permitted to intimidate the unpaid magistrates?

MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

May I also ask whether Mr. D. Cronin Coltsman has been a magistrate of the County Kerry for 45 years, and whether he is not also a deputy lieutenant for that county, and also a large landowner in that county; and, whether this discussion occurred in open Court, and whether it was initiated by Mr. Cecil Roche?

MR. MADDEN

I am not really aware of the facts with reference to Mr. Coltsman. The facts as stated by the hon. Member may be perfectly true.