§
Amendment proposed—
Page 3, line 16, leave out Sub-section (2) and insert—
(2) From and after the passing of this Act the provisions of the said enactments as to the mode of making applications for compensation for loss or damage resulting from malicious injury shall be repealed, and in all cases where any property of the nature described in the said enactments shall be maliciously destroyed or injured, the person or persons injured by any such offence, and intending to claim compensation for any loss or damage sustained thereby, shall, not later than three days from the day on which such offence shall have been committed, serve notice in writing of such injury at the police station nearest to the place where such offence was committed, stating the
1470
time and place where such injury was done, the particular property destroyed or injured, and whether such destruction or injury was complete or partial, the amount or value of the property so destroyed or injured, and (if known) the name or names of the person or persons by whom such offence was committed, or (if such person or persons be unknown) such particulars relating to the offender or offenders as may be known, and shall, within fourteen days from the date of such offence, serve on the council of the county, county borough, or district in which such offence shall have been committed, a civil bill for the sittings of the county court in the county court division in which such offence shall have been committed next ensuing after twenty-eight days from the day on which such offence was committed for the amount of the loss or damage sustained thereby, and such civil bill shall be served by posting a copy thereof by registered post, addressed to the secretary or clerk to such council, at his office, whether such office be in said division or not, and by publishing a copy thereof once in one newspaper circulating in the district in which such offence shall have been committed at least seven days before such sittings.
(3) Upon the hearing of such civil bill the county court judge or recorder, as the case may be, may dismiss the same or may make a decree against the said county or county borough or urban district council for the amount of the loss or damage occasioned by such offence, and may fix the area off which the amount of such decree, including costs and expenses, is to be levied, and costs shall follow every such decree or dismiss, and shall be double the amount of the costs of an ordinary decree or dismiss, and the person or persons or council obtaining any such decree or dismiss shall be entitled to the expenses of such publication and to expenses on the scale from time to time in force in the High Court of Justice in Ireland of all such witnesses as the judge at the hearing shall certify to be necessary witnessess.
(4) Every such decree or dismiss may be appealed from to the next going judge of assize in like manner as appeals are now made and subject to the like rules (but so that no appeal shall be taken from any dismiss, unless and until costs and expenses of such dismiss shall have been lodged in court), and upon the hearing of every such appeal, such judge of assize may confirm, vary, or reverse such decree or dismiss, and may assess, increase, or reduce the sum or sums of money ordered or denied to be paid thereby, and may alter the area thereby affected.
(5) Every such decree or affirmance shall have the same effect as if it were a presentment under the said enactments.
§ MR. J. J. SHEE (Waterford, W.)The Committee has already practically decided that the county court shall have jurisdiction in connection with these applications, and, therefore, it is 1471 necessary that we should consider the procedure which ought to be adopted in connection with them. The procedure, as laid down under the Grand Jury Act, is a cumbersome and inefficient and very antiquated procedure. First of all, in reference to the notices which have to be posted under the Grand Jury Act, the law prescribes that the advertisement of the application shall take the form of posting a copy of the advertisement at, or adjacent to, the police stations in the parishes concerned. In view of the development of journalism, and of advertising in the Press, and of the inadequate and inefficient mode of advertising at the present time, I propose that the advertisements, instead of being posted at, or adjacent to, the doors of the police station in each parish, shall be published in one issue of one paper circulating in the parish in connection with which the application is to be made. Having regard to the antiquated nature of the present procedure, I venture to hope, as the Lord Lieutenant in Council will not have an opportunity of considering this matter, that the Chief Secretary will consider the Amendment effective for the purpose for which it is intended.
§ MR. FLYNNI need not recapitulate the arguments of my honourable Friend the Member for West Water-ford with regard to the disadvantages of the present system. It must be obvious to everybody in these days of newspaper circulation that much wider publicity will be given to the application for compensation by means of a newspaper advertisement than is possible under the existing system. If there is any one branch of grand jury business that is open to abuse more than another, it is in connection with the compensation for alleged malicious injuries. I am sure the honourable Member will corroborate me when I say that there have been scores of cases of abuse, and therefore it is essential, in the interests of justice, and in the interests of the country at large, to substitute a new course of procedure in regard to these alleged or real injuries. The Amendment of my honourable Friend is eminently reasonable, and I can 1472 see nothing in it that will give any offence. I trust the Government will not treat it with a non possumus, but will give it the consideration which it eminently deserves.
§ MR. ATKINSONThere are several objections to this Amendment, and I think the honourable Member who moved it will see that his object is in a great way carried out by the Amendment in the name of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, which we propose to move presently, and by which a different practice is sought to be established to that which at present exists, and one more suited to the new procedure and more suitable to the new tribunals. I think this Amendment will carry out the purpose which the honourable Member who moved it has in view, and I suggest that he should withdraw it and allow the question to be discussed on the Amendment of the Government.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLThere is, perhaps, no section in the whole Bill more important than this. The burden of compensation that may from time to time be awarded for malicious injury will fall upon the tenants of Ireland; and, therefore, it is essential to see that that burden shall be fairly imposed. It is quite clear that Section 5 as it stands is a perfectly blind and bald section, and that the Bill should not become an Act without considerable amendment. In fact, as my honourable and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland has pointed out, the Chief Secretary for Ireland proposes an Amendment to the section which, in a great measure, is substantially the same as that of the honourable Member for West Waterford. But the Committee, especially the English Members, should bear in mind that in all these cases of malicious injury the foundation and gist of the whole case is that the injury should be malicious.
§ An HONOURABLE MEMBER: Or wanton.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLIt must not be accidental. I know many cases which have come before the judges, and the great point has been to establish that 1473 the injury was done wilfully or wantonly; it must not be accidental. That is a very difficult inquiry; it has occupied barristers, and juries, and judges at very great length. The application must be made, in the first instance, under the existing law, 6 and 7 Will. IV., cap 116; the injury must be malicious, and the Act of Parliament guards most jealously lest there should be any attempt at imposing upon the cess-payers, and requires that an oath should be taken within three days, the object being, I think, to test the bonâ fides of the applicant, and to ensure that the injury was recently committed, and not some time previously. The Amendment to which my honourable and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland has alluded does not provide for that preliminary notice, and I regard that as a fundamental point.
§ MR. ATKINSONThere are the rules of the court.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLThe rules of the court do not appear to me to cover the point. The application is an application to the county court, and not an application notice of which is to be posted upon the doors of the various police barracks. It does not matter in what language it may be couched, but it is essential that this Bill should provide that notice should be given, and a declaration made, as required by the Grand Jury Act. The notice attracts the attention of the cess-payers interested in it, because it is required to be placed at the police station nearest to which the offence was committed, and also to be advertised in the newspapers circulating in the district. The object is that it may be known to the cess-payers, who are the persons interested, because the whole of the expense—in the case of a house burned down it may amount to several hundreds of pounds—will be put, not on the county at large, but on a limited area. The effect will be most onerous on the occupying tenants in that particular place. It is a most serious thing to consider that, under this Bill, the landlords will not have to contribute to any county rates. The whole burden of any rate that may be imposed for malicious or other injuries, will fall upon 1474 the occupying tenants as this Bill is framed. I think the provision contained in this Amendment is absolutely necessary. Of course, if the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland undertakes, either on Report stage or at some other stage, to make this particular matter clear, I shall be satisfied. There is another matter to which I should like to refer. I had myself an Amendment down, but it will not be necessary to move it. The substance of it was, assuming the preliminary notice given, that then the case should be tried like an ordinary civil Bill in the county courts in Ireland. The effect of that would be that claimants for over £20 would have the right of appeal. At present the law is that anyone who claims over £20 may have the case tried before a county court judge by jury, and the defendant also, if the claim against him is for over £20. The point I wish to make is that damages for malicious injury should be determined by a jury before a county court judge. There is no such provision as that in the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and I urge the Committee to see that it is provided for in the Bill. If there is any value in trial by jury—and I am one of the old-fashioned people who believe in it—and if there are any questions that ought to be tried by jury, this question of whether a certain occurrence was accidental or malicious is such a question. It is not a question for a judge coming from Dublin to decide; it is a question for a jury belonging to the neighbourhood and a jury who will see that the cess-payers of the neighbourhood are not unjustly mulcted under the colour of law.
§ Mr. ATKINSONEvery single point mentioned by the honourable Member is raised in the Government Amendment, and all these questions must come up again, if this Amendment is withdrawn.
§ MR. SHEEThe Amendment which I have moved does not in any way clash with the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right honourable Gentleman's Amendment will give the ratepayer the right 1475 to appear before a county judge, or a judge of Assize, to defend any claims made under this section; but what I wish to point out is, that this Amendment proposes that the procedure shall be regulated by the rules of the court. I presume these rules will be framed by the county court judge of Ireland. The Amendment of the Chief Secretary does not say; and the proposal of the right honourable Gentleman differs altogether from the proposal in the Bill, because, under Clause 64, Sub-section 2, that by Order in Council the Lord Lieutenant should transfer. It is now proposed that the transfer should be by rules of court, and this Committee has no means of knowing beforehand what the rules of court are likely to be, or what the advertisements shall be; and therefore it would be difficult for the Committee to determine whether these notices or advertisements, which ought to be given, are sufficient or not. The change of attitude in connection, with this matter takes it altogether out of the power of this Committee to determine whether the rules that shall be laid down to regulate the procedure will be sufficient. The original proposal was a better one than this, because the right honourable Gentleman did undertake that before the Report stage of this Bill was taken that the Lord Lieutenant would be in a position to make an Order in Council. In any case a draft Order in Council would come before this Committee, and the Committee could express an opinion upon it. The proposal made now does not enable the Committee to have anything to say as to the mode of procedure, and it is for that reason that I object.
MR. T. M. HEALYI feel myself that the Government are at a disadvantage by the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman. Apart from the Amendment of my right honourable Friend, I have two or three myself. At the same time, what we want is to get on and not waste time. This is not a coercion Bill. It is one we all want, and although there are many things in it I should like to see improved and altered, we must try to work together and get the Bill through.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1476
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 3, line 16, after 'compensation,' insert 'which shall be served on the council of the district in which the alleged injury took place.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
MR. T. M. HEALYI should very much like to adhere to my proposal, because I think it is far superior to the proposals of the Government. Still, I think I had better withdraw it.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 3, line 19, leave out from first 'enactments,' to end of Clause, and insert—
(3) Any person claiming compensation in a county may apply to the county court, and the county council, and any person paying poor rate in that county may, as well as the applicant, appear and be heard by the County Court in relation to the application.
(4) Any person or council who appeared, or though not actually appearing was entitled to appear, before the county court, in relation to such application may, if aggrieved by the refusal or decree of the county court, appeal to the judge of assize, and subject to this Act and to rules of court, the County Courts (Ireland) Acts, 1851 to 1889, shall apply in like manner as in the case of any other appeal; and the judge may vary the decree in respect of the area off which compensation is to be levied, as well as in respect of other matters.
(5) The judge of assize upon any such appeal shall, in addition to any other power, have power, if he thinks fit, to empannel a jury to try any issue of fact arising on the appeal, and such jury shall, if any party to the proceedings so requires, be a special jury.
(6) The county court and judge of assize respectively may award costs to or against any party to a proceeding under this section.
(7) Rules of court may regulate the notice to be given of any application or opposition, and generally the practice and procedure under this section, and in particular such rules shall provide that non-compliance by the applicant with any of the rules shall not render any proceeding void unless the court or judge of assize so direct, but the proceedings may be set aside either wholly or in part, or be amended or otherwise dealt with in such manner and upon such terms as the court or judge may think just."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
§ MR. ATKINSONHad the Bill remained as it was, all the provisions of the Grand Jury Act would 1477 have applied to proceeding's before the New Tribunal, but owing to the nature of the New Tribunal, it was thought that the Grand Jury Act was unsuited, and it was, therefore, deemed desirable to repeal all the enactments, and to move this Amendment instead, of which notice has been given. Now, this Amendment provides that—
Any person claiming compensation in a county may apply to the county court, and the comity council and any person paying poor rate in that comity may, as well as the applicant, appear and be heard by the comity court in relation to the application.An Amendment has been put on the Paper by the honourable Member for Cork requiring that notice shall be served upon the district council as well. I may as well say that I have no objection to that. The county council is, of course, the defendant to the suit. It is against the county council that the claim will be made; but there is no objection to notice also being served upon the district council. The Amendment also provides that—Any person or council who appeared, or though not actually appearing, was entitled to appear, before the County Court in relation to such application, may, it aggrieved by the refusal or decree of the County Court, appeal to the Judge of Assize, and subject to this Act and to the rules of Court, the County Courts (Ireland) Acts, 1851 to 1889, shall apply in like manner as in the case of any other appeals, and the Judge may vary the decree in respect of the area off which compensation is to be levied as well as in respect of other matters.For malicious injury at the present time there is no power to empannel a jury, but under the 135th Section of the Grand Jury Act there is power to empanel a jury if the judge thinks fit, so that, as far as the empannelling of a jury is concerned, we are left by this Amendment exactly in the same position as we are under the Grand Jury Act, and if either party desire, they can have a special jury instead of a common jury. The judge at Assize shall have power to award costs, and, of course, costs include expenses under the definition clause of the Bill. Rules of Court may be regulated with regard to all these proceedings, and there is a provision introduced into the 1478 end of the Amendment to obviate the difficulty and inconvenience and injustice which often arises under the existing practice—namely, where there was any irregularity in service, or any technical mistake, all proceedings fell to the ground. If a man did not serve a notice at the proper time, the proceedings were at once stayed. In order to put an end to that unjust state of things, I propose to introduce a provision that the judge shall have power to waive for good grounds any omission on the part of the applicant, or others interested in the action. Objection has been taken to the details of the practice—
§ MR. ATKINSONService of notice, notice of application, notice upon county council, notice upon district council, the mode in which that shall be done, the way in which appearance shall be entered; these things are details of the suit by which the proceedings are regulated from first to last. It is obviously more convenient that these should be regulated by rules of court than that they should be fixed in the Bill. Because if they are fixed in the Bill they become inelastic. Rules of procedure, when made a part of the provisions of a Bill, have a tendency to produce inconvenience, whereas rules of court are elastic, and can be altered from time to time. Rules of court, of course, mean under the interpretation clause that rules of the county court will be framed to deal with proceedings in the county court, and rules of the superior court will be framed to deal with those proceedings which take place in the superior court. Although I quite admit that the Amendment of the honourable Member for Cork seems to set up a fair and reasonable argument, still I think it will be found in this case that rules of the court are more elastic and can be made to read from time to time, should any emergency arise in, or defect be discovered in, the practice of them. There are two or three other Amendments in the name of the honourable Member for Cork, and the Government have no objection to accept Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of them, and with some 1479 alteration the Government will accept the last.
MR. T. M. HEALYI do not object to any part of this Amendment excepting No. 7. The other proposals of the right honourable Gentleman are quite reasonable; but I have a strong objection to No. 7. I have known the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for many years as a fair man, and he acts upon the idea that the judges whom he appoints, or assists to appoint, will be fair also; but I say that these rules of court will be drawn entirely in the interests of one party; and I object altogether to the Amendment of the grand jury laws in the interests of one particular class. What will happen? At the present time claims on grand juries are largely confined to the land grabbing class. In the north of Ireland, as a rule, they take out an insurance policy, and in Belfast I believe there are more claims on insurance companies than in all the rest of Ireland put together. Now what will happen in the south of Ireland under this proposal? Undoubtedly it will be that for the first time Ireland will have a much larger influx of claims than ever arose before. Under the ancient procedure we should have protection against fraud. The judge of assize, or the county court judge, in the case of fraudulent claims, was able to say supposing notice had not been given in time, "This case cannot go on; you should have given it on Monday instead of Tuesday"; and the application would be thrown out upon a technical point. What does the right honourable Gentleman propose? He proposes that the judge at the trial shall have an elastic power to make rules as he likes in favour of a particular applicant, and in addition to that rules of court may be be made by an assemblage of county court judges, and afterwards by the High Court in Ireland regulating the procedure in this respect, so that the House of Commons which is engaged in discussing this subject will not have these rules before it in any way. This is not a Judicature Act—if it were the rules would be laid upon the Table, and we should have a chance of discussing them. My experience of rules of court 1480 is this: if they are intended for the advantage of the people no rules of court are ever made. There are Statutes that have existed for the last 10 or 12 years which prescribe rules of court, and the judges have never attempted to make rules under these Statutes, but the moment you say that rules shall be made in a hostile sense to the people, the judges will at once make them, and they will make them in the interests of a particular class of claimants, and will amend them every time there is a deficiency in the interests of those particular people. I have always in my mind the case of Mrs. Lucas. Mrs. Lucas was the wife of a landlord, and she made an enormous claim for damages. She was guarded by three or four policemen, her house was boycotted, so she said. Fortunately, one of the policemen who were protecting Mrs. Lucas had his eyes opened to an act of arson. He saw Mrs. Lucas one evening come downstairs with two or three cans of petroleum, which she poured over the drawing-room furniture and curtains, and then set it alight. Then her husband, who was a bankrupt and a beggar landlord, made an enormous claim at the next court of the grand jury, in order to obtain compensation for his own class. The grand jury did not believe her, and threw out the claim, and she was afterwards prosecuted.
§ An HONOURABLE MEMBER: She went before them twice.
MR. T. M. HEALYYes, she went before them a second time, and again the policeman with the wide-open eyes told his story, and again the grand jury rejected the claim. She was then put on her trial for arson, but being the wife of a landlord was not put in the dock. She was accommodated with a seat in the body of the court. The judge wept when an Irish jury, a harsh Irish jury, found her guilty. She got a sentence which, if she had been a poor woman charged with stealing turnips to relieve her hunger, would have been of a much more severe character. She was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. I say that this proposal of the Government will be availed of by people to an enormous extent for the purpose of 1481 levying money from people; and I believe that attempts will be made all over the country by persons of Mrs. Lucas's description, Remember what took place before. Then you had to go before the cess-payers; now you substitute a county court judge who does not even live in the district. Perhaps he will be a lodger in St. Stephen's Green, and the matter will be decided by a gentleman who will not lose a penny in consequence of his decision. I should like to propose that every time these county court judges, or High Court Judges, award an amount, a proportionate sum should come off their own salary. Under the old system, when the grand jury awarded compensation a part of the money came out of their own pockets. I see many grand jurors of Ireland opposite me; and they know that whenever they pass a presentment they have to pay a pretty considerable portion of it out of their own pockets. Take the case of the county court judge at West Cork at this moment. He never was in Cork in his life before his appointment, consequently he was appointed. He will have one half of the area of the county of Cork within his jurisdiction, and he will have to decide upon questions of this character. From his decision there will be an appeal to a perambulating judge of assize. These men will not know the habits of the people with whose affairs they are dealing. It will be possible that an Ulster judge will try the case of a Minister man, as a Munster judge will try the case of an Ulster man. These judges will not know the people with whom they are dealing—their character, their dodges, and it is essential that they should know of these things, because this largely comes to a personal equation. The existing law provided many safeguards. An applicant had to go before the cess-payers, the presentment sessions, and the grand jury, and for all of these you now propose to substitute county court judges, and the business is to come on at the ordinary sittings of those courts. Surely, if these cases are to go before a, county court judge, special sittings should be held for them. Take the case of a fire. How long does an insurance company take to pay after you have put in your claim? Why, if you only have a cowl burnt off your chimney 1482 in consequence of a fire, they will send down inspectors, who will go over the premises and make a report, and all kinds of inquiries will be made before they pay one shilling of the money of their shareholders, and if you are not strictly within the words of your policy every word will be considered and construed. And it is this sort of thing, this sort of inquiry, which was previously made by the grand jury, who were awarding their own money, that the right honourable Gentleman wishes to put an end to. Was not the law sufficiently wide? What was the reason of amending the laws? You are getting rid of the grand juries, and you are giving facilities to the claims of men, many of whom will make bogus claims. I had it, man come to me about a claim. I said, "Are you insured?" He said "Yes." I said, "Then why don't you go to the insurance company?" Why should not these people be content to be insured? Why is a county to take less precaution than is taken by a fire insurance company? This clause of the Grand Jury Act has been in existence for something like fifty years. The right honourable Gentleman has said that great injustice arose under it. I deny it, and I will tell you why. Who has to construe the injustice? The grand jury was the tribunal, and a favourable tribunal; but if you appealed you left it to the judge, from whom there was no appeal. The vice of this Amendment is this: that every time a point is gained the judge will turn round, and make rules of court to meet it. Why do not you do that with the Land Acts? How is it that all the points we have taken about the Land Act procedure, and the difficulties of tenants serving notices, etc., have not obtained rules of court? After a landlord dies the tenant is nine months before he can get his notices served, and probably it is another nine months before he can get a hearing, and then every difficulty that lies in the way of the adjudication, of the law—wherever there is an advantage to be gained by the people—every obstacle that legal ingenuity can put in the way, is made use of. You find no difficulty about your coercion Acts. You take the utmost care with your resident magistrates, and the action of the law under these Acts is 1483 so speedy that you are in prison within 24 hours of being charged. A summons has only to be issued, and you find a posse of constables at the doors of Westminster itself to take you into custody, and now you are suggesting rules of court which will only be used for the protection of the land-grabber. That is to get over the difficulty of mulcting the ratepayer. You are greatly afraid that the new county councils will be extravagant, and they will vote money to labourers and others for the purpose of subsidising them. But you are not a bit afraid of the county court judges that they will vote money to your landlords and your landgrabbers for the purpose of subsidising them. But I am. I venture to say this, and I have received in my brief experience at the Bar courtesy and kindness from every gentleman there, that the best tribunal you will get is a petty jury. You will get in a petty jury of the county council or a district council quite as honest and pure a body as you would have in the 13 or 14 judges on the Bench in the Law Courts. I would trust my fate upon any issues to the first dozen men that I could pick up by the wayside upon any road in Ireland as readily as I would to 12 of the greatest judges in the land. This power I would not grudge you if you showed the same desire and readiness to help the people as you do to hurt them. But when we come to the rules for grand juries and county councils as they will now be, you make a rule that they shall not spend more than one-fourth of the amount of any presentments more than they have made before. Will you provide, in the case of the judges in the county court, that they shall not make presentments for malicious injuries for more than one-fourth than they have made before? In the county courts you have no fear of extravagance in these matters. There is only a fear in the case of the men who are elected by the people. Now, what is a county court judge? We know them well enough, for we meet them in the flesh, and will any man tell me that when he gets on his wig and gown his judgment is any different from when he was walking about in the Law Courts? I say this, that this proposal to extend the existing 1484 iniquitous law by rules of court is a proposal to the advantage of a particular class. Once we pass this section we are handing over the administration to the class which we distrust. In every other case of this kind we have an opportunity of seeing what these rules were in the House of Commons; and remember, Mr. Lowther, this is not a question of sentiment, but it is a question of cash. It is a question of money, and I for my part decline to grant that in the case of malicious injuries the law shall be extended and made more elastic by the judges to a particular class, and you should administer justice between man and man with absolute impartiality.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYI beg to move—
Line 2, after the second 'and,' insert 'the district council in which, or on the borders of which, the injury is alleged to have been committed, and also'Line 4, after 'application,' insert 'and also any district council upon whose district, or any portion thereof, the compensation awarded, or any portion thereof, is specially charged.'Line 9, after 'shall,' insert 'except in so far as they require security to be given.'Line 13, leave out 'shall,' and insert 'may.'
§ Agreed to without a Division.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYI beg to move—
That the Judge of Assize on such appeal shall, in addition to any other power, have power, if he thinks fit, to empannel a jury, and to leave out all the words after.In moving that, I claim that we have something amounting to a Parliamentary pledge from the Chief Secretary for Ireland that this Amendment will be accepted. The right honourable Gentleman has given this pledge over and over again, and he has, in answer to questions, and also in Debate, asserted that the only change he wished to make in the law in relation to malicious injuries should not go further than the transferring of the jurisdiction of presentment sessions and grand juries to the county 1485 court. He has said over and over again that once that is done he desired to make no further change in the law, and that, was the original framing of the clause. Does this clause, when you go to the judge of assize, preserve the existing law? The promise made by the Chief Secretary amounted almost to a Parliamentary pledge that this element of the special jury shall not be brought into it. I have never in all my experience known any charge to be made as regards the action of common juries in the case of malicious injuries for presentment, but it is the commonest thing in experience to have the presentment made by a grand jury traversed, and it is an invariable practice of the judge when the presentment sessions differ, as they constantly do, to refer the issue of malice to a petty jury. I challenge honourable Members opposite to cite a single case in which it has ever been alleged that a petty jury so empannelled—and acting, as they do, always under the direction of the judge—has acted otherwise than in a proper manner. No charge has ever been attempted to be made against the action of petty juries in these assize courts. They are drawn from a very large area, for the area of disturbance to which the malicious injury relates is bound to be a very small area. Therefore the probability that you will have any member of the jury interested in the issue to be tried is very remote indeed. But, be that as it may, I do claim that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has given what practically amounts to a pledge that the procedure, once you get in the court of assize, shall not be changed, and certainly, Sir, no such changes should be made. The honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, in introducing this Amendment, never dreamt of suggesting that there had been any improper action on the part of petty juries. He never even alleged that it had been a matter of complaint in the past that petty juries had acted improperly. Now, that being so, I do ask, before this unnecessary change is made in the existing law, that, at any rate, some case shall be made out for it. I appeal to the records of Parliament for the statement which the right honourable 1486 Gentleman has made to show that he has over and over again pledged himself to say that the clause of this Bill would not go further than the transferring of jurisdiction to the county court.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURIn reply to the honourable Member, I may say that under no circumstances could I accept any Amendment of my proposal in this Bill. It would be a very unusual course for a Minister to take to pledge himself not to bring forward any Amendment to a proposal of this kind, and I think it is scarcely possible that anything I can have said has given such a pledge. If it did, it was certainly not my intention. But, Sir, I may say that this Amendment was suggested to me by one of the honourable Member's own friends, the Member for Londonderry. If he will turn to the Amendment standing in the name of the honourable Member for Londonderry he will see that he desires that these issues may be tried by a special jury at the request of the county council. I think perhaps there may be a certain amount of reason in this, but all we have done in this Amendment is to secure for the applicant the privileges and the safety which the honourable Member for Londonderry himself so much desires for the county council.
§ MR. HARRINGTONMr. Lowther, it strikes me that it would be well for the Irish Members to consider whether there is any advantage to be obtained from the Amendment. It seems to me that it would be actually for the advantage of the general body of the ratepayers that this provision should remain in the section. There is much more danger that the common jury would be likely to have sympathy with a man who has neglected to insure his property, and to strain the point as to whether the injury had been malicious or not in favour, than a special jury the members of which would have a large monetary interest in the question, and would themselves have to contribute a considerable portion of the compensation. The special juries 1487 would take the deepest interest in probing to the bottom every circumstance connected with those injuries. Certainly, if you deny to county councils the right to have a special jury to try this issue, I think you will be denying to the general ratepayers the tribunal which is most likely to examine the question closely, and to offer the greatest resistance to granting compensation for what was merely accidental under the head of malicious injury.
§ MR. DILLONWhile I confess that I agree with the honourable Member for Cork, I do not think it is worth while pressing it to a Division. I am entirely with the honourable Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin that we ought not to facilitate these claims for malicious injury. I regard the whole code, as applied to Ireland, as a most iniquitous law, but it is most iniquitous when it is used as an instrument of direct vengeance and oppression of some poor district, where the assessment for malicious injury is confined to a few. In one case the rates were increased 7s. or 8s. in the £ for the purpose of deliberate political persecution. These are the real cases in which we are interested. This code of law, when used in times of political excitement, and when used as a political weapon of persecution, can be made, and frequently has been made, one of the most frightful instruments of oppression imaginable. It appears to me that the special jury is an exceedingly bad tribunal to try these cases.
§ MR. SHEEMr. Lowther, I do not think any honourable Member who has spoken with reference to this proposed omission from the clause has put the real issue before the Committee. The real question this Amendment raises is whether the Government can trust their judges of assize. The judges have absolute discretion as to whether there should be a common jury or any jury. That being so, surely the Government ought to be prepared to leave it to the intelligence or the judges as to whether in any particular case a jury ought to be empannelled or not. Therefore I think the section as framed by the right honourable 1488 Gentleman, the Attorney General for Ireland, to a certain extent casts a reflection on the intelligence and the discretion of the judges of assize.
§ MR. M. HEALYAs I cannot make an impression on a point of principle, I will see if I can make an impression on a point of detail. I submit that, having regard to the provisions of the Special Juries Act of 1894, it would be practically impossible in a great many cases to give any effect to this section. Under this section a plaintiff would not know whether he was entitled to a special jury until he made application to the judge. Suppose the judge granted the application, and the sheriff had no special jury summoned, what is to happen? Presumably the case would have to be postponed till the next Assizes — possibly from July until the following March. The clause as it stands, will create a serious administrative difficulty, and practically repeal Mr. Justice Ross's Act.
§ MR. ATKINSONThe clause is intended to provide, and does provide, that if any party desires to have a special jury he should serve notice within a certain time before the Assizes, so as to give the sheriff time to summon a special jury. I quite admit that if the judge decides to try the case without a special jury the special jurors will have been summoned in vain, but that is unavoidable.
§ MR. DILLONCould anything be more preposterous than that?
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. J. J. CLANCY (Dublin, N.)This Sub-section 5 as it stands gives absolute discretion to the Judge of Assize in all cases to refuse a jury. I submit that if that is carried as it stands it will make the law worse than it is at present. The provision in the existing law, as the right honourable Gentleman well knows, is stated in Brett's Book on the Grand Jury Law, page 56. It reports a statement of Mr. Justice O'Brien, and the statement which he made was revised 1489 by Mr. Justice O'Brien himself. Mr. Justice O'Brien, so lately as 1893, laid it down as the practice of the judges that in the case where a presentment for compensation for a malicious injury had been refused by the grand jury, as distinguished from a case where it was passed, if he gave leave to traverse the presentment at all, the matter could only be determined by the aid of a jury. I am aware that in many cases judges have adopted a different practice in this matter. Some have gone on with a jury—hesitating to try the cases themselves. Some judges, on the other hand, have refused a jury, and decided the cases themselves. But in this judgment of a recent date by Mr. Justice O'Brien, he states generally the practice adopted by the judges, and states that where a presentment had been returned by the presentment sessions and by the grand jury—
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSI must ask the honourable Member if he is going to move any Amendment.
§ MR. CLANCYI apologise, Sir, I beg to move, at the end of the Sub-section, the following, in order to carry out the existing law—
Where the application for compensation has been refused by the county court judge, the judge of assizes shall direct that a jury shall be empannelled to try any such issue.The law would then be that where a county court judge has refused an application for compensation the judge of assize would then decide the question, malice or no malice, with the aid of a jury.
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSwas understood to point out that the Committee had already decided that question in substance.
§ MR. CLANCYSurely in Acts of Parliament nothing is more common than to put in a provision of such a kind. It is not in contradiction to what goes before. There is a general enactment saying that the judge will have complete discretion as to the jury, and then I, in accordance with practice, 1490 put in a provision limiting that enactment in a particular case, namely, where the application for compensation has been refused. I submit that is in order.
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSI am afraid I must rule against the honourable Member. What the Committee has adopted is that the judge of assize has complete discretion.
§ Amendment negatived.
MR. T. M. HEALYI wish to move on Section 6 of the Amendment, which states that—
The county court and judge of assize respectively may award costs to, or against, any party to a proceeding under this section.I have put down an Amendment on the Paper "providing the costs of opposing every unsuccessful application shall be given against the applicant." The Government adopt this in this way, that the county court judge and judge of assize "may" wards costs. Let me point out the cruelty of this mode of resisting my Amendment. In the first place, if an applicant is successful he gets a cash award, which the judge will measure as full compensation to him, both for injury and the trouble of coming to the court. Well, but if he loses, if he is defeated, the judge "may" give costs—in other words, the successful applicant must get his costs, but if he loses, costs "may" be awarded. He will in any event have a limited sum. Observe the converse—that they "may" be given. It appears to me that the word "may" should be "shall," and the words "to or against any party to a proceeding" omitted. Now, Sir, let this be remembered—the county council or the district council will be an authority. Why should costs be given against them and not against the other side? How often have we brought tip the decisions of magistrates to the Queen's Bench in Dublin, and, having won, been told that no costs could be given against the justices! It must be a most infamous case of oppression, or our Sovereign Lady the Queen cannot have costs given against her. Why am I to be told that the county council or the district council, whichever it may be, in the discharge of a public duty must come before the 1491 court to defend the interests of the ratepayers at the peril of costs? If it is only a small matter the district council will toss up and say, "So much for instructions to a solicitor, so much for instructions to counsel, etc.—£10 will be our legal expenses; the applicant is only claiming £3, therefore we prefer that the decree should be given against the rates." That appears to me to be a complete answer to the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman. This Local Government Bill is not a Bill brought in for the purpose of assisting land-grabbers—it is not a right of damage Act. I had rather—much rather—trust to the Member for Cambridge than trust to the county court judges in Cork. And then the costs, forsooth! It appears to me that it is most unjust. If a mud cabin be burned down, they will claim as much as for a castle. It appears to me that this provision as to costs is unfair; why could not the costs be given before this Act? I wonder, has anyone in this House, who is not a grand juror, ever seen a successful applicant for compensation for the loss of a starved bullock issue forth from the grand jury room smiling? Why the whole thing is an atmosphere of perjury. And really, we should have some of the suspicions which distinguish insurance agents. The number of claims that are honest are few, the number that are bogus many. And then you would have the speculative attorney. Up to the present, a man can make his own bargain with his attorney, but now the speculative attorney will go about the country looking for damage to cattle and produce: he will say, "Well, we will probably get our costs, and I will take my chance of the risk." Under this new form of litigation you will have the attorneys descending on the country like a plague. I appeal to the right honourable Gentleman to leave the law as to costs as it was, or otherwise provide that the unsuccessful bogus applicant will have costs given against him.
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSThe Motion before the Committee is, "That the words stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. ATKINSONThe honourable and learned Member's Amendment would establish a rule which in practice would work very unjustly. He proposes that the unsuccessful applicant will not always be mulcted in costs; that is very well as far as it goes, but he says there should be no further provision as to costs. He says costs should always be added to the amount. The ratepayers must pay that amount, and if costs are to be added, the result would be that the county council and the ratepayers will have to pay these costs, although they may not uphold the application. If the judge is to add the applicant's costs to the claim, he will be mulcting the ratepayers. I say that would be a cruel and unjust rule to the county council and ratepayers. The Amendment as proposed adopts a rule that is particularly necessary in litigation such as this; because while this Amendment gives powers to all parties to come in—the county council, the district council, and any ratepayers may come in—it makes provision that the judge will have it in his discretion to award costs as he may think fit. The costs should not be awarded against the county council. I have no apprehension whatever that if this power be left in the hands of the court it will prevent men rushing in with bogus and harassing claims.
MR. T. M. HEALYThe right honourable Gentleman says that the judge will give costs against the man who heaps up litigation from court to court, but what will happen? Everybody knows what will happen. The action will really be fought in the name of some man of straw; you will get some man whose assessment is £4, who has a mortgage on his farm, and who owes four years' rent, coming forward to oppose a claim for, say, £1,000, and much he cares for justice. That will be what will happen under the system which the right honourable Gentleman proposes to establish. But, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman has not really met, in any way, the objection which I put—namely, that this is not an Act to amend the compensation, section of the grand jury laws—Section 1493 136 I think ii is. That is the vice of the right honourable Gentleman's position. In proposing an Amendment to the grand jury laws, in transferring the grand jury powers, he invents a lot of new powers. This is an entire innovation. We suggest, that, in case of prisons, the power should be transferred to the county council, as it is in England. This is a Bill to conserve the powers of the land-grabbers, whose interests are so carefully looked after by the right honourable Gentleman. The amount he will get under the agricultural grant will be about £100,000 a year. I venture to say that the agricultural grant will, to an enormous extent, be swallowed up by the land-grabbers' claims and costs. I was thinking of proposing an Amendment to the effect that no compensation should be paid to a tenant who was not insured. I do not see why a man, because he lives in a county, and gets an agricultural grant, should be better off than I am in my house in Dublin, with no agricultural grant, and who could not pretend that my house was set fire to by moonlighters, or anything of that kind. Why should not these landlords have their houses insured, like any other class of the community? If this system is to be adopted the least thing that should be done is this: the county council ought to be allowed to insure themselves as against these bogus claims, and power ought to be given for the county council to insure against what I may call war risks. I venture to think that this Bill will enormously increase them: but, unhappily, the position in regard to the Bill is this: it is of very little use, apparently, proposing Amendments, and we have no object in taking up the time of the Committee. I therefore do not propose to divide the Committee, but will be content with this protest against the land-grabbers' protection and endowment clause.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
MR. MAURICE HEALTThe Amendment I now beg to move is one of those which the right honourable Gentleman said he would accept, namely—
In line 19, after the word 'given,' to insert the words 'and advertisements to be published.'
§ MR. ATKINSONI hardly think this is necessary. If the rules of court "regulate the notice to be given," they would naturally regulate any notice given by way of advertisement. However, I have no objection to the Amendment, if the honourable Member presses it.
§ MR. M. HEALYI think there should be the fullest publicity.
§ MR. ATKINSONI accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYI now beg to move the omission of the words, "or opposition." The only object of this Amendment is to simplify the procedure. The serving of notice of opposition will only render the proceedings more costly, and I cannot see what disadvantage an applicant will suffer if he gets no notice of opposition. In a claim for malicious injury the county council must know the nature of the case that is going to be made. It is the duty of the county council in all these cases to appear as a party to the proceedings, not necessarily to offer opposition, but to see that justice is done, and to protect the interests of the ratepayers. The applicants in all these cases ought to assume that the county council will be represented, to see that the case is properly proved. No one can be taken by surprise, and the only effect of the Amendment can be that the procedure will be cheapened.
§ MR. ATKINSONI think this Amendment would defeat the object the honourable Member has in view. It would necessitate every applicant always being prepared to litigate his case to the bitter end. When the county council get notice of any application of this kind, and they find the case is a good one, they would give notice to the applicant that they did not intend to oppose. In the same way it is only right and fair that any person intending to appear should give notice of opposition, so that the applicant may be fully prepared to establish his case. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.
MR. T. M. HEALYI do hope that the right honourable Gentleman will reconsider this. Supposing the gentlemen who are to make these rules made a rule that the opposing party should assess the value of the field in question, I see nothing to prevent them making such a rule. The words of the section are—
Rules of Court may regulate the notice to be given of any application or opposition, and generally the practice and procedure under this section.I do not suppose it is probable that such a rule as I am thinking of would be made, but it seems to me to be quite possible under this section. There is another objection which I may suggest. The right honourable Gentleman has just stated that it will be the duty of the county council, if, upon investigation, they find that the case is a good one, to give notice that they will not oppose. Now, if that be so, it is opening the door for fraud, because what is to prevent a man putting up a job with the county council and saying, "You know I am not a bad fellow; do not oppose me!" There is certainly every possibility of the clause leading to fraud and collusion. I do not know what the exact meaning of the words is, and upon this Bill I feel it no shame to confess my ignorance.
§ MR. ATKINSONAny ratepayer can oppose an application.
MR. T. M. HEALYThen what is to regulate the procedure? You say that 20 days are to be allowed for notice of claim, and 20 days for notice of opposition. If a man is a day late with his notice of claim the matter will be overlooked, but if your notice of opposition is a single day late the judge will rule against you. It must not be forgotten that in Ireland the whole machinery is in the hands of the enemies of the country, and, therefore, we are bound to be distrustful about the effect of this clause. To invent now, for the first time, a procedure for opposition which even Irish grand jurors have never thought of is imposing upon us a little too much. You have done enough for the land-grabber; you ought now to give the honest man a chance.
§ MR. ATKINSONI cannot accept this Amendment, for the reasons I have stated.
MR. T. M. HEALYLet me point out the extraordinary result that will follow from this clause, as it stands. Suppose a large claim is made for compensation; the county council or district council will get notice of the claim, the claim will be lodged in regular form, and the applicant will have to bring up his witnesses just the same as if he had ten notices of opposition. Or are we to say that, unless notice of opposition is given, the applicant may simply walk into court and say, "No notice of opposition has been given; pay me out my £500 or £600."
§ MR. ATKINSONNot at all; he must prove his case.
MR. T. M. HEALYThen, if the applicant is to be put upon proof in any case, what is the object of insisting on notice of opposition? He will not be damnified by this Amendment, because he must assume that there will be opposition.
§ MR. ATKINSONWhere there is no notice of opposition the applicant would content himself with formal proof.
§ MR. HARRINGTONThere is one point I should like to bring to the attention of the right honourable Gentleman. I think that in the drafting of these rules it will be absolutely necessary that the notice of a private ratepayer should be shorter than the notice given by the county council. Some time should be given after the time allowed to the county council—some interval in which the private ratepayer may find out that the county council will not do its duty, and that it is necessary for him to take the duty on himself.
§ MR. DILLONLet me ask what would happen supposing this case arose. Suppose the time has lapsed for giving notice of opposition, and after that time has lapsed, but before the case came up, facts came to the knowledge of some ratepayer showing that the claim was a 1497 bogus one, or grossly overstated. What would be the position then?
§ MR. ATKINSONThat is exactly the point. The very part of the clause to which honourable Members opposite object would provide for such a case. It gives power to the county court judge in such a case, to waive any irregularity and dispense with the requirements as to notice or otherwise.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLI trust the right honourable Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment. As the law stands at present, no previous notice of opposition is necessary at all. A man makes an application for what is called a traverse, that is an objection to the presentment. One of the sub-sections proposed by the right honourable Gentleman himself shows the necessity for this Amendment. Sub-section 3 is—
Any person claiming compensation in a county may apply to the county court, and the county council, and any person paving poor rate in that county may, as well as the applicant, appear and be heard by the county court in relation to the application.Does the right honourable Gentleman say that, supposing the party does not appear before the county court judge, he is to be shut out altogether? If so, very serious consequences will result. There would be no object in the words—The proceedings may be set aside … or otherwise dealt with.Speaking generally, with regard to this clause, I wish, to put it upon record that my opinion is that if the clause passes in its present shape we shall have no end of litigation. Under Sub-section 7 the rules of court would be ultra vires if they did anything more than provide for an appeal to the judge of Assize, and afterwards to the Court of Appeal. We have had experience of clauses of this character in connection with the Irish Land Acts, and I am sure that this section, in its present form, will not work satisfactorily.
§ MR. SHEEI think an applicant under this Act should be placed in the same position as that in which a plaintiff in a county court action at present is. The ordinary plaintiff has to go into court prepared with all his proofs whether there be opposition or no; he must prove his case to the satisfaction of the county court judge. In this case an applicant for compensation will get a facility or privilege that no ordinary suitor gets. I really cannot understand for what reason the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is so tender towards applicants for compensation that he proposes to place them in a better position than any other applicant in a county court.
MR. T. M. HEALYI do not think we have had a satisfactory answer as to what will happen if there is no notice of opposition. The right honourable Gentleman says that if there is no notice of opposition, or if the notice is withdrawn, practically the claim will be decided in the applicant's favour. But suppose I enter opposition to a claim for, say, £1,000, and the applicant comes to me with a five-pound note, and says, "Look here, your own claim would not amount to more than £2 3s. 4d., but here is a five-pound note for you; now withdraw your opposition." What happens if I accept that, and withdraw my opposition after the time for giving notice has expired; are all the other ratepayers of the county to be damnified? We have heard in this House of what is known as the collusive block; I am not sure that I myself was not the inventor of it. A friend of the Bill "blocks" it, in order to deter opponents from the real opposition; then at the psychological moment the friendly block is withdrawn, and the Bill slips through in the absence of opposition. That is what is called a collusive block. Suppose you have a collusive opposition to a claim, how are the real opponents of the claim to be protected? The right honourable Gentleman says, in effect, that we may rely on the equity of Ireland to dispense with 1499 any formalities. I decline to rely on that at all. The sub-section says that—
In particular, such rules shall provide that non-compliance by the applicant with any of the rules shall not render any proceeding void unless the court or judge of assize so direct.I decline to rely on that equity; I prefer the good old common law of the country, which enables me to go into court and there enter my opposition. I want to know why the passing of a rule should deprive me of that right. I protest against the spirit shown by the right honourable Gentleman in dealing with this Amendment. No answer is given to our objection; he simply meets us with a non possumus. I must say it is very unusual for the Government to meet reasonable Amendments in this spirit. I believe that if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary were in his place he would have accepted this Amendment long ago. We are left with only two Irish officials in charge of the Bill, who are not Members of the Cabinet, so that we are addressing our arguments to gentlemen who have no power to meet us. I can only say that if some fair answer is not given us, when we ask why a right existing at common law and by statute is to be taken away from the Queen's subjects, I shall move to report Progress.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONI have listened with great attention to the speeches of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth. It appears to me that at the present moment the honourable and learned Member has no confidence in any body of men in Ireland, not even in any of the new bodies to be created by this Bill. Perhaps it would satisfy him if the claims for compensation for malicious injuries were left to the grand juries.
MR. T. M. HEALYI can only say that if it were left to me I should prefer the grand juries. Before the grand juries you, at any rate, have to deal with men who have to pay some of the assessments for malicious injuries, and who have to live in the county. That, I think, is a very good equity to rely on. Now, Sir, I am glad to see the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord in his place. I want to ask why this sub-section, which takes away from the Queen's subjects a right which they enjoy under the common law and under statute, is pressed so unreasonably. I submit that the burden of proof in a claim for compensation for malicious injuries lies on the applicant. This Amendment can do no possible harm, and I really think we are entitled to expect the Government to meet us.
§ MR. ATKINSONIt is difficult to appreciate the reason for the honourable and learned Member's dissatisfaction with this very harmless provision. It is the almost universal practice for a claimant to have notice when his claim is going to be contested.
§ MR. ATKINSONIn the county court the defendant is obliged to enter his defence, and that is entered on the records of the court. In all litigation in superior courts of all kinds the moment the defence is entered notice must be given to the plaintiff that he is put to strict proof. I quite admit that in proceedings before the grand juries for malicious injury that is not required, but it is an anomaly which we do not wish to perpetuate in this Bill. Under this section precaution is taken that every person having an interest shall be served by the applicant with notice of his claim.
§ MR. ATKINSONThe county council and district council are to be served with notice of claim, and it is competent for any ratepayer in the county to oppose; but in justice to the applicant notice 1501 of opposition ought to be given to him. I cannot, see that any right is taken away from the Queen's subjects, as the honourable and learned Member puts it. All that is asked is that an applicant whose claim is intended to be opposed shall have notice given to him in time to enable him to meet the opposition. He will have, of course, to establish to the full satisfaction of the judge that he has sustained damage; but everybody acquainted with litigation knows that what is required to establish a claim to the satisfaction of a court when there is no opposition and what is required to overbear opposition are two entirely different things.
MR. T. M. HEALYThe right honourable and learned Gentleman compares these proceedings with an ordinary suit, and he says that everybody has to give notice of his claim. Granted; but has everybody to give notice of his opposition? Take the illustration of the land courts; fair rent applications by the tenants can be opposed without any notice of opposition. When they are appealing for fair play as against the landgrabbers, the landgrabbers are not tied down to giving so many days' notice of opposition. Again, take the case of a licence. I may have a licence for which I gave £5,000, but when I apply for its renewal I may be opposed by any man who likes to start up in the court without any notice whatever; and that man need not even be a ratepayer. I ask what reason is there for suddenly making a change in the law which has existed now for over sixty years? What is the ground for the change? Was the law bad before; and, if so, have Her Majesty's Attorneys Generals during the whole of her reign, been fast asleep? When you are now, for the first time, transferring power from the grand juries and presentment sessions to the county court judge, what ground exists for giving this new privilege to an applicant for compensation? I must say that I think the effect of this clause has not even been appreciated by the right honourable Gentleman himself. A landlord is not required to give notice of opposition to an application by his tenant for the fixing of a 1502 fair rent; but when the position is reversed, when the landgrabbers are making these bogus claims for damages for malicious injury, they are to have notice of opposition. And remember, this is a clause devised by the Government, as an afterthought, after the landlords' convention had sat in Dublin. I must say that anything more unfair, unnatural, and needless than this provision I cannot imagine. Bad as the landlords are, they have never demanded this change. It is the mere sic volo, sic jubeo of the right honourable Gentleman, and he is unable to advance a single sound argument in its favour.
§ MR. DILLONThe right honourable and learned Gentleman said that the grand jury system in Ireland was an anomaly. Sir, the whole code of laws regulating procedure in claims for damages for malicious injury is an anomaly, and a code of coercion against the people of Ireland. If not, why are those laws not imposed in this country? In the worst days of coercion that procedure which the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General now describes as an anomaly was left as, at any rate, some protection to the ratepayers. And now, when we have a Bill which is supposed to be, and is as regards some points, a Bill for conferring new rights on the people of Ireland, you propose to take away from the people rights winch they possessed in the worst days of coercion. I agree with the honourable and learned Member for North Louth that the procedure under this new clause proposed by the Government may be extremely dangerous and objectionable. Why is it that the Government attach so much importance to the procedure under this section? Because from time to time these Acts for levying damages for malicious injury are made the engine for the recovery of claims of a bogus and most outrageous character, and I cannot doubt that at times these Acts are administered in a most unfair and unjust spirit. The right honourable Gentleman talks about the present procedure being an anomaly and an exception. It cannot be more 1503 anomalous than the Acts themselves. The Committee may remember that famous decision that you can levy for malicious injury in the case of cattle which are killed and not taken away, but if cattle are stolen and eaten you can levy nothing at all. The whole of the Acts from beginning to end are conceived and drawn, not for the purpose of protecting the people, but for the purpose of carrying out the policy of the Government, which is hostile to the people, and in the case of levies over small areas most oppressive. It is for these reasons that we attach such importance to the methods of procedure to be provided by this Bill. I put it to the right honourable Gentleman, even if we are wrong and our fears are groundless, is he wise in carrying on a fight against this Amendment in face of the fact that the view taken by the Irish Members is that the clause as it stands is an infringement of the liberties of the people? What is their real reason for attaching so much importance to their exact wording of this clause?
§ MR. J. TULLY (Leitrim, S.)I fail to see why the Government should object to letting the law stand as it is in Ireland, instead of having a new code set up for the manufacture of bogus grievances and bogus claims. This clause is a blot on the Bill, and I think the Bill would be far more satisfactory to the people of Ireland if the entire clause were left out, rather than passed in the shape in which it now stands. It will lead to the multiplication of bogus claims and be a grievous tax on the ratepayers. This particular sub-section, as it is drafted, will involve that county councils or district councils must make regular legal opposition to every claim that is lodged. We are far better off in Ireland with the law as it stands at present, cumbrous and antiquated though it be, than we should be with the procedure set up by this clause. The present law, cumbrous as it is, has this great advantage. I have myself seen bogus claims put before grand juries, and seen them dismissed because the claimant has failed to comply with some legal provision or other; but under this new 1504 procedure the manufacture of bogus claims will be as easy as dropping a letter in the nearest post office. I object entirely to this clause; I think it is a blot on the Bill. I hope the Government will, between this and Monday, reconsider the matter and withdraw the entire clause and let the law stand as it is. Many of us would prefer to take our chance before the grand juries, rather than be at the mercy of hostile county court judges, who will have no hesitation in putting these fines on the people when perhaps it suits them for political purposes.
§ It being Twelve of the Clock the Debate stood adjourned.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday.
§ House resumed.