§ MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the Board of Works in Ireland were, at the Castleconnell Petty Sessions, on the 5th instant, fined in the sum of £1,820 and costs for having failed to provide a Queen's gap in two feel weirs on the Shannon; that the magistrates, in imposing this heavy penalty, acted on a decision of the Irish Court of Queen's Bench; and that such decision was based on the repeal of s. 41 of the 5 & 6 Vic., c. 106, and other enactments by The Statute Law Revision Act, 1892; (2) whether, seeing that the Statute Law Revision Acts are confined to repealing enactments which have become obsolete, and are understood to effect no practical change in the Law, he can explain how it happened that important enactments, such as those referred to, were repealed in this way, with the consequences described; (3) who is the official responsible for this repeal; and (4) whether any Vote for his salary appears on the Estimates?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Ms. J. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.The facts are stated in the first paragraph with substantial accuracy, except that the decision of the Queen's Bench Division was not based upon the express repeal by the Statute Law Revision Act of 1892 of Section 41 of the 5 & 6 Vic. c. 106, but on the implied repeal of this Section by the 9th Section and 3 following of the 26 & 27 Vic. cap. 114. With regard to the second paragraph of the Question, the repeal of this Section by the Act of 1892 was, under the circumstances, and according to the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, correct. Statute Law Revision Bills are prepared under the superintendence of the Statute Law Revision Committee, and any doubtful points affecting Ireland are referred to the Irish Attorney General. As to the 262 concluding paragraph, both the salary of the Attorney General and the expenses of the Statute Law Revision Committee are provided for in the Estimates.