§ LORD KILLANIN
rose to ask His Majesty's Government: (1) Why the whole of the County of Galway was proclaimed instead of the restricted areas which are in a state of disturbance. (2) What are the legal grounds for the assertion of the Government that the expenses of extra forces of the Royal Irish Constabulary in disturbed areas can be made chargeable only on counties at large. (3) If the peremptory directions of the Irish Government to the Galway County Council to levy the demands for these expenses—made each half year from September, 1905 to September, 1907—of various districts and townlands were wrong and illegal. (4) Whether, if the laws is as they assert, they will immediately introduce legislation to remedy the glaring injustice of this indiscriminate mode of taxation in this matter. (5) 276 When and for what periods have counties in Ireland been proclaimed under 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 13, during the last thirty years; and what demands for the expenses of extra police were made on each such occasion; and on what areas—whether counties or baronies, districts, or other parts of a county—were these demands ordered to be levied; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said, My Lords, in bringing this matter for a second time under your Lordships' notice when I have so recently raised it, I feel that possibly some apology is due to your Lordships; but my excuse must be that I consider the treatment of the proclaimed counties and the heavy expenditure both out of the Exchequer and locally—I understand something like £47,000 in the last year, and in the County of Galway something like £16,000 in one year—a subject of very great importance. I, therefore, think I am justified in bringing it again to the notice of the House and of the Government, and, so far as is in my power, to the notice of public opinion, especially in Ireland, where I hope by attending to this matter some improvement may take place.
I also have this excuse for bringing the matter pertinaciously under your notice, that I am an elected county councillor in the County of Galway, and, as such, it is my duty to protect the interests of the ratepayers whom I have the honour to represent on that body, and who I consider, by the treatment of the Government in this matter, are being dealt with most unjustly. Furthermore, when I brought this matter before the House a fortnight or so ago the noble Lord who represents the Irish Office and the noble Earl the Leader of the House practically confessed that they were unable to answer the questions and the points I made; and the noble Earl, with his usual courtesy, asked me to bring up the matter again.
I do not desire to go at great length into the whole story, but I think it is necessary more or less to describe the situation. Certain districts in Ireland are, unfortunately, in a state of disturbance. That is admitted by everyone. The Lord-Lieutenant has proclaimed the counties in which those 277 districts are; he has poured into those counties an immense number of police, and, thereby, a great expenditure has been incurred. This mode of dealing with the trouble does not commend itself to me, for the very simple reason that it is doing no good whatever and is absolutely ineffectual. In spite of the large numbers of police poured into these districts, in spite of new barracks being built, these crimes and outrages still go on unchecked and they even increase. The police seem to have no power of stopping them, and they actually take place in the presence of the police, who are simply spectators of what goes on. The reason for that is quite easy to see. The people know that whether they are arrested or not, they will not be punished and nothing will happen. Consequently, these practices, in spite of the presence of the police, continue.
Possibly the contention of the Government is that, though this mode of treating the matter is not directly effectual, it may be effectual through the taxation which it is necessary to place on the districts. That is reasonable. I do not myself admire that mode of punishment, but I recognise that if this taxation was levied on the disturbed districts, if the taxation was made punitive, it would possibly deter the people from continuing these practices, and thus remedy the matter. But whatever chance there was of that form of dealing with the matter being effective, is completely destroyed by the fact that the Government, instead of levying the taxation for the extra forces of police on the disturbed areas where the outrages take place, levy it on counties at large, including districts that are peaceful and have no connection whatever, with the disturbances. It that way they are, to my mind, depriving this taxation of any possibility of being indirectly effective.
I would also point out, in this connection,, that the districts in which these disturbances take place are not alone not being punished by the taxation, but they are actually deriving benefits from the presence, of the extra police. You have only to be acquainted with these small towns and villages in the West of Ireland, where the population 278 is numbered by hundreds, to know that the moving of a hundred policemen to that district is a great advantage. There are the most amazing stories in circulation as to what is going on in reference to private lodgings for the police, means of conveyance, and provisions. I have heard—and I believe it to be true—that in a certain town in the West of Ireland a house which is usually let at £30 a year has been taken by the police authorities at £30 a month; and cars are hired in these districts for the conveyance of the police at an expenditure for which you could get a special train from Dublin to Galway. The Royal Irish Constabulary was never, and is not now, an unpopular body in Ireland. It is composed of good-looking and attractive young Irishmen, and, therefore, in these districts they are a great addition to the society of the place, and, as a matter of fact, I have heard that in a small town in the West of Ireland there have been within the last month five marriages of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
There is another point of view, and it is the one which, as a county councillor, I admit more especially interests me, and that is that by levying this taxation over the whole county you are not alone not making the taxation punitive, but you are including within it A large number of people and great tracks of country which are as quiet and peaceable as possible, I am not referring to small districts where it is inevitable, perhaps, that those who are innocent should suffer. I am referring to the whole of the western half of the county of Galway. If the noble Lord wants to know what positions I am referring to I may mention them specifically. I refer to the rural district of Clifden, to the whole of the rural district of Oughterard, and to at least half of the rural district of Galway and also to the town of Galway, and I say that in all those districts there is no ground for taxing the people. I also wish to ask why the whole of the county of Galway was proclaimed. The section of the Act of Parliament which gives the Lord-Lieutenant the power, of proclaiming districts gives him full power—in. fact, directs him—to proclaim only 279 those portions of a county which are in a state of disturbance. It is Section 13 of 6 and 7 Wm. IV., c. 13, and is as follows—The Lord-Lieutenant may declare by-proclamation that any county, county of a city, or county of a town in Ireland, or any barony or baronies, half barony or half baronies in any county at large, or any district of less extent than any barony or half barony, is or are in a state of disturbance and require an additional establishment of police.Will the noble Lord say that any of those districts to which I refer—they are fifty miles long and fifty miles broad—are in a state of disturbance requiring additional police? As a matter of fact, are there any additional police in those districts? Is it not rather the fact that police have been taken from those districts in order to be placed in the disturbed districts? I submit that that part of Galway is quite undisturbed, and that the people are living in that perfect peace which always obtains in Ireland when there are not agrarian troubles. Therefore I contend that to proclaim the whole county was an abuse of the Lord-Lieutenant's power considering the section I have just read, which expressly and wearisomely mentions the various sub-divisions of a county which he may declare to be in a state of disturbance requiring an additional establishment of police. I therefore deliberately ask His Majesty's Government to hive the whole of the western portion of the county of Galway unproclaimed.
It is an insult to that part of the county to proclaim it; but far more important is the injury done to these people by inflicting the extra taxation upon them. It becomes worse when we recall that nearly all that district is scheduled as a congested area, and at this moment the county council of Galway are having to tax those districts for the purpose of starting relief works to prevent the inhabitants dying of starvation. Therefore I say it was tragic to include those districts. His Majesty's Government might just as well proclaim and levy this taxation off the county of Middlesex, and, in my humble opinion, it would be less absurd to do so, because at least in the county of Middlesex the noble Lord, Lord Denman, resides as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and, although I do not accuse them 280 of intentionally encouraging this disturbance, I do say that in fact they are more connected with this agrarian trouble than anyone living in the western half of the county of Galway.
What is the answer of His Majesty's Government in this matter of levying the taxation on the whole county? I understood the noble Lord who represents the Irish Office to say that it was necessary to levy it on the whole county. I understood him to speak sympathetically the other evening, and to imply that if it could be levied on the districts they would do so, but that they were compelled to levy it on the whole county. Of course that is a legal matter, but I have looked as well as I could into it and I would refer the noble Lord to two sections in the Acts of Parliament which deal with this matter which I consider are very pertinent. I mentioned these sections to the noble Lord yesterday so that he would have time to give me an answer, because I desire the matter cleared up. I submit to His Majesty's Government that there are only two ways of putting extra police into a disturbed county—they must come either from another county or from the reserve depot in Dublin. In the case of police being moved from one county to another, Section 28 of 6 and 7 William IV., c. 13, decides what is to be the area of charge. That section says that in such a case the expenses of such police—During such time as they shall be, or remain, in any county or any barony or half barony, or other division of a barony, or county of a city or county of a town, or town and liberties, shall be defrayed in the same manner in all respects by such county or barony or half barony, or other division of a barony or county of a city or county of a town, or town and liberties, in respect of which such expenses shall have been incurred, and to which it shall be by the said Lord-Lieutenant declared that such expenses relate.I therefore submit that, in so far as these police are moved from another county, the expenses must be defrayed by the district into which they are moved. But in the case of police sent into a county from the reserve in Dublin, Section 8 of 2 and 3 Vict., c. 75, says—One moiety for the payment of police composing the said Reserve Force shall be raised off the county, county of a city or county of a town…provided always that it shall and may be lawful for the Lord-Lieutenant, if he thinks fit, to direct that the monies or any 281 proportion thereof, so payable in respect of the Reserve Force, shall be raised off any barony or baronies, half barony or half baronies, or other division of a barony, for the better execution of the law wherein such Reserve Force or any part thereof may have been employed, instead of the county at large.Therefore I contend that it is in the power of the Government, in so far as the police coming from another county or from the reserve depot in Dublin are concerned, to see that the expense is placed on the baronies and not on the counties at large.
In conclusion, I would appeal to His Majesty's Government to give full and fair consideration to this matter. I have not raised it in any party spirit. In fact, I think that calling attention to it is of advantage to the Government and to Ireland in that it might lead to people realising what is occurring, and to a stop being put to these disturbances. I should be glad if that were the result. In that way I should be doing a friendly turn to His Majesty's Government. But I do most earnestly ask them to look into the whole question, and if they do they will see that the present mode of dealing with the matter is proving wholly ineffectual, that in the meantime there is a wasteful expenditure of public money, and that the manner in which the taxation is being levied is most unjust.
Moved, "That there be laid before the House a Return showing the counties and portions of counties proclaimed under the above Act during the last thirty years, with the dates at which the proclamations were made and withdrawn."—(Lord Killanin.)
My Lords, in the able and eloquent speech which the noble Lord has addressed to the House he has dealt with two separate and distinct questions; the first was a matter of law and the second a question of policy. I will endeavour to deal first with the question of law. The county of Galway was proclaimed because the Lord-Lieutenant in Council was satisfied that the county was "in a state of disturbance" such as to "require an additional establishment of police" within the terms of the Statute, 6 Will. IV., under which the proclamation was made. Police reports show a very considerable part 282 of the West Riding to be undoubtedly in a state of disturbance. But even assuming that certain limited areas were not disturbed to an extent that would require additional police, that would not affect the question about which Lord Killanin appears mainly concerned—namely, the charge upon the local authorities. Even if limited areas only were proclaimed, the county at large would equally have to bear the charge.
Under Section 37 of the Act of William IV. the amount chargeable for extra police under Section 13, sent in pursuance of a proclamation, has to be raised off the county at large. In 1880 and 1882, when a number of counties and parts of counties were proclaimed and the police forces largely increased, the law officers advised that the charge for additional police appointed in pursuance of the proclamation must be on the county at large and not on any limited district of the county. Some of the proclamations of 1880–2, as the noble Lord is aware, remained in force for many years. I think the last proclamation remained in force till the year 1899. In the case of Galway the additional police were withdrawn in 1898. Throughout, under both Liberal and Conservative Governments, the charges have been made on the counties at large.
The present Law Officers agree that the law is as stated by their predecessors in 1880. The extra police for which charges were made against certain districts and townlands in Galway, as stated in the third part of the Question, were not additional police appointed under proclamation as in the present case, but consisted of detachments of the established police forces of other counties temporarily sent to County Galway Under 11 and 12 Viet., cap. 72, Section 6, the charge for such detachments—namely, a moiety of the cost—was made upon the county at large. In 1874 that was the opinion of the Law Officers of the day. In the year 1900, however, the then Law Officers of the Crown advised that the charge could be made 283 upon the rural or urban districts in which the men were employed, and this course appears to have been followed until March, 1906, after which date the original practice was reverted to on the advice of the present Law Officers, who agree with the view expressed by the Law Officers of 1874, that the charge should be on the county at large, a view which has been supported by judicial decision. Speaking generally, it may be said that it is open to any local authority who consider that the methods of charge for extra police are illegal to test the matter by proceedings in one of the superior Courts. I have stated the opinion of the present Law Officers, and that it is supported by a judicial decision.
It was given by Mr. Justice Harrison at the Wexford Assizes in 1888. The noble Lord has quoted the case of the reserve force of police. It is true that in some cases the reserve force may be used for a rather similar purpose to those in counties; but the law regarding that force is that it is to be used for "sudden and extraordinary emergency." A continued state of disturbance requiring comparatively permanent additions to the police force, as in County Galway at the present time, must be treated under the Act of William IV. Even if the reserve force were used, I understand that it would not be sufficient, in the opinion of the Government, for the purpose of policing County Galway at the present time.
In reply to the fifth question, I shall be glad to give the Return asked for, but to enumerate the extra expenses of police would entail enormous labour, and I hope the noble Lord will not press for that part of the Return. As to the question of injustice, I cannot admit that there is any injustice resulting from the mode of taxation. I admit that this is a rough-and-ready method of dealing with this matter, and in some cases no doubt innocent persons must suffer with the guilty. But what would be the effect of narrowing the area? Supposing a particular grazier has his cattle driven; he is probably the largest ratepayer in the district, and therefore if we narrowed 284 the area not only would that man suffer all the inconvenience and hardship of having his cattle driven, but in addition would have to pay the greater part of the expense of the police sent to protect his property. I quite admit that in the case of the noble Lord himself and of the neighbourhood in which he resides, it is a hardship to have to pay for the misdeeds of other people in a different part of the county. I admit that. But the question, I think, is whether some people should suffer a certain amount of hardship, or a much smaller number of people suffer considerably greater hardship. I gather from the tenor of the noble Lord's remarks that he was averse to drafting police into County Galway at all.
Well, my Lords, I submit that if the condition of County Galway is bad it would be considerably worse if the police already there were to be withdrawn. After all, the remedy is with the people of the County of Galway itself. Let thorn set their faces against cattle-driving and other forms of disturbance and then the police will be withdrawn, and if a hotter state of things should come to pass in that county there is nobody who would welcome such a state of things more warmly than the Chief Secretary.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY
My Lords, I cannot allow this debate to terminate without saying a word with regard to the extraordinary statement to which we have just listened. The condition of things is entirely due to His Majesty's Government. They have not taken steps to put down cattle-driving, but have allowed it to go on increasing until it has spread over eight counties, and they have proclaimed six counties under the Act of William III. and placed enormous expense upon them for extra police. The law if properly administered is perfectly capable of dealing with cattle-driving, and I want to know why His Majesty's Government have not put into force the powers they already possess. The condition of Ireland is one of increasing lawlessness. The Chief Secretary in his speeches has tried to 285 gloss over the state of affairs, but there were during the first six months of this year, I believe, more cattle-drives than in the whole of last year and more people under police protection. Yet I think I have never heard a responsible Government make a weaker answer than that made by Lord Denman to my noble friend.
§ *LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD
My Lords, in rising to speak on this subject I crave from your Lordships a full measure of that indulgence which of your goodness you concede to those who address you for the first time. I venture to address your Lordships to-day because I am familiar with the subject under your notice, because I have sympathy with the views of my noble friend Lord Killanin, and because the subject possesses certain aspects to which I wish to invite your Lordships' attention.
My purpose will be facilitated if your Lordships will permit me to explain very briefly what the organisation of the Royal Irish Constabulary is, so far as that organisation is germane to the questions placed on the Paper by the noble Lord. The Royal Irish Constabulary is divided into two bodies, which are recruited under different legal provisions. One of these bodies is called the Free Force, and the other body is called the Reserve. The Free Force is limited by law to a maximum strength of 10,678 officers and men; the Reserve is similarly limited to a maximum strength of 412 officers and men. The Reserve Force, as its name implies, is intended for use on emergencies only. It is quartered in one body in the Constabulary Depôt in the Phoenix Park. On the other hand, the Free Force is divided, triennially, among the counties of Ireland and the City of Belfast, which for special reasons is policed by the Royal Irish Constabulary; and the number of men allocated to each county is technically called the Parliamentary quota of that county. It frequently happens that the quota of a particular county has proved inadequate for the county's needs and as the quota itself cannot be increased during the currency of the triennial allocation, other means are provided by law and practice for meeting the particular emergency or by 286 increasing its total police force of the county.
Lord Killanin said there were only two ways of doing that, but there are four. One way is by the magistrates of the county, in special meeting assembled, requisitioning the Lord-Lieutenant for any increase. Another way is for the Lord-Lieutenant, on the advice of his Privy Council, to increase the police force of any particular county. A third way is to employ part of the reserve in the county, and the fourth and last way is to transfer for temporary service to the disturbed county part of the quotas of other countries, which, being in a peaceful condition, can afford to spare the men. No matter under which of these four methods the police quota of a county is reinforced, one-half of the cost of the reinforcement falls upon the rates. The important question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, really comes to this. Should the cost be recovered from the county at large, or should it fall on the disturbed districts alone?
Where the police force of a county has been strengthened by the action of the magistrates or the initiation of the Lord-Lieutenant on the advice of the Privy Council, the invariable practice has, I believe, been to treat the cost as a county at large charge; where the reinforcement has come from the reserve, the practice has been to treat the cost as recoverable from the particular districts in which the additional police have been employed. But where the reinforcement has come from the Free Forces of other counties the practice has varied. Under the last and the present Liberal Administration it has been treated as a county at large charge. During the last five years, at all events, of the late Unionist Administration, the charge was recovered from the districts whose condition made necessary the introduction of the additional police.
My Lords, it is, I think, very desirable that there should be uniformity of practice in this matter. I confess that, looking at the matter from the point of view of an executive officer, my preference is strongly in favour of the interpretation which the Unionist Law Officers have placed upon the law. I consider that it is in the interests 287 of peace and order and of fair play that those people who are peaceable and law-abiding should not be fined because of the sins of people who are disorderly. I think it is unfair that if three-fourths of the county are peaceable and orderly, those three-fourths should have to pay for the one-fourth which is disorderly. I have had much experience of the use of police in this way. In India we used to call them punitive police, and I found this method one of the most efficient in manitaining order. Under a Western as under an Eastern sun the most sensitive part of communities or of individuals is their purses, and if you bring sufficient force to bear in that direction you generally re-establish order and deter other people from breaking the law.
I have only one remark more to make, and it is, with reference to what has fallen from the noble Marquess opposite. I am not here to speak for the Government; I speak for myself alone as a private Member of your Lordships' House, but, of course, I have had exceptional opportunities for acquiring information, and, indeed I feel that in addressing your Lordships I suffer from the inconvenience that I have so lately come from public service. But I think I may say that the enforcement of the Coercion Act did not relieve the Unionist Government from having recourse to this strengthening of the police force of the country. Speaking for myself alone, I am disposed to think that, when the Unionist Government, with intentions of which I completely approve, made its excursion into the fields of Liberalism in 1898, it introduced into the Local Government (Ireland) Act certain provisions which have had very great effect upon the magisterial benches throughout Ireland. I have belief and confidence in my countrymen that whatever hasty action was then taken will in time be justified; but in the meantime the action of the Unionist Government has had this effect, that it has compelled the Liberal-Government of this day to cope with disorder in Ireland with broken harness and with blunted weapons.
§ LORD ATKINSON
My Lords, I have no desire to discuss the point of law, and I do not at all rise to enter upon the material question how far the action 288 of the Government of 1898 blunted the weapons for preserving law and order. I will only venture to say, in passing, that if they were blunted, at all events, we managed to maintain law and order in Ireland. But I rise for an entirely different purpose. I am one of those who had the good or evil fortune to give an opinion that it was not necessary to do such an extremely absurd, and, in my opinion, perfectly abortive, thing as when one division of a county was disturbed, to punish, not only that division, but its peaceful neighbours. Accordingly, we advised that under the statute it was competent, when a district was proclaimed, to send police to that district, and to charge its support upon that district. I now rise to make a suggestion. Lord Denman invited my noble friend to raise the question in a Court of law. That was a very barren and mocking invitation. He cannot raise it in a Court of law. The question is not whether the Lord-Lieutenant is bound to have the expenses raised from the disturbed districts; it is whether or not an option is given to him to direct that it be levied off the larger area. I suggest to the Government that in one of the proclaimed counties the Lord-Lieutenant should direct that a small sum should be levied on a particular area, whereupon the legal question whether the Lord-Lieutenant had or had not the jurisdiction to charge over the smaller area could be decided. If he has not, then I quite agree with Lord MacDonnell that unquestionably the law ought to be changed, for nothing could be more unjust than that people who have no connection with the disturbances should be mulcted for the support of the additional police that are necessary to check the disorder of their neighbours.
§ *LORD ASHBOURNE
My Lords, the case presented with singular clearness and fairness by my noble friend Loud Killanin is that it seems unjust to tax the wider area, a substantial portion of which might be entirely innocent, if there is a power of concentrating the charge on the portion of the county which is disturbed. The noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Irish Office stated that until 1906 the practice had 289 been as stated by Lord Killanin, but that in that year a change was made, and instead of the smaller localities being charged the expenditure was, spread over the whole county. It is obvious, from the speech of Lord Macdonnell, that the practice which was stopped in 1906 had been acted upon on previous occasions by various Governments and under various Law Officers without question; and Lord Macdonnell has intimated very clearly that, in his opinion, the power of charging the smaller area was a wise and useful power, and that as a question of policy and prudence it would be well to adopt that course. Lord Atkinson has also presented the case in the fairest possible way. I venture to suggest that, by the light of what has fallen from both sides of the House, it would be only fair and reasonable for the Government to apply their minds to this question and see whether they have not a discretion to make the charge upon the narrower locality if they think it expedient in the interests of law and order.
*THE EARL OF MAYO
My Lords, the noble Lord opposite who replied on behalf of the Irish Office said, in the concluding words of his speech, that the people of Galway must set their faces against cattle-driving. I ask whether the Government have set their faces to the best of their ability against cattle-driving. The answer, I think, is, "No." The fact remains that after many months of their efforts cattle-driving still goes on, not alone in Galway but in other places. I should like to draw attention to a statement made by Judge Kenny at the Galway Assizes the other day. He said—The only part of the County Galway not in a state of extreme lawlessness is Connemara.Connemara is the most congested part of County Galway. What, then, becomes of the argument that it is in the congested districts that the people want these extra grass lands? The fact is that this cattle-driving is engineered by the people in the small towns and by the young blackguards who gather round the public-houses at night. It is not the people in the congested dis- 290 tricts who indulge in these raids. Lord Denman said that the grazier would suffer if the extra rate was put on the particular district where the cattle were driven, but the truth is that he would much rather pay the extra rate and have his cattle protected. I admit that on the whole Ireland is peaceful, but there is, as I have said before in this House, a gangrene in the country that will spread if it is not stopped. We have to look forward—and next winter, if the measures that we are continually promised are not properly put into force, we shall have further trouble. The answer of the Government is an evasion of the actual question. I only hope that a little backbone will be put into this matter. The Government know as well as I do that cattle-driving could be stopped if they put into effect the remedies at their command.
§ THE EARL OF CREWE
My Lords, in spite of what the noble Earl has said it appears to me that the question raised by Lord Killanin is purely a legal question or, at any rate, almost entirely a legal question, and consequently the discussion has very properly in the main concentrated itself on the legal aspect of the case. Previous to the year 1900, owing to a decision, I imagine, of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ashbourne in 1874——
§ THE EARL OF CREWE
Well, owing to the decision of the Law Officers of the Conservative Government of that year the charge was placed on the county, and it so remained up to 1900, when the Law Officers of the then Government gave a different decision. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, stated that it would not be possible, for the reason he gave, for the county council of Galway or any other county council to do what my noble friend behind me invited them to do, which was to bring the matter into Court. The proposition, therefore, of Lord Atkinson, was this, that assuming the present Law Officers are right in denying a discretion to the Lord-Lieutenant, and in saying that he is 291 obliged to charge on the county, the Lord-Lieutenant should place himself within the possibility of an action being brought against him by making a small charge on some particular barony or half barony. I will consult my right hon. friend as to whether he is prepared to recommend any action of that kind. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot, of course, say what view he will take. I think there is no doubt that there is a very plausible case for saying that if this extra establishment of police is to be regarded as punitive, the punitive effect will be more concentrated if the charges are made on the particular district to which the police are sent. But at the same time, it does not do entirely to lose sight of the consideration mentioned by my noble friend behind me, namely, that if everybody in the disturbed area was guilty of disturbance, it would no doubt be a proper method to charge all the money on them; but even in this small area there would be a large proportion of innocent people, who would have to pay more per head if the whole charge was concentrated on the small district. I do not say that that is conclusive, but it is a point which has to be considered. I was a little amused at the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Mayo, seemed to me to give away Lord Killanin's case when he quoted the statement of Mr. Justice Kenny that the whole of county Galway, except South Connemara, was in a state of extreme lawlessness. If that is so, it is clear that the charge ought, at any rate, to be distributed over the greater part of the county.
§ LORD KILLANIN
Judge Kenny said, I think, Connemara, and that would include the whole of the district which I referred to. I did not allude to the West Hiding but to the western part of the county, which is not disturbed and ought not to be included. With regard to the Return, could the noble Lord not make it a little fuller, showing on what areas these charges were levied? Perhaps it would be easier if I reduced the period to the last twenty years.
I should think that would entail an enormous amount of labour and correspondence. I will give the noble Lord the counties which have been proclaimed.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.