HC Deb 20 July 1900 vol 86 cc771-84

2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £54,767, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete a sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Expenses of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland."


The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has not answered my question. Would he state the result of the inquiry that he promised to make earlier in the session?


I do not know exactly what the hon. Gentleman refers to. It is possible that I may have promised at an earlier period of the session that I would look further into the question of whether anything could be done by legislation this session in connection with pauper children. But there has been no opportunity of introducing or even of considering any such legislation.


I must say that I am amazed at the statement of the Chief Secretary that his further experience of the working of the circular in regard to the industrial schools has been favourable. All I can say is, that according to the information at our disposal, the experience of the se responsible for the industrial schools has been more and more unfavourable in regard to it as time goes on. The history of this transaction will be in the memory of many Members of the House. The whole action of the Chief Secretary has been most singular in this uncalled for interference with a system which was working well—an interference, too, in such a way as to run counter to the unanimous opinion of Ireland, and to upset and threaten with destruction a system which has done an, enormous amount of good in Ireland. This circular was issued on 1st October, 1898,and I raised the question in the House for the first time in February,1899. On that occasion the Chief Secretary referred to the O'Conor Don and some other authorities as inferentially approving of the circular. But he will remember himself that shortly after that debate a most influential deputation, of which the O'Conor Don was a member, waited upon him, and pressed upon him the enormous injury which was being inflicted upon the industrial school system by that circular. The theory of the circular is, that a child in Ireland, before it is admitted into an industrial school must be in some way contaminated. The only information we could extract from the right hon. Gentleman in previous debates as a reason for his extraordinary departure from practice was that certain children were admitted to the industrial schools who would be excluded under a more stringent interpretation of the Act. Mark what was done. For eighteen years the industrial schools system was working in Ireland, and until the right hon. Gentleman came into office it had been the accepted system of the country and had worked untold good. Juvenile crime was almost annihilated by this system and the spirit in which it was worked, and even if the right hon. Gentleman were right in his interpretation, although think he might be a little more modest, seeing that it was the established practice for eighteen years, he ought to have left well alone. When he was convinced by his legal advisers that the magistrates were giving a rather too liberal interpretation to the Act, he could either have left the system —which he found working admirably— alone, or he could have introduced a one clause Bill to amend the Act, and bring it into harmony with the system. He, however, issued his circular, the effect of which I will explain to the Committee The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to make out that the O'Conor Don took the same view as he did as to the policy and intention of the Act. On Tuesday, 28th November, 1899, a large and representative deputation waited on the Chief Secretary in Dublin, for the purpose of laying their views before him as to the Lord Lieutenant's circular. Amongst the se present was the O'Conor Den, and, in the course of a lengthy speech, he said— It was he who introduced the Industrial School Hill into the House of Commons in 1867, and succeeded in having it passed into law is 1868. About fifteen years ago a, Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the working of the Act. Every result then known with regard to the working of the Act was made known to that Commission, but fifteen years passed after the Report was made before any change came. Last year a circular was issued which, whatever it was intended to do, had the effect of making a considerable alteration in the administration of the Act. It would be sworn that if the Act was administered in the future as it had been lately the effect would he disastrous among the schools of the country. The intentions of the Act of Parliament were not the interpretations which the magistrates were placing on the circular. He did not hold that the circular forced the interpretation which was being put upon it. They had taken the view that destitution alone was no longer any element for committing to industrial schools, and that they were to inquire into the antecedents of the children, and satisfy themselves that if the children were not sent to school they would fall into crime. That was not the intention of the Act. It was intended also to provide for children who, by the destitution or incapacity of their parents, might fall into crime. That is the opinion of the O'Conor Don. Mark now what the dispute is. According to the circular, a child must be proved to have disreputable or criminal parents, or he must be an associate of criminals—that is to say, contaminated—before he is to be given the saving grace of the industrial schools system in Ireland. The principle of prevention has been altogether destroyed by this circular, and we are no longer permitted to assume that a child found in a state of destitution and without sufficient guardianship is likely to fall into crime. That is no longer a sufficient ground to commit according to the circular. Now see the result. When in a previous debate it was asserted that the right hon. Gentleman was dictating to magistrates in Ireland, he said he had no such intention, that the circular was not in the nature of an order, and was only a reminder of the view taken by the authorities as to the true interpretation of the Act. Certain magistrates, having obtained the information from the right hon. Gentleman that the circular was not intended to coerce, very properly, as I think, continued to commit children as they had done for eighteen years; but the Chief Secretary immediately discharged them, and the discretion of the magistrates was defeated. The bishops of Ireland have taken this matter up, and take the view that we have presented to the Committee. We have been bombarded with complaints from the managers of these schools, pointing out the serious loss, and, in some cases, even the utter destruction, which will follow if the system is persisted in, and therefore we are bound to take every possible opportunity of bringing this gigantic evil before Parliament. In preparation for this debate the hon. Member for Waterford, having had the great gravity and importance of this matter brought under his notice, issued a circular to the managers of these schools, asking how the system would affect them, and received several replies from very responsible persons. The Rev. James Hamill, P.P., corresponding manager of St. Patrick's Female Industrial School and the Sacred Heart Industrial School, Belfast, writes as follows— We have now thirty vacant places in the Sacred Heart School, although Belfast swarms with children who are fit subjects for admission. The practical result of the circular will be, in a short time, the closing of many of the schools, and the rendering of the remainder less able to continue the work they have undertaken. I need hardly say that before the circular was issued the difficulty was to find places for the applicants. Sister M. do Sales McGeeney, of the Lurgan Industrial School, writes— Our school is going down since the issue of the recent circular. In a few years our school, built at great expense, and still in debt, would be empty. Considering how few schools exist in the north, this would be a great misfortune to the poor. That brings me to another point. These schools have been built by religious communities at great expense, and it is really monstrous, where local charitable resources have been called into play, that this circular should not only ruin the schools and injure the poor, but render the se magnificent buildings useless for the purposes for which they were erected. I do not believe that in the whole world there was such an admirable industrial system as in Ireland. It was a pleasure to go through the schools, the children were so well cared for and so cheerful and happy. The manager of the Sunday's Well School writes— It seems quite evident that if children similar to the se who have been formerly committed are now deprived of the safeguard of industrial schools, they will of necessity become criminals, for a starving child will steal. Then the manager of one of the great Dublin schools writes— The numbers in the schools are so fast going down that a very few years, perhaps not more than four or five, will put an end to most of them. And the pity of it all! The schools are there—have been an acknowledged success—but they are to be shut up, the children made, perhaps, paupers or criminals of, in preference to changing the words of a legal document. What an enlightened age we live in! I really think that language is justified. All these schools have, as I have said, been instrumental in almost abolishing juvenile crime in Ireland. Sister Jones, of the St. Joseph's Industrial School, says— Committals have virtually ceased since the issue of this mischievous circular from the Castle authorities to the magistrates in October, 1898, and consequently we have always several vacancies. At present there are twenty-three, and that number is likely to be doubled before the close of the year. Of course this is a serious financial loss, as the general expenses of the establishment must be kept up the same. From Clifden, Sister Mary Reville writes— Should the present restrictions on admission to industrial schools continue to be enforced, the country schools, especially the se in our mountainous districts, will very soon be wrecked. If the police are to judge the fitness of the applicant for admission, and not the magistrates, it can easily be seen how this fact must thwart the benevolent intentions of the first framers of the law, which hitherto worked so happily in Ireland. The manager of Newtonforbes, Longford County, writes— We are going down in numbers rapidly. Certified for 145 children, we have twenty one vacancies, and are likely to have as many more before the year closes. To balance this we have no prospects of fresh committals. We consider the Castle circular has proved most detrimental, so far as the committal of children' clause is concerned. Some children have already been discharged by the Chief Secretary, after having been in the institution for short periods, and no reason for such action was made known to us. We have done much to farther the interests and welfare of our children, and have spared no expense to fit them for the future in every way. We have spent over £12,000 of our funds (not Government money) to erect buildings for the accommodation of our children, acting under the belief that the institution was never to fail. How is this enormous sum to come back to us, now that there is no better prospect in view than the total destruction of our industrial schools? It is a startling consideration. I might go on multiplying these cases, but I stop there. I am astonished that the Government should persist in this circular. What is the object? Is it, deliberately against the whole public opinion of Ireland, to wreck a system which any Government ought to be proud of—a system whose object is to take children off the streets of the cities and towns of Ireland and put them into schools where they are trained to earn their bread under the care of self sacrificing women and men who for the most part work for nothing, and devote the whole of their lives to this mission, and afterwards to plant these children out under happy conditions so as to give them a chance in life? If this system were left alone these children would become self-respecting and self-supporting members of society; but if it is wrecked the children will be permitted to run about the town serving an apprenticeship to crime. A more insane policy I never heard of. The Chief Secretary dropped a hint to the deputation which waited upon him, and also in the debate in the House, that he thought under a lax administration of the law an undue burden had been thrown on the Treasury; that is to say that under the strict letter of the law some of these children ought not to have been received into the industrial schools, as they had been a drain on the British Treasury in a total sum of a few thousand pounds. I put the question, what is to become of these children, and where are they to go to? If they are the children of parents whose circumstances are such that they ought to take care of their own children but wickedly do not, the law should compel them to do so; and if the law is not strong enough for that at present, let the law be strengthened. But if the parents have been reduced to poverty, either through misfortune or sickness, and have no means to support their children, why should not these children be put into industrial schools instead of allowing them to wander about the streets to be placed in the workhouse, whore they get the workhouse taint? The result of this circular is that the income of some of the industrial schools has dropped £7,000 or £8,000 a year. The only object of the circular seems to be to save the capitation grant of 5s. for each child. I contend that there was no expenditure in Ireland which was more profitable, and I appeal on that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because by striking at the tap-root of crime in the country there was a saving to the Government of the expenditure of imprisoning these children in after life. Therefore, I maintain that the policy of driving the se children to the streets for the purpose of saving a few thousand pounds is most narrow and foolish. There is not the least use in concealing the fact that the policy is to drive the children into the workhouse, from which they will be boarded out, and their expense charged on the rates, and thus saved to the Treasury. Now the workhouse child has a horrible mark for life, as any one can see who goes into even the best workhouses in Ireland, and contrasts its condition with that of a child in an industrial school conducted by the unions.


As the hon. Member himself remarks, this question has already been very fully discussed in the House, and I am rather surprised that he-has raised it again this evening. He began by quoting a speech of the O'Conor Don on the occasion when a deputation waited upon me in August last. I rather believe that the O'Conor Don himself then stated that he did not think the magistrates had given that interpretation to the circular which it is now said they put upon it. The circular set forth that many of the places in the industrial schools which ought to be occupied by the poor children for whose benefit the Industrial Schools Act was really intended, children, namely, who, if not taken out of their surroundings, would grow up in vice, were now filled by children who suffered from destitution, and destitution only. The proper objects of the Industrial Schools Acts were therefore kept out of the schools by the latter class. That was the whole case. The system was carried on in a manner that was entirely illegal, and the circular was one of many which was issued with the object of preventing these illegalities. The hon. Gentleman says the system went on for eighteen years; that is absolutely contrary to the fact, and in proof of that I would refer to the Report of the Commission which was appointed in 1882, of which the O'Conor Don was a member. The Report states that it is certain that the Industrial Schools Act is regarded as an institution for poor and destitute children rather than for the children of the criminal classes. A number of children, according to the Report, were sent to these schools who did not come within the purview of the Act, and were sent there mainly on the ground of destitution; and there could be no doubt that there were many children who wore sent to industrial schools in Ireland who would not be sent in England, with the result that it was apprehended that many children who were proper subjects for these schools were left in the streets. That is the system which the hon. Gentleman says has given satisfaction in Ireland for eighteen years, and he actually suggests to me that I should have the law changed to correspond with the practice instead of having the practice changed to correspond with the law. It comes to this, that the industrial schools of Ireland should be used for the relief of destitution, and that the general taxpayer should be called upon to pay. That principle is not adopted either in England or in Scotland. Let me say a word with regard to the circular. The hon. Gentleman says that the grant-in-aid of the industrial schools in Ireland has been reduced. That is not the fact, because the grant was £100,000 last year, and it will be the same this year. It is true the attendance has been reduced by the circular, and it would be very strange if it had not, because a great, number of the children who ought never to have been admitted have been cut off The result will, I hope, be a corresponding increase in the number of committals of children of the class for whom the industrial schools are intended. I will give the Committee the figures. Before the circular was issued the number of children committed for begging attending these schools in 1897 was 924; in 1898 it was reduced to 676, and in 1899 to 232. Of children admitted for causes other than begging, who were properly sent to the industrial schools, the number in 1897 was 486, in 1898 562, and in 1899 723. In the face of these figures I think I am justified in concluding that the object of the circular has been achieved, and that these illegalities will no longer take place, and that there will be a considerable increase in the commitals of the children for whom the Act is intended.


The figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman hardly bear out the statements in the letters which have been received from the managers of industrial schools in Ireland. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman has arrived at his figures, but the se responsible for the administration of the industrial schools system in Ireland declare that the numbers have shown a very considerable falling off. It is perfectly impossible to discuss this question at this hour of the morning, and under such oppressive atmospheric conditions. We have in connection with this matter an instance of the magnificent manner in which Irish affairs are administered. We have only got two days for Irish Supply, and we are supposed to be satisfied, although there are many matters of importance which have not been discussed at all. I wish to ask the Chief Secretary one question. I was a member of a deputation which waited on the right hon. Gentleman on this question, and he informed us that he would make an inquiry as to whether any injury had been inflicted on the industrial schools by the operation of this circular, and that if any injury were inflicted he would see whether it could not be remedied. It would be very interesting if he would inform us what was the result of that inquiry. The Chief Secretary stands on the strict letter of the law, and I assume he has taken legal advice on the matter, but here is the opinion of an eminent legal authority. He says— The Lord Lieutenant has no authority to review the decisions of the justices. I attach no weight to the threat that steps will be taken for the discharge of children sent to the schools by order of the justices. In my opinion the 11th Section should be interpreted in a large and liberal spirit, and this becomes little short I of legal obligation, having; regard to the interpretation put upon the Act and acted on for thirty years. On the faith of this interpretation of the statute, and its judicial exposition by the justices during this long period, schools j have been erected at great expense, and j mortgage debt incurred, bestowing many blessings on the destitute poor. That all this should be now altered by an executive circular seems to me an injustice and intolerable wrong. The true and large interpretation of the statute is largely supported by the 20th section, which provides for the managers of schools permitting a child to lodge at the dwelling house of his parent. This is certainly not confined to children committed under the 14th section, or to a child whose parent is in prison. It indicates an intention to include a large class who have no visible means of subsistence, i.e., the destitute poor. In my opinion it does include them. The Irish Act purports to extend the English Industrial Schools Act, 1866, to Ireland, from which the 11th section is taken. By the English Act and by another section 'refractory' children are included. I recommend that in every case the absence of visible means should be proved. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Report of the Commission which sat in 1882 in justification of his action in issuing the circular, but the circular was not issued until sixteen years afterwards, and it is strange that the right hon. Gentleman should have to go back such a number of years to justify his action. The circular was a most unfortunate one. The Act was doing great good in Ireland, and I am very glad the matter has been raised.

DR. COMMINS (Cork, S. E.)

One thing strikes me as very curious in regard to this circular. The interpretation of the law belongs to the Bench, not to the Executive, but this is a matter in which the Executive Government is overriding judgments of the Bench which have been accepted for sixteen years. You would not find a parallel for that in England. Even supposing the magistrates were in error, it was a mistake which hurt nobody. Such action as that taken by the Chief Secretary in Ireland would not be possible in England. Would it be tolerated for one moment in England? Not at all. Why was not one of these magisterial decisions taken into the Court of Queen's Bench, instead of an interpretation of, the Act being given by the issue of an Executive Minute? By the course pursued we have had the judicial and executive functions confounded.

* MR. AUSTIN (Limerick, W.)

I wish to make reference to a case that has occurred in my constituency, the circumstances of which must appeal to the sympathy of the Committee. The Chief Secretary had mentioned that the Act was designed for the saving of children, who, if not rescued from their surroundings, would grow up in vice, but I failed to see from the observations he dropped that there was any intention on his part to carry out that object. In the autumn of 1899 a family in Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick, were deprived of the breadwinner. That family consisted of six children and the mother, who was delicate, and had no means of supporting them. In the ordinary course of events the mother went to the parish priest, and he took the necessary steps to obtain the admission of the children into the Limerick Industrial Schools. There was no objection at first, but Dublin Castle suddenly sent down an order to have the children removed from the industrial school, and sent back to Abbeyfeale, where all they could do was to wander about the streets. That order roused a great deal of indignation in the public mind, and the magistrates, with the concurrence of the resident magistrate, sent an order for the recommittal of the children to the Limerick Industrial Schools; but another order came down from Dublin Castle ordering their discharge. The parish priest wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, but with no effect. I cannot see for a moment where the operation of this Act as now administered is to be of any benefit. Here was a family with no provision for their support, who were decently brought up, and whose father had been a mechanic. The application for their admission to the industrial school had boon fully considered by the magistrates and the resident magistrate, and about which no objection had been taken by the inhabitants of the town, who were fully cognisant of the whole circumstances of the case. But they were sent out into the streets by a telegram from Dublin Castle. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, after all the remonstrances that have been made by magistrates and others, will take some steps to allow these poor children to be sent back to the Limerick Industrial Schools instead of to the workhouse.


I hope this debate will now be brought to a close and the Vote taken. I was not unwilling that the discussion should be initiated, but it has now proceeded for an hour.


If it were earlier in the evening, the subject is one of such great interest in Ireland that it ought to be discussed more fully. I recognise, however, that under the circumstances the discussion is now of little or no value, and I do not see any object in prolonging it.


In order to obtain a division, I beg formally to move that the Vote be reduced by £10.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £54,757, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Dillon.)


asked if the Chief Secretary had anything to say in regard to the Abbeyfeale case.


said he had taken the advice of the Law Officers on the case, and had been told that it would be illegal to send the children to an industrial school.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 50; Noes, 75. (Division List No. 229.)

Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) Flavin, Michael Joseph Molloy, Bernard Charles
Ambrose, Robert Flynn, James Christopher Murnaghan, George
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Barlow, John Emmott Gibney, James O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)
Blake, Edward Griffith, Ellis J. O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hammond, John (Carlow) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Brigg, John Harrington, Timothy O'Kelly, James
Caldwell, James Hayden, John Patrick O'Malley, William
Carew, James Laurence Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Parnell, John Howard
Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton Healy, Maurice (Cork) Pinkerton, John
Charnning, Francis Allston Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth) Power, Patrick Joseph
Clancy, John Joseph Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Commins, Andrew Hogan, James Francis Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Crean, Eugene Jameson, Major J. Eustace Shee, James John
Crilly, Daniel Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land) Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Lewis, John Herbert Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Macaleese, Daniel Tanner, Charles Kearns
Daly, James MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn's Co.) Tennant, Harold John
Daiziel, James Henry MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Dillon, John M'Dermott, Patrick
Doogan, P. C. M'Ghee, Richard TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) M'Leod, John Sir Thomas Esmonde and
Ffrench, Peter Maddison, Fred. Captain Donelan.
Field, William (Dublin) Mandeville, J. Francis
Anson, Sir William Reynell Dalrymple, Sir Charles Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Dickinson, Robert Edmond Graham, Henry Robert
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Greville, Hon. Ronald
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.
Banbury, Frederick George Faber, George Denison Haslett, Sir James Horner
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Hudson, George Bickersteth
Bill, Charles Fergusson, Rt. H. Sir J. (Man.) Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Finch, George H. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William
Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Keswick, William
Butcher, John George Fisher, William Hayes Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.) FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r) Flower, Ernest Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Forster, Henry William Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)
Charrington, Spencer Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Lowles, John
Collings Rt. Hon. Jesse Galloway, William Johnson Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Gedge, Sydney Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Giles, Charles Tyrrell Macdona, John Cumming
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Goldsworthy, Major-General Maclure, Sir John William
Curzon, Viscount Gordon, Hon. John Edward M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Dalkeith, Earl of Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F
Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Purvis, Robert Tollemache, Henry James-
Milward, Colonel Victor Rankin, Sir James Tuke, Sir John Batty
Monckton, Edward Philip Rentoul, James Alexander Warde, Lt.-Col. C. K. (Kent)
More, Robert J. (Shropshire) Ritchie, Rt. Pin. Chas.Tthomson Welby, Lt. Col. A. C. K (Taunt'n)
Morgan, Hn. F (Monmouthsh.) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Mori ell, George Herbert Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath.
Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford) Rutherford, John Wrightson, Thomas
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Saunderson, Rt. Hon Col Edw. J. Wylie, Alexander
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) Wyndham, George
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk) Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong,
Nicholson, William Graham Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N. TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ.) Sir William Walrond and
Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C. Thornton, Percy M. Mr. Anstruther.

Question put, and agreed to.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Ambrose, Robert Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Gibney, James O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Kelly, James
Caldwell, James Hammond, John (Carlow) O'Mall'ey, William
Carew, James Laurence Hayden, John Patrick Parnell, John Howard
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Pinkerton, John
Clancy, John Joseph Healy, Maurice (Cork) Power, Patrick Joseph
Commins, Andrew Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Crean, Eugene Jameson, Major J. Eustace Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Crilly, Daniel Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land) Shee, James John
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Macaleese, Daniel Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Daly, James MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q. C.) Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Dillon, John M'Dermott, Patrick Tanner, Charles Kearns
Doogan, P. C. M'Ghee, Richard
French, Peter Mandeville, J. Francis TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Field, William (Dublin) Molloy, Bernard Charles Sir Thomas Esmonde and
Flavin, Michael Joseph Murnaghan, George Captain Donelan.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Galloway, Wm. Johnson Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Gedge, Sydney Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) Goldsworthy, Major-General Nicholson, William Graham
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Gordon, Hon. John Edward Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Banbury, Frederick George Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Graham, Henry Robert Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon
Blundell, Colonel Henry Greville, Hon. Ronald Purvis, Robert
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George Rentoul, James Alexander
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Hanbury, Rt Hon. R. Wm. Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas Thomson
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Haslett, Sir James Horner Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Keswick, William Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J.
Charrington, Spencer Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn) Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk)
Curzon, Viscount Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Thornton, Percy M.
Dalkeith, Earl of Lowles, John Tuke, Sir John Batty
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Loyd, Archie Kirkman Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Douglas, Rt, Hon. A. Akers- Macartney, W. G. Ellison Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton)
Faber, George Denison Macdona, John Cumming Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. Maclure, Sir John William Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Finch, George H. Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. E. Wylie, Alexander
Fisher, William Hayes Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Wyndham, George
FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose- Milward, Colonel Victor Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Flower, Ernest Monckton, Edward Philip TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Forster. Henry William More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsbire) Sir William Walrond and
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.) Mr. Anstruther.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned at ten minutes before Two of the clock, till Monday next.