Page 31, line 37, after 'officer,' insert 'who may be resident or non-resident.'"—(Mr. Power.)
§ MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)
said the idea prevailed in many parts of Ireland that the assistant medical officer was to be a resident. He did not know whether that was the idea of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, but the idea certainly prevailed that it was necessary that he should be a resident. In the case of Waterford there was a resident physician and a visiting physician, and an apothecary, who was also a qualified man. The board of guardians there were of opinion that it was quite necessary that the ratepayers should pay the additional expense. 456 The board of guardians was the best ever created, and though the ratepayers might think them somewhat extravagant, he (Mr. Power) was very glad they spent their money in the way they did, because their first duty was to the poor. He did not grumble at the expense, but they said it was an absolutely necessary expense, and if that applied to a large district like Waterford, necessarily it would apply to many other county asylums in Ireland.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I do think in the case of a single medical man that he should be resident, but this is a matter which might be left out really, because the question has been decided by the Privy Council, but section 9 provides for it.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I think it is quite necessary that there should be a resident medical man as well as an assistant.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Page 52, lines 41 and 42, leave out 'legally qualified,' and insert 'registered.'"—(Sir W. Foster.)
§ * SIR W. FOSTER
I beg to move this Amendment. I quite admit that the words "legally qualified" carry all that is necessary, but I think it would be better in an Act of Parliament to take out "legally qualified" and substitute "registered," because, although a man may be legally qualified, it is possible that lie may not be registered under the Medical Act.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I have no objection to this Amendment, the honourable Member being an authority upon these matters.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Page 31, line 43, leave out 'had experience in the treatment of the insane,' and insert—
Served for not less than five years as a medical officer or assistant medical officer in asylum for the treatment of the insane."—(Sir W. Foster.)
§ * SIR W. FOSTER
I move this Amendment because I consider it desirable that medical officers appointed to superintend asylums should have some experience in the treatment of the insane, and that they should obtain that experience in such an asylum as that to which they may be appointed.
MR. T. M. HEALY
This is, perhaps, the greatest slur that anybody could possibly place upon the medical profession. As I understand, if a man is qualified in the art and science of medicine he is qualified to minister to the cure of sickness and disease, and now the honourable Gentleman, himself a leader in the medical profession, suggests that the diploma which medical men get upon their qualifying is actually insufficient to qualify them to take charge of the insane. That should surely be a question for the Medical Board. This proposal is a mere dodge to leave these appointments in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. We have had too much of the Lord Lieutenant in this Bill. This Bill is saturated with the Lord Lieutenant. We are sick of both him and the Local Government Board. A doctor, when he has obtained his diploma, is qualified to kill or cure, and ordinary human subjects have to submit to him either himself, or his blessed child, or his wife. Why are the insane to have a protection which is refused to the sane? According to this Amendment, he is to be provided with a doctor of no less than five years' experience, but a sane man is to be at the mercy of a Mr. Sawbones, a Mr. Ben Allen, or a Mr. Tom Sawyer, who has only been qualified a year. This is an Amendment which has not emanated from the right honourable Gentleman who moved it. It has emanated from a number of interested parties, who have been putting upon us the pressure to which we have been subjected by a number of the Government supporters. I took an early stand against the pressure. I say I want this Bill to pass in such a way that no officer or man employed under it shall have a single complaint. This is another proposal to prevent Catholic emancipation. That is the sole object and intent of the Amendment. 458 The right honourable Gentleman is quite innocent of any such intention, I know, but there are a number of young cormorants who get their appointments by backstairs influence, and not because of their knowledge of the treatment of the insane. They know no more about the treatment of the insane than I do, but having got in by backstairs Castle influence, they want practically to be ahead of everybody else; in other words, no Catholic should have any appointment in these lunatic asylums until these gentleman have been provided for. Dublin Castle encourages these lunatic asylums in appointing nobody but those who are not Catholics. The result is that the whole of these institutions are practically nests of Orange jobbery. I strongly oppose.
§ * MR. LECKY (Dublin University)
said the Amendment was in full accordance with the general opinion of the medical profession in Dublin. The science of attending to the insane was a special science, and those who went in for it were obliged to give up all other practice and devote themselves entirely to it. The present system was that the superintendents were invariably chosen out of those who had long practical experience in the asylums. This was the system the Amendment desired to continue. It had nothing to do with religion; it had simply to do with the science which dealt with insanity, which was exceedingly difficult and exceedingly delicate, and concerning which a vast amount had been learned of late years. Nothing could be more dangerous than that in a country where lunacy was unfortunately increasing the treatment of lunatics should be thrown into the hands of people who had only a very perfunctory knowledge of the subject.
§ MR. DILLON
said he could not support the Amendment, not on the ground stated by the honourable Member for North Louth, but because he objected to placing any restriction on the powers of the county councils as to the appointment of officers. On that account alone he was opposed to any and every Amendment or provision in the Bill restricting the choice of county councils. When he 459 came to the question of the principle involved in the Amendment, he confessed he found himself totally at variance with the speech of the honourable Member for North Louth. The honourable Member wag a very great authority on the law, and on matters of law, and he was always prepared to submit to the honourable Members opinion; but with all due respect he ventured to say that his references to the medical profession, to which he (Mr. Dillon) had the privilege of belonging, simply showed that he knew nothing about the subject, especially when he declared that a man who had passed a medical examination to qualify him to practise as a surgeon or medical officer was, therefore, qualified to treat the insane. That only showed that he never passed a medical examination himself. As a matter of fact, the treatment of the insane was a special branch of medical science, and to place a man in charge of an insane asylum who had no previous special training in that branch of the profession was, he did not hesitate to say, a crime against the people in that asylum. Certainly no county council in Ireland which had any sense of duty would dream of appointing a man to take charge or to be an assistant medical officer in a lunatic asylum who had not had a long and considerable training. Five years ought to be the limit of training for a man who would take full charge of a lunatic asylum, apart from any preliminary training. Any man who had had any responsibility in the conduct of these asylums would bear out what he had ventured to say. The curious thing was that only two or three lines down he found an Amendment which went further than the Amendment now proposed. The honourable Member for Derry proposed that a candidate for the post of medical officer in an asylum should have seven years' experience in the treatment of the insane. He proposed to leave out words, and insert, "seven years as assistant medical officer in an asylum." He (Mr. Dillon) should not dream of voting for any candidate who had not had considerable experience in the treatment of the insane. But the present proposal had to do with the tieing of the hands of the members of the county council. Not only did he 460 object to the Amendment, but he desired to point out that, as the clause stood at present, the Local Government Board had absolute power, and if the Bill only remained in its present shape there was nothing to prevent the Local Government Board issuing a memorandum to the effect that they would not sanction the appointment of any officer who had not had seven years' experience in some asylum. Therefore, as the clause stood, the Amendment was unnecessary; even if it was necessary, the Local Government Board had the power to make it a question of practice. On the grounds he had stated he objected to the Amendment, but he also objected to the clause as it stood. Although it might produce some slight abuse at the beginning, the proper policy was to throw the responsibility for the appointments on the local bodies, and trust that placing that responsibility upon them would lead to a generous rivalry as to who should get the most competent men for the posts. The other day he read from the Report of tie Lunacy Committee of Inquiry a passage dealing with the subject, in which it was declared that, after investigating the results in the English asylums, they had arrived at the conclusion that the best way to secure the most competent officers for these asylums was to give the local bodies full liberty, and fix upon them the full responsibility.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said he could not see himself that the mere fact that certain trusts were reposed in these local bodies was a justification of what had been suggested. He could not think that the clause ought to lead to the conclusion that no restriction should be placed upon them in their choice of skilled candidates. If the principle proposed had been carried out they might as well do away with all Civil Service examinations. He could only say that the Government were willing to accept the Amendment.
MR. T. M. HEALY
wished to insert in the Amendment, "being Protestants," for he held that the Amendment was moved in the interests of the Protestant minority, and that it should be so stated. It was not the experience of the medical officer that they wanted, but his Protestantism.
§ MR. W. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)
agreed in the view that the medical officers of lunatic asylums required to have special aptitude and training in order that they may carry out the work with which they were entrusted. And, further, he knew that in some cases there was a certain amount of administrative experience required on the part of the medical officers. But he entirely disapproved of the suggestion of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth, for, in his opinion, what they wanted in a Government Bill was an indication that they were not going to work on any sectarian issue, but in the interests of the country at large.
§ * SIR W. FOSTER
said he could have no sympathy with any attempt to limit the appointments to any particular class, and should be sorry if his Amendment should lead to jobbery. He had proposed it with the view of getting efficient officers, and he did not, therefore, wish the choice to be limited only to men serving in Irish asylums. The honourable and learned Member for Louth was quite wrong when he said they ought not in any case to require anything but a medical diploma, or certificate for competency. A medical diploma alone was net sufficient qualification for the post of superintendent. Experience was necessary. His Amendment referred, not to junior officers, but to men who would be placed in the very responsible position of having several hundreds of lunatics under their charge, amounting to what might be called a large colony. He made the proposal not only in the interest of the county council, but still more in the interests of the unfortunate persons of whom these officers would have charge. It was in that spirit that he had moved the Amendment, and he was sorry that the honourable and learned Member for Louth should have imported any other element.
MR. T. M. HEALY
said that, as the honourable Member had declared that a medical diploma was not sufficient to qualify for these appointments, he must point out that the Government themselves had appointed as an inspector of 462 lunatic asylums a medical officer who had never been inside a lunatic asylum until he got his appointment from the Lord Lieutenant. One of their existing lunacy great guns never had his foot inside a lunatic asylum until he got the job from Dublin Castle. He ventured to say, from his experience of the administration of lunatic asylums in Ireland, that an entire sweeping away of the whole system of lunatic asylums' management was necessary. He quite agreed with the honourable Member for Mayo, that laymen were not entitled to speak upon medical questions with the same assurance as those who had had a medical training; but on this question of lunacy he was not aware that any one of them was more equipped than another. If, however, the honourable Member for Mayo desired to claim a special pre-eminence in that regard, he should be very glad to admit it.
§ Amendment put and agreed to.
Page 32, line 4, after 'The Pauper Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) (Superannuation) Act, 1890, shall apply to every officer appointed under this section,' to insert—
With the modification that any officer or servant who has been an officer or servant in any asylum for not less than twenty years, and is not less than fifty years of age, or who in the discharge of his or her duty becomes permanently incapable of executing the office in person from sickness or infirmity of mind or body, shall be entitled to an annuity in the way of superannuation amounting to two-thirds of the annual salary and two-thirds of the annual value of the lodgings, rations, and other allowances payable to or enjoyed by the person superannuated at the time of his or her retirement, and the said Act shall be deemed to be amended accordingly."—(Mr. Clancy.)
§ MR. CLANCY
I confess that my chief object in moving this Amendment is to safeguard the ordinary asylums' attendants, on whose behalf I think a special case could be made out for compulsory superannuation. Their position is in some respects exceptional, and I think the Committee will be surprised to hear that their average number of hours of work each day amount to the extraordinary number of 15, without excluding Saturday or Sunday. This alone, I 463 think, should constitute a claim for the consideration of the Government, but they have a further claim to attention, in respect to the peculiar nature of their employment, which is one of constant watchfulness and worry, and often involves even danger of physical injury. I might also say that there is a danger of mental injury, and cases have occurred in which men, in the discharge of their duties as asylum attendants, have received blows on the head, and have suffered so much in consequence that they have been obliged to resign their positions long before they qualified for pensions, and some of them have eventually become insane. This question was investigated by a Committee of the House of Commons several years ago, and the Committee's Report, which, I think, was unanimous, was to the effect that the conditions of service as regards these particular officers are quite exceptional in character, and that a special measure of relief ought to be afforded them at the first opportunity. Since then no effort has been made by any Government to improve the lot of these servants. A proof that their position is really one which a man does not care to have if he can get any other employment is afforded by the fact that not five per cent. of those who have been acting as attendants in lunatic asylums have remained long enough to qualify for a pension under the present law. I may refer to a case of recent occurrence in which several attendants left in a body long before the time at which they would have qualified for a pension. In addition to all this, the salaries of these men and women are very small. I mention that fact to show that there is really no great danger of any unusual burden being thrown upon the rates by making superannuation in these cases compulsory. A Lunacy Bill was introduced into the House of Lords or March 25 of this year by the present Government, and one clause of that Bill, the 20th, was to the effect that—It shall be the duty of the Visiting Committee of every asylum to grant a superannuation allowance to their officers and servants under section 180 of the principal Act, and the allowances to be granted to officers or servants under that section shall not be less than would be granted if he were an officer or servant to whom the Superannuation Act of 1896 applies.464 That clause was introduced on the authority of the present Government in the House of Lords. It recognises the principle of compulsory superannuation, and if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland objects to the form in which I wish him to have this clause, I shall be glad to have his ideas on the subject. But I put forward this clause confidently, hoping that the Government will not reject the idea of giving effect to this principle, considering that they have embodied it in a Bill of their own introduced this year; and also in the hope that the Irish Members who have so often defended the interests of the Irish ratepayers will make an exception in the case of these servants in lunatic asylums. The case is really a strong one, the class affected by it is a comparatively small one, and the conditions of their services are very peculiar, and I do not think that any considerable burden will be thrown upon the rates by ensuring to these asylum attendants the certainty that, after spending a certain number of years in this service, they will not go without some provision for their old age. The terms I propose are that they should have spent twenty years in n lunatic asylum, and that they should be fifty years of age. Of course, if a man is injured in the discharge of his duty I think he ought to be entitled to the same superannuation as if he had qualified by service. I think that anyone who calmly and impartially examines this question will say that a person who has spent twenty years in such service as I have described ought not, in the public interest, to be allowed to discharge his duties any longer, but ought to be superannuated.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
This is the first of a good many Amendments of a similar kind, all having for their object a radical change in the superannuation laws, substituting compulsory superannuation for voluntary superannuation, and not merely for special cases, but generally. It will, perhaps, be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to state, at the very outset, what course the Government propose to adopt with regard to these Amendments. We cannot load this Bill with a variety of fundamental alterations of the 465 existing superannuation law. I do not go into the question of whether the reasons adduced in favour of this proposal by the honourable Member who has moved this Amendment are good or bad, but I refuse to accept it on the grounds I have mentioned.
§ MR. MURNAGHAN
I am afraid that the honourable Member for Dublin county has exaggerated the conditions of employment in these asylums. Near my residence we have one of the largest asylums in Ireland, and I know that when a vacancy occurs on the staff of that institution the managers are besieged with applications for the situation. The statements of the honourable Member are, no doubt, made in good faith, but they are not in accordance with what I know to be the practice in the institution to which I have referred.
§ MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.)
I do not think it can be denied that the attendants in these asylums perform very arduous and very responsible duties, and that they are not as well treated as they should be. I do not know what the general feeling on this subject may be, but I know that in my district there is a very strong feeling that the men in these asylums are not fairly treated. I think, therefore, that if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary is not prepared to accept the Amendment of the honourable Member for Dublin county, he might give some expression of opinion upon the subject. This is a question which creates a good deal of interest in different parts of Ireland, and I believe that the Irish people generally would be much pleased if some improvement were made in the position of these men.
§ MR. W. JOHNSTON
I should not have trespassed upon the time of the House if it had not been for the remarks of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I should like the right honourable Gentleman to understand that there is a considerable feeling amongst Irish Members in favour of providing superannuation allowances for these asylum attendants. Having had something to 466 do with the carrying through of the Superannuation Bill of 1890 I should like to see it further extended, and I trust the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will be inclined to give a favourable hearing to this Amendment.
§ MR. DALY
I am pleased to gather from the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he is not going to grant superannuation in these cases, because I think the right honourable Gentleman will have the support of the majority of Members from Ireland in the attitude he has taken up. One of the arguments used by the honourable Member for North Dublin was that a Superannuation Bill had been introduced in the House of Lords, but that is an argument I should scarcely have expected the honourable Member to use. I hope, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman will consider the matter carefully before he imposes this additional burden upon the ratepayers of Ireland. In fact, the entire grant will be absorbed if we are called upon to give superannuation allowances to all the officers. As far as I am concerned I am opposed to the Amendment, and I am surprised at any honourable Member representing an agricultural constituency bringing it forward.
§ MR. W. FIELD
I regard the position of these attendants at lunatic asylums as one which demands attention. I know, as a matter of fact, a case in which attendants have been obliged to form a trades union to protect themselves; and I say, as one who is acquainted with the labour question, it is a scandal—and nothing short of it—that men should be obliged to work from 12 to 15 hours a day amongst lunatics. It is not many months since I received a deputation from a staff of attendants, and I venture to assert that their hours ought to be decreased, and their remuneration increased.
§ MR. TULLY
I am prepared to admit that the duties of attendants are arduous, and their hours too long; but I think we ought to consider, not the poor officials only, but the poor ratepayers. The farmer, the shopkeeper, and the professional man, in a great 467 many cases, work harder than some of the officials, though no pensions are provided by Act of Parliament for them. It is one of the scandals of Ireland that we have too many pensioners. Take the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The force consists of only 10,000 men, and there are 6,000 pensioners. If these proposals for superannuation are accepted by the Government, the scandal which has taken place in the case of the police will be repeated in the case of the asylums, the workhouses, and other institutions, and I for one therefore resist the Amendment.
§ MR. CREAN
I think something should be done in regard to those cases in which attendants have seen excellent service in an institution and have broken down in consequence of the work. Unless a person is brought into direct contact with these people he is really incapable of judging the merits of a particular case. They are frequently on duty for 16, 17, and even 24 hours at a stretch, and therefore, so far as the Amendment deals with 15 years' service, I am prepared to support it. But there is one portion of it which I cannot support, and it is that portion which gives superannuation to a person breaking down, say, after a couple of years' service in the same way as it would be given to a person after serving 20 years. If an Amendment is introduced limiting the length of time to 10 years, I would certainly be in favour of it. Often, after 12 months' service, an attendant is incapable of continuing in the service, and the Amendment would therefore put us in a rather awkward position, because in a very short time we should have a large number of pensioners. In many instances the terms of service are very short. In one asylum more than half the attendants have not had more than five years' experience. In the course of two or three years many of them go away. It would, therefore, be impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment as it is now on the Paper.
§ MR. JORDAN
So far as I am concerned, I cannot see why these officers should be put in a better position under this Bill than they have been up 468 to the present time. If they have had very small salaries, why not give them better salaries in the future? It would appear, however, that there is a considerable number of candidates competing for appointments at any time a vacancy occurs. I have no feeling against this class of public servants more than I have against other classes, but if you let in the thin end of the wedge in the case of one class, there will be no end to the claims for similar allowances from other classes. So far as I am concerned, therefore, I shall certainly vote against the Amendment.
§ MR. CLANCY
I intend to go to a Division on the question. I will not make any reply to the speeches of the honourable Members on this side of the House further than to say that I think any fear that the House may entertain as to extravagance resulting from this Bill in Ireland may be banished. My opinion is that this Bill will be found to work in an economical manner. The case of the asylum attendants is one in favour of which something exceptional may be said. I must say that it augurs an extraordinary state of mind when we are told that we ought not to take into account special circumstances when they arise, simply because there is a fear of the thin end of the wedge. I think the case of the asylum attendants is a pitiable case. In the interests of common humanity, in the interests of the public service, and in the interests of common justice, this Amendment ought to be accepted. But if the honourable Member for Queen's County (Mr. Crean) thinks the Amendment goes too far, and has any intention of proposing an Amendment which will meet with the satisfaction of those officers, he will not find me in opposition to him.
That those words be there inserted.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 234.—(Division List No. 117.)445
|Allhusen, Augustus H. E.||Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Gilliat, John Saunders|
|Arnold, Alfred||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Goldsworthy, Major-General|
|Ascroft, Robert||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Gordon, Hon. John Edward|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Colomb, Sir John Charles R.||Goschen, George J. (Sussex)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)|
|Barry, RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts)||Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Denny, Colonel||Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.|
|Beach,Rt.Hn. SirM.H. (Brist'l)||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Heath, James|
|Bemorse, Sir Henry Howe||Drucker, A.||Hickman, Sir Alfred|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)|
|Bigwood, James||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart||Holland, Hon. Lionel R.|
|Bond, Edward||Fardell, Sir T. George||Hornby, William Henry|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.||Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn|
|Brassey, Albert||Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)||Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Jebb, Richard Claverhouse|
|Brookfield, A. Montagu||Fisher, William Hayes||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Flannery, Fortescue||Johnston, William (Belfast)|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)||Flower, Ernest||Kenyon, James|
|Chamberlain,Rt.Hn. J. (Birm.)||Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)||Kimber, Henry|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||Galloway, William Johnson||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Garfit, William||Lafone, Alfred|
|Charrington, Spencer||Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond.)||Laurie, Lieut.-General|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)||Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)|
|Lawson, John G. (Yorks)||Phillpotts, Captain Arthur||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)|
|Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.||Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.||Warde, Lt.-Gol. C. E. (Kent)|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Purvis, Robert||Waring, Col. Thomas|
|Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.||Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)|
|Loder, Gerald Walter E.||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)||Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)||Whiteley, George (Stockport)|
|Lowe, Francis William||Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und.-L.)|
|Lowles, John||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Lucas-Shad well, William||Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard||Wilson, J. W. (Wore, N.)|
|Maclure, Sir John William||Seton-Karr, Henry||Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)|
|McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm.E.)||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|McKillop, James||Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Stanley, Lord (Lancs)||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Stone, Sir Benjamin||Young, Com. (Berks, E.)|
|Milward, Colonel Victor||Strauss, Arthur|
|Monckton, Edward Philip||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|More, Robert Jasper||Sutherland, Sir Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUny)||Sir William Walrond and|
|O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.||Thornton, Percy M.||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Farkes, Kbenezer||Valentia, Viscount|
|Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)||Healy, Maurice (Cork)||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Healy, T. M. (Louth, N.)||O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Hogan, James Francis||O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Billson, Alfred||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur|
|Blake, Edward||Jones, D. B. (Swansea)||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Brigg, John||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jordan, Jeremiah||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Burt, Thomas||Leng, Sir John||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh|
|Clough, Walter Owen||Lewis, John Herbert||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Collery, Bernard||Lough, Thomas||Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Macaleese, Daniel||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Crean, Eugene||McDonnell,Dr.M. A. (Qn.'sCo.)||Shee, James John|
|Crilly, Daniel||MacNeill, John G. Swift||Sheehy, David|
|Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)||McCartan, Michael||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||McDermott, Patrick||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Dillon, John||M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)||Steadman, William Charles|
|Donelan, Captain A.||McKenna, Reginald||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Maddison, Fred.||Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Maden, John Henry||Tully, Jasper|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Mandeville, J. Francis||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand||Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)|
|Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)||Molloy, Bernard Charles||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Hammond, John (Carlow)||Moss, Samuel||Mr. Daly and Sir Thomas|
|Harwood, George||Murnaghan, George||Esmonde.|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Bainbridge, Emerson||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Horniman, Frederick John||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Cameron, Robert (Durham)||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)|
|Carew, James Laurence||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.|
|Clark, Dr. G. B.(Caithness-sh.)||Jones, D. B. (Swansea)||Shee, James John|
|Crean, Eugene||Lough, Thomas||Strachey, Edward|
|Dane, Richard M.||Macaleese, Daniel||Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.>|
|Doughty, George||MacNeill, John G. Swift||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Field, William (Dublin)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-||Price, Robert John||Mr. Clancy and Mr. Patrick|
|Healy, T. M. (Louth, N.)||Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)||O'Brien.|
|Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hickman, Sir Alfred|
|Allison, Robert Andrew||Daly, James||Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Denny, Colonel||Hobhouse, Henry|
|Arnold, Alfred||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hogan, James Francis|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Dillon, John||Holland, Hon. Lionel R.|
|Atkinson. Rt. Hon. John||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Hornby, William Henry|
|Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)||Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.||Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Drucker, A.||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.||Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Fenwick, Charles||Jebb, Richard Claverhouse|
|Barry, Rt.HnAHSmith-(Hunts)||Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)||Firbank, Joseph Thomas||Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)|
|Benatinck, Lord Henry C.||Fisher, William Hayes||Jolliffe, Hon. H. George|
|Bethell, Commander||FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-||Jordan, Jeremiah|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Kenyon, James|
|Bigwood, James||Fletcher, Sir Henry||Kimber, Henry|
|Billson, Alfred||Flower, Ernest||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Flynn, James Christopher||Lafone, Alfred|
|Bond, Edward||Folkestone, Viscount||Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)|
|Brassey, Albert||Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)||Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)|
|Brookfield, A. Montagu||Fry, Lewis||Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Galloway, William Johnson||Legh, Hon. Thos. W. (Lancs)|
|Burt, Thomas||Garfit, William||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Caldwell, James||Gedge, Svdney||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)||Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond.)||Loder, Gerald Walter E.|
|Carlile, William Walter||Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)||Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Gilliat, John Saunders||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)|
|Cavendish, R. F. (Lancs, N.)||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Lowe, Francis William|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)||Goldsworthy, Major-General||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Lucas-Shadwell, William|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Macartney, W. G. E.|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(St.Geo's)||Maclure, Sir John W.|
|Charrington, Spencer||Goschen, George J. (Sussex)||McArthur, C. (Liverpool)|
|Chelsea, Viscount||Goulding, Edward Alfred||McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm, E.)|
|Clough, Walter Owen||Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)||McCartan, Michael|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Gretton, John||M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)||McKenna, Reginald|
|Collery, Bernard||Gull, Sir Cameron||McKillop, James|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Maden, John Henry|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles R.||Hammond, John (Carlow)||Mandeville, J. Francis|
|Colville, John||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.||Maple, Sir John Blundell|
|Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)||Hardy, Laurence||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)||Harwood, George||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand|
|Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.||Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.||Milbank, Powlett Charles J.|
|Crilly, Daniel||Healy, Maurice (Cork)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)||Heath, James||Milward, Colonel Victor|
|Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Helder, Augustus||Molloy, Bernard Charles|
|Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh||Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.|
|Monckton, Edward Philip||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.|
|More, Robert Jasper||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)|
|Mount, William George||Seely, Charles Hilton||Waring, Col. Thomas|
|Murnaghan, George||Seton-Karr, Henry||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)||Whiteley, George (Stockport).|
|Newark, Viscount||Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renf.)||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und.-L.)|
|O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)||Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur||Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)||Williams J. Carvell (Notts)|
|Oldroyd, Mark||Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Parkes, Ebenezer||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Stanley, Lord (Lancs)||Wilson, J. W. (Wore, N.)|
|Pearson, Sir Weetman D.||Stevenson, Francis S.||Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)|
|Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)||Stone, Sir Benjamin||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Phillpotts, Captain Arthur||Strauss, Arthur||Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'ld)|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley||Wortley, Rt.Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Pollock, Harry Frederick||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Wylie, Alexander|
|Purvis, Robert||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Renshaw, Charles Bine||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'dUny)||Young, Com. (Berks, E.)|
|Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)||Thornton, Percy M.||Younger, William|
|Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.||Tomlinson, W. E. Murray||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)||Tritton, Charles Ernest||Sir William Walrond and|
|Rothschild, Baron F. J. de||Tully, Jasper||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)||Valentia, Viscount|
Page 32, line 6, after 'aforesaid' insert 'and with the substitution of the Lord Lieutenant for the Local Government Board.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
MR. T. M. HEALY
Is it fair that the Government at this time of the day—the 23rd of May—should presume to take the power out of the hands of the Local Government Board and substitute the Lord Lieutenant? And that Amendment, Mr. Lowther, appears to have been put down for the first time this morning. The right honourable Gentleman is slipping in Amendments making the Bill worse than it is. As I pointed out to the right honourable Gentleman, there is no such thing as the Lord Lieutenant—there are simply two or three gentlemen in Dublin Castle who call themselves the Lord Lieutenant, and whom we have practically no power to discharge, and now, forsooth, the suggestion is that an officer is not to be dismissed without their consent. I must say that if any Member proposes to take a division on this Amendment I shall cordially support him. Since we have shown a desire to get the Bill through, the Government seems to be endeavouring bit by bit to make the Bill worse than it is.
§ Amendment agreed to without a Division.
§ Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.