§
Amendment proposed—
Page 26, line 10, leave out 'coroner.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
§ MR. M. HEALYThis clause is a supplement to clause 27, section 3, which preserves the right of the council of a borough to appoint its coroner as heretofore. If this clause stands, it would appear as if the urban district came under the jurisdiction of the county council even when the urban district comprises a borough. I do not know whether I have made myself quite clear.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) Londonderry,N.It was never the intention of the clause to deprive any borough, absorbed in an administrative county, of its existing right to appoint a coroner.
§ MR. M. HEALYBut, I think, there would be a danger as the clause stands. However, I withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§
Amendments proposed—
Page 26, line 11, leave out 'a sheriff and,'
Page 26, line 13, after 'county' insert—
'And a sheriff may be appointed by the Corporation of Belfast and Londonderry, as if these cities were named in the fourth section of the Municipal Privileges (Ireland) Act, and in the manner as in said Act provided.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
MR. T. M. HEALYThe question which I have raised is one, I think, of considerable importance, and I do not know how the Government can resist the Amendment. By Act of Parliament every borough has the right to appoint a sheriff. Now, for the first time, the right honourable Gentleman proposes in this Bill, greatly to my regret, to make Londonderry into a separate county borough. I would like to ask this question: Suppose somebody were to move that a writ be issued for the city of Londonderry, would the intelligent Gentlemen who sit at the Table send the writ to the mayor, or would they send it to the sheriff, or whom would they send it to? At present the mayor gets the writ, but by this Act you will create a sheriff for Londonderry and you will create a sheriff for Belfast. It is true that, as regards Belfast, though I am bound to say that I speak with some hesitation, I believe the mayor in all cases executes the writ; but now you make a sheriff for the first time where he never existed before—namely, Londonderry. I deplore the action of the Government in destroying the old and the historic venue of the county and city of Londonderry, for the first time, without rhyme or reason. You are setting up a new venue, and beyond the fact that it gets this election of the sheriff, I am bound to say I do not see what advantages Londonderry is likely to secure under this clause.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURWe propose to accept the second of the honourable and learned Member's Amendments in a modified form.
MR. T. M. HEALYVery well, then; I withdraw the first Amendment but I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General a question. The right honourable Gentleman said, on a former occasion, that he would still allow the direction of the writ, in the case of 192 merged boroughs, to go to the mayor. I would suggest to him that the proper thing would be to give the borough of Galway some provision of this kind. I thank the Government for having accepted the Amendment.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe form in which I propose to accept the Amendment is this—
In line 13, page 26, after the word 'county,' insert these words, 'of a city named in section 4 of the Municipal Privileges (Ireland) Act, 1875.'
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 26, line 16, at end, insert—
'(a) A justice of the peace for a county, or for a city or town, which, by virtue of this Act, becomes part of the administrative county which it adjoins, shall be a justice of the peace for that county.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
§ MR. M. HEALYI understood the Attorney General to admit that this clause was necessary. I am sure he does not desire that Kilkenny, Galway, and Drogheda should lose their status as counties of cities, and that justices of the peace of those counties shall lose their power in the areas over which their jurisdiction has been exercised, because those areas will no longer exist as a separate judicial entity, and become portions of the larger area.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUROur object is to preserve all existing rights, and I think that they might still continue to act under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1840. But at present I am not quite certain as to the position of Galway and Carrickfergus. Perhaps, if the honourable Member will allow these questions to be reserved for the present, he may be content by my saying that our general policy is that all existing rights shall be preserved, and that justices of the peace shall continue to exercise their functions as hitherto.
§ MR. M. HEALYI am quite satisfied, but I do think it would be a shabby thing if the Government were to restrict the powers of those magistrates 193 just because they chose to destroy the area over which they acted, and to create a sort of hybrid magistracy, the like of which has never existed before in the judicial history of the country. I repeat that it would be very shabby.
§ * MR. ATKINSONAs I understand, the honourable Member wishes that the justices of the peace out of those areas which are destroyed shall be appointed justices for the whole county?
§ MR. M. HEALYHear, hear!
§ MR. SHEEHY (Galway, S.)Inasmuch as the section only affects two localities and a few gentlemen, I think the right honourable Gentleman might well make this small concession, unless there should be some concealed objection to these gentlemen being on the commission of the peace.
§ * MR. JORDANI think this is a concession which the Government might reasonably make.
§ MR. M. HEALYSubject to my right to raise the question again, I withdraw the Amendment now.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 26, line 19, after 'Act' insert—
'(b) The court-houses and other county buildings hitherto used for the purposes of the county Antrim and the city of Belfast, and for the purposes of the county and city of Londonderry, shall continue to be so used, subject to the prescribed conditions."—(Mr. Vesey Knox.)
§ MR. VESEY KNOXThis Amendment is one which I think can be readily accepted. The object of the Amendment that I wish to move is to secure that there shall not be any necessity to build a new court-house either for county Antrim or for Londonderry. At present there is a court-house at Belfast, and there is another at Londonderry, each of which is amply sufficient for judicial purposes, and I venture to say that nobody wants to see a new court-house built there. There is no necessity at Belfast for erecting another court, and in Derry they are improving 194 their present court-house, and certainly it will be quite sufficient for the purposes of the city and county.
MR. T. M. HEALYIs it intended to hold assizes in Limavady, which, I believe, is the right honourable Gentleman's stronghold, or can he suggest where the duties of the county are to be performed? It seems to me that the Government, in making this novel proposal, have, for all assize purposes, separated the city of Derry absolutely from the county. There is no power to hold a court in another county. If a prisoner is to be tried, he is tried in the county of Derry, unless the right honourable Gentleman resorts to the Crimes Act. The city of Derry is as widely removed from the county of Derry as if it were the city of London.
§ * MR. ATKINSONThere is scarcely a city in Ireland—
§ MR. M. HEALYWhat about Cork?
§ * MR. ATKINSONWhere the prisoners of an adjoining county are not tried in the county situated next to it. The county of Derry is separated for county purposes from the county of the city, but prisoners in the county will still be tried in the courthouse, which, for assize purposes, will be considered as in the county of Derry, just as they are tried in the county of the city of Limerick, Cork, Kilkenny, and Waterford.
§ MR. M. HEALYThe right honourable Gentleman has referred to the city of Cork, and he has said that prisoners from the county of Cork are tried in the city of Cork because there is an expressed enactment for that, and when the court-house was burned down ten years ago and a temporary court had to be held elsewhere, a special enactment had to be brought forward. I do think that without some expressed enactment the city of Derry court-house will be deemed to be in the county of Derry, and there might be some awkward inquiries made by the judges. What I rise to say is this: that the Order in Council does not explicitly deal with this question. It is a general clause, 195 designed, no doubt, to carry out the Act, but it is dangerous to have a general clause when you want a specific one. All it says is that the county council will hold the court-house in trust for the same purpose as the prison. At present it is held in trust for one county alone. It appears to me that not only in the case of Derry but in other cases there will want to be an expressed provision made for the apportionment of counties, and I think my honourable Friend was quite right to raise this question.
§ * MR. ATKINSONwas understood to say that the Cork Act to which the honourable Member referred was not an Act dealing with court-houses.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXThere would be an interesting problem as to what would happen in the case of prisoners. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman to look into the question of the maintenance of these court-houses, and make some provision as to the powers of the authorities. Of course, I suppose it will be a matter for adjustment. In the case of Belfast there is a case which arises quite apart from the case of Derry. In the case of Belfast the courthouse will be used for an area which contains some 60,000 people.
MR. T. M. HEALYWill the right honourable Gentleman say what will become of the property of the court-house merged?
§ * MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLThis, of course, is a very serious section, and we Irish lawyers are rather in an unfortunate position, because, when Bills are discussed in this House, and passed, and afterwards criticised, the Irish lawyers who are present at the time are taunted for not having called attention to the defects in the Bill. That is the case in the Land Bill of 1896, which has come to be regarded as a laughingstock in the Four Courts of Dublin. Now, I quite agree with the honourable and learned Member for North Louth that 196 some change is needed in this Bill. It is a question affecting the criminal jurisdiction of the county, and when prisoners are brought up, counsel will at once get up and say, "My Lords, You have no jurisdiction to try this prisoner in this particular court-house." I trust, before the Bill passes through this House, it will be abundantly clear that no question of jurisdiction will arise.
§ * MR. ATKINSONMy right honourable Friend need have no fear; it will be abundantly clear.
§ * MR. DILLONwas understood to say that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had promised to receive a deputation from Drogheda on this question. He himself waited some time to introduce that deputation, when an official came and presented a letter saying that, inasmuch as the Chief Secretary had written saying he would only receive the Mayor and Town Clerk of Drogheda, he could not see him [Mr. Dillon]. He would not trouble the right honourable Gentleman again. What occurred was that these gentlemen who comprised the deputation desired to be present, in order to impress the Chief Secretary with the fact that all were at one on the question, but in order to convenience the Chief Secretary they arranged that only two should speak. He (Mr. Dillon) must say these gentlemen had gone back to Drogheda with a very extraordinary idea as to the disposition of the right honourable Gentleman.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say that, unless he thought he had made quite a different arrangement from that referred to by Mr. Dillon, he would not have taken the course he did. Although the honourable Member said that only two members of the deputation had intended to speak, he [Mr. Balfour] was sorry to say that his experience of deputations was that there was a desire for each one to speak.
MR. T. M. HEALYI accept that statement of the right honourable Gentleman, but he will make some allowance for the feelings of those who are con- 197 strained to cross the Channel, in order to see the Chief Secretary, and then find that they cannot do so.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 26, lines 22 and 23, leave out 'Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1885,' and insert—
'Representation of the People Acts as defined by the Representation of the People Act, 1884.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
§ MR. M. HEALYI do not think the Parliamentary Registration Act contains any provision as to "borough" or "county."
§ * MR. ATKINSONwas understood to refer to the Redistribution of Seats Act.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYThe Redistribution of Seats Act only defines new boundaries—the right honourable Gentleman will find I am right.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 26, line 23, at end, add—
'Or confer any right to vote at the election of a member to serve in Parliament in any Parliamentary borough where such right did not previously exist.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURaccepted the Amendment.
§ Clause 45, as amended, added to Bill.