COLONEL DUNNE, in moving for a copy 338 of all Proceedings taken against Persons for trespassing on the Common known as the Curragh of Kildare within the last two years; with certain particulars, said, that his object was to ascertain whether a conviction by a single magistrate was valid. His own belief was that it would not be legal without the concurrence of two magistrates. The Curragh was in old documents, and in some Acts of the reign of George III., spoken of as the Common of Kildare, and the Crown had never established any right to its possession. On the contrary, sheep had by usage been pastured upon it, and races had been held upon it for nearly 200 years. Yet at the race meeting last June Horse Artillery and Cavalry were manœuvring upon the racecourse at the time the races were going on, and seriously interfered with the sport. In the case of Aldershot no roads were stopped up until an Act of Parliament was obtained for the purpose, and he did not see why a different course should be pursued in Ireland. When the Camp was first established, his hon. Friend the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Cole) asked whether it was intended to interfere with the raising and training of horses and the feeding of sheep, and the then Clerk of the Ordnance replied in the negative. He hoped that he should be allowed to have these papers, and should at the same time receive an assurance that the Government had no intention to interfere with the rights of the commoners.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he understood the hon. and gallant Member to say that the Crown had asserted certain illegal rights over the Curragh of Kildare; but he could not see the connection between that allegation and the returns he moved for, which were for the number of persons taken into custody for trespassing on the Common. The question was, whether it was a "common." That would be a question which, in the first instance, would be raised by the Crown. For his own part, he never heard of a trespass on a common, and therefore he could not see what would be proved by this return, supposing it were granted. The return would do nothing whatever towards settling the title of the Crown. That was a civil, not a criminal question, and must be decided by a civil tribunal—perhaps in the Court of Chancery. The number of these convictions averaged about twenty a day, which for two years would give about 12,000; therefore, instead of being a leaf out of a 339 petty sessions' book, the return would, when printed, form a very large blue book. If he thought that this information would throw any light upon the question which the hon. and gallant Member had brought before the House, he should be unwilling to refuse him even so voluminous a return, but he did not believe that it would have any such effect. He really was not aware that the title of the Crown was disputed; during his tenure of his present office he had never heard of it. There was certainly a dispute in the matter between the military who were encamped on the Curragh, and the civil authorities, who seemed to be of opinion that the encampment of the troops on the Curragh was a trespass. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw his Motion; and if he would put his Question on some future day, or make some Motion, he would endeavour to give him some further information.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he had no dispute with the military authorities; it was merely the illegal acts of the civil magistrates that he wished to have inquired into. He would withdraw his present Motion and renew it in another form.
MR. HENLEYthought, that if it were the fact that twenty cases of trespass a day were brought before the magistrates, the matter was too serious to be pooh-poohed simply on the ground that some 2,000 names would have to be given in the return.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYpointed out that if the convictions were illegal there must be in Ireland, as in England, some means of bringing them before a superior authority and having them quashed.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.