I move that the Bill do now pass.
PUBLIC SAFETY (POWERS OF ARREST AND DETENTION) - THE COURTS OF JUSTICE BILL, 1923—FIFTH STAGE.
There are a certain number of small verbal amendments that it is necessary for me to ask the permission of the Dáil to have inserted in the Bill. Deputies will remember that on the Second Reading, Deputy O'Connell raised the question about having the Irish titles of the various Courts inserted. I am sorry that up to the present it has not been possible to have an agreed set of Irish titles, but I now propose, if there is no objection, to have amendments inserted. The first amendment is in Section 3, line 29, to insert after the word "Court" the words ("Priomh-Chuirt Choireamhail").
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In Section 4, line 3, to delete the words "Saorstát Eireann" and to insert in lieu thereof ("An Ard-Chuirt Bhreitheamhnais").
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In Section 4, line 5, to insert after the word President the word ("Uachtarán"), and in line 6 to insert after the word "Judge" the word ("Breitheamh").
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In Section 5, lines 8 and 9, delete from "the Supreme Court" to "consisting" and insert in lieu thereof the words "a Supreme Court of Justice (Chúirt Bhreitheamhnais Uachtarach) shall be constituted under this Act to be the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State (An Chuirt Uachtarach) referred to in the Constitution and shall consist"; and in line 13 after the word "Judge" insert ("Breitheamh").
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
In page 7, Section 21, line 40, to insert after the word "shall" the words "(save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act)," and in line 44, to delete the words "lunacy and in minor matters" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "matters hereinbefore transferred to the Chief Justice"; and in line 46 to delete the words "lunacy and in minor" and to insert after the word "matters" the words "hereinbefore transferred to the Chief Justice."
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
In page, 7, Section 22, line 61, to delete the words "procedure and practice" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "pleading, practice, and procedure."
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
In page 8, Section 23, line 6, to insert after the words "Supreme Court" the words "(including the Chief Justice)".
In Section 36, line 30, Part II., to delete the words "in Saorstát Eireann" and to insert in lieu thereof ("An Chúirt Breitheamhnais Chuarda"); and in line 32 of the same Section, after the word Judge to insert the word ("Breitheamh").
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
In page 11, Section 43, line 35, to delete the words "in his profession."
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
In page 12, Section 46 (iv), line 1, to delete the word "actions" where it secondly occurs and to insert in lieu thereof the word "suits"; and in line 4, to delete the word "realty" and to insert in lieu thereof the word "land".
"Realty" would be applicable to only a particular kind of land.
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
In page 13, Section 50 (iii), line 15, to delete the word "actions" where it secondly occurs and to insert in lieu thereof the word "suits".
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
In page 13, Section 53, line 41, to delete the words "licensing cases" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "relation to the granting of new licences".
I notice that the Section begins with the words "provided that," as also the two previous Sections. I am not a grammarian, but it occurs to me that it is rather an odd way of beginning a Section, and that these really ought to be parts of the previous Section. I would ask the Attorney-General if he will consider the desirability of amending the form of this before the Bill passes through the Seanad.
I agree. I think that is caused by breaking up a very long Section. Perhaps this particular amendment will be acceptable, and I will look into it before it reaches the Seanad.
Amendment agreed to.
Inasmuch as amendments have been received without notice, I would like to know whether it is in order to move that wherever the word "Justice" occurs in respect of Justices of the District Court, we should insert the word "Judge" instead. The intention of the Government in this matter with regard to the status of District Justices was made clear on earlier readings, and it occurs to me that it is very desirable that we should alter the phraseology of the Bill so as really to indicate these intentions.
There is an amendment before that on the paper to Section 67. The Attorney-General has an amendment to Section 65, and I think your amendment would come in where the word "Justice" first occurs, in Section 66. There is an amendment to insert an Irish title in Section 65. If we take that and take your amendment to Section 66 afterwards, should you succeed there you would succeed throughout.
This amendment is not on the paper. It proposes, in Section 65, line 13, to delete the words "in Saorstát Eireann," and insert in lieu thereof ("An Chúirt Bhreitheamhais Dúithche").
Amendment agreed to.
I think that Deputy Johnson's amendment may be taken now.
My amendment is that wherever reference is made to "Judges of the District Court,""or District Justices," we shall refer to "Judges of the District Court,""or District Judges," so that in this case the amendment would be:—To delete the word "Justices" in line 18 and insert the word "Judges." We decided during earlier readings that the status of the Justices of the District Courts would be that of Judges, as understood in the Constitution. The term "Justice" in the common understanding rather suggests the Magistrate than the Judge, and I think it very desirable that in the Bill now passing from the Dáil we should give the title "Judge" instead of "Justice," so as to embody what was the declared intention of the Attorney-General on the earlier stages. I would hope that it is not necessary to pursue this argument, that it should be clear once attention is drawn to the matter, and that the Attorney-General will accept this amendment.
There is a very nice point in this as to whether it is a verbal amendment or not. If the District Justices are, in fact, Judges, it is a verbal amendment, but if not it is a very substantial change.
Of course we have assurances that they are Judges.
The great objection to this alteration of the designation of these Judges is that they have now been established for a considerable time and operating through the country under this particular title, and we do not want to shake our own institutions. Moreover, there is nothing derogatory in the word "Justice." There is no Judge in the High Court who is not spoken of as "Justice" so-and-so. There is absolutely nothing derogatory in it, and I propose to insert here the word "Iustis," which Deputy MacNeill tells me is to be found in the "Leabhar Breac," and I believe it has quite an honourable tradition behind it. I am afraid we could not accept the amendment.
Does not the statement of the Attorney-General say that there is rather a distinction? In the earlier stages we have spoken of Judges and Breitheamhain. Now, it is suggested that we shall make that distinction and fix it in the Bill in contradiction to the assurances we received on the earlier Stages.
Could the Attorney-General tell us exactly what is the difference as between "Breitheamhain" and "Iustis"?
As far as I can see there is no reason for not accepting Deputy Johnson's suggested amendment, except that it was not thought of before, and I really think that, having regard to the categorical assurances we have received from the Attorney-General, that these Justices are Judges within the Constitution, no sound reason has been given by him as to why they should not be called Judges in this Bill except that they had not been called Judges previously. Perhaps when the Bill was under contemplation and was being drafted, the drafters did not think that they were Judges, but now, knowing that they are Judges, in spite of the fact that there are certain attributes surrounding them which are not the same as those surrounding the High Court and the Circuit Court Judges, it seems to me that they are Judges, and I cannot see why the Attorney-General cannot recognise them as such, and call them by any equivalent Irish name that he likes.
It appears to the Attorney-General that the point is one of inconvenience. The alteration of style of address is not going very far, because in practice they are always called "D.J.'s" and will continue to be called "D.J.'s," whether they are Judges or Justices, in nine cases out of ten.
I did not know whether the Deputy for Waterford was rising to supply the curiosity of Deputy Figgis as to the difference between the words Breitheamhain and Iustis. I am in this somewhat awkward position in the matter, that the Minister for Home Affairs, who, I understand, will later be known as the Minister for Justice, is not here, and these are his particular creations. I should not like to assent to a change in their designation without conferring with him on the subject. I think it would create a good deal of inconvenience by reason of the fact that this designation has so long existed, as some Deputy has mentioned. Every Judge in the Court of Appeal is an L.J., which stands for Lord Justice. There is no very great difference between that and D.J.—District Justice—except in degree. I really do not think there is anything of substance in this proposal. If I thought there was anything derogatory to the District Justices I certainly would be inclined to press the matter with the Minister, who is more concerned in the creation of these Judges than I am, but I do not think there is anything of substance, having regard to the fact that every Judge in the High Court and Court of Appeal has always had the appellation of Justice. There is nothing derogatory in the term, and while I will ask him to consider the matter, from my own knowledge of the thing I think that there would be a large inconvenience, and but little gain—perhaps something lost. I cannot myself assent to it at the present moment. I would submit it to the Minister for Home Affairs.
I am rather afraid to allow this to leave the Dáil without some assurance on the point. I do not know whether it is possible to meet the Minister for Justice, as he will be, before the final passing of this Bill, but I feel there is more than the Attorney-General suggests. We have had, as a matter of fact, assurances given regarding the position of these Judges, and the point would be met, perhaps, if the same Irish title were given to Justices of the District Court as to Justices of the High Court. Where we have a distinction in title, both in the English and Irish, in regard to Justices of the District Court from the Judges of the Circuit Court and High Court, it helps to confirm the popular impression that the District Justices are inferior, and that they are not Judges under the Constitution. That is quite wrong, we at least know, but I hope that in the passing of legislation we should endeavour to put into the Bills exactly what we mean, and that is my desire. If, in the view of the Minister for Home Affairs, it will create so great a difficulty in his Department to alter the term "District Justice" to "District Judge," it certainly will not create that difficulty if we alter the Irish term proposed to be given to Judges of the High Court.
I may mention that it is well known a number of the District Justices use the Irish language to a large extent, and I know, as a matter of fact, some of them do use the term Breitheamhain. Notwithstanding the somewhat challenging ring I generally notice in Deputy Johnson's voice when he refers to this status, there is no doubt that those of the District Justices who know the Irish language felt confident that their position was equivalent to that of Breitheamh or Judge.
Do you want to alter it, then?
I have no objection to inserting the same word here.
Deputy Johnson's amendment by leave withdrawn.
I move in Section 66, line 18, after the word "Justices" to insert ("Breitheamhain.")
Agreed.
I beg to propose the following amendment:—
"In page 15, Section 67, line 26, to insert immediately after the figures `1923' the words and figures `(No. 6 of 1923.).' "
Amendment put and agreed to.
I propose the following amendment:—
"In page 16, Section 72, line 9, to delete the word `allowances' and to insert in lieu thereof the word `allowance', and in line 16, to insert after the figures `1923' the words and figures `(No. 6 of 1923)'."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to propose Amendment No. 10, which is as follows:—
"In page 17, Section 75, line 45, to insert after the figures `1923' the words and figures `(No. 6 of 1923)'."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I propose:
"In Section 85, line 52, after the word `called' to insert (Feadhmannaigh Shíochána) or in English `Peace Commissioners'."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to propose the following amendment:—
"In page 19, Section 86, line 23, to insert after the figures `1923' the words and figures `(No. 6 of 1923)'."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to propose:—
"In page 19, Section 88, lines 46 and 47, to delete the words `on the civil side or the criminal side' and to insert in lieu thereof the words `in civil cases or in criminal cases,' and in line 51, to delete the word `with' and to insert in lieu thereof the word `and'.
These are purely verbal alterations.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question: "That the Bill, as amended, do now pass," put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be sent to Seanad.