The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-13 00:00:00

different branches of the public revenue. He did not think
it would be of any advantage to subject these hereditary
pensions to an annual vote of the house. The way to deal
with these questions would be to propose an arrangement,
of course it must be a voluntary and optional arrangement,
with the holders of those pensions—to offer them reasonable
terms of compromise, and so to discharge them from the
public revenue. (Cheers.) Then there were certain branches
of the public service which he could hardly say Parliament
in its wisdom had imposed upon various departments of
the revenue. For instance, the Scotch judicial establish-
ment was charged to the Excise. It was plain that such
arrangements as these were perfectly indefensible, and
ought to be altered. Everything that properly belonged
to the public service and expenditure ought to be under
the control of Parliament, and they would never attain to
a perfectly sound and right system till they had brought
the whole under the control of Parliament. (Cheers.) He
must say, however, he was not so sanguine as the last
speaker as to the savings which this change would effect.
The hon. member for Lambeth said that the charges for
collecting the income of the country, including the Post-
offica packets, amounted to at per cent, of the gross
amount. (Hear.) He spoke of the Post-office packets as
a portion of the machinery for collecting the revenue of
the country. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was
of a different opinion ; he looked upon the Post-office
packets as a means of scattering and squandering the re-
venue of the country. (Laughter and cheers.) But whether
they were a means of collecting or squandering the revenue,
they were at least directly under the control of this house;
and he was sorry to say that, in that particular case, the
control of the house was worse than nothing. (Hear, hear.)
He was bound to express his conscientious belief that, if
they had been exclusively under the control of the Govern-
ment department, the expenditure would have been con-
ducted with much greater economy. However, the hon.
gentleman might be assured that whatever measures could
be taken were taken to improve every branch of the public
expenditure. (Cheers.) But he should be sorry if hon.
gentlemen supposed it was his intention to imply any
censure upon those who administered the present sys-
tem. He could not agree in the terms of the motion
as it stood. The terms, indeed, were such as he, would
thoeyf
not be disposed
astoa find
con-
sidered merelyweret views
vigorous
fault
ewixptrhessifion
and opinions of the honourable gentleman ; but if the
house were to assent to them, and if they were to be ie-
corded in a public document, they would convey a censure
upon those who administered the present system which
those gentlemen really did not deserve, and which the house
probably would not desire to convey. The hon. gentleman
declared, in his first resolution, that an enormous sum of
money was annually expended, in violation of public prin-
ciple, and in defiance of the constitutional rights of this
country. Now he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had
already stated, in the broadest possible manner, that he
wished to bring all the charges connected with the ' collec-
tion of the public revenue under Parliamentary control; but
he would be loth to say that any constitutional principle
was violated by the practice that now obtained, and the
reason was, that that practice had been the uniform system
adopted in this country in all periods and under all systems
of Government, and because he believed that this arose from
the fact that the expenditure connected with the collection
of the revenue had always been considered a part of the old
prerogative of the Crown. (Hear.) He was not stickling
for the retention of this prerogative—he believed it would
be far better to part with it; but he could not agree to cen-
sure those who were engaged in the working of the system.
He was convinced nnt only of the perfect integrity but of
the enlightened economy that prevailed among the heads
of the great public departments. At the same he did
not mean to say that no saving could be effected. His own
opinion was, that to bring the expenditure of the different
departments under the control of Parliament could greatly
strengthen the hands of Government, and would tend upon
the whole to a good deal of retrenchment. All he wished
was, that he should not be understood as looking for a saving
of millions, or that he was insensible to the services of such
men as Mr. Wood of the Board of Inland Revenue, or Sir
Thomas Fremantle of the Customs Department—men who,
he was quite satisfied, would second and sympathise with
the spirit of this house in effecting in every way that was
in their power economy and retrenchment. He would not
discourage—he would not supersede these men ; but he
would rather strengthen their hands. That was the spirit
in which he proposed to deal with this question. He had
already acquainted the hon. member for Lambeth that they
were investigating the conditions of thedifferentdepartments
one after another, in order to consider how they could
best carry into effect the principles he had now admitted.
With respect to the Board of Inland Revenue, which, us
the hon. gentleman had said, collected three-fifths of the
revenue of the country, it was in a state of considerable
advancement. At present they were examining thei Post-
office, that great department which, as the hon. gentleman
knew, was not a mere machine for the collection of revenue,
but was an immense contrivance for the distribution of
letters, which it would be very difficult to place in all its
details before Parliament as clearly as they could wish.
After these explanations, which he trusted would be satis-
factory to the hon. gentleman and to the house, he would
conclude with the hope that the hon. gentleman would not
call upon the house to affirm his resolutions. (Cheers.)
Mr. WILLIAMS said the right hon. gentleman had
met the question in the fairest possible manner. He felt
uncommon gratification at the off-hand manner in which
the right hon. gentleman had expressed himself, and,
wishing to leave the question in his hands, with the fullest
confidence in his integrity and ability, he would not press
his motion. (Cheers.)
The resolutions were then withdrawn.
KILMAINHAM HOSPITAL.
Mr. GROGAN and Mr. VANCE presented several peti-
tions from various places in Ireland against the closing of
this hospital.
Mr. BUTT then rose to move the following resolution :
" That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, re-
presenting to her Majesty that, in the opinion of this house,
it is expedient and right to maintain for the Irish soldier, in
his age or infirmity, the asylum which the Royal Hospital of
King Charles 11. for ancient and maimed soldiers, at Kil-
mainham, near Dublin, has long afforded to those for whose
benefit it was orignally instituted and endowed ; that the
abolition of this ancient Irish institution would be, opposed
to the feelings of the Irish nation, and injurious to the
honour and interests of her Majesty's service • and praying
that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to adopt such
measures as may to her wisdom seem expedient for
removing any obstructions which may now exist to the
fulfilment of the objects for which this institution is
established, in consequence of any directions heretofore
issued to the governors by her Majesty's Secretary-at-War,
prohibiting the further admission of maimed and worn-out
soldiers." He said, though this was an Irish question, yet,
he was happy to say, it was unconnected with those divi-
sions in politics and religion which too much distracted
Ireland. Kilmainham Hospital was as old as Chelsea,
having been founded by Charles 11. in 1664, for the
wounded and infirm of the Irish army. A charter was
granted constituting it a corporation, and it was supported
out of the pay of the Irish army on an assessment of 6d. in
the pound. This continued for more than a century, till, in
1794 the Irish Parliament took the support of the hospital
on itself. At the Union that charge was transferred to the
Imperial Parliament. So matters continued until a dis-
patch was written by Mr. Fox Malik, now Lord Panmure,
when Secretary-at-War, in 1851, intimating to the gover-
nors of the hospital that no admission was to be made to
the hospital, and no vacancy to be filled up, after the Ist
of April in that year, as her Majesty's Government con-
sidered it expedient to close the hospital. Now, whether
the measure was right or wrong in itself, he thought the
step aught not to have been taken by the Secretary-at-War
on his own authority, and without the sanction of Parlia-
ment. (Hear.) This was the more incumbent upon him,
because in 1833 an attempt was made by Mr. Ellice, then
Secretary-at-War, to close the hospital ; but the present
Lord Derby, who was then Secretary for Ireland, the Mar-
quis of Anglesea, who was Lord-Lieutenant, and Sir Hus-
sey Vivian, who was Commander of the Forces, all 'pro-
tested against it on political and military grounds, and the
proposal was abandoned. Still more, to meet the objec-
tions raised against the institution, ir Hussey Vivian pro-
posed a reduced scale of the hospital, which should in future
consist only of 6 captains and 200 in-pensioners, and this
scheme received the sanction of her present MajeslyinlB4.s,
and had ever since been acted on. He thought, therefore,
that this settlement ought to be held as a final one. It was
true that in 1850 the committee which then sat on military
affairs gave a hesitating recommendation in favour of con-
solidating the two establishments of Kilmainham ; and
Chelsea. But the whole evidence on which that recom-
mendation was grounded was the evidence of Mr. Fox
Menlo himself, and Lieutenant-Colonel Tulloch, who was
at the head of the out-pensioners. Mr- Fox Malik stated
in his evidence that there would be a saving if they closed
Kilmainham ; but when he was asked whether he would
close Chelsea, he said that as to the abstract necessitly of
having in-pensioners, he could not say much in favour of
them, but that Chelsea was erected in the time of Charles
11. as a retreat for the old soldiers— (cheers)—it I was
looked upon as one of the national establishments of the
country—(cheers)—and that it would be against the feeling
of the public and of the army if such an establishment
were abolished. (Loud cheers.) Now, he said, that if
they substituted Kilmainham for Chelsea this argument
would equally apply. (Cheers.) Then came the evidence
of Lieutenant-Colonel Tulloch, who was no doubt a very
respectable gentleman, but his evidence would hardly go
for much. The first question put to him on the subject
was—" Do you know anything of Kilmainham Hospital ?"
and his answer was, "I do not know anything in regard.
to Kilmainham." (Laughter.) After this promisinc, an-
swer the right hon. baronet opposite [Sir James Graham,
as was understood] proceeded to examine the witness, by
asking him whether he thought the in-pensioners would
have any reason to complain if they were made out-pen-
sioners—(laughter)—and. he said he did not think they
would. (Great laughter.) This was not fiction, it ,was
down in the evidence ; and it was upon such answers as
these that the report was founded, and that was held to
justify this answer to the people of Ireland. The witness
was asked, "Do you think there would be any feeling
against coming from Ireland to Chelsea instead of being
sent to Kilmainham ?" The answer was, " Certainly not ;"
and that was the answer given to almost every question
put to him. (Laughter.) The witness went on to say that
soldiers are the last persons to care about the distance they
have to go. The right hon. gentleman opposite, the pre-
sent Secretary-at-War, was not very successful in his cross-.
examination of the witness. The right hon. gentleman
asked, " Is there any difference in the price of whisky at
Chelsea and at Kilmainham?" (Loud laughter.) The
witness, who knew nothing about Kilmainhara, replied,
"I dare say there is." (Continued laughter.) He was
asked, " Would not that be an element in the consider-
ation of the pensioners ?" and he returned this most philo-
sophical answer, " I think that with eight officers to super-
intend 600 men there ought to be no whisky at all drank
at Kilmainham.." (Laughter.) He was agam asked, "Is
there general sobriety now at Chelsea Hospital ?" His
reply was, " I cannot say as to that. Some time ago it
was said the out-pensioners were seducing the in-ones into
drunkenness." (Laughter.) Now it was principally upon
the evidence of these two witnesses that the committee had

to groundedoverd theire the
charter, recommendation
destroy to t a n
institution
half,
a hff o2ua
ns e ,d
been maintained for a century and a wwt
ohhii subvertcehh hwaads
the royal
virjoytanlewssarrantoeifughearskperdesewnht
eMthaejrestthye, (Hear,
er hear.)
e on being
to give up their pensions and come into
Chelsea Hospital, replied, " I cannot say theoyuw-peouln'sdio,nbeers
were disposed -
eaeße if they surrender their pensions with that view they
will have no means of comini, to Chelsea. If a person at
Perth applies to be admitted he must be prepared to pay
his expenses." And yet it was said that it would not be
the slightest hardship to bring f any part of
Ireland. (Hear.) Now thatpensioners really wasro them whole case
against the hospital, and he would appeal to the right hon.
gentleman whether such evidence justified the discontinu-
ance of this institution ? (Rear, hear.) Sir Hussey
Vivian considered the establishment an appendage to roy-
alty, and in a country like Ireland, if any monarchial in-
stitutions existed, it was of the greatest importance that
they should not be recklessly taken away. har.)
And he might be permitted to remark, thatwhen here Ma-
jesty visited Ireland, she had a palace at Kilmainham of which she might justly be proud. (Hear, hear.) He would
trouble the house with another authority of a very recent
date, just been placed in his hands, and he
regretted that had
he was not allowed to give the name of the

writer, because, if he were able to do so, it would carry
authority equal to that of Sir Hussey Vivian and the Mar-
quis of Anglesea. The writer said, " Instead of the esta-
blishment being retained for the benefit of old veterans, it
was already shut up against their entry, and he thinks it a
shame that such an establishment should be lost sight of
for a paltry saving." (Cheers.) He wished to know whether
the present Government or Mr. Fox Maule had ascertained,
the opinion of the present commander of the forces in Ire-
land, and would venture to say that the opinion which that
distinguished officer would give them would not be very diffe-
rent from the sentiments which he had just read. (Cheers
and laughter.) How many Irish members who were not
placemen would be found voting against the present motion
(Hear.) This was a grant coming to this country from tihe
Irish Parliament. He did not mean to say that the house
was bound to maintain all votes granted by the Irish Par-
liament, but he must he permitted to say that if there was
one grant which the Irish Parliament would have con-
tinued it was this grant; because the Irish members who
spoke the sense of the Irish people were unanimously in its
favour. (Hear, hear.) Now, what would be the real say-
ing to the country if the reductions should be carried out ?
By the Queen's royal warrant the establishment had been
reduced to 6 captains and 200 privates. The charge this
year was little more than 6,0001. But even if the establish-
ment could be maintained at 10,0001. a year, that would
not be all lost to the public, for every captain and soldier,
on entering the hospital, was obliged to give up his pension,
and he estimated those pensions at 2,5001. a year. But
there were other reductions to be taken into consideration.
The commander of the forces, who was master of the hos-
pital by virtue of his office, received 3001. a year in the
shape of perquisites, which must be provided for in
some other manner, in the event of the institution
being abolished ; and a similar amount was provided
for two other high officials under the Queen's warrant,
which must also be matter of compensation. He be-
lieved the expenses of the hospital did not cost the
nation 5,0001. a year, and he asked, would the house, for
the sake of effecting this paltry saving, commit an act
of injustice to the military service of the Queen, and an
act offensive to the feelings of the Irish people. (Hear,
hear.) He considered this a question for the British sol-
dier. It so happened that an assault was now made on the
Irish soldiery ; but the, question really was, did the Go-
vernment mean to maintain Chelsea Hospital and destroy
Kilmainham, or was the destruction of Kilmainham to be
the prelude to the destruction of Chelsea? (Hear, hear.)
He trusted the house would not sanction a paltry saving,
the effect of which would be greatly to weaken the confi-
dence of the army. (Cheers.)
Lord G. PAGET considered it a duty which he owed to
his profession to second the motion. A very strong feeling
existed amongst the Irish soldiery on this point, and Lord
Vivian was of opinion that the removal of the hospital or
the doing away with it altogether, would create a consider-
able sensation in the country, and would, he feared, be pre-
judicial to the service. Whilst the English soldier had
Chelsea to retire to, the Irish soldier had a fair claim to
Kilmainham. (Hear.) When the subject was before the
Irish Government in 1833, it was proposed to make the in-
pensioners out-pensioners. In some cases that plan might
have been acceptable; but it should not be forgotten that
many old soldiers had no homes or families to go to. (Hear,
hear.) At that time the chief reason for the removal of
the institution was that the military required barrack ac-
commodation in Dublin, but since then large and commo-
dious barracks had been erected in Dublin, and therefore
that reason no longer existed. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. FITZGERALD supported the motion, expressing
a hope that Parliament would not allow the institution to
be broken up. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. VANCE said the ostensible reason for abolishing
the hospital was economy. But why should not this
economy commence at home ? He had no doubt it
would be very economical to abolish Greenwich Hos-
pital, and dispel() of the site for villas, or to destroy
the efficiency of Chelsea Hospital, by dismissing the
inmates and converting the building into model lodg-
ing-houses. Undoubtedly the inmates could be more
cheaply supported elsewhere ; but that was not the
object which influenced our ancestors in building a palace
for seamen, and establishing Chelsea and Kilmainham for
soldiers. (Hear, hear.) The people of Dublin felt as great
an interest in Kilmainham as did the Parisians in the
Invalides. It was the constant resort of the inhabitants of
Dublin, and a great stimulus to parties to enter the service
of the country, and he trusted the house would not sanc-
tion the destruction of such an old establishment without
some stronger reasons than those which had hitherto been
brought forward. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said he had nothing to com-
plain of in the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman
who had opened the discussion, who had stated the case
with perfect fairness and great good humour—(hear,
hear)— and he could not help joining in the mirth which
the hon. and learned gentleman had produced, even at his
own expense, in the quotations which he had read from the
cross-examination of the witnesses before the committee,
but still he could not help thinking that the questions
cited had reference to considerations which, in the case of
old soldiers, had considerable weight. (Hear, hear.) The
question which the house was now called upon to decide
was this—would they reverse the policy which they had
three times approved of, and which had been carried out
successfully by two Governments? (Hear, hear.) It was
quite true that the letter of his predecessor but one in
the office which he had now the honour to hold did close
the portals of Kilmainham to future admissions. The
arguments that had been used to-night, not only by the
hon. and learned gentleman, but by his noble and gallant
friend (Lord G. Paget), referred rather to the plan proposed
by previous secretaries-at-war twenty years ago, and
which, after much consideration, were abandoned, than
to any plan now in existence. At that time it was pro-
posed, not at once to close Kilmainham to all future appli-
cants for admission, but to divert it from the purpose
for which it had been originally instituted, and to give the
then pensioners either an increased out-pension or transfer
them to Chelsea, with the exception of some few who were
too old and infirm to be removed, and who might be
allowed to remain in Kilmainham for the remainder of
their days. No such proposal had since been made ; and
the house must not consider that the question on which
they were called to decide. The question for the house to
decide was simply this—would they, under the circum-
stances which he was about to describe, think it wise to
re-open Kilmainham, and re-establish it to the extent of
the establishment twenty years ago ? It had been said
there was a just claim for themaintenance of Kilmainham,
because it had been built and maintained bystoppages from
the soldiers. Now, the fact was that it was not built by
stoppages from soldiers, but by stoppages from that por-
tion of their pay which went to the colonels of the regi-
ments, which went to diminish the profits of the colonels.
(Hear, hear.) But even if that had been so, he maintained
that it was of no importance now, because as the poundage,
on which the contributions were made ceased in 1794, there
was no soldier now in existence who contributed towards
the maintenance of Kilmainham. No vested interest,
therefore, could be disturbed. (Hear, hear.) But let the
house bear in mind the origin and intention of Kilmain-
ham. At the time of the establishment of the hospitals
of Chelsea and Kilmainham the Irish army amounted
to 7,000 men. It was calculated that Kilmainham would
hold the whole of the incapacitated men from the Irish
army, averaging about 300. There was no out-pension.
If Kilmainham had not been established it would have
been necessary to maintain the invalids in towns at a
greater expense. The charter of Charles 11. specified that
those only should be admitted who had been incapacitated
by wounds from serving in the ranks. Of course, as the
army augmented these two hospitals were incapable of taking
the larger number that might be required to be taken.
Since the foundation of the establishment the out-pensions
had greatly augmented, and it was no mere matter of specu-
lation that men preferred living with their families to enter-
ing the hospital, especially at a time when prices werelow.
It was the most natural thing in the world that these old
men should prefer going home and living with their fami-
lies to being secluded in a sort of monastic establishment
such as these institutions were, and being obliged to sub-
mit to discipline and restraint. Take the case of a man
badly wounded. He could not live in one of these hospi-
tals in the same comfort and receive the same attention as
he could at home, at the hands of a wife or a daughter.
And the result was found to be that at Chelsea, men who
were almost incapacitated from helping themselves would
not go into the hospital, but preferred taking their pen-
sions ; and it was natural they should do so. He (Mr.
Herbert) wanted to show the house what were the advan-
tages to the soldiers of the two systems, and he must say
that he thought public opinion amongst soldiers was at
present in favour of out-pensions. (Hear, hear.) At the
time when it was first proposed to close Kilmainhan there
were 207 pensioners in the establishment. Of these, 139
were under 51 years of age, 60 were under 41 years of
and the remainder under 31 ; 32 of those were militiamen
and four were from the yeomanry. What, he wanted to
show was, that it was not men of tong service who came to
Chelsea and Kilmainhan. He did not mean to say that
they would find no instances of that kind in those estab-
lishments, but taking the average it was not the case, and
for this reason—the men of the best conduct and the
largest service had the largest pensions, and men with the
largest pensions would not of course go into Chelsea or
Kilmainhan, but it was the men who had small pensions
for short service who were anxious to be admitted to those
institutions—(hear, hear)—where they received more than
the worth of their pensions. The house might see that
the practical effect of these establishments was not the
same now as it had been fermerly. It was quite trite that
there was a charter for Kilmainhan, and it might be 'said
that you must not depart from the intention of the founder.
But he (Mr. Herbert) would ask, did we now adhere
strictly to the intentions of the founder ? (Hear, hear.)
Of late, the Master of Kilmainhan had been the Com-
mander-in-Chief in Ireland. According to the intentions
of the founder the Master of Kilmainhan was to be an
old officer who had received wounds ; he was to have
been ten years a captain ; he was not to be married;
and if he held another command he was instantly to
give it up. Now, could, could it be said of Sir E.
Blakeney, the present Master of Kilmainhan, that het ful-
filled all of these conditions ? He (Mr. Herbert) I was
sure that any one who had partaken, as he had done, of
the cordial and frank hospitality of that gallant officer
must be aware that he did not fulfil one at least of the
conditions, namely, which required that he should ibe a
bachelor. (Laughter.) The original rules of the hospital
had also been departed frOm in reference to the deputy-
masters. He did not say that that departure from the
original regulations was wrong—on the contrary it had
proved of great advantage to the public service ; but no
person could say that the charter had been strictly adhered
to when in the most important office connected with the
institution it had been entirely departed from both in
letter and in spirit. Under these circumstances, the in-
clination of the soldier to enter into these hospitals being
greatly dihainished, both as regarded Chelsea and Kilmain-
ham, his (Mr. Herbert's) predecessor had thought it better
to decide that though Kilmainham should, not -be -diverted
from its original purposes, yet, with the view of affording
time to consider what was the best course that could be
taken, that no more pensioners should be admitted into
the establishment. It was quite true that the letter in
which this decision was announced had been written with-
out the sanction of Parliament ; but Parliament ! had
hitherto marked its approbation of the proceeding by
voting for the estimate according to the plan which
had been decided upon by Lord Panmure. He (Mr.
Herbert) had found the question in that state. Wear,
hear.) His immediate predecessor, the honourable mem-
ber for Essex (Major Beresford), had brought forward his
estimate with the same intention as Lord Panmure, , and
during last year no attempt was made to disturb the ex-
isting arrangement. They might call this a cheese-paring
economy—(loud cries. of " hear " from Irish members)—
but it was only by this individual saving of unnecessary
expenditure that general economy in the finances was to be
effected. (Hear, hear): It was a question that must be
decided, not only with a view to economy, but with refer-
ence also to the general feeling of Parliament. (Hear,
hear). It must be recollected also, when you came to dis-
cuss the question of the sffect of the proposed alteration
upon Ireland, that every sixpence saved to the country by
this plan would be expended in some other part f I and
by the pensioners ; Nid as to the -recruiting og
service, h