MR. KNOX (Londonderry): I may admitted that the outrages are mainly of an agrarian character. That was the state that when the last Belfast Bill was only argument he used for altering the before the House the police gave very procedure in Ireland from that under the English Act. Does he maintain that the outrages in the boroughs are of an agrarian character, and, if not, on what ground does he propose to alter the procedure at present obtaining in the boroughs? Sir, the Amendment of the honourable Member for North Cork is a most reasonable one, and the right honourable Gentleman has not given a single reason why it should not be accepted. strong evidence as to the desirability for MR. T. M. HEALY: I would like to ask whether the law in Belfast remains as it was in 1886, or has it been altered? If it remains the same, this proposal is a trap. The House will recollect the shooting of Head Constable Gardner in Belfast in 1886. It formed the subject of a Royal Commission, and the Commission reported that, as there was no law in Belfast, as in every other corner of Ireland, giving the right of compensation to policemen and others for mali. oious injury, the law should be altered. It never has been altered. I really cannot understand the position of the Government, which is most indefensible. It may be that some clause did slip into a private Bill. The honourable and learned Member for Londonderry says "not," but if not, the Government must put the fast, rather than the law in Belfast assimiOrangemen of Belfast in the same posi.lated to the law in the rest of the country. tion as the Nationalists throughout Ire- It is absurd to give policemen these priviland. If you kill a policeman in Belfast leges. It is a case where there ought to you kill him with impunity, but if a be only one law. The present position is policeman in the south or west of Ireland, in stopping a public-house row, gets a black eve, he can get £50 or £60. Constable Leahy, in the county of Cork, for some injuries, from which I am glad to see he is now recovered, levied £1,000 ludicrous. By the Bill passed two years ago. the area of Belfast was trebled. Previous to that a policeman injured in one of the suburbs could have got full compensation from the county; now the suburbs are included in the city, and a policeman enters them at his own risk. Belfast is still increasing, and extending, and the more it extends the greater will be the risk to the police. I do think that such an existing anomaly as this should be removed. off a single barony. Why should not the district of Sandy Row be subject to the law which prevails in every other part of the country? Belfast is to have none of this jurisdiction, and when Vou send into Sandy Row, in July, large drafts of police, you are exposing them to an undoubted risk, the honour of representing Sandy Row as they have not the same protection afforded them as in Kerry and Clare. I must ask the right honourable Gentleman to extend this law to Belfast. MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I have in the House of Commons, and I think the anxiety of honourable Members opposite to bring Belfast within the purview MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I must confess we were not aware that there was any difference between the law in Belfast and in other parts of Ireland. If there be a difference we shall be quite prepared to accept the Amendment which stands in the name of the honourable Member for Cork City, and to assimilate the law in Belfast with that elsewhere. of this Bill is due to the proposed cele- | from them the right to adjudicate in brations of '98. I have no objection cases of malicious injury. I think it is a on the part of Belfast that a provision most extraordinary change, which is proenabling her to give compensation for posed without rhyme or reason on the injuries should be passed. We only part of the Government. The right want to be assimilated with the law of the honourable Gentleman cannot produce United Kingdom, of which we are proud any claim for malicious injury in which to remain a part. justice was not done. If that be soand it is so--I do not see why a right which the corporations now possess should be taken from them. Are the corporations not competent to examine any claim brought before them, and will have done in the past? they not do justice in the future as they Why should the right be taken away from the elected representatives of the community who understand all the circumstances of the cases brought before them, and transferred to a court that may or may not be influenced, but which cannot be acquainted with the local circumstances. I think the Government ought at least to keep their word with the Irish corporations and not take away from them this right. If my honourable Friend presses his Amendment to a Division I shall certainly support him. I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that if windows were broken in an election riot in Clonmel to-morrow the corporation would be as fair a tribunal to assess the damage for any injury committed as a stranger who knew nothing about the people. It is an unfair and an unneces sary proposal, and I cannot see any reason whatever for it. MR. FLYNN: I must urge on the right honourable Gentleman that that does not meet my point at all, which is that you propose to disturb the present procedure in the city of Cork for no reason that I can understand. The Chief Secretary says that the procedure is being changed in the counties, and that in future cases of malicious injuries must go before a judge. That is all very well for the county councils, but that is no argument why the procedure should be disturbed in the boroughs. Up to the present, in the counties malicious injuries come before the grand juries, but they are now to be abolished. The corporations always had the jurisdiction, and always exercised it fairly. Put aside the question of Sandy Row, and the killing of policemen in Belfast, and come to the ordinary cases of malicious injury. They are generally window-breaking in election riots and street disturbances. That is the ordinary class of malicious injury, and surely the corporations might still be empowered to deal with such injuries. The Amendment of my honourable Friend the Member for the City of Cork comes on at the end of the clause. MR. CONDON (Tipperary, E.): I should like to know from the right honourable Gentleman what has become of his promise that the rights now possessed by the corporations should not be taken from them by this Bill. If he persists in his present proposal he will take away Mr. W. Johnston. MR. CREAN (Queen's County, Ossory): No reason has been assigned by the right honourable Gentleman for pressing this proposal on the corporations. Having acted for many years on one of the corporations in Ireland, where these cases came before us, I say that the change now suggested would not act favourably, either to the claimant who comes forward to get damages, or to the public. There is no single case in which applications for personal injury or injury to property have not been fairly dealt with, and even where appeals have been made to courts of law the awards made by the corporation have invariably been it to the city engineer to assess the upheld. In fact, the corporation leaves. damage to the property. A judge sitting on a bench is not an expert in dealing with articles broken or damaged, and the | influence, I venture to submit that the amount of compensation to be given; but claimants, some of whom established an we have an expert engineer to value the overwhelming case for redress, would, in damage and assess the compensation. No a considerable number of cases, have reason has been given for the change, been refused redress or relief. My and I think the right honourable Gentle- reason for saying this is that the system man might leave the law which is now that these gentlemen from the Corporaworking well in the cities as it is. The tion who are sitting there, supposed to change, if carried out, would give great be an impartial jury, adopted was that dissatisfaction. they had counsel paid for by themselves to urge them to reject these claims. And what were the grounds put forward? Why, that these riots were not caused by the disloyal and seditious element of the city of Dublin, but were actually due to the interference of the police, whose only interference was that they endeavoured to stop processions headed by black flags, and other disloyal and seditious emblems, from marching through the streets of the city of Dublin, demolishing the windows of the loyal and respectable citizens. Now, apart from this case of the city of Dublin, I suggest to honourable Members opposite whether in Belfast, Cork, or Dublin it is not an absurd anomaly, and who are to sit and investigate into the one which is out of date, that the jury truth of these claims and award the amount of damages should be in a by arranging that counsel shall appear position to prejudice the case beforehand before them who are briefed by information supplied by the very jury as to matters which they are called upon to adjudicate? MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green): I hope the Government will adhere to the form of this clause. 1 should like to inform the Committee what the existing system is which it is sought to remove by this clause, and to try and reconcile the system with the municipalities and the procedure set up by this Bill. I should like to inform the Committee how the system at present in force in Dublin works. Last year, on the occasion of the Jubilee celebration in the city of Dublin, advantage was taken of the occasion by a disloyal and seditious section to raise riots of a very disgraceful character, and as the result of these riots the windows of the respectable and loyal traders and the respectable and loyal citizens in that city were demolished and smashed. Under the existing procedure-and I wish to point out how anomalous and absurd it is-claims for compensation come before a selected number of the corporation, who sit as a jury, for the purpose of deciding the validity of these claims for damage and the amount to be awarded. Now, what was the extraordinary course MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.): I suppose that what my honourable and learned Friend has indicated in the speech to which we have just listened is intended as compensation to the electors of the St. Stephen's Division for his professional services. taken by the Corporation of the city of Dublin in reference to these claims in 1897 Why, actually a month before the time had arrived when it was their duty to sit as an impartial jury to investiMR. W. JOHNSTON: I rise to order. gate these claims they actually passed a resolution that counsel was to be I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the engaged, and paid for out of the rates, honourable Member for North Dublin is to appear before them to resist these in order in making that insinuation as claims. Now, I happened to be profes to my honourable and learned Friend? sionally engaged in these cases when they came to be heard, and I say that had it not been that the judge who presided over that jury-consisting, as it MR. W. JOHNSTON: I am afraid you did of certain members of the Corporation -happened to be a man of strong did not hear the insinuation, Sir. The opinions, and had considerable power and honourable Member implied that my [The CHAIRMAN ignored the interruption.] honourable and learned Friend was carry- | disturbances occurred and caused whating out instructions here for payment he ever damage was perpetrated. I do no had received in Dublin. THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS MEANS: Mr. Clancy. like to allude to any particular section of the inhabitants, but as a matter of AND fact the case on the side of the people was that the conduct of the police delithat for what ultimately occurred in the berately provoked what happened, and shape of damage the police were responsible. Very well, under these circumstances, the Corporation, acting not exceptionally at all, but acting in accordance with the practice on similar occasions, rightly employed counsel as the representative of the ratepayers to argue the case in court. No injustice could possibly be perpetrated under these circumstances, because the other side were represented by counsel. My honourable and learned Friend himself was employed on the other side, and he is one of the most competent members of his profession. Of course, technically, counsel appeared for the Corporation, but as a matter of fact they appeared for the great body of the ratepayers, and nothing could be more just and fair than that the whole question should be thrashed out by counsel on both sides. MR. CLANCY: I never said anything disrespectful of my honourable and learned Friend, who has more common sense in his head than the honourable Member who has just interrupted me. If I had said anything disrespectful, I should willingly withdraw it. I think the speech of my honourable and learned Friend answers itself. I was curious to know what would be the conclusion which he would bring out as the consequences of all these proceedings to which he referred. I thought he would have been able to conclude, if I had not known the facts, with the statement that the Corporation of Dublin, after all, did not do justice in these cases. I intend now to refer to the language of the honourable and learned Gentleman in describing the two different sections of the people of Dublin. Now, what he calls the loyal and respectable people we call by another name, and what he calls the disloyal and seditious class I am sure are not of that character at all. I should be sorry to think that any considerable part of the population of Dublin could be so described, but if that is a correct description of those with whom I am acquainted, I hope they will always con- MR. CLANCY: The honourable and tinue to be disloyal and seditious in that learned Member has just repeated what The honourable and learned he said before. I maintain that the Gentleman, as I said before, has supplied counsel there representing the Corporathe answer to his own speech. The tion represented technically and really practice, under the circumstances to which he referred, of the Corporation of Dublin employing counsel to defend these actions is not only a common practice in these cases to protect the inhabitants, who have to pay, but in this case it was absolutely justified by the conduct which provoked these riots. I need not enter now into the circumstances of these riots last July-I do not believe they were riots at all-but, as my right honourable Friend has made an assertion on one side, I may be permitted to make the counter assertion that the police in almost every case provoked whatever Mr. W. Johnston. sense. MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: Will the honourable Gentleman pardon me? I was not objecting to counsel appearing for the ratepayers. What I was objecting to was that counsel should appear and be paid and instructed by the jury which is to decide the matter. the body of the ratepayers, who could not employ counsel themselves; and, moreover, Mr. Lowther, remember this, that the question as to the right of these people to compensation was never questioned. The real question was, what was the amount of compensation to be given? That was the question, and anybody who has had any experience at all in these matters will know that what I say is absolutely true. Well, there was no claim made for compensation in any of these cases which was not extravagant, no matter from what side these claims came. Friend has appeared in many of these cases, and he has appeared for all parties and all persuasions, and he knows perfectly well that what I am saying is absolutely true, that there is no cause of a claim ever made by any person, no matter to what county he belongs, that is not extravagant, and that the man who makes it does not expect to have his claim cut down. If counsel is not to be employed, who is to make that argument for the ratepayers? What is their object in employing counsel but to see that the ratepayers are represented? And, finally, what happened? As I said before, my honourable and learned Friend would wind up by saying that compensation—that is, adequate compensation was not given, but the Committee must have been strongly disappointed by him not referring in a single sentence to the result of all these operations. The result was that substantial compensation was given in almost every case, and this is the great case that my honourable and learned Friend brings out, if I may say so, without reference to the result. East Mayo that of the character of My honourable and learned, procedure. These are really matters MR. JOHNSTON: I am very glad he did. MR. CLANCY: Well, the honourable Member is more competent to do it than any Member on that side, and I hope he will often take part in these Debates. There is no question about this Amendment. Where is the need for these changes? And then we must remember this is a reform Bill for extending the liberties of the people, and at the very time that you extend those liberties to the greater part of the country you cut down the Members in the country where they have exercised these liberties without injustice to anyone for the last 40 or I shall, therefore, vote for the 50 years. Amendment. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I must say that I hope the Debate will not be continued on the lines on which it has calculated to proceeded, which were engender heat and friction. The issue is really quite simple. We believe that this procedure which we have substituted will be a great improvement on the old *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I had not intended to take part in the discussion on this particular Amendment, but as a citizen of Dublin and an inhabitant of |