this provision of the Code should be but I am told they will be in the Vote expunged when the Statute again came Office to-night. up for revision; and will he explain why the opportunity presented recently, when the Penal Code Amendment Act, 1898, was passing through the Viceroy's Council, was not availed of in order to fulfil the said promise? THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have not seen the resolution, but I am aware that the Government of India in 1890 expressed their intention, when opportunity offered, to introduce a clause which would enable the Civil Courts to refuse to send women to prison in such cases. Such an opportunity occurred in 1894, when a Bill was brought in to amend the Code of Civil Procedure. The original Bill contained a provision to the effect which I have stated; but, as explained in an answer given in this House by my predecessor, on the 9th April, 1895 "The clause was unanimously struck out Ly a Select Committee of seven members, four of whom were natives of India, on the ground that the country was not yet ripe for such a change, and a motion to restore it was lost in the Legislative Council by 15 votes to two.' The question is one of civil procedure, and has nothing to do with the Penal Code or the Criminal Courts. FOR SIR H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.): Will the noble Lord ask for a definition of "short time," as there have been so many short times during this inquiry? The delay is very serious. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: As the right honourable Gentleman must be aware-for he has undertaken similar duties I have no control over the Chairman of the Commission, who is quite independent of the India Office. the NAVAL BATTLE OFF MANILA. MR J. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs): I beg-in accordance with private notice to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government can give House any information as to the engage ment at Manila, reported to have taken place between the American and Spanish fleets; whether any apprehensions of danger to the lives and interests of British subjects are entertained by the Government; and whether any British warships are available for the protection of British subjects in the Philippine Islands? THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The information we have received points to the Spanish fleet at Manila having been destroyed. A British ship is, I believe, on its way there, and I need hardly say all we can do to British interests will be done. preserve IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL. MR. J. DILLON (Mayo, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant when he proposes to take the Financial Resolution on the Irish Local Government Bill? THE SECRETARY OF STATE INDIA: As to the first Question, I am informed by the Chairman that he hopes within a short time to lay his draft Report before his colleagues. In respect to the second Question, I hoped the Papers answer. would have been distributed on Saturday, made with the Bill. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot It depends on the progress PETROLEUM COMMITTEE. Question proposed "That Mr. Macdona be discharged from the Select Committee on Petroleum. "That Mr. Royds be added to the Committee." (Sir W. Walrond.) MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I have observed this Motion with great concern. I cannot understand the reason of the honourable Baronet for discharging from the Committee a Member so eminently fitted to deal with cheap explosives, and adding to the Committee another Member who neither by service to the Church nor any other means has been endowed with any of the necessary qualities. I wish to ask the honourable Baronet what is the reason for this extraordinary Motion, which I am not sure I ought not to divide the House against? I understand, from the ordinary sources of information, that the honourable and reverend Member intends going out to China on behalf of a commercial syndicate. If so, he will be absent from his duties in the House for several months, probably until the end of the Session. If the Motion is carried, will the honourable Baronet ask for leave of absence for the honourable Member for Rotherhithe? I should also like to know whether the honourable Member, during his absence, will retain his post as private secretary to the Secretary to the Treasury? THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir W. H. WALROND, Devon, Tiverton): I made the Motion because such a Motion is usual when an honourable Member desires to absent himself from a Committee for a certain number of weeks. My honourable Friend is correct in saying that the honourable Member for Rotherhithe is going to China. I have given the honourable Member leave to go, and he has paired with another honourable Member who is either in China or on his there. way MR. J. E. ELLIS (Notts, Rushcliffe): Has the honourable Baronet consulted the constituents of the honourable Member for Rotherhithe? [No Reply.] ORDERS OF THE DAY. LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL. The House again went into Committee on the Local Government Amendment Bill, and further considered the proposed Amendment on Clause 5, moved by the Attorney General for Ireland, dealing with the rules under which compensation for malicious injuries is to be paid. Mr. tion to claims for compensation should T. M. Healy having moved that opposibe raised without previous notice, *MR. JASPER TULLY (Leitrim, S.): said: I think, Sir, that the Amendment by the Attorney General is a very dangerous one, and will do a great deal of injury in Ireland. As the law stands. on this particular point at present there is no necessity for people to give notice of opposition to the claims. for malicious injury. This Bill introthat notice of opposition shall be given. duces an entirely new feature. It insists That, I think, is a very serious matter indeed, a much more serious matter than has appeared to the House. Well, Sir, this system of procedure for malicious injuries is one which is peculiar to Ireland. You have nothing like it in England, Scotland, or Wales. I think it is a pity that on a Bill which is in so many respects a liberation Bill a blot existing law, which is bad enough at of this kind should be put, making the present, much worse, especially for the ratepayers. Of course, I know that there is a considerable body of opinion in Ire land which regards all claims for malicious injury as a kind of municipal insurance by the ratepayers. There may be something to be said from that view, but I think we have purchased this insurance at a very high price, if the law is to be applied. as amended by the Attorney General for Ireland, because this brings for the first time upon the scene in the history of these malicious injury cases the speculative attorney. Previously, Sir, if a man put into operation the law of malicious injury-and in the course of my experience as a Pressman I have known numerous cases, and I know exactly what happens-no respectable solicitor cared very much to take it up, because, in the first place, there was their malicious injuries. Every brokendown bankrupt in the country, with the aid of these speculating attorneys, who send out their own touts, will be induced to make bogus claims by the procedure now adopted, and an entirely new sphere of litigation, and a new tribe of litigants will be raised up. Under this state of things. the heavy cesspayers and the heavy ratepayers will suffer more than even the smallest cesspayers. Under these circumstances, therefore, I really press upon the Government to give us this safeguard against fraud on the ratepayers. : I no provision made for costs, unless, of course, the grand jury gave a very considerable sum as compensation. But under the clause which is now under the consideration of the Committee. it is in the interest of the speculating attorney to bring these cases forward, because he will have a certain opportunity of getting costs. A new factor is now put upon the scene. Instead of making it easier for these bogus claims to be made, I think the law should be left as it is--at least, in this respect-and that people should not be required to give notice of opposition. I know very well the kind of claims which can be levied under the present THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IREstate of the law. I take one of many LAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON, Londonderry, cases that happened a few years ago in N.) I will not discuss the propriety the county of Sligo. A gentleman had or the impropriety of leaving in the a saw-mill, which he used for the pur- clause. The only remark I would make pose of sawing timber. He was going is that if fraudulent claims have hitherto down in the world, and one night his mill been put forward and allowed by the caught fire. The evidence produced grand jury there is less probability that showed that his own son was seen leaving they will be allowed either by the the premises twenty minutes before the county court or the superior court. fire, which burst out in several dis- would remind the honourable Member tinct places. What happened? The who has just sat down that all the rules grand jury, most of whom were men who were selling this man their tim- laid before Parliament, if, after they have contemplated by this section must be ber, in spite of the evidence, which would been laid on the Table of the House for convince any man that this was a case of the specified number of days, a petition arson, granted that man £1,000. But be presented to Her Majesty to withhold this case of dealing wrongly with the her assent, of course they fall to the ratepayers' money is only one of hunground. dreds of cases of the kind which could be brought before the House. Now, Sir, I think that we have a case here which the Government should consider, and I venture to hope that they will give way on this small point. As the law at present stands, there is no necessity to give notice of opposition. With the law, amended, they must give notice of opposition some time before the first hearing takes place. But it is very difficult, when notice is given, for the cess-that the judge has power to dispense in payers to make up their minds whether they will fight their case or not. In the interval between the first and second hearings facts may come to light which may alter the entire bearing of the MR. KNOX (Londonderry) said he question. Is it, therefore, to be argued, ventured to think that the Chief Secrebecause notice of opposition is not given tary had not considered the actual effect by the ratepayers the people who will of the words which he had accepted or have to pay for the litigation-that they incorporated in the Amendment. The cannot oppose it before the judge of proceedings before the grand jury assize? It is not always the land-grab- so immediately preceded those bebers or the broken-down landlords who fore the judge of assize, that notice will be applying for compensation for of opposition would obviously as MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork City): And your majority would support the petition, wouldn't they? MR. ATKINSON: Whatever other sins the word "Opposition" may have, it certainly does not carry on its back the speculative attorney. I think the matter has been adequately discussed, and I do not see that any hardship will be inflicted upon anybody. I have already pointed out any case the literal and strict observance of any of these rules; I fail, therefore, to see how any person can be prejudiced. be impossible. He thought if instead of notice of opposition the words were "notice of appeal" it would be a fair protection to both parties. MR. MAURICE HEALY: May I point out that the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General dealt with the matter as if the only interest the county council had were a simple question of fact-of malice or no malice. In the majority of cases-in the multitude of cases— -the county council will have an interest in appearing in cases where malice is admitted, because there was, apart from the question of malice, the very important question of damage. In the majority of cases the claim made by the applicant must be an excessive claim. Of course, there is a tendency on the part of all applicants to claim the full extent of the damages they have sustained before it is possible by expert evidence to come to an accurate opinion as to the fair amount. May I make a suggestion? It is that the county court judges, when they go to frame their rules, shall not be compelled to prescribe notice of opposition, whether they think it desirable or not. That is the sole effect of the words proposed by the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland in an appeal to the right honourable Gentleman to trust his own county court judges. To insist on the necessity of having notice of opposition is certainly going too far. MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.) said he hoped the Government would give way on this point. There was a belief in the minds of the Irish Members that these rules of court would be stringent and hostile in a certain direction. If they could trust the judges to deal with the rules in a spirit of absolute fair play, there might not be so much objection to them. MR. J. P. FARRELL (Cavan, W.): The right honourable Gentleman has said that one of the reasons why he could not accept the Amendment as it now stands, is that the county court judges would have to act up to the strict letter of the rule. That is an opinion which I venture to say will not be acted upon. The county court judges will construe this Act as it is put before them, without any regard to any opinion expressed in this House. In my opinion the words Mr. Knox. are wholly unnecessary. I think they afford opportunities to defeat the legiti mate reasons which can be given against these malicious claims. They enable people to take advantage of the outside. public who do not know much about a particular case, and in that way a great injustice may be done to the ratepayers at large. I understand that under the section The proposed in this Bill the county council, as representing the ratepayers, will be the defendants before placed absolutely at the mercy of those the county court judge, and they will be persons who may like to take advantage of this malicious injury section. words are unnecessary, and after the assistance which the Chief Secretary has received from these Benches up to this point I think it would come with a very bad grace from him if he should stick out now over a mere technicality of this sort. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am prepared, taking into consideration the suggestion which has just been made, to omit the words, "notice to be given of application of the opposition," reserving to myself the right to raise the question again, if necessary, on the Report stage of the Bill, if it is found on inquiry that the practice and procedure of the county court does include notice of application. On that distinct understanding, I agree to the omission of the words. The section will therefore read,“ Rules of court may regulate generally the practice and procedure." MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.): That is a very satisfactory statement, and, in return for that, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment. end by the county, and the result will be that the county, in addition to having to indemnify the applicant against any injury, will also have to provide the applicant's court fees over the whole series of proceedings from the beginning up to the point at which he establishes his claim. AND THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS MEANS: The Amendment of the honourable Member is applicable to the whole clause. MR. T. M. HEALY: I only moved that the force section remain in until 31st December. THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That applies to the whole clause. THE CHIEF SECRETARY ΤΟ THE THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My attention had not been called to the Amendment until a moment ago, and I should like to make some inquiries into the matter. My sympathies are, to a great extent, with the honour- LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. able Member, and if I find on inquiry GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I that no fees are charged now, and cannot altogether agree with the honourthat what the honourable Member has able Member for North Louth that this asked for can be done without affecting the fees charged in the county court in other proceedings. I will accept the Amendment on the Report stage. MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman has made a very reasonable offer, and I accept it. Amendment by leave withdrawn. section should only apply for a limited period. If at the end of that period— five years, as the honourable Member suggests the section ceases to be operative, the result will be a return to the existing procedure in which any actions of this kind will come before the grand jury. I cannot imagine that, having once changed the entire procedure, we should ever return to it. If I thought that possible I might favourably consider the MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move as Amendment of the honourable Member; an Amendment "That this section shall remain in force until the 31st of December, 1904, and no 1cnger." My proposal is that this clause shall remain in force for practically five years. I think that is not an unreasonable thing. You are adopting a procedure which is entirely different from the legislation of the last 60 years, and it seemed to me that it would be unfair not to give Ireland an opportunity of overhauling this proposal after five years. I do not think it right that this procedure should be stereotyped for all time. The result will be that the Irish Statutes will be in a more confused condition than the Statutes of any other portion of the United Kingdom. I cannot conceive how the Government, having six months for the preparation of this Bill, were obliged to place this long series of Amendments upon the Paper. This proposal is a novelty; it was not in the original Bill, and I think the reason was that we did not make much row about it. but I think that is quite out of the ques tion, and I think the honourable Member will see that this is hardly an Amendment which the Government will entertain. MR. PATRICK J. POWER (Waterford, E.): Taking everything into consideration, it is doubtful whether this clause will improve the position of the ratepayers; indeed, I think it will have a contrary connection with claims for malicious ineffect. There are some safeguards in juries that will be swept away by the proposed legislation. I have never been able to understand the system upon which associated ratepayers in Ireland have been selected, and in my own constituency I have known large ratepayers left out. because they happened not to be on the grand jury. On the grand jury the majority were county ratepayers, and they had something to say in the districts where the levies were to be made. But these duties are to be put upon the county court judges. In theory |