§ Mr. O'DOHERTYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on the 8th April a writ of summons was issued on behalf of the Irish Society and the proprietors of the Foyle and Bann Fishery Company, and, at their relation, by His Majesty's Attorney - General, against the fishermen in the congested district of North-East Innishowen, claiming not only to stop drift-net fishing outside 708W the Foyle, but the use of any such nets anywhere within territorial waters in the ocean; that the expense of defending such action is wholly beyond the means of the poor fishermen, in which case a decision obtained in favour of the plaintiffs would impair the rights of the public and the Crown, and create vested rights in the Irish Society and their lessees to the exclusive right to fish for salmon in the ocean anywhere oft the Northern Coast; and, in view of the possible consequences to the fishermen and their calling and livelihood, and also to the public right, will he state the circumstances under which His Majesty's Attorney-General is named as plaintiff therein, and also hold an inquiry into the merits of the case, and, if satisfied that the consequences mentioned would follow, he will direct that the costs of defending the public rights will be defrayed out of the public funds?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI am informed that an action has been begun in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland as stated in the question. The questions involved are partly of a private and partly of a public nature. Objection has frequently been taken by Boards of Conservators, and persons interested in angling and inland fisheries generally, to the use of drift nets by fishermen at the mouths of salmon rivers in such a manner as, it is alleged, to prevent the free passage of salmon up the rivers, and one of the questions raised in this action is whether this practice is legal or not. For the determination of this question the Attorney-General is a necessary party to the suit, and he has accordingly allowed his name to be used as a plaintiff by the relators. By doing so, according to the ordinary practice, he does not in any way support the plaintiff's contentions. He merely allows the question at issue to be brought before the Court for determination in point of law, being satisfied that aprim´ facie case has been made out by the relators, who are the real plaintiffs, to be brought before the court for determination. It would be quite out of the question for me to hold an inquiry into the merits of the case, which it is for the Courts to determine. The Court also will have power to award the defendants their costs if the plaintiffs' claim is not established. I could not, without usurping the jurisdiction of the Courts, direct the costs of the defendants to be paid out of the public funds.
709W