The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-18 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION.

and sailors for the maintenance of any members
of the pensioner's family in the workhouse. He ob-
jected to treating an old warrior who had shed his
blood in the service of his country in this manner. He
l- should therefore move that the clause be rejected.
Lord HOWICK said the Gallant Officer had
wholly misunderstood the nature of the Bill. In such
a body as the pensioners there must necessarily be a
great many of very improvident persons, and it was
, found that old soldiers and old sailors were much im-
posed upon by designing men, and wholly robbed of
the benefit of their pensions for a momentary gratifica-
tion. It was for the purpose of preventing such im-
position that the Bill was brought in.
Mr. WAKLEY agreed in what the Noble Lord had
said, but he wished to call the Noble Lord's attention
to the plan of paying the pensions at present. If the
pensions were paid every week nine-tenths of the
evils would be at once abolished, for now the pen-
, stoner got into debt during the quarter, and his whole
I pension was sacrificed to the hackster, at prices 50 per
I cent. above the usual price. If any additional ex-
pense arose from adopting a different mode cf pay-
men to the Chelsea pensioner, the House, he
?was assured, would willingly grant it. The
scenes of wretchedness and crime in the neighbourhood
of Chelsea Hospital, arising from the present mode of
I payment, were such as no language could describe, and
he hoped the Government would take it into their ear-
liest and serious consideration. The payments might be
made weekly instead of quarterly, and in the next Scs-
I sion of Parliament he should make some proposition to
the House on the subject. He trusted, however, the
Noble Lord would take the subject into consideration,

and see if something could not be done with reference to
these evils.

Mr. W. ROCHE, as an Irish Magistrate,.could bear

testimony to the truth of the observations made by the
Hon. Member for Finsbury, and as to the evils result-
ing from the present system.
Sir DE LACY EVANS also expressed Ws earnest

Wish that the recommendation of thi; Hon, Member for
Finsbury would be taken into consideration by the Go-
vernment. He however thou3ht that monthly puy-
ments would be more advantageous than weekly to the
old soldier.
Lord HO WICK could assure the House the Go-
vernment would not fail to consider any means that
could be adopted to guard old soldiers against the evils
that had been mentioned.
Sir E. CODRINGTON cordially joined in an ex-
pression of thanks to the Hon. Member for Finsbury
(Mr. Wakley) for having mentioned this subject, and
also to the Noble Lord for having expressed his readi-
ness to take the subject into consideration., He also
trusted the Government would pay attention to the
subject of sailors pensions. _ _ _

Captain PECIIELL said this Bill would take away
the soldier's pensions. and assign them them to the Poor-
law GurdLins.—(Hear, hear.) The sailor's pension
was taken from Lim on re-enterin,, the service, and he
hoped some provision would shortly be made by which
sennien would be enabled to retain their pensions,
although thf!), might re-enter the service.
Mr. C. WOOD said it was impossible to introduce
anything or the kind into the present Bill, Which re-
lated solely to the army.
Captain BOLDER.° thought this discussion had

been very beneficial to both service;. The best course
would be to put the Bill off till next Session, but if the
Noble Lord determined to persevere he (Captain B.)
would take the sense of the House on the second
clause. By that clause, if the children of an old pen-
sioner, who perhaps only received 3s. 61. a week pen-
sion, should go to the workhouse, the Poor-law Guar-
dians were empowered to seize that 3s. 61, and thus
kave the old soldier, who had fought the battles of his
country, either to starve or to be shut up in the work-
house likewise.
Sir H. PARNELL said this clause created no new
law. The Poor-law Guardians had the same power
under the existing law.
Mr. WAKLEY—Then why did the Government

i wish for any alteration ?—(Hear, hear.) He thought
( the clause was a most harsh, cruel, and unnecessary
provision.
Lord HO WICK could not consent to postpone the.
. .......

. .
Bill for another year, as it went to remedy abuses

that were felt to exist. The Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber for Launceston (Sir H. Harciinge) bad looked at
the provisions of the Bill, and had expressed his entire
concurrence in them.

Mr. HUME said the present Bill would not alter
the existing law at al!.

Mr. WAKLEY was satisfied this Bill was drawn up
in the Poor-law Commissioners' Office. The pensioner
under this clause could make no assignment, because no
person would consider it worth a straw if the Guardians
had a priority of claim. This was a most harsh and
unnecessary provision, and he trusted it would not re-
ceive the sanction of the House.

Lord HO WICK said, that from the time at which
pensions were first granted by Parliament, for the pro-
tection of the pensioner the House had found it neces-
sary most strictly to prohibit any assignment of pensions
whatever—( Hear, hear}—and the only assignment that
could be made was to the parochial authorities, be-
cause they advanced the pension. The Hon. Member
was mistaken in supposing that the Bill originated at
Somerset House. It originated at Chelsea, entirely
with the view of protecting the pensioner against the
fraud to which he was at present subjected.
Mr. WAKLEY said, that by this Bill an assign-
ment was made for the pensioner, and he was not at all
consulted himself. He trusted the Gallant Officer
would divide the House.

Sir FL PARNELL said, the Bill mentioned nothing
of a general- asiigornent.

Mr. WAKL EY considered it to be so in substance,
if the Guardians chose to enforce it. There were so
many ex-officio Guardians that he had no confidence in
them, and should give them every opposition in his
power. This Bill might have come from Chelsea, but
the clause now underconsideration he was convinced had
been introduced in consequence of a hint from Somerset
House.—(A laugh.)
After some desultory discussion as to the postpone-
ment of the clause, the House divided, when their ap-
peared—

For the clause
Against it 7
_ _

Majority

The remaining clauses were agreed to. After some
verbal amendments had been made, and the House re-
sumed.

TIMBER SHIPS BILL.

Mr. G. PALMER moved the second reading of
this Bill.

Mr. WARBURTON said the Bill would prevent
timber ships from carrying their cargo on deck. Why
should such a Bill be temporary ? The Hon. Member
applied it to the cargoes between this and Christmas.
A measure of this kind should be prospective. If a
Bill of this description were to be permanent, it ought
to apply to the autumn rather than to the spring
voyage. Of 309 timber ships lost between 1832
and 1838, 252 were of the autumn voyage.
The evidence assigned not only the lading timber on
the decks, but the bad quality of the ships, as the
cause of the disasters which were so frequent. Yet this
important fact was slurred over by the Committee.
They had not given the character and quality, not
merely of the ships lost, but of the whole number en-
gaged in the trade, information necessary to test the
correctness of these inferences, respecting the causes of
those disasters. And he could not agree in the con-
clusion of the Committee, that the losses of good ves-
sels were as numerous, in proportion, as the losses of
bad vessels. He bad taken the trouble to analyze the
returns, and had found that of 78 vessels lost, 44 were
lost going out, therefore it could not have been from
lading cargoes at all.--(Hear, hear.) Of the remain-
ing 34, 27 were either bad ships, or deficient in stores,
See.—( Hear, hear.) He admitted that there was a
body of the evidence attributed in part the loss of
vessels, returning from America, to the loding on
deck ; an equal body of testimony attributed it to the
had quality of the vessels employed. (The Hon. Mem-
ber adverted to the evidence, quoting divers passages.
The Committee had slurred over every thing, but what
was their " hobby," which did not seem to be properly
performing their duty. This Bill was only for one
year ; the views of the Hon. Member (Mr. Palmer)
as to any permanent measure, were not known, It
vvas ao be hoped that the Hon. Member would estrict
legislation , /1 n;sassi.yp dilated out, via.
the autumn voyages.
Mr. P. THOMSON was no great friend to this
kind of legislation, but he thought a case had been es-
tablished, showing the danger of deck loads, and calling
for legislative interference ; he should, therefore, give his
support to the Bill, coupled with the conditions of his
Hon. Friend, confining its operation to the autumn
voyages. As this was merely an experiment, be
thought it better to make it a temporary measure.
Mr. CHAPMAN said this was a Bill required by
humanity and requested by the shipowners
themselves'
and therefore be was glad there was no opposition.
The object of the Bill was to relieve old ships by doing
away with deck loads, which were carried in no other
trade. He was happy that there was no opposition to
this Bill, which would greatly benefit the trade.
. . _

Mr. BARNARD supported the Bill, and thought
it ought to apply to spring as well as autumn voyages,
as he:thought deck loads ought never to be carried.

Mr:. G. PALMER replied that he did not propose
this as a permanent Bill, because he thought that was
the duty of her Majesty's Government on a print of so
much importance. The Committee had not slurred
over any evidence, but had been anxious to obtain every
information in their power. It was clear that losses
had taken place to a great extent, in situations in which
no such losses ought to have happened, occasioned
solely by faulty stowage, and faulty management.
The loss to the owners would be nothing by prohibit-
ing deck-loads, as the difference in insurance and
charges would more than compensate thrm.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought the observations of the
Hon. Member for Bridport were hardly fair ; all his
suggestions were regarding matters to be discussed in
Committee. He would not detain the House longer