Galloway, William Johnson Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.) Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Martin, Richard Biddulph Montagu, G. Huntingdon) Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Platt-Higgins, Frederick Ratcliff, R. F. Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Rankin, Sir James Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge Russell, T. W. Valentia, Viscount Walker, Col. William Hall Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George TELLERS FOR THE AYES - Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. Labouchere, Henry MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North). Nannetti, Joseph P. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Nussey, Thomas Willans O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) Question put O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Rose, Charles Day Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) accordingly, "That The Committee divided: Ayes, 87; 127,100 men and boys be employed for Noes, 247. the said Services." (Division List No. 33.) AYES. Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Harwood, George Ainsworth, John Stirling Ambrose Robert Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Broadhurst, Henry Burns, John Burt, Thomas Cameron, Robert Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Cullinan, J. Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Dunn, Sir William Flavin, Michael Joseph Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Aird, Sir John Allen, Charles P. Hayden, John Patrick Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Johnson, John Gateshead) Joyce, Michael Kilbride, Denis MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Nannetti, Joseph P. NOES. Allsopp, Hon. George Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Atkinson, Bt. Hon John Balcarres, Lord Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets Ellice, Capt. E.C(SAndrw's Bghs Flower, Sir Ernest Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh. Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Platt-Higgins, Frederick Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge) Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Walrond, Rt.Hn Sir William H. Original Question put, and agreed to. And, it being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House. Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow. EVENING SITTING. MALICIOUS INJURIES (IRELAND). *MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.) said it was a very common fallacy in this country to imagine that the laws in England and Scotland were the same as those in Ireland. It was true that a great many people in this country recognised that when coercion was passed for Ireland a distinct statute was applied to that country, but when coercion was not in force the notion prevailed that the laws in both countries were the same. The subject which he now brought up before the House was a standing refutation of that fallacy under which the English people lived. Since the days of the grand jury system followed by the Local Government Act, there was in Ireland a law with regard to malicious injuries which had no parallel in this country, by which compensation could be levied on districts for malicious injuries which had been caused in other districts a considerable distance away. In the days of the grand juries those malicious injury claims were treated in a slightly different way. When the Local Government Act was passed the formerly vested in the grand juries was transferred to the County Count Judges, but that was not all, for the County Court Judges were given a power which did not previously reside in the grand juries. Under the grand jury system where the presentment for malicious injury was disallowed and the Judge gave leave to traverse, the case had to be tried by a jury, but under the Local Government Act there need not be a jury in any case unless the Judge power 1 Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES - Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. thought fit to have one. Formerly, also, compensation could only be given for maliciously setting fire to, or destroying, or injuring a particular kind of property mentioned in the Statute of William the Fourth, but under the Local Government Act compensation might be obtained for setting fire to or injuring any kind of property. The real mischief in the present system, however, lay not so much in the actual power given to the County Court Judges as in the way in which those powers had been applied. The principle, he contended, was absolutely wrong, and even if similar power existed in England he would hold it was wrong, but his case was strengthened by the fact that no such power existed either in England or Scotland. was He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman Sir, John Colomb not in his place as one of the cases he intended to lay before the House occurred on his property in county Kerry. It was a claim for malicious burning near Kenmare. The amount of the claim was £200. In the first place the claim was not lodged in time as laid down by the statute, but this the County Court Judge overruled. Now this particular fire, started at six o'clock, was only about 400 yards from the house of the caretaker upon a particular evicted farm. No effort whatever was made to extinguish the flames until one o'clock the next morning. When the matter came before the Court evidence was given that, some days previously to the fire, members of the caretaker's family were seen setting fire to bushes and heather not far from where the fire originated. The compensation granted amounted to £180. It might be imagined that the compensation so granted would have been levied upon the district concerned. The curious thing was that three of the townlands in the immediate vicinity were exempted from the rate levied to raise the amount of the compensation, while the people of a district ten miles away were made to pay for the damage done. What was more remarkable still was that these three townlands ex- Scotland, and in neither England or empted from the rate were practi- Scotland was there any parallel to cally in the entire occupation of the the state of the law on this matter right hon. Baronet Sir John Colomb. as it existed in Ireland to-day. Under The next case which he desired to bring the Hundred Act of 1827, which was the under the notice of the House was that of nearest parallel in England, a state of a man named De Caen in county Galway. riot was a necessary condition precedent, A man who lived in the neighbourhood and that Act was repealed in 1886. The of De Caen wanted to remove furze from whole principle of this law was wrong his land by setting fire to it. By from the very beginning. The laws some accident the fire extended to affecting the landlords' property in Ireland De Caen's land and set fire to were very much more difficult to be some heather and furze. A few days revised or repealed than the laws of a after a man in the employment of De similar character in England. Political Caen burned some heather upon De Caen's reasons were at the bottom of this, beholding. An application was made to cause in order to keep up British rule in the County Court Judge for compensation, Ireland against the will of the people, and Judge Anderson awarded De Caen they had to try to keep the landlords there, and of this he was certain, that if £100 compensation. An appeal was lodged and then the judgment was peasant proprietary had existed, say, fifty years ago, this law would not be reversed as regards the burning done by De Caen's own man, but £50 was granted what was more he was sure that the now found on the Statute-book, and for the damage done by the neighbour's utmost pressure would be brought, in the fire. This man was not satisfied, because landlords' interest in Ireland, to secure that the next year he alleged two of his sheep so long as peasant proprietary was not were stolen. He lodged a claim and was universal, there should be no change in the allowed £5. An appeal was again taken, law. This really was This really was a coercion Act, and as one of the missing sheep, which and different from anything applying in had only strayed away, turned up in the England or Scotland. Was it not unjust interval the appeal, needless to say, was and, in fact, absurd now, when things were upheld. As far as he, Mr. Boland, knew so peaceable in Ireland, to continue the there was no instance on record pre- fiction that the people there were living viously, even in grand jury times, of in a state of continuous riot? He did compensation being given in the case of not know what the right hon. Gentleman sheep stealing. would do to-night, but if he did not see his way to assimilate the law in Ireland on this subject to that of England, let him, for the information of English people, bring in a law somewhat to the effect that, whereas the people of England had ceased, since the year 1827, to live in a state of riot, but the people of Ireland were stil! in that condition, and would so remain, until the last landlord had sold his property, the Law relating to malicious injuries in Ireland would remain in force as a proof of the equal laws under which the two countries were governed. If the right hon. Gentleman would not give immediate legislation, at all events let the world see that the contention that they were governing Ireland and England by equal laws was a sham and a farce. There was no law on the Statute-book of England in any way comparable with the law at present existing in Ireland with regard to malicious injuries. In Dublin a man wishes to go into jail. He simply breaks Todd Burns' window; he is sent to prison, and the ratepayers are made to pay for the malicious injury. There need be no riot whatever. The whole country in England some time ago was astounded at the revelations that came from certain districts in the Midlands in which a solicitor named Edalji was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment for maliciously injuring and maiming cattle. That man was tried and sent to prison, but there was no question of compensation being levied in the district. But in Ireland, no matter whether a man was convicted and sent to prison, or not, the district was made to pay for the injuries. There was no such law in *MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.) rose to second the Motion. In his opinion, the principle of this Act was applied to |