motives of individuals. If one man wantonly broke a window out of ill-will to the owner, and another man broke a window in order to get sent to prison, it was hard to say upon what principle in compensation should be given the first case and not in the second. He quite admitted that it constituted a gross abuse of the law that the ratepayers should be obliged to pay damages for such injuries as the breaking of windows by people whose only motive was to go to gaol instead of the workhouse. If those people were destitute then the workhouse was the place for them, but if the condition of things was such that they prefered the gaol to the workhouse the obvious remedy was to make the gaol less agreeable than the workhouse. MR. T. W. RUSSELL said these poor people looked upon the gaol as a kind of hydropathic establishment, and the longer term they were sentenced for the better they were pleased. MR. ATKINSON said he thought it was a gross abuse when persons committed a crime simply for the purpose of being committed to prison. The Recorder of Dublin had it very much in his own hands; he could inflict a severer punishment. Another grievance which he had keenly felt, was that if a man paid insurance premiums which covered, not only accidental loss, but loss from malicious injury, the insurance companies would not pay for such loss until the sufferer had first tried his luck before the grand jury. A similar section was contained in the Riot and Damage Act of 1886 in England, which provided that if any person had sustained a loss, anything he received by way of insurance should be deducted from the amount he recovered from the community. It was quite obvious that it was very easy to evade that provision, and the only way to guard against that was to allow an insurance only to cover accidental loss and not malicious loss. He thought the law ought to be changed so as to provide that where an individual insured his property and the premiums bound the company to compensate him for loss of any kind, he should get the value for which the general matters referred to, he understood that the hon. Gentleman who had made this Motion objected first of all to the law and next to its mode of administration. The hon. Member had stated that this law was peculiar to Ireland. In a sense he was right. He observed in the discussion of Irish matters that when hon. Members opposite were opposing any liability on Ireland it was always asserted that it was identical with this country, but when it came to anything that Ireland needed the ground was put forward that it was entirely dissimilar. MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): You are not talking to children. MR. ATKINSON said that during the last few years there had been a good deal of special legislation for Ireland. In England and in Ireland, for many years, any injury inflicted upon property by any unlawful, riotous, or tumultuous assembly entitled the owner of the property injured to compensation from the community, and the mode in which he got it was by a suit in which the person who had to pay was sued. In England a person whose property was injured owing to unlawful riots sought compensation from the police authorities and could sue and recover from them the amount of compensation to which he was entitled. In Ireland, if they placed the county councils in the position of the grand juries, then the county councils would be at once judges and defendants. But each party in Ireland had the right of appeal to a Judge from the County Courts, and if they desired, the case could be tried by a special jury. MR. J. P. FARRELL asked if the right hon. Gentleman could give one case in which a special jury had been applied for. MR. ATKINSON said if this law had never been used he failed to see the harm of it. Upon what principle was compensation awarded? MR. BOLAND said his argument was that this Act was wrong in principle, and even if it were administered in England in the same way he should still hold that it was wrong in principle. MR. ATKINSON said he understood he had paid. Passing from those cases to the hon. Member to mean that the whole system of compensation for malicious council should be the judge and the injury was wrong in principle. The principle was not peculiar to Ireland for it was also adopted in England, in fact it was the same principle that underlay the law which, in this country,gave compensation for damages through riot and unlawful assembly. What was the principle of that Act? The principle on which a man was compensated by the community for injuries caused by riots or unlawful assembly was that members of the community were parties to the crime. That was the principle of the English law, and of the Irish law, which went further. That was the principle in England. Upon what principle did they compensate a man whose house was injured through a riot unless on the principle that when a riot took place the community should be mulcted with the object of preventing such things or of bringing the perpetrators to justice. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: This is not a riot.] The Irish law he quite admitted went beyond the English law because it was not necessary that the injury should be done either by an unlawful assembly or by a riot, although that law existed in Ireland just as in England. In Ireland, however, in addition, there were a number of Statutes which gave compensation when the injury was done by individuals. He wished to deal with the two branches of the subject referred to by the hon. Member. He did not intend to go into detail in regard to the cases referred to, five of which had been mentioned. The Judge who tried the cases held a different opinion to the hon. Member, and he preferred the opinion of the Judge who had heard both sides. Two of the cases failed and two of them were dismissed upon appeal, which showed how effective the appeal was. The hon. Member stated that it was very iniquitous that the county council should have to pay the costs, but they were not the only people who had to pay costs, and the same thing might happen to any member of the community who was called upon to defend himself. He could not charge his memory with any objection of this kind being made in 1898, when all these matters were threshed out. No suggestion was then made that a tribunal should be established in which it was suggested that the county defendant at the same time. Therefore, the only available tribunal was the County Court, and no hon. Members who had taken part in the debate had been able to suggest any other tribunal unless they put it into the hands of the county council. If a fraction of what hon. Members said was true, Ireland must contain the greatest collection of knaves in Christendom, for, according to the account of hon. Gentlemen, men were to be found, in all directions, in Ireland ready to burn their own ricks and hough their own cattle. [NATIONALIST cheers and cries of "Sheridan."] The knaves of course got the swag. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "What about Sheridan ?"] They might quote Sheridan if they liked as an accomplice. MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): He was not an accomplice, for he did it. MR. ATKINSON said there were men who were burning their own ricks and houghing their own cattle and making fraudulent claims. He did not call that a fair representation of the conditions in Ireland. He believed that exaggerated and dishonest claims were sent in, but the proceedings of the Courts showed what the results of the investigations had been. He would call attention to the variation of these claims according to the condition of the country. He thought that anybody who had any aquaintance with Ireland must be ready to admit that in a time of public excitement when there was anything like organised crime and malicious injury [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh "] to property which invariably accompanied it-[An HON. MEMBER: "Government spies "and Nationalist cheers.] *MR. SPEAKER: I hope hon. Members will allow the right hon. Gentleman to answer their arguments without these continual interruptions. for 1900, which covered the year 1899, showed that the claims in respect of persons were thirty-seven, and in respect of property 1,072. The amount of compensation claimed in respect of persons MR. ATKINSON said that the Return MR. ATKINSON: I have not the particulars here. MR. ATKINSON said it was quite clear that in 1900 things had come to a climax, and that in 1901 and 1902 the claims decreased. The appeals to the Assize Court in 1900 were 122; in 1901, 175; and in 1902, 111. In some instances the was £13,320, and in respect of property many of these cases arose out of riots or £14,927. The County Courts granted tumultuous assembly? £3,393 in respect of persons and in respect of property £14,000. The amount of claims dismissed was £10,826. Out of a total of £42,000 the sum allowed was only a little over £17,000. These figures MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.): The right tended rather to show that the claims hon. Gentleman stated that in 1902 things were carefully sifted by the County were becoming more peaceable in Ireland. Courts [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: If that is so, may I ask why the Coercion How many of the persons were police- Act was reintroduced? men?] He did not propose to go into the question whether all the police in Ireland were perjurers and conspirators. In the next year 1901, which covered 1900, the statistics showed that the claims in respect of persons fell to twenty-one, and the claims in respect of property to 896. The amount Judges of Assize confirmed the awards claimed in respect of persons was of the County Courts, in other cases the £6,001, and the amount claimed in respect of property was £39,922. The sum awarded to persons was £1,128, and the sum awarded in respect of property was £13,000. The amount of claims dismissed was £30,000. In 1902, things were becoming more peaceable. The Returns for that year covered 1901 the claims were eight in respect of persons, and 666 in respect of property. The personal claims amounted to £2,350 and the claims in respect of property £30,000. The amount of compensation granted was only £280 in respect of persons, and £7,997 in respect of property. MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Out of the 666 cases to which the right hon. Gentleman refers how many were dismissed altogether? MR. ATKINSON: I cannot tell you. MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford): Can the right hon. Gentleman say how awards were decreased, and in a number of cases the claims were withdrawn. It was interesting to look at the counties in which these things took place. In 1901, in Ulster, the gross amount was £3,974, and in the next year it was only £1,816. In Munster the gross amount awarded in 1901 was £4,829, and in the next year it was £3,758. With regard to cities and counties, it was most instructive to look at the figures. In 1901 the amount in the city of Dublin altogether was only £168, while in Clare it was £380. If they went through the figures it would be apparent that it was in the counties that most of the compensation was given. MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say, as he has referred to county Clare, that some of the outrages committed there, and supposed to be malicious, were afterwards found to haye been committed by Police-Sergeant Sheridan, who has now fled the country. not at all lent claims were presented. He admitted that if a man lost a cow which was only worth £10 he might claim £20, but he must say he did not think that instances of men putting forward claims for property which they had themselves burnt or inflicted damages upon, existed to the degree which hon. Members had suggested, but he did not believe such cases of deliberate fraud as had been suggested existed at all. He MR. ATKINSON said he did agree with the hon. Member. Sergeant Sheridan could never have done the whole of the injuries. He only referred to the figures for the purpose of showing the serious injury that was inflicted upon individuals. Nineteen-twentieths of the compensation was in respect of property and not of persons. The figures showed Exaggeration there unquestionably was, that the principal injuries were inflicted in the rural districts, and they all knew what they were. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Sheridan's work. They were face to face with the question whether It had been contended that the they would give no compensation to these fact that compensation was given did people and allow them to be pauperised, not act as a deterrent to crime. as they would be in a great many cases, did not think any person could suppose and therefore to fall upon the rates, or that the fact that a particular community whether, as they had undoubtedly suffered was aware that there was a possibility of injury, that injury would be thrown on being mulcted for compensation for the community. He did not want to malicious injury, did not act as a serious night to endeavour to trace these injuries preventive of crime. He quite admitted to their origin or to find out what class that it might not succeed in bringing the was guilty. He simply wanted to put this criminal to justice, but it did act in the point. If they had in Ireland damage to way of preventing the commission of the extent of £14,000 per annum inflicted crime, and it prevented the pauperising of mainly on farmers the question was, individuals who were injured when crime "Will you allow them to go without any was committed. He had known many compensation at all, and throw that loss. cases where the injuries inflicted on entirely on their own resources, or will farmers were 80 serious that they you adopt the expedient of compensating could not afford to bear the loss. them by the community which must As the Government thought that this law contain the individual who committed the prevented crime and saved the persons damage?" injured from severe loss they could not promise, in the present state of Ireland, that the law would be repealed. And, so long as the law remained in force, he could not conceive a more satisfactory tribunal than that which at present existed for adjudicating on claims. With regard to damage caused by soldiers he would say, that whatever else might be the defects of this law, it seemed to raise the market for widows in Limerick. He had not particulars here, but there was a He did not think that any reasonable person could say that things in Ireland at the present time were as satisfactory as could be wished. There might be good times in store for Ireland, but as things were at present every impartial man must admit that the law of compensation for malicious injuries could not safely be abolished. He made every allowance for the exaggeration of claims, but he did not think it was fair to make widespread charges that fraudu Limerick case which was still sub judice, and he did not like to go into that at present. During the past five years there were eleven cases of injury committed by soldiers in Limerick, and the amount decreed for compensation was £7 10s. The soldiers contributed £5 12s. 6d. themselves, for the purpose of recouping the county, so that very little loss fell on the community so far as injury done by these soldiers was concerned. Ireland was the case of a policeman in the employ of the Government, who, having obtained the conviction of an innocent man on a horrible charge of mutilating cattle, had his crime subse quently found out, and instead of being put on his trial was allowed to escape from the country scot free, while his accomplices actually received large sums of money in the shape of what were called "compassionate allowances." He did not want to be unreasonable, and perhaps it would be unreasonable to complain of the Chief Secretary leaving this matter in the hands of the Attorney-General. He knew that a man in the position of the Chief Secretary for Ireland he could not always be expected to be present, but he would appeal to his common sense not to allow the AttorneyGeneral to conduct Irish debates in this House. The Attorney-General might be a most valuable member of His Majesty's Government, but he would suggest that he should be set apart to devote his brilliant talents to the discussion of fiscal questions and matters of Imperial concern, MR. JOHN REDMOND said he had never known the right hon. and learned Gentleman take part in an Irish debate without bringing bitterness of feeling and exasperation into the discussion. What had he done to-night? His hon. friend had heavy labours thrown upon him, and the Member for South Kerry brought this question before the House in a speech of studied moderation. It was a case where the law was different in England and Ireland, and he made out a reasonable case for an amendment of the law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman got up and, apparently with deliberate intention, proceeded to inflame feeling on this side of the House by talking of organised crime and outrages committed on cattle, although he well knew that Ireland was, and had been for a considerable time, in a state of profound peace. The right hon. Gentleman knew that Ireland was in a state of profound peace. He knew that was a matter beyond dispute, for it was to be found in the statistics of the Blue-books, that so far as ordinary crime was concerned, Ireland to-day was more crimeless than England, Scotland, and Wales. And yet he came down to this House and met this but where mere Irish matters were concerned he thought that the Chief Secretary should attend to them himself, or at any rate not leave them to a man who never made a speech in which there was one particle of sympathy for the country from which he sprung. He wished to recall the House to what the real case made out by his hon. friend, was. The House was almost empty when the case was put and hon. Members had come in recently and did not know the facts. The case was that there was a for malicious injuries in England and in different law with regard to compensation Ireland. The Attorney-General said that reasonable case by an appeal to organised crime and cattle maiming, quite forgetful of the fact that the last case proved in in all cases of such injury arising from riot |