HC Deb 16 February 1888 vol 322 cc556-7
MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether he has observed that Captain Seagrave, who was appointed a Resident Magistrate in September. 1886, stated at the Mitchelstown inquest that he had had no legal training, and that he sits to adjudicate upon cases under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act; whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has convinced himself that this gentleman has any legal knowledge, in accordance with the pledge given in this House, that no Resident Magistrate should adjudicate on cases under this Act of whose legal knowledge the Lord Chancellor has not convinced himself; and, if he has so convinced himself, whether he can state the grounds on which his Lordship's decision was based?


In answer to the lion. Member, I have to say that I am aware of the statement made by Captain Seagrave, and referred to by the hon. Member. It was never contemplated that more than one member of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act should necessarily be a person of the sufficiency of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant should be satisfied; and the 11th section of the Act in this particular corresponds exactly with the 22nd section of the Act of 1882. Captain Segrave is not one of the legally qualified Resident Magistrates. He has, on some occasions, acted as member of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under the Act; but on each of those occasions his colleague has been a legally qualified Resident Magistrate.