The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-29 00:00:00

seems part of a system of centralization unjust and.ruinons
to Ireland, and impolitic, as tending to weaken those feelings
of mutual interest which can be the only basis of ninon be-
tween the two countries." The Hon. Member was proceed-
ing to explain his motion when he was interrupted by
Mr. HUME, who said his motion was on reading the
order of the day.
The SP.teAKER said the motion before the House WAS
" that he now leave the chair," and the amendment of the
Hon. and Gallant Meember was upon that question.
Lord J. REF•SELL reminded the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose that there was no question then before the House, and
his own rule would preclude him from moVing.
Colonel DUNNE went on to say that his motion_was of
considerable interest and importance to those whom it con-
cerned. He contended that her Majesty's Government would
act illegally if they were to forbid the reception of soldiers in
that asylum, because the land on which the asylum was
erected had been granted by Charles the Second to trustees,
and that corporate grants could no more be annulled by the
mere will of the Government than the corporation of the city
of London could be destroyed by them. Another reason why
they should cot put an end to the asylum was to be found in
the fact that the building had been erected out of money
kept frt m the pay of Irish soldiers ; and as the Irish Par-
liament had been bound to make a grant fur 'he maintenance
of the establishment after it had been so founded, the Par-
liament of the United Kingdom were subject to the same
obligation. Tim Marquis of Anglesey had, on a former oc-
casion, given it as his opir.ion that the removal of the hes-
pital would be both unjust and impolitic; and Sir Hussey
Vivian had at two diTerent times put forward a similar opi-
nion. lle had in favour of the view he advocateda still
higher authority- the authority of a statesman who might
one day po sess great power in this country—ho meant Lord
Stanley.—( Hear.) That Noble Lord had made an emphatic
declaration, not only with respect to that single institution.
but against the policy of centralization generally. He had
said that it could not be denied that the consolidation of es-
tablishments in this country, however it might be called for
on general principles of economy. had an injurious effect on
local interests; he had also acknowledged. the injury which
t hat system had inflicted on Ireland ; and he had further de-
clare t that the only excuse that could be offered for it would
he some large saving to the public. Nays he
(Colonel
Dunne) denied that there could be any large saving in the
present instance. It appeared that the whole sum charg
to the public in the estimates for that establishment was
8,4171.; while the expense of maintaining the pensioners at
Chelsea was estimated at 6,1741.; so that the whole of the
sum to be saved would only amount to a little more than
2,0 a year. There were in Kilmainham Hospital 205 pen-
; and the required fr the support a a pensioner
theresioners was 71. or 8/.sum a year less than that required for the
maintenance of a pensioner at Chelsea Hospital. In food
alone there were required Si. a head less at Kilmainhammatt than
at Chelsea. It, therefore, cheapness were the only er toi
be co, suited, he would say that they ought to remove Chre
el
sea Hospital to Kilmainham—(Hear. bear)—instead.of -
moving Kilmainham Hospital to Chelsea. But he wished to.
be just to the English as well as to the Irish soldier;and
he should not. therefore, advocate either measure. It furthers
appeared that Kilmainham Hospital was possessed of fun Ends
of its own, which should be taken into account in cas:
mating its cost to the public. They would find at the end
of the arm estimates that the hospital was entitled to rents
y for land to the amount of between 4001. and 500/. a year;
and in addition to that the barrack-master was entitled to
certain rents to the amount of between 2001. and 300/. a year;
so that both those items produced a sum of about 7001. a year
_
the property of the hospital and of the Irish soldier. .11"
said that that 7001. a year would be sufficient for the repairs
of the hospital. It was true that the superintendence o_
those repairs had been taken out of the hands of the governorf
and transferred to the Board of Works, and that that board
had expended under that head a sum of more than 2,000/. a
year; but considering the work done he was at a a l
loss to.
conceive how that sum could have been spent. The hospit
of
had another claim on the country at large. A number
officers on the staff in Ireland had apartments in the art
pital; indeed, he believed there were quite as many Pe
tents occupied by the officers of the staff there as by the
officers of the establishment. Now it would only be fair to
give the hospital credit for the amount of the rent of those
apartments. lie repeated that the removal of that establish-
ment would be a breach of trust on the part of the Govern!
ment. On a former occasion the governors of the hospital_
Justice Blackburne and Mr. Justice Crampton—
had consulted two eminent counsel—the present Chia
purpose of ascertaining whether they had the power ors
removing the hospital, and those distinguished lawYerctg
had given it as their opinion that it could not be remove
without the sanction of an Act of Parliament. The present
Secretary at War, Mr. F. Maule, had stated before a Par-
liamentary Committee that he should not wish to vita
ancient and popular establishment as Chelsea Ho
abolished. But the Right Hon. Gentleman ought to We
the same objection to the abolition of Kilmainham Hospital,
which was also a popular institution, and was of nearly the
same antiquity. For his part he should oppose the proposal
fur the
as part of the system of centralization, and as a measure
which, by creating discontent in Ireland, would injuriously
affect the relations between the two countries. —Ole"
The Hon. and Gallant Member concluded by submitting his

motion to the House.
Mr. H. GRATTAN said that that act would be mani"'
festly illegal, and ought to be opposed by every lawyer in
the House. The Secretary at War had not the shadow of a
right to prevent the reception of pensioners in that hospital.
Mr. GROGAN said it was unworthy of her Majesty's Go-
vernment to make this attempt in the present state of Ire-
land. A proposition to somewhat the same effect was made
in 1833, and Lord Stanley, then the Irish Secretary, very
truly said it deserved to be well considered whether the pecu-
niary advantages attending the proposed change were not
counterbalanced by the injurious impression which it would
produce in Ireland. Those arguments were to this day.nn-
answered. Was the city of Dublin or was Ireland in a
better position now than in 1833, so as to justify them now
in prosecuting a measure which they then abandoned? lie
hoped, however, that it had been taken up hastily, and
would not be persevered in; at all events it ought not to be
carried by a side wind. The building and ground could not
be appropriated to any other purposes than those prescribed
by the charter. In 1821 an order was made to transfer the
documents belonging to Kilinainhain to this country, and
the trustees thought it their duty to take a legal opinion on
the subject, which was sent to the Lord-Lieutenant. What
was the result?
_ .

Mr. F. MAULE—The thing was done.
Mr. GROGAN—Yes, but how ? By passing an Act of
Parliament enabling them to do so; and he wanted to know
on what principle they thought themselves at liberty to dis-
pense with an Act of Parliament in the present instance?
Beteire taking such proceedings the law officers of the Crown
should be called on to give their opinion.
Mr. F. MAULE Bei(' he hardly knew how to deal with the
question now before the House.— (Hear, hear.) From what
had been said, one would suppose that he bad proposed to
expunge the vote for Kilmainham altogether; but it Hon.
Gentlemen would turn to the army es. imates, they would find
the vote proposed to be taken for the hospital at Kilmainham
onet h e
system of those
of whoin.
p hadene
ifeohr
was just the same this year as it was in the year just Past'
But be must say, as this question had been raised, that he
wa
emrs in edatbvee
popular with soldiers.—( Hear, hear.) This being the case,
why should the British Parliament be called on annually to
vote mrney for that purpose? It was quite true that when
those and kindred institutions were founded, they were the
Bryritieh army deliberate owpaine
noton
i
thats
only refuge for maimed and wounded soldiers, with the ex-
ception of the invalid companies. It was said that these in-
stitutions of Chelsea and Kilmainham were paid for by the
soldiers themselves; but he asserted deliberately that no eol-
dier in past times, or up to 1795, ever contributed one single
sixpence. Formerly the pay of a soldier was distributed been
two parts, one called subsistence, the other given to provide
clothing; and the only portion of the pay wlich belonged
to the soldier was that which came under the name of sub-
sistence. The other part went to provide clothing and other
articles, and was always paid to the colonel of the regiment.
For many years these two payments'. he was sorry to sayt
,
were very generally in arrear. Subsequently an arrangemen
was made to pay more regularly, but a deduction wWI made
of Is. in the pound, not from the subsistence portion, but
from that part which was paid to the colonel. But, even
supposing the deduction had been made from the soldier's
portion, that could only apply to soldiers enlisted not later
than the year 1771, because, after 1793 or 1794. all these
proceedings were entirely given up. But, with respect
to Kilmainham. it was contemplated, when that in-
stitution was first founded, that private funds would
have been supplied. He admitted that the ground
and buildings were inalienable except by Act of Par-
liament.—(Herr, hear.) He admitted that
a question
was raised in 1834 as to converting Kilmainbam into an
artillery barraces, which could only be accomplished by an
Act of Parliament But it was a very different thing when
they cams to propose that the maintenance expenses of the
establishment, which were voted by the public, should be
discontinued? Any gentleman being of that opinion had
nothing more to do than to omit the vote from the estimatt ae
--(Hear, hear.) He had certainly stated in his evidence
that he should like to see Chelsea maintained, but be ad-
mitted at the same that there was n absolute necessity for
its maintenance. The soldier
o
pension in his infinitely preferred spending
his
ho was bound down by rules and regulations almost as strin-
gent as in active service. No doubt the removal of such an
institution might be prejudicial to the immediate locality,
but it was nee • ertheless unjustifiable to maintain institutions
after their utility had ceased.—(Hear, hear.) It was
not proposed to remove any individual from that establish-
ment. All he had done was to intimate to the Governor
and commissioners of the hospital that in future no admis-
sions should take place without his knowledge. These funds
were voted by Parliament, and ought not, therefore, to be,
under the control of any persons who were not responsible,
and the Secretary-at-War was the person responsible to Par-
liament.
Sir DE LACY EVANS said the grounds on which the
Government project was supported were economy, and the
unpopularity of these establishments with the soldiery..
With reference to the first, it ought to be recollected that
part of the expense had reference to the maintenance of
officers of high rank who were posted there, and if the ex-
pense under this head was deducted, they would find both
these establishments extremely economical, particularly the
Irish one, so that the ground of economy had by no means
b ien made out. It was said that these establishments were
kept up for show, but he denied that. Any who had
visited the splendid establishment at Paris, the Hotel des
Invalides, would admit the great value and importance of
such institutions. Some of these pensioners would probably
prefer living with their friends, but they all saw that there
were 500 or 600 at Chelsea, and 200 or 300 at Kilmainhaal,
who preferred these public establishments. It was said that
these institutions were not popular, and yet the Right 11:ri7.
Gentleman did not say that it was hie intention to abort
Chelsea Hospital. how far was that consistent with
declared intention to abolish Kilmainbam. He denounced
ble üblic
the paltry economy which, for the sake of saving a few tnotl-
sands per annum, would do away with these value p
institutions.
Colonel RAWDON said the only argument a any weight
urged by the Right Hoe. Gentleman was, that because_ -
there
was mom in Chelsea the necessity for maintaining ilmain
ham had ceased to exist; but did not the sight Hon. Gen-
tleman treat with contempt the feeling of the People of Ire-
land on this subject? He reminded the House of the
strong feeling expressed also upon the mainteHnance of
mainham by Sir H. Vivian. They were a sort of monumentfor
their country. What would be the opinion of the people of
England if it was proposed to abolis • h Greenwich Hospital?
He assured the Right Hon. Gentleman that the people of
Ireland felt strongly upon this question. If the Government
insisted in carrying out an abstract principle against the ge-
neral feeling of the Irish people, they could not any longer
expect the support of their Irish friends.— ( Hear.)
Lord NAAS wished to know whether the Right Ilen•
Gentleman had issued the same orders to Chelsea as be bad
issu,,,d to Kilinainham ? He hoped no unfair preference
would be shown to the Chelsea establishment. With regard
to the mode in which these institutions were supported, it
would be found that they rested on a very different footing.
The support of Kilmainbam arose entirely from poundage
levied off the actual pay of the Irish soldiers ex'
elusively, and that continued up to 1795. The feeling
_otf,-
the country was very strong upon this question, and h
hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would reconsider his de-
termination.
Mr. F ,VAULE said the authority on which he had tal+l
Isl 3 otateraot Yfq speech of cluuloll9r