§ On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
§ MR. E. F. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)said: I am sorry to have to trouble the House with another private Bill, but I am encouraged to think, by the figures in the last division, that the House does not regard the Second Reading of a private Bill as a matter of course. The subject of this Bill is very much less than that of the last Bill, but still it is one of considerable importance in itself and in what it involves. It is a Bill which proposes to allow the Corporation of Belfast to devote for hospital purposes about 60 acres of the present lunatic asylum grounds, outside the city, and also to give some five or six acres out of their other lunatic asylum grounds within the city, for the purposes of a hospital. There are two general hospitals in Belfast, one of which is mainly Protestant, and the other is mainly Catholic. The proposal 1146 of the Corporation of Belfast is that they should be allowed to give this site, which is provided out of public money, for the purpose of the Protestant hospital, while they refuse to make any sort of equivalent grant for the purpose of a Catholic hospital. I am, therefore, very reluctantly compelled to appeal to the fair feeling of Members on both sides of the House not to allow an injustice of this sort to be done. I say that I do so very reluctantly, because it is no pleasure to me, year after year, to have to oppose and expose the sectarian bitterness of the Corporation of Belfast; but still, on the other hand, there is the duty of protecting minorities, and I feel sure that honourable Members opposite, who will be anxious, under the Local Government Bill, to protect minorities, will be anxious, in regard to this Bill, to show that they are equally desirous to protect minorities, no matter whether they are Protestant or Catholic. Now I must trouble the House, with a short statement of the facts in connection with this Bill. Up till 1147 about 20 years ago there was only one general hospital in Belfast, the Royal Hospital. I do not intend to say anything against the Royal Hospital, because, among other reasons, a relative of mine spends a great portion of his time in connection with the administration of that hospital; but still there is no doubt that, while at one time the Catholics had a large share in the matter, the Management of the Royal Hospital was mainly Protestant, and has tended to become more and more Protestant as the years have gone by. But there was great need for the further hospital accommodation for the Catholics in Belfast, and they made great sacrifices to secure the establishment, out of their own funds, of another hospital, the Mater Infirmorum, and they have recently raised a sum of £50,000 for the extension of that hospital, and when it is completed, and it is now nearly completed, it will have very much more accommodation than the present Royal Hospital, and indeed it will compare very favourably with any other hospital in Ireland. It is a hospital which is open to all classes of the community. Although it is chiefly under Catholic management, and generally supported by Catholic subscriptions, it is open to everybody and to all classes, and I find that when this question was before the Corporation of Belfast the Protestant labour members supported the grant to the hospital on account of the good treatment which they knew had been extended to Protestant working men in it. The hospital is fully equipped, and has a complete medical and surgical staff, and I find that the great argument used against it before the Corporation was that it was mainly under the management of the medical and nursing staff, although I should have thought you could have no better management for a hospital than that. Now the Protestants of Belfast, not to be outdone by the example of the Catholics, and in a spirit of generous emulation, last year raised the sum of £100,000 for a new hospital to take the place of the Royal Hospital. The £50,000 raised by the Catholics, I may say, was a proportionately larger sum than the £100,000 raised by the wealthier Protestants. The new hospital, which is to be a general hospital, is to be called the Royal Victoria, and 1148 the price of the site for it, valued at £12,000, belongs to the lunatic asylums ground, which is practically the property of the ratepayers of Belfast. It is held under the Board of Control, and therefore I should have expected to see some representative of the Irish Government here when we are dealing with this matter. It may be said that the Board is not a Government Department, and I do not wish to make too much of that point, because, apart from technicalities, this ground is no doubt in effect the property of the ratepayers of Belfast. They are paying for it year by year, and therefore a grant of this lunatic asylum ground is in every way equivalent to a grant out of the rates. I think there are the greatest objections, from the point of view of lunacy administration, to this proposal. I do not want to go into details, which, I think, should be considered by a Committee; but there are, to my mind, the greatest objections to taking anything away from the very narrow and restricted ground now available for the lunatic asylum. I pass from that point to another. The site chosen for the new hospital is a considerable distance from the centre of the town, and much further removed from some of the largest mills than the Mater Infirmorum Hospital. The inevitable effect will be that the cases of accident at the mills will have to be sent to the Mater Infirmarum Hospital, and as that is said to be a Catholic hospital, it would be only fair that the extra burden should be met by some extra form of equivalent public grant. And, furthermore, I find that the new hospital is not to be under the same management as the old hospital. We may fairly hope that the people will put their hands into their pockets in support of a charitable hospital which is free from sectarian management; but I understand that one of the conditions of this grant is that the new hospital is to be more or less under the management of the Belfast Corporation. Now, unfortunately, it is a fact that the universal experience of the Catholics of Belfast has been that everything managed by the Belfast Corporation is managed in a spirit of sectarian bitterness. The Catholics do not get a fair chance in connection with anything under the management of the Belfast Corporation; and, therefore, although 1149 they have not much complaint to make against the management of the Royal Hospital, I do not think the Catholics of Belfast will have reason to expect anything like the same liberality in the new hospital if it is to be under Corporation management. I may refer to another hospital in Belfast which is under the management of a public body, the Workhouse Infirmary. The evidence given before a Committee of this House six or seven years ago, a Committee of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board was a member, was of a distressing nature, for it showed that in the Workhouse Infirmary Catholic inmates were allowed to die without the ministrations of the priests of their own faith because there was not any one on the nursing staff who would take the trouble to go for a priest. The nursing staff was almost entirely Protestant, and these facts had a lamentable effect in increasing sectarian bitterness in Belfast; and if this new hospital is to be under the management of the Belfast Corporation, there is no reason to expect that it will be anything but a sectarian institution. Now, when this Bill was first proposed by the Corporation the Catholic members of the Corporation took what I think will be considered, under all the circumstances, the generous course of not opposing a grant to the Royal Victoria Hospital; but they did propose that provision should be made in the Bill for a grant of the same amount to a Catholic hospital. There was a Division on that question, in which 21 Members voted against and 12 Members voted for it, and I find that among those who voted in favour of the grant were a number of the Protestant Labour Members. One of those Labour Members put the matter in a very plain and simple way. Mr. Taylor, who, no doubt, is well known to the Members opposite who represent Belfast, said they knew that Protestants as a rule preferred to go to the Royal Hospital, and Rowan Catholics preferred to go to the other hospital. The Roman Catholics could go to the Royal Hospital if they wished, and the Protestants could go to the other, for it had been stated that the doors of the older hospital were open to all denominations, and that being so he could see no reason why the grant proposed should 1150 not be allowed, There was something, however, in the sentiment which led people to prefer one hospital to another, and he did not see why it should not be indulged. Now, I venture to say that that is a common-sense view of the question. It is a view that would have been taken by any public body in Ireland, I would almost say in the world, except the Corporation of Belfast. But the Corporation of Belfast outvoted it. They take rates from the Catholics quickly enough, but they will not give a grant to any institution which is mainly a Catholic institution. Now I will compare with that the case of Dublin. The Dublin Corporation is, of course, largely Catholic, but it gives grants out of the rates to the hospitals of that city without distinction of denomination. It gives those grants to hospitals which are very much more distinctly denominational than any in Belfast. As a matter of fact, some hospitals in Dublin to which grants are given are distinctly and almost exclusively Protestant. Now, I think it is a most unfortunate thing that Belfast should set an example like this to the other cities of Ireland. It represents a larger number of people than any other, and might be expected to show a better spirit in this matter. If it does not we have reluctantly to bring the matter before the House, and we ask the House to enforce upon the Corporation of Belfast the same principles of liberality which the Corporation of Dublin have acted upon so freely. I oppose the Second Reading of this Bill because, as it stands it chooses out of the two general hospitals in Belfast, and there are only two, the one which is mainly Protestant, to which to give a grant out of the rates and refuses any grant whatever to the other general hospital because it is mainly Catholic. That, I venture to think, is a ground which will justify the House, even on Second Reading, in refusing to pass this Bill. I have to bring the matter before the House on the Second Reading because, by the rules of the House affecting locus standi, the Catholics, although they are a large minority, have no right to appear before the Committee, unless it is a hybrid Committee, in opposition to the Bill. They could not, therefore, put their case at all before the Committee, and the Belfast Corporation, who 1151 are bringing forward this proposal for a grant out of the corporate funds, could get it passed through Committee without there being anybody else before the Committee to explain what the facts really were. For that reason I have felt bound to bring the matter before the House on the Second Reading. But I should be glad if honourable Members opposite would assent to the proposal for a hybrid Committee, with the Instruction I have put on the Paper, which would enable me to avoid putting the House to the trouble of a Division. I think it would be unfortunate if, on the eve of discussion on the Local Government Bill, which must involve the question of the protection of minorities in Ireland, the spokesman of the Irish minority should set such a bad example of what it is they aim at by supporting this unfair and narrow Bill. I think that when we are making, as we are, every effort to secure that local government in Ireland should be worked in a spirit of fair play between creed and creed, and between class and class, it is only right that we should look to honourable Members opposite for some assistance in this effort which we are making, and for some sign that they will treat the Catholic minority in Belfast with the same fairness that they demand, and rightly demand, should be extended to the Protestant minority in the south of Ireland. I venture, therefore, to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, and I beg to move that it be read a second time this day six months.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)Sir, it is a remarkable fact that this Bill should propose to extend the powers of the Board of Control in Ireland, and that we are discussing it at half-past six o'clock, on the eve of the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill, which abolishes the powers of the Board of Control. Now, is not that a remarkable fact? The Government by their Local Government Bill propose to abolish the Board of Control, and then certain gentlemen connected with the Department bring in a private Bill to extend the powers of the Board of Control. My honourable and learned Friend has, I am sorry to say, had to make his speech against this Bill, and against any extension of the powers of the Board of 1152 Control, in the absence of any representative of the Irish Office. I am glad to see that the Chief Secretary has entered the House, for this matter is essentially one for his Department, and I should like to ask him one or two questions. He has brought in a Bill to abolish the Board of Control. Does he think it is a reasonable thing that his office should give its consent to this Belfast Bill? Because I know that in practice the Irish Office do not allow any private Bill to go forward without the imprimatur, in some form, of the Irish Office. Does the right honourable Gentleman think it is reasonable when he is going to abolish the Board of Control that we should pass a Bill to transfer its powers to the Belfast Corporation? Is that a reasonable thing? What will English Members think of a proposition of that kind? Here is a body, consisting of two or three clerks in Dublin Castle, called the Board of Control, and they are to be allowed to do by this Bill a thing which, in my judgment, should be left over to the assent of the body which is to take the place of the Board of Control, namely, the new Local Government Board. It is most unfair. There is another matter, and it is this: the right honourable Gentleman knows that by the Local Government Bill the grand juries' powers are to be transferred to the county councils. Well, Sir, the infirmaries and hospitals throughout Ireland got grants of from £600 to £1,200 a year from the local rates. The city of Dublin voted £6,000 per annum out of the local rates for hospitals of all denominations. The city of Cork voted £2,000 a year out of the local rates for hospitals of all denominations. One Cork infirmary has been controlled by Protestants, and another is more or less under the control of Catholics, but this grant was given by the Cork Corporation without any consideration of different sects. Well, now, we shall be asked under the Local Government Bill to continue the grant to the county infirmaries in Ireland, which is at present £23,000 a year. We shall be asked to agree to a continuation of that grant, although many of these county infirmaries in Ireland are controlled by Protestants. A strong appeal will be made to us not to object to a continuation of these grants, and yet on the eve of that 1153 Bill being considered we have the Corporation of Belfast seeking for extended powers to be confined, so far as charitable purposes are concerned, to a single Protestant hospital. Sir, why should not Belfast take example from Catholic Dublin or Cork? Why should the exercise of charity be confined to any one religious sect? When a man is stricken by the wayside, why should the minds of these eminent Puritans of Belfast be confined solely to the question whether the wounded man is Protestant or Catholic? Surely, Sir, it is only reasonable that the Catholics of Belfast—who are 100,000 strong, and contribute largely to the rates of the community—should get a fair proportion of the contribution which is given for the infirmaries which prevail amongst the Catholic and Protestant populations alike. And yet, Sir, while the whole of Ireland is, in this matter, giving an example to Belfast, the Government, as I understand, claim to have no opinion in the matter, and have absolutely given their sanction to the Board of Control handing over this plot of ground to a narrow-minded gang which refuses to exercise that Christian charity which every one of the other towns in Ireland is willing to exercise. I respectfully say that the Government ought not to give this plot of ground to the Corporation of Belfast unless it extends its charity and acts the Good Samaritan in the same way as the Catholics are willing to do to Protestants throughout the rest of Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland did not think it was worth while to come into the House while my honourable and learned Friend was making his speech; but we do not ask for the Catholics of Belfast champagne or anything of that sort. All we ask is that they shall have a share of the rates to which they contribute in the same proportion as the Protestants contribute, and we ask that the Protestants of Belfast shall show themselves to be equally Christian-like in spirit to those of the Catholic community. Until they do that we ask that the Government shall withhold their assent to a Bill of this kind, and refuse to allow the Board of Control to transfer this plot of ground. This Bill opens up a whole series of questions which will be raised on the Local Government Bill, and 1154 if we are defeated on this private Bill, we shall move Amendments on the Local Government Bill to restrain the Board of Control from dealing with any of its property as from the 1st of March last. But this Bill is no longer a private Bill. It has all the characteristics of a public Bill, and we are entitled to ask that its operation shall be suspended until the Local Government Bill is passed.
§ MR. G. W. WOLFF (Belfast, E.)Sir, I cannot accept the view that this Bill which the Corporation of Belfast are promoting has anything to do with the Local Government Bill, or that it has anything like the importance which honourable Members opposite appear to attach to it. The whole question, it seems to me, whether the Corporation of Belfast should contribute not only to the Royal Victoria Hospital, but also to the Mater Infirmorum, depends on the consideration whether those hospitals are general hospitals in the ordinary sense of the word. I take it that a general hospital is the general hospital of the town, and I take it that that is the case in almost every town. A general hospital is one which is willing to receive and treat every kind of disease and accident, and also a hospital which is totally devoid of sectarian government and of sectarian influences. It should be a hospital in which the religious teaching of any particular sect—or, for that matter, any religious teaching at all—should have no place whatever. The Belfast Victoria Hospital which is about to be built is to be in place of the hospital which has existed for many years in Belfast. It is a hospital which is absolutely free from any religious or sectarian bias whatever, There are notices of the regulations affixed to the walls of the hospital, and a copy of them is given to every patient, no matter to what religion he belongs, directing that if he or she wants the attendance of any particular minister, no matter whether Catholic or Protestant, he shall be sent for. The management of the hospital is in the hands of a General Committee, which consists of life governors—and any man who subscribes £10 a year is eligible for the office—and other representatives of the subscribers, and they elect a general 1155 Committee of Management, consisting of 15 members. So far from its being a Protestant hospital, out of the number of these life governors there are several who are Catholics. On the Board of Management there are three Catholics, and certainly the best doctor in that institution is a Catholic, and has great influence in the hospital. Under these circumstances I consider that this hospital, which is supported by voluntary subscriptions, is the general hospital of the town. On the other hand, the Mater Infirmorum, however good it may be—and I have been over it, and can testify to the excellence of its management—is not a general hospital. It is distinctly a sectarian hospital. I do not mean to say that they would refuse admission to any suffering Protestant, but its management is entirely in Catholic hands. Honourable Members will understand what I mean when I say that it is under the direction of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Belfast, and that the doctors on the staff are all Catholics. The nurses are all nuns, and in the centre of the hospital there is a Roman Catholic chapel, in which Roman Catholic services are carried on. I cannot understand, under these circumstances, how it can be called a general hospital, or why the Corporation of Belfast should be called upon to contribute to its support. The honourable Member for Derry has told us of the noble effort which has been made in support of this hospital by raising £50,000, or whatever the amount was; but I am sure that the honourable Member will not deny that a very large proportion of that amount was subscribed by the Protestant people of Belfast. And that money has been subscribed under the idea that this hospital was a general hospital, and they never had an idea that it could be claimed as anything but the general hospital of Belfast. Well, Sir, the ratepayers of Belfast are perfectly entitled to give their money in support of a general hospital, but I do not think they are justified in giving their money to any special hospital of a purely sectarian kind such as that mentioned by the honourable Member opposite, or to such hospitals as the Children's or the Maternity Hospitals. The honourable Member for Louth has told us what has been done in Dublin and Cork and 1156 other cities, but I cannot but regret that honourable Members opposite should have taken up the attitude that they have taken, and that they should have accused the Protestant people of Belfast of narrow-mindedness. In my view, the narrow-mindedness is all on the other side. I remember the time when the Catholic bishop was one of the most active supporters of the Board of Management of the General Hospital, but a different spirit seems to prevail now. It seems to me that no matter what is on the tapis in Belfast, whether it be municipal elections or other matters, the great object of the Catholic clergy is to get the control of the whole matter into their own hands. This Bill, if it goes through, will prove to be one of the greatest boons ever given to Belfast; and therefore I think it would be a great pity if hon. Members opposite were to throw it out. I will only make one more remark, and that is with regard to what the honourable Member opposite has said as to the Board of Control. All we ask is that the Board of Control should transfer to the Corporation certain lands which the Corporation bought with their own money.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThe ratepayers' money.
§ MR. WOLFFAll they want is that the property of the ratepayers shall be taken out of the nominal management of the Board of Control and placed in the hands of the Corporation. I do hope that the House will agree with me that an institution which has done so much good for the town of Belfast shall be assisted in the way proposed by this Bill.
§ MR. P. G. H. CARVILL (Newry)I only rise to say that in my constituency public opinion is certainly hostile to this Bill. I think honourable Members opposite will agree that where public money is to be distributed, at any rate, the claims of rival establishments should be considered. I had the opportunity of a conversation with the Lord Mayor of Belfast this afternoon. We discussed this matter very fully, and he had nothing but compliments to pay to the Mater Infirmorum Hospital. We have every confidence in 1157 the management of that hospital, which has conferred great benefit on Belfast; and I hope, Sir, that unless the promoters of this Bill will consent to allow it to have a share of the benefits of this grant, the Bill will be rejected, and not sent to a Committee of the House.
§ MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)I wish to ask whether the House is really inclined to go beyond the decision of the Belfast Corporation in regard to this matter? The fact is this: that a majority of the members of the Belfast Corporation, in a matter which was entirely within their own competence, came to a certain decision. The honourable Member for Londonderry says that the minority of the Corporation took another view, and therefore it is the duty of the House of Commons to refuse to recognise the opinion of the majority.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXThat was not my contention. My contention was that the matter should be discussed on its merits.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI submit that it would be establishing a most dangerous precedent to go behind the decision of such an important body as the Corporation of Belfast. But with regard to the matter itself I think it has been put a great deal too high. What are the facts of the case? They are extremely simple and have been stated already. A large sum of money was raised by voluntary subscription in Belfast on the occasion of Her Majesty's Jubilee, as was done in so many other places, and a contribution is to be made to make that splendid effort more effective. But beyond that the Corporation will grant a piece of land which will be suitable for this object, and the Board of Control, which has been introduced into this discussion by the honourable Member for Louth, is merely an incident and has nothing to do with the merits of the case. The proposal is to transfer certain land of the Corporation of Belfast, and the point raised by the honourable Member opposite is that there should be a species of blackmail exacted.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXI beg to ask whether it is in order to describe my Motion as blackmail?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERNo, no; I did not intend to do that. My idea was that it was undesirable that the Belfast Corporation should be compelled to make a contribution to a particular section of the community on every occasion as a condition precedent to exercising their undoubted rights.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYWhy a condition precedent?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERBecause it is an undoubted fact that if this demand is made as a matter of right, then the same demand may be made as a matter of right on every hospital in Belfast. There is no doubt that this hospital will be absolutely open. The honourable Member for Derry spoke of Roman Catholic control, but that depends very much on the amount of subscriptions. There is no English or Scotch town which would admit the validity of the contention that you are to set up two sharp divisions in every city in the United Kingdom, one for the Roman Catholics and the other for everybody else, and to regard them as being equally entitled to receive grants of public money. This hospital, which is intended to commemorate the Jubilee, is an unsectarian hospital, open to all, and has been subscribed for by the generosity of the citizens of Belfast. I cannot understand why the honourable Member opposite should object. If his Amendment is carried, and this Bill is thrown out, what will be the result? Would there be any advantage to the present hospital? Not the least in the world. The only result will be that a further burden will be placed upon the contribution of the citizens to find £12,000 to get another site. No human being will be advantaged by the passing of the Amendment, and I trust we shall not be prevented in Belfast from managing our own hospitals in our own way.
§ MR. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)I should be very sorry to say one word against the generous desire to subscribe for hospital purposes either in Belfast or anywhere else. Whether the subscribers are Protestants or Catholics we are proud of their character for generosity, but at the same time it is 1159 impossible to blink the fact that in Belfast the circumstances are different from those of other communities in the United Kingdom. We have heard a great deal about the protection of Protestant minorities in Ireland, but we hear very little about the protection of Catholics in Ireland. The honourable Member who has just sat down has appealed to English corporations. Why, Sir, there is no corporation in England that would treat a minority as the Belfast Corporation have treated the Catholic minority there. What are the facts of the case? The great General Hospital of Belfast was no doubt at one time ruled by an authority including many Catholic gentlemen, of whom the Catholic bishop was one. But the Catholics of Belfast experienced in respect of hospital treatment that which they had experienced in many other directions; and, although they are a poor community, they were driven in self-defence to establish a hospital for themselves, the Mater Infirmorum. Now, what is the present proposal? It is that out of what is the common property of the citizens of Belfast there shall be made an appropriation for the exclusive benefit of one section of the community only. I say one section only. It is true that the present hospitals are open to all patients, and to that extent they stand on an equal footing, but as a matter of fact, as everyone knows with regard to one of those hospitals, the majority of the patients are Protestants, and with regard to the other they are Catholics. Now it is proposed out of the common fund of the citizens of Belfast to make an appropriation entirely in favour of one of those two institutions, and to afford no compensation or set-off whatever to the other. I do not know whether my honourable Friend who has brought this matter before the House is desirous of preventing this Bill going forward, but, as I understand, all he asks is that the Catholics of Belfast shall be treated fairly and equitably in respect of contributions made out of the common fund. If that is done I do not suppose that this Bill will be further opposed, but I do think that we are entitled to appeal to the Government not to support this Bill unless Catholics are treated equitably with Protestants.
§ MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the House to give for a few moments a calm and careful consideration to the proposition which is before it. My honourable Friend for West Belfast has already told the House that the cause of this Bill being now before us is the fact that, in order to distinguish the Diamond Jubilee of Her Most Gracious Majesty, a hundred thousand pounds was subscribed by the people of Belfast, in order to establish a new general hospital in the city, and by permission of Her Majesty it was called the Royal Victoria Hospital. In order that those funds might be expended and a hospital erected it was necessary that a site should be obtained. The proposition is that a portion of the grounds of the Belfast Asylum in Grosvenor Street, and not required for asylum purposes, should be taken over from the Board of Control by the Belfast Corporation. We have heard a good deal about the sectarianism of Belfast, but it was only the other day that the Corporation of Belfast consented—and may I be permitted in parenthesis to say I regret they did?—that two wards should be marked out within the boundary, in order to secure representation to the Roman Catholics. That the corporation voluntarily agreed to this is admitted—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: No!] Yes! and it sufficiently indicates their desire to be fair-minded and to give the Roman Catholic portion of the population a share in the representation, and to enable them to take part in the government of the city. However, the opposition to this Bill emanates from what is called the Catholic Association of Belfast. I am sorry the honourable Member for South Mayo is not present, for I had a very pleasant journey with him to Belfast when he went to oppose the Roman Catholic Bishop in Belfast. I will not allow myself, subject to your ruling, Sir, to be put out by the jeers of honourable Gentlemen opposite. The petition presented by the Catholic Association deals with statements entirely devoid of foundation.
Your petitioners"—(it says)—"will have no representation on the Committee of Management of the said hospital, and no voice in the appointment of the managing, medical, 1161 surgical, or nursing staffs of the said hospital. It is understood and believed that the new hospital is to take the place of the existing Royal Hospital. Your petitioners' co-religionists have been almost entirely excluded from the management and staff of the hospital, and notwithstanding repeated remonstrances, no provision has been made for ministering to the spiritual wants of Catholic inmates. Moreover, the Catholic poor requiring hospital accommodation very often found it impossible to obtain access to the wards of the Royal Hospital in consequence of the system of nomination for admission to the wards of the hospital which prevailed and still prevails.Mr. Speaker, the Royal Hospital issued a statement on the 16th of April contradicting the assertions contained in this petition. They state very truly that at no period of their existence did there exist any religious test or qualification whatever for becoming a member of the general committee or of the board of management, or of the medical and surgical staff of the Royal Hospital. According to the Charter everyone who subscribes £50 in one payment, or £10 annually for six years, becomes thereby a life governor and member of the board of management, and every subscriber of one guinea annually may be elected a member of the general committee, and subsequently of the board of management. Of those qualified by payment of £50, eight are Roman Catholics, of those elected by the guinea subscribers there are three Roman Catholics out of a total of 15, and of these, one, an active and able member of the Board is a Roman Catholic priest. From 1837 till the close of his valuable life the Right Rev. Dr. Denvir, Roman Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor, was one of the most influential and respected members of the board of management. From the year 1849 till the present the medical and surgical staff has never been without one Roman Catholic member; commonly, there have been two, and occasionally three. The relations of these gentlemen with their colleagues have always been of the most cordial and amicable nature. For many years a Roman Catholic surgeon filled the post of secretary, and for the last nine years a member of the same Church has been chosen by the suffrages of his colleagues to occupy the position of Chairman of the Staff. The principle of non-sectarianism has been carried out with the most scrupulous care in every detail of hospital 1162 management. No question as to his religious belief is ever addressed to any applicant for admission to the hospital; no illuminated texts or religious emblems are displayed on the walls; no public prayers are recited in the wards; there is no chapel within the building—in fact, the hospital is managed as an institution with the primary object of the cure and relief of disease, while at the same time the Committee have taken pains to give to the sick every facility for obtaining the aids and comforts of religion. The nurses have directions to put into the hands of every patient the following notice—If at any time, while you are an inmate of this hospital, you feel desirous of seeing a clergyman, on your communicating your wish to one of the Medical Staff, the House Surgeon, or a resident pupil, the clergyman whom you name shall be sent for, provided the visit is considered not injurious by the Medical Attendant.And further information on the same subject is given in a notice hung up in wards and passages. Every possible provision has been made for the convenience of clergymen called on to give the ministrations of religion to any of the inmates. The honourable Member for Derry has made the assertion, which I am sure he cannot substantiate, that the nurses refused to summon a Roman Catholic priest to attend a Roman Catholic patient. [Mr. KNOX: I did not say so of the Royal Hospital; I said it of the Infirmary.] I think every Member in the House who heard the honourable and learned Member was under the impression that he said the Royal Hospital. The charge that the Roman Catholic poor found it very often impossible to obtain access to the wards of the Royal Hospital is sufficiently met by the fact that while it is impossible to state accurately the relative number of Roman Catholics who have been treated in the hospital, as no inquiry is made regarding the religion of patients, and there are consequently no records, it is the opinion of all those connected with the institution, and who have the best opportunities of forming a judgment on the question, that about one-half of the patients admitted to the wards are 1163 members of that Church, while their co-religionists probably do not amount to more than one-fourth of the population of the city. I resent most emphatically the allegations of want of Christianity and want of charity that have been hurled against Belfast. There is no city in the Empire more generous, more Christian, than Belfast; nor is any tyranny over the Roman Catholic population ever resorted to. This Bill is an
§ unsectarian Bill, promoted by the Belfast Corporation, for the accommodation and relief of the poor, and I confidently ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Vesey Knox.)
§ House divided:—Ayes 269; Noes 94.
1165| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Coghill, Douglas Harry | Gordon, Hon. John Edward |
| Aird, John | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. |
| Allan, Wm. (Gateshead) | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) |
| Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden | Colomb, Sir John Chas. R. | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Colston, C. E. H. Athole | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth) | Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) |
| Arnold, Alfred | Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) | Gretton, John |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow) | Greville, Captain |
| Arrol, Sir William | Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W. | Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) |
| Ascroft, Robert | Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. | Hall, Sir Charles |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Cox, Robert | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Crombie, John William | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H. | Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson | Haslett, Sir James Horner |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) | Hatch, Ernest Frederick G. |
| Baird, John George Alex. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- |
| Balcarres, Lord | Denny, Colonel | Heath, James |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) | Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P. | Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.) | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Helder, Augustus |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon | Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down) |
| Barnes, Frederic Gorell | Donkin, Richard Sim | Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol) |
| Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. Smith- | Dorington, Sir John Edward | Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead) |
| Barry, F. Tress (Windsor) | Doughty, George | Hobhouse, Henry |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hornby, William Henry |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) | Doxford, William Theodore | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. H. |
| Beach, W. W. B. (Hants) | Drage, Geoffrey | Howard, Joseph |
| Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe | Duckworth, James | Howell, William Tudor |
| Bethell, Commander | Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle |
| Birrell, Augustine | Dunn, Sir William | Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Ellis, T. E. (Merionethshire) | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton) | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick |
| Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) | Evershed, Sydney | Jenkins, Sir John Jones |
| Brigg, John | Fardell, Sir T. George | Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E. |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex) |
| Brookfield, A. Montagu | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. | Jolliffe, Hon. H. George |
| Brown, Alexander H. | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.) | Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U. |
| Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson | Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) | Kenrick, William |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Kenyon, James |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Fisher, William Hayes | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William |
| Butcher, John George | Fison, Frederick William | Kimber, Henry |
| Caldwell, James | FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose- | Knowles, Lees |
| Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow) | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund | Lafone, Alfred |
| Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin) | Flannery, Fortescue | Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall) |
| Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson- | Folkestone, Viscount | Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward | Forster, Henry William | Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks.) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir. A. B. | Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H. |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) | Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) | Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs.) |
| Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. | Galloway, Wlliam Johnson | Leng, Sir John |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Garfit, William | Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) |
| Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Gedge, Sydney | Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Sw'ns'a) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Gibbons, J. Lloyd | Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C.ofLdn.) | Loder, G. W. Erskine |
| Charrington, Spencer | Giles, Charles Tyrrell | Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Godson, Augustus Frederick | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Gold, Charles | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller |
| Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Goldsworthy, Major-General | Lorne, Marquess of |
| Lowe, Francis William | O'Neill, Hon. Robert T. | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Lowles, John | Parkes, Ebenezer | Stanley, E. J. (Somerset) |
| Lowther, J. W. (Cumberl'd) | Pease, Alf. E. (Cleveland) | Stephens, Henry Charles |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Lyell, Sir Leonard | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Pierpoint, Robert | Strachey, Edward |
| Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Macdona, John Cumming | Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C. | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.) |
| Maclure, Sir John William | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Thorburn, Walter |
| McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool) | Pryce-Jones, Edward | Tollemache, Henry James |
| McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm, E.) | Purvis, Robert | Tomlinson, W. E. Murray |
| McEwan, William | Pym, C. Guy | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| McIver, Sir Lewis | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | Valentia, Viscount |
| McKillop, James | Renshaw, Charles Bine | Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh) |
| McLeod, John | Rentoul, James Alexander | Wallace, Robert (Perth) |
| Malcolm, Ian | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) | Walrond, Sir William Hood |
| Marks, Henry Hananel | Rickett, J. Compton | Waring, Col. Thomas |
| Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T. | Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras) |
| Milward, Colonel Victor | Robertson, H. (Hackney) | Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of Wight) |
| Monk, Charles James | Round, James | Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E. |
| Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd |
| More, Robert Jasper | Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltm.) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Morrell, George Herbert | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Mount, William George | Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse) | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Muntz, Philip A. | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Murdoch, Charles Townshend | Saunderson, Col. E. James | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) | Savory, Sir Joseph | Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry) | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard | Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath) |
| Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Seely, Charles Hilton | Wylie, Alexander |
| Myers, William Henry | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Young, Com. (Berks, E.) |
| Newdigate, Francis Alex. | Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) | |
| Nicholson, William Graham | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Nicol, Donald Ninian | Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) | Mr. Wolff and Mr. William |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Spencer, Ernest | Johnston. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. | Philipps, John Wynford |
| Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.) | Hogan, James Francis | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Jacoby, James Alfred | Pollock, Harry Frederick |
| Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | Price, Robert John |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Joicey, Sir James | Randell, David |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Jordan, Jeremiah | Redmond, J. E. (Waterford) |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Kearley, Hudson E. | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire) | Kilbride, Denis | Reid, Sir Robert T. |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Labouchere, Henry | Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry) |
| Carew, James Laurence | Lambert, George | Roche, John (E. Galway) |
| Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton | Lloyd-George, David | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Logan, John William | Shee, James John |
| Collery, Bernard | Lough, Thomas | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal) | Macaleese, Daniel | Souttar, Robinson |
| Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) | McDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn.'s Co.) | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. |
| Daly, James | MacNeill, John G. Swift | Steadman, William Charles |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | McCartan, Michael | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Dillon, John | M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) | Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Mandeville, J. Francis | Tully, Jasper |
| Doogan, P. C. | Minch, Matthew | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Molloy, Bernard Charles | Weir, James Galloway |
| Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) | Morris, Samuel | Williams, J. Carvell (Notts) |
| Farrell, Jas. P. (Cavan, W.) | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | Wills, Sir William Henry |
| Fenwick, Charles | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Wilson, F. W. (Norfoik) |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wilson, H. J. (Yorks., W. R.) |
| Field, William (Dublin) | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) | Woods, Samuel |
| Gourley, Sir E. Temperley | O'Connor, James (Wicklow) | |
| Hammond, John (Carlow) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Kelly, James | Mr. Knox and Mr. T. M. |
| Healy, Maurice (Cork) | O'Malley, William | Healy. |
| Healy, Thos. J. (Wexford) | Pease, J. A. (Northumb.) |
Bill read a second time.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXI beg to move the second Motion standing in my name: After Second Reading of Belfast Corporation (Hospitals) Bill [H.L.], to move—
That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of five Members, two to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection; that all petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel heard in support of the Bill; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that three be the quorum.It is a matter which the Catholics of Belfast have strong views upon, which they wished to place before a Committee of the House. Under the rules of locus standi they have no power to be heard in any other way, and are by no means to employ counsel. Under the very special circumstances I think the House ought to accept this Motion. The Bill is one of a very peculiar character, and one, I think, there is no precedent for; and under all the circumstances it is most desirable that the Motion should be allowed. It has a considerable bearing on the proceedings of the Local Government Bill, into which we are about to enter. If we find that honourable Members opposite have so strange a view of the rights of a minority—if they thought the minority should not be heard on a Bill of this kind before a Committee of the House, then we (the Nationalists) will bring it before the House on the Local Government Bill. I cannot help thinking that the Chief Secretary will consent to the Motion, for it is of such a kind that it throws a new light which will have to come out on the Local Government Bill. I venture to hope that the Chief Secretary will intervene in favour of this Motion. I should like to know the views of the Board of Control on the subject. There are other questions which could not be discussed unless the Motion is carried, and therefore I hope the House will support it.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI wish to second the Motion. I will read the Section of the Local Government Bill, which abso- 1168 lutely took away from the Board of Control their powers over lands whatsoever.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! That question is not before the House.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI am going to show that this Bill is of a semi-public nature, and therefore the Committee should be of a semi-public character, and I say that you take away from the Lord Lieutenant all powers of dealing with these lands. It is an argument why the House of Commons should treat this Bill as a semi-public one, and therefore should be dealt with by a hybrid Committee instead of an ordinary Committee of this House. It is an argument which is unanswerable from the point of view of public business. The ordinary Committee of this House meets and considers questions solely within the four corners of the Bill, and has practically nothing to do with Acts of Parliament. Furthermore, before the Ordinary Committee the Catholics of Belfast would not have the right to be represented on petition or by counsel, because by the rules of locus standi every ratepayer is supposed to be represented by his Corporation. I have just reason to complain that Her Majesty's Government, with regard to a Measure which goes to the root of their own Bill, should vote for it. I should like to know upon what grounds the Lunatic Asylums Board is to part with lands and hand them over to a private concern; and therefore I think that these lands should remain in the hands of the Lunatic Asylums Board. Furthermore, the last Belfast Bill—in 1895—was dealt with by a hybrid Committee, which established a precedent. It raised questions similar to those raised here, and it is due to the honourable Gentleman the Member for Manchester to say that he piloted that Committee with great success. I can only say that, as the Government have given their support to the promoters of this Bill to the present time, I think they are now entitled to come forward and say to the promoters: We gave you our support to this Bill up to the Second Reading, and we think now, having done as we have for the majority, 1169 that the minority should have a fair show, and that they shall have a full and fair hearing before the Committee. Our only chance of doing that will be by the appointment of a hybrid Committee. We are told that Parliament is able to deal with any Irish grievance. Is this matter so to be dealt with as to shut out the voice of the Catholic minority? If that is so, it is only one more proof of the power of the Government, of which we hear so much and see so little, and of their incompetence to deal with Irish affairs.
§ SIR JAMES H. HASLETT (Belfast, N.)I venture to trespass upon the time of the House, as I happen to be one of the unfortunate "gang" that has been referred to. Here I might, perhaps say that I think it would be far better if language of that kind were not to be indulged in in this House. I think it is unworthy of this House with regard to the question of the difficulty connected with the hybrid Committee. I have only had the honour of sitting on one hybrid Committee since I have been a Member of this House. I trust it will be the last that I shall ever sit on in the House of Commons. The reason for the appointment of a hybrid Committee is easy to understand. It is that the honourable Member might be enabled to act as counsel for a party. I feel there can be nothing more scandalous than that such an enunciation should be made from the benches of this House. With regard
§ to the hospital, it has been said that this property, which is now vested in the Board of Control, a body which is about to perish, should be revested in them by a special Act. In my opinion, if there is anything scandalous in the transaction, it is that the Board of Control should have anything to do with the matter. Honourable Members will be surprised to learn—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The honourable Member is now going beyond the scope of the question. The only question is of what kind the Committee shall be.
§ SIR J. HASLETTI was only wanting to show that the scandalous part of the transaction is the present position of the land. We ask that it should not be vested in the Board of Control, but that it should pass to the citizens of Belfast. We ask why the power to deal—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ SIR J. HASLETTI quite understand the object of these hybrid Committees. It is in order that witnesses may be brought over to give evidence; and to what can they speak but that which has already been brought before this House? I trust that this House will resist this suggestion for a hybrid Committee, and leave it to a Committee of this House to deal with the matter without bias and without prejudice in any way.
§ House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 205.
1173| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) | Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal) | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Curran, Thomas (Sligo) | Hogan, James F. |
| Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.) | Daly, James | Jacoby, James A. |
| Austin, Sir J. | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir C. | Jameson, Major J. Eustace |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Dillon, John | Joicey, Sir James |
| Barry, E. (Cork. S.) | Donelan, Captain A. | Jordan, Jeremiah |
| Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire) | Doogan, P. C. | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Birrell, Augustine | Duckworth, James | Kilbride, Denis |
| Bolton, Thomas D. | Engledew, Charles J. | Kinloch, Sir J. G. S. |
| Brigg, John | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Lambert, George |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.) | Logan, John William |
| Brunner, Sir J. T. | Ffrench, Peter | Lough, Thomas |
| Burt, Thomas | Field, William (Dublin) | Macaleese, Daniel |
| Caldwell, James | Flynn, James Christopher | McDonnell, Dr. M. (Qn.'s Co.) |
| Carew, J. L. | Gourley, Sir Edward T. | MacNeill, John G. Swift |
| Carvill, Patrick George H. | Hammond, John (Carlow) | McCartan, Michael |
| Channing, F. A. | Hayden, John P. | M'Hugh, E. (Armagh) |
| Clancy, John J. | Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- | M'Leod, John |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Healy, Maurice (Cork) | Mandeville, J. Francis |
| Collery, Bernard | Healy, Thos. J. (Wexford) | Minch, Matthew |
| Crean, Eugene | Hedderwick, T. C. H. | Molloy, B. C. |
| Morris, Samuel | Redmond, William (Clare) | Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.) |
| Norton, Captain C. W. | Reid, Sir Robert T. | Tully, Jasper |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Roberts, J. H. (Denbighshire) | Weir, James G. |
| O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary) | Roche, Hon. Jas. (Kerry, E.) | Williams, J. Carvell (Notts) |
| O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Wills, Sir William Henry |
| O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk) |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Shee, James John | Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.) |
| O'Kelly, James | Souttar, Robinson | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| O'Malley, W. | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro') |
| Parnell, J. Howard | Stedman, William Charles | Woods, Samuel |
| Pease, J. A. (Northumb.) | Stevenson, Francis S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Philipps, John Wynford | Strutt, Hon. C. H. | Mr. Knox and Mr. T. M. |
| Redmond, J. E. (Waterford) | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) | Healy. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) | Lawson, J. G. (Yorks., N. R.) |
| Allhusen, Augustus H. E. | Finlay, Sir Robert B. | Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H. |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Fisher, William Hayes | Leng, Sir John |
| Arnold, Alfred | Fison, F. W. | Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) |
| Arnold-Foster, Hugh O. | FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose | Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a) |
| Arrol, Sir William | Flannery, Fortescue | Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Flower, Ernest | Loder, Gerald W. E. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Folkestone, Viscount | Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. J. | Forster, Henry William | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B. | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grid W. (Leeds) | Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) | Lowe, Francis William |
| Barnes, Frederic Gorell | Galloway, Wm. J. | Lowles, J. |
| Barry, F. Tress (Windsor) | Garfit, William | Lowther, J. W. (Cumberland) |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) | Gedge, Sydney | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe | Gibbons, J. Lloyd | Lucas-Shadwell, William |
| Bethell, Commander | Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Ldn.) | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred |
| Boscawen, A. Griffith- | Giles, C. T. | Macartney, W. G. E. |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. J. | Godson, Augustus F. | Macdona, J. |
| Brookfield, A. Montagu | Gold, Charles | Maclure, Sir John William |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Goldsworthy, Mj.-Gen. W. T. | McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool) |
| Butcher, John George | Gordon, Hon. John E. | McCalmont, Mj-Gn. (Ant'm, N.) |
| Campebll, J. H. M. (Dublin) | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. | McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm, E.) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | McIver, Sir Lewis |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbvsh.) | Goulding, Edward A. | McKillop, James |
| Cayzer, Sir C. W. | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Malcolm, Ian |
| Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) | Marks, H. H. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. |
| Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Gretton, John | Monk, Charles James |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. H. | Greville, Captain | More, R. Jasper |
| Charrington, S. | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. | Morrell, George H. |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. | Muntz, P. A. |
| Coghill, D. H. | Hatch, E. F. G. | Murdoch, Charles T. |
| Cohen, Benjamin L. | Heath, James | Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry) | |
| Colomb, Sir John C. R. | Helder, Augustus | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) |
| Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Myers, William Henry |
| Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow) | Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down) | Newdigate, Francis A. |
| Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W. | Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol) | Nicholson, W. G. |
| Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. | Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead) | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Cox, Robert | Hornby, William H. | O'Neill, Hon. R. T. |
| Cruddas, W. D. | Houldsworth, Sir W. H. | Parkes, E. |
| Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) | Howard, J. | Phillpotts, Captain A. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Howell, William T. | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Denny, Colonel | Howorth, Sir Henry H. | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P. | Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies | Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C. |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Jebb, R. Claverhouse | Pollock, H. F. |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D. | Jeffreys, A. F. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Donkin, Richard Sim | Johnson-Ferguson, J. E. | Pryce-Jones, E. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Kenrick, William | Purvis, Robert |
| Doxford, William T. | Kenyon, James | Pym, C. Guy |
| Drage, Geoffrey | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Duncombe, Hon. H. V. | Kimber, Henry | Rentoul, James A. |
| Dunn, Sir William | Knowles, Lees | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) |
| Farquharson, Dr. R. | Lafone, Alfred | Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. | Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall) | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T. |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.) | Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Royds, Clement M. | Stephens, H. C. | Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L. |
| Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) | Stone, Sir Benjamin | Whittaker, Thomas P. |
| Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse) | Thorburn, W. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M. | Tollemache, H. J. | Willox, Sir J. A. |
| Saunderson, Colonel E. J. | Tomlinson, Wm. Edward M. | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Savory, Sir Joseph | Tritton, Charles E. | Wodehouse, Edmund Robert |
| Scoble, Sir A. R. | Valentia, Viscount | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Seely, Charles Hilton | Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Sharpe, William E. T. | Wallace, Robert (Perth) | Wyndham, George |
| Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) | Walrond, Sir W. H. | Young, Comm. (Berks, E.) |
| Sinclair, Louis (Romford) | Waring, Col. Thomas | |
| Skewes-Cox, T. | Warr, A. F. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Spencer, Ernest | Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras) | Sir James Haslett and Mr. |
| Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight) | William Johnson. |
Resolutions agreed to.
§ MR. SPEAKERruled out of order the following Motion, which also stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. VESEY KNOX—
That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power, if they think fit, to insert provisions for an equivalent grant, whether by a capital sum, or by annual payment out of the rates, to the Mater Misericordiæ Hospital, in the city of Belfast.A proposal to endow another hospital out of the rates should be the subject of another Bill.
§ Bill Committed.