The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-20 00:00:00

more than five pounds for every day during which such
work shall have been so carried on." -
Clauses up to 11 were agreed to with amendments.
On clause 12, which relates to prosecutions being taken
to the quarter sessions, it was suggested by Mr. BRIGHT
that the county courts should be instituted, and he moved
that the chairman report progress in order to give the Go-
vernment time to consider the subject.
Mr. COBDEN said unless the amendments proposed by
the trade, so as to make the bill palatable, were adopted,
the bill would have to encounter severe opposition.
Sir G. GREY intimated a desire on the part of the
Government to meet all the reasonable requirements of the
trade. There would be no objection on the part of the Go-
vernment to assent to the right of appeal.
Mr. BRIGHT withdrew his amendment.
Ultimately the committee divided on the clause, when
there appeared—
For the clause lll
Against
Majority ---44
The clause was therefore adopted.
On clause 13,
Mr. VIVIAN proposed an addition to the effect that
owners of mills should be liable, in the first instance, pre-
liminary to the punishment of culpable wcrkpeople. The
clause was copied verbatim from the Factory Act.
Mr. PULLER declared that the proposition would be
inoperative.
Mr. BRUCE supported the clause.
The committee divided on the proposed clause, when there
appeared -

that report a bill had been brought in recommending that

the governing body should consist of two ex officio commis-
sioners, and three others, to be named by the Lords of the
Admiralty. It appeared to him that the recent appoint-
ments in the hospital were antagonistic to the provisions of

the bill, which had been introduced in 1861. He thought
it was only fair that the Assembly should have an opportu-
nity of explaining what reforms had taken place, and of
removing the misapprehensions that prevailed on the sub-
ject of the management of Greenwich Hospital. The first

appointment to which he would refer was that. of Sir
Richard Bromley, who had been made second civil com-
missioner of the hospital. He had not a word to say against
Sir Richard Bromley personally, but this he would say,
that if it was thought desirable to reward that gallant

officer at the close of a long and distinguished career, that
such reward should have been forthcoming from the public
treasury, and not from the funds of Greenwich Hospital.
(Hear, hear.) And, on the other hand, if the gallant officer

had retired from ill•health, he should not have been placed
in a position requiring services. If, however, one gallant

• officer had been appointed for the purpose of carrying out
the improvements of the commissioners, then such changes

should have been made in the internal constitution of

the hospital as would have enabled him to carry into
effect the desired reforms. At present, Sir Richard Brom-
ley, however well intentioned, could not effect any reforms,

as he would be hampered by machinery which, as the late
Sir James Graham had remarked, "had never worked

smoothly since 1829." The next point recommended by the

commissioners was that a considerable reduction should be

For the clause
Against .. 61
Majority —26
The clause was consequently added to the bill.
Mr. BOUVERIE moved that the act be limited to the
let of July, 186&—Agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN was ordered to report progress. The
house resumed.
The sitting was suspended at 4 o'clock.

made in the number of the officers who had the manage-
ment of the institution, and the bill of 1861. He admitted
that it was necessary to keep a certain number of the offi-

cers for the purpose of upholding discipline and order in

he establishment ; but it seemed to him that such duties

could be performed adequately by a less number than 17
officers, who occupied no less than one-fourth of the whole
building. The claims of officers to admission into Green-
wich Hospital as a place of retirement rested, he believed,
upon those grounds—namely, that for a very long series of
years a large payment had been made out of the prize
money into the chest of Greenwich Hospital. By the Act
of 46 Geo. 111., passed in 1806, and by a subsequent act
passed in 1814, these payments had been made legal—or,
in other words, it had been enacted that no less than 5 per
cent. upon all prize money should be payable into the chest
of the hospital. These payments had entirely ceased in
1829, and since that time no payments on account of prize

The house resumed at 6 o'clock.
DISTRESS IN THE MANUFACTURING
DISTRICTS.
Mr. CHILDERS gave notice that on the motion for
going into committee on the Public Works (Manufacturing
Districts) Bill be should move a resolution to the effect that
in the opinion of this house, any system for the relief of
distress in the manufacturing districts should include a pro-
vision for assisting emigration to such colonies as should
co-operate in that object.
THE CIVIL SERVICE.
Mr. HENNESSY gave notice that he should bring on
his motion relative to the civil, service on Friday, the 17th
of July.
THE COURT•MARTIAL ON LIEUT.-COLONEL
CRAWLEY.
Mr. CONINGHAM gave notice that on Monday he
would ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether
he would lay upon the table the official report of the Judge
Advocate upon the proceedings of the court-martial at
Mhow ; and also whether the court-martial upon Lieut.-
Col. Crawley would take place in this country.
FEDERAL RECRUITING AGENTS AT LEEDS.
Mr. FERRAND gave notice that on Monday he should
ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whe-
ther be had received a report from the magistrates of Leeds
relative to agents of the Federal States of America being
engaged in recruiting in that town.
THE PURCHASE OF THE EXHIBITION
Viscount ENFIELD asked the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer whether it was true that in a report sent in lately to
the Treasury, the value of the materials composing the Ex-
hibition Buildings were there estimated at but £30,000, less
the cost of their pulling down and removal, and of making
good the site; and whether there would be any objectionto
lay such report upon the table of the house, previous to a
vote being asked of £BO,OOO for the purchase of such build-
ings.

money were made to Greenwich Hospital. There was a moat
important consideration connected with the claims of offi-
cers to admission to Greenwich Hospital. In 1728, or 100

years before the payments on account of prizo money
ceased, a sum equivalent to the half-pay of all officers em-
ployed in the hospital was ordered to be paid into the chest
of the institution. What he objected to in all matters of
this kind was the transference by the Crown of its own

obligations to the funds of Greenwich Hospital. He
wanted to give the house an idea of the tendency of
public departments to throw off its own liabilities to any
institution the resources of which happen to be at their
disposal. In the year 1859, when the commission

was sitting, the Admiralty made a proposition to
the hospital commissioners to pay at once, out of the

surplus income of the in-pensioners, one-half the surren-
dered pension of the out-pensioners, for every man, upon
admission to the hospital, relinquished all claims to his pen-
sion. The commissioners replied that the carrying out of
such a proposition would be a misdirection of the funds of
the charity. (Hear.) He ventured to say that no pro-

_ . .
posal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring the
charities of the country under taxation ever equalled in
magnitude this proposition of the Admiralty. Now, he
would show that the results had been of the internal
management of the institution by contrasting the cost of
maintenance in 1805 and 1859. 3. he cost of maintenance of
2,410 pensioners, 144 nurses, and some other assistants, in
1805, was under £69,206 per annum. The cost of the es-
tablishment under the head of salaries for civil and naval

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said tha
he might answer the question in a dry negative, but
that would not be satisfactory to his noble friend or the
House. There was a paper in existence which was evidently
the foundation of the question; but then it was not a report
sent into the Treasury, nor was it an official report. At the
close of the late Exhibition it became the duty of Mr. Bow-
ring, who was secretary to the commission of 1851, to draw
up a statement with a view of placing before the commis-
sioners their exact financial position; and at a subsequent
date, Mr. Bowring drew up a statement intended to place
before the Government so much of the facts as were material,
with respect to a letter addressed by the Commissioners of
1851 to the Government, asking whether the Government
meant to renew the proposal for the purchase of five acres
of land. In making that statement Mr. Bowring sketched
roughly, for the benefit of the Commissioners of 1851 what
in his conception they might have to pay, if they desired to
get possession of the Exhibition Building, placing his maxi.
mum and minimum:price at a great distance from each other.
His minimum he stated at £3o,ooo—(ironical cheers)—and
his maximum at £2oo,ooo—(counter-cheers and laughter)
—and appended to that estimate was a note that it was only
fair to the contractors to state that their estimate of the net
value of the old materials was muchhigher than that given in
by him (Mr. Bowring). But that report was not the report of
a professional valuator, or of one who was professionally com-
petent to give an opinion on the subject. On the other hand,
the estimate as to the value of the building on which the Go-
vernment had proceeded was the result of a most careful ex-
amination on the part of a highly-qualified professional
gentleman. He might add that the contractors were under
no obligations to take down the building within the shortest
possible period ; if the Government were to become the pro-
prietors of the site, and if the contractors were to continue
in possession of the building, it would be their object so to
deal with its removal as to pay the most regard to the find-
ing of a market for the materials. Indeed, he felt bound to
state that in that event there was not the slightest pro-
bability, or even possibility of the Government getting
command of the ground for the purpose of raising a struc-
ture upon it, before the Bummer of 1865. (Loud cries of
" Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.")
ARTILLERY OFFICERS IN INDIA.
In reply to Colonel SYKES,
Sir C. WOOD said that no actual prohibition had been
issued against the employment of artillery officers upon the
staff in India ; at the same time that the tendency of things
was against their being so employed, in consequence of the
great number of cavalry and infantry officers unattached.
GENERAL MOURAVIEFF AND THE POLISH
LADIES.
Mr, SCULLY—I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for Fo-
reign Affairs whether it is true that the Russian General
Mouravieff has issued an ordinance proclaiming that the
penalty of the knout will be inflicted on all Polish ladies
dressed in mourning ?
Mr. LAYARD—I wish it were in my power to deny the
statement ; but the only information before us is that which
has come within the knowledge of my hon. friend. No
official information has reached us on the subject.
THE VACCINATION OF SHEEP.
In reply to Sir J. C. JERVOISE,
Sir G. GREY—The experiments which had been under-
taken with respect to the effect of vaccination upon sheep,
with a view of preventing the spread of small-pox amongst
them, had not been as yet brought to a close.
PAROCHIAL SCHOOLMASTERS IN SCOTLAND.
In reply to Mr. DUNLOP,
Mr. LOWE said that the recent regulation with respect
to the deduction of salaries arising from endowment would
not apply to the legal salaries of parochial schoolmasters in
Scotland.

officers, repairs of the hospital, &c., in the same year was
£21,837. In 1859 the maintenance of 1,676 pensioners
(which was 30 per cent. less than in 1305) 100 nurses, and
71 sick attendants was £50,910, being £18,296 less than in
1805. The cost of the officers, repairs of the hospital, &c.,
in 1859 was £48,667, or £26,830 more than in 1805. While
the number of pensioners had been 30 per cent. less, the
cost of the establishment had been more than doubled. The
hon. gentleman then referred to other recommendations of
the commissioners, principally dwelling on the necessity of
providing house accommodation for the wives and children
of the pensioners. He believed that for a sum of £12,000
house accommodation could be provided for one hundred
families in the vacant piece of ground adjoining the hospital,

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 20, 1863_._

it showed that he had, in the short time he had been in
office, made himself master of the question, He rejoiced
to find that the bill proposed two years since was not to
be again brought before the House. He looked on the
measure with mistrust, and the Admiralty had acted
with much wisdom and prudence in dropping it. He
doubted if the Admiralty required further powers. The
Asylum might be conducted with greater economy, and
the Government had power to do so without further
legislation. Ho confessed he should be sorry to see
the whole of the recommendation of the Royal
commissioners carried out. He deplored the differences,
which amounted to scandal, that existed between the civil
and military authorities at the hospital, and he hoped means
would be taken to prevent its continuance. The governor
was a useless sinecure, and he thought the best plan would
be to make a naval commander the superintendent of the
hospital, who should discharge the duties of governor. He
approved of the appointment cf Sir R. Bromley, and ex-
pressed his opinion that a better man to discharge the duties
of his office could not be found. He was glad to find that Sir
Richard Bromley's past services had been recognised by the
Government, but the remuneration allowed to him was not
so liberal as he could have wished. From 1754, when the
charter was first granted, down to the commissions of 1775,
1809, and 1840, over which latter the Duke of Wellington
presided, the principle had always been held that disabled
officers of the navy were to have precedence in the distribu-
tion of patronage. There were two funds available for the
institution—the freight money and prize money, the former
of which amounted to £400,000 ; and although it might be
admitted that reforms might be necessary, and also increased
economy, ho trusted that no change would be made in the
system of appropriating the appointments to naval officers
who during active service contributed to the funds.

Sir J. HAY animadverted at some length upon the pre-
sent system of appointing retired officers to situations in
Greenwich Hospital, not on account of the selectims being
personally improper—on the contrary, they were highly
satisfactory—but because he thought when naval officers
had performed good service to their country they ought to
be pensioned by the country, instead of being rewarded out
of the funds of a charitable institution like Greenwich Hos-
spital. It was not right that there should be 1,100 seamen
in the various union workhouses of the country while the
funds of the hospital were exhausted in maintaining an
overgrown establishment.
Mr. BRISCOE also condemned the practice of allowing
seamen to remain in workhouses, and regretted that a girls'
school was not provided in connection with the hospital. If
it were not attended to he should bring the subject before
the house next session.
After a few words from Mr. ANGERSTEIN and Mr.
INGRAM,

Lord C. PAGET defended the appointment of naval
officers, and maintained that it would be unjust to deprive
them of a benefit which they had enjoyed since the foun-
dation of the institution. It was no doubt a very costly
establishment, and its management was also costly—but if
they were to attempt:to conduct it on purely politico•eco-
nomic principles, they had better shut it up altogether.
Like the Temple of Janus, they should close it in time of
peace—but in the event of war it wou d be filled with
cripples after a general action. His hon. friend (Mr.
Briscoe) was wrong in supposing there was no girls' school
attached to the hospital. There was, on the contrary, a
school for 50 girls—but he admitted that it was capable of
improvement. Every seaman in the navy knew that he
was entitled to the hospital, and that he had only to esta-
blish his claims to secure the privilege.
Mr. Alderman SALOMONS replied that claims were one
thing, the rules of admission another. He knew of an in-
stance where a:seaman, 80 years of age, could not obtain
admission to the hospital, although he had subscribed to

. ,
its funds for 12 years, and had been in several actions.
' Mr. LINDSAY complained that while Mr. Stansfeld
admitted the value of the:report, his whole speech was de-
voted to show why the Government should not act upon
it. The noble lord admitted that there was no intention on
the part of the founders to give an asylum in the hospital to
officers, yet he asked the house to go on permitting another
invasion of the intent ion of the founders. The Government
had set themselves against every measure of reform—they
had shown themselves opposed to reform that night—they
had given fifty examples of it on previous occasions.
The subject was then suffered to drop.
THE ORDNANCE SURVEY.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR begged leave to call attention
to the unsatisfactory position of the civil assistants em-
ployed on the ordnance survey, with reference to promo-
tion and pay—and to ask the Under-Secretary of State
for War, whether there was any prospect of the same prin-
ciple of classification being adopted in their case, which
had been attended with such good results in other depart-
ments of the public service.
The Marquis of HARTINGTON referred to the reply
formerly given by Lord Herbert to a similar question. The
Government saw no reason to alter the system in operation,
which had worked excellently.
The LORD MAYOR supported the claims of the Govern-
ment employes in question to promotion and increased pay.
Mr. MOFFATT also urged their claims on the favour-
able consideration of the Government.
Sir S. M. PETO said the Government ought to classify
fairly all they employed, pay them adequately, and let them
provide for a future day, instead of the Government under-
taking to pay them pensions.
After some observations from Mr. CARNEGIE and Sir E.
GROGAN, the subject dropped.
SUFFERERS BY DANISH REPRISALS IN 1807.
Mr. MACAULAY asked whether the Government could
lay upon the table a statement showing the value of the
Danish property and fleet seized in 1807 ?
Mr. F. PEEL said there was no objection to their fur-
nishing all the information in their power, but it would be
exceedingly difficult to estimate the value of Danish men-
of-war seized so far back.
The motion for going into committee was thea agreed to,
and the house having gone into committee pro forma, im-
mediately resumed.
The Harwich Harbour Bill passed through committee.
, The Removal of Irish Poor Bill passed through commit-
tee.

The Militia Pay Bill was read a third time, and passed.
The Charitable Uses Bill was read a third time, and
passed.
The Mutiny (East India) Act Repeal Bill passed through
committee.
The Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) Bill passed
through committee.
The Inclosure (No. 2) Bill was read a second time.
The Watchmen in Towns (Ireland) Bill was withdrawn.
LISBURN ELECTION.

Mr. COLLINS was about to move that the Attorney-
General for Ireland be instructed to prosecute Messrs, J.
Barbour, R. Barbour, and T. Barbour, for bribery at the
late Lisburn election, when
Mr. BAIN ES moved the adjournment of the house, on
the ground that it was improper to discuss so grave a ques-
tion at so late an hour.
The house divided, and the motion was lost by 142 to 19.
Mr. COLLINS then moved that the gentlemen be pro-

scented.
The motion was amended by the omission of Thomas
Barbour's name, and was then agreed to.
The house then adjourned.