MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, by the Revising Barristers (Ireland) Act, 1886, the clerk of the peace is empowered to nominate a substitute at revision sessions where he cannot attend to the second court himself, such person to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament; whether in Dublin the clerk of the peace's substitute was paid by the Treasury in the year after the passing of the Act; and will he explain why payment has since been refused, and the clerk of the peace in Dublin is compelled to provide the salary of the substitute out of his own pocket; whether he is aware that the clerk of the peace sought to test the legality of such refusal by a petition of right, but was denied sanction to an action; whether the Treasury claims not only to decide the law itself, but to prevent its decisions being legally tested; and whether he has sanctioned the refusal to pay the Dublin clerk of the peace?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER(1) The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, but the law officers advised that the power conferred 691 on the clerk of the peace only applies to the two new courts established by the Act. (2) The claim referred to in paragraph 2 was for a substitute at one of the courts existing before the passing of the Act, with regard to which the clerk of the peace was himself bound to provide a substitute, receiving, as I understand, an allowance for that purpose from the corporation. In the year after the passing of the Act the claim was inadvertently allowed; but as soon as the law officers' opinion was taken the payment could not, of course, be repeated. (3 and 4) I understand that the clerk of the peace sought to test the legality of the Treasury position by a petition of right, but was refused the necessary assent through the Secretary of State for the Home Department. No doubt the refusal was based on the law officers' opinion. (5) The decision not to pay the claim was arrived at by the Board of Treasury in 1887 on the advice of the law officers, and I see no reason to depart from it.
MR. T. M. HEALYDoes the right honourable Gentleman see any objection to having the point decided by a test case? Could not the Treasury get the opinion of a court of law?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThe decision was arrived at by the Secretary of State for the Home Department without reference to the Treasury, and upon the opinion, I understand, of the law officers of the Crown.