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

PAPAL ENCROACHMENTS.

Mr. STANFORD rose to ask the First Minister of
the Crown, whether it was the fixed intention of the
Government, in conformity.with the declaration made by
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to
limit the measures of the Government for the repression
of " Papal encroachments" to the single clause of the
" Ecclesiastical Titles Bill," which declares the meaning
of the 24th section of 10 Geo. IV., c. 7; and whether her
Majesty's Government will resist any attempt to enlarge
the scope of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and to render
its provisions more stringent, as, for instance, by extend.
ing the penalties to persons giving as well as using or
claiming the titles there prohibited; by extending the
penalties to the assumption or use by British subjects of
any title, ecclesiastical or secular, as of cardinal, emi-
mence, &c., not conferred or authorised by the Sove-
reign; by extending the same to the publica-
tion of Papal bulls, rescripts, or other documentse
without the consent of the Crown, and to the holding 01
synodical meetings, &c., and by permitting the penalties
to be sued for without he intervention of the Attorney-
General; and by enlarging the terms of the preamble of
the Bill, so as to render it declaratory of the opinion of
Parliament on the entire question of papal aggression?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that before the second reading of
the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, his Right Hon. Friend the
Home Secretary had stated the course which it was intended
to pursue in respect to the measure by the Government; it
was therefore quite unnecessary for him (Lord J. Russell) to
go into the matter again. However, before the Easter re-
cess, if the Hon. Members who intended to move amend-
ments to the Bill would place them on the paper, he would a
few days before the Bill went into Committee—say the 28th
April, state to the House whether the Government intended
to adopt them or move their rejection.
Mr. HORSMAN gave notice that shortly after Easter he
should call the attention of the House to the condition of the
Church of England as regarded its temporal and spiritual
affairs.— (Oh, and laughter.)
AYLESBURY AND ST. ALBAN'S ELECTIONS.
Mr. F. MACKENZIE presented a petition on the subject
of the Aylesbury election, which the Hon. Member moved
be read.
The petition was accordingly read.
Mr. AGLIONBY proceeded to address the House relative to
a petition from Mr. Coppock on the subject of the St. Alban's
election. The Aylesbury petition was similar in principle,
but without assuming any knowledge as to the statements
set forth in that petition, he was authorised to say that a
misunderstanding existed with respect to the attendance of
Mr. Sergeant Merewether at the Committee. The question
involved in the petition was similar; but he did not think
it would engage the attention of the House very strongly,
because it concerned only a dry point of law; but, then, the
decision of the House would affect the seats of he did not
know how many Members, but he was certain it would at
least affect the seats of two Members on his side of the
House. With this introduction, he would beg the
House to give its attention to the points under
discussion, and not to allow party or political feelings to in-
terfere with their judgment. The first point was, that the
St. Alban's petition was informal, because not addressed in
proper form. That point, he considered, might be disposed
of by the qnestion being referred to the Committee of
Selection when that Committee sat. The next and most
important one was, whether the Committee had followed the
proper precedents, and had given due and sufficient notice
with respect to the petition. The first question to be deter-
mined was, was the notice bad ? and if so, was the appoint.
ment of the Committee void ? and if void, whether there was
any mode under the statute of curing this irregularity ? Now
did the notice mean 14 clear days? He was not aware that
the caseicohu
weresheda ecwd
noi bsuuiemolednne
srhor
vaissedecdt
cases
sbeedeesnef oci
nr in i
de
gteihvueeptnebooanuit
ttlsi,ffoaofuvar House, and
h
throeoofnfi
urfs n
motuerr
time.
thereforetoeuesn,
iTtnhhewerhile
clear days. After citing several cases, the Hon. and Learned
Member said the point was made so clear, that no lawyer
could. venture to diipute it. Then, with respect to the
validity of the notice, he was of opinion that the notice was
not regular, and that therefore the Committee was void.
If the Committee was void, there would be no difficulty if
the mode were adopted which he would venture to suggest.
Assuming that the Committee was void, what was the course
to be pursued ? The course he should propose was, to move
for a Select Committee to inquire if the election was null
and void.

Mr. FOX MAULE would state how the matter stood, first
thanking the Honourable Member for the temper he had
shown and the upright motives by which he had been actu-
ated throughout. (Hear, hear.) The Committee,
he contended, had not acted without precedent. The Dart-
mouth Committee, in 1845, was appointed under ex-
actly the same circumstances. The Wigan Committee,
in 1846, was appointed under the same circumstances, and
at that time Mr. Coppock, then the petitioner, as he was
now, took no objection to the proceedings. He would next
proceed to state that the main objection to the present peti-
tion was, that there were not 14 clear days as required.
Notwithstanding all he had heard from his Hon. Friend, he
was still of opinion the Committee had discharged their
duty correctly and properly, and he must say he considered
this was a question to be decided rather by the good sense of
the House, than by legal argument. He asserted that the
Committee had discharged their duties faithfully, aad he
should, therefore, move that the motion be negatived.
Mr. HEADLAM contended that the Act required 14 clear
days, and therefore it was necessary that the notice should
have been published on the 10th, whereas it was not pub-
lished till the morning of the llth March. Such being she
case, he did not think they could proceed to direct that the
Committee be sworn at the table.
s a lkc
1.1
er
t.
aßry. B
at. ARMWar,oSnTltthOeNpoGinotpopfosneodticteb,eaßadrguniaminetnatisneodf t
ht ha et
the Act required 14 clear days.
Sir H. INGLIS said they must be guided by
the Act in deciding this matter, and the questionhe t:.ct had
to ask was, whether the publication required by.
t be no
or had not been made. There could, in his opinion,
by the Chairman of the Committee of Election
so, the spirit
his colleagues had fixed the day. If that vrerweith,
eta2ryst-hatA-
for there
and the letter of the Act had been complied _
more complete publication than the statement
sinothaatthne House
He should support the amendment of the
Mr. ANSTEY reminded the House that the Act •
required
in the Votes. His
not only publication, but publication
were fourteen clear days from the 10th tsoectrhe
to proceed with the '
opinion was, that they had no power
Committee.
to see that no objection interfered with the proper administra-
tion a justice. If the general Committee, in appointing the
Mr. WALPOLE thought that their first care ought to be
beth terms
Wiyarahcr
had
o d. f

Select Committee to try the petition, had made a slip or a •
mistake not absolutely fatal according to the Act, it became
the House to rectify that slip, and to see that no injustice was
done either to the sitting Member or petitioner.—(Hear.)
The Act required the general Committee to give notice 14
days before the swearing of the C •mmittee ; and according
to decisions in the courts of lew fourteen days' notice meant
not less than fourteen clear days. The notice of fourteen
clear days not having been given in this case no further pro-
ceedings, strictly speaking, could be taken with regard to the
peti ion. But then he wished to suggest that that part of
the Act relating to the giving of notice was merely direc-
tory, and that the appointment of the Committee did not de-
pend on the validity of the notice. If that were so, he
thought that when the 2 ith March had arrived the sitting
Member or his agent ought to have stated what objection
there was to the appointment of the Committee ; for if that
had been done, the general Committee would have had
power under the 53d section of the Act to appoint a Select
Committee to try the petition. Having neglected to do this
he thought the petitioner had waived all objection. If he
was right in that, then came the question as to what they
were to do at that moment. The Act seemed to provide that
a slip made in the appointment of a Committee should not in
any way operate to the prejudice of the party. By the 68th sec.
it was provided that the Members having come to the table to
be sworn, and having been sworn, they should be regarded
as the Select Committee legally appointed to try the peti-
tion, and that the legality of such appointment should
not to be called in question on any ground whatever. If,
therefore, the sitting Member not allege any objection
to the members of the Committee being sworn,.he was of
opinion that justice would not be done either to the sitting
Member or the petitioner if the members of the Committee
were not allowed to be sworn. He should like to know
ehether any injustice would be done by trying the petition
on the notice which had been given?
Mr. BERNAL agreed with his lion. and Learned Friend
that if the Committee were once sworn the legality of its ap-
pointment could net be questioned. But the difficulty was,
that the five members of the Committee should have been
sworn yesterday.—(Cries of "No, no," and laughter.) The
Act provided that they should be sworn on the first business
day after their appointment, and yesterday was the first day
the House had met after their appointment on the 25th. He
protested against the assertion that that House was in the
habit of following the constructions put upon legal .tech-
nicalities by the courts of law. With respect to the terms
of notice, he might remark that the words used in the stand-
ing order, with reference to private Bills, were, " seven clear
d. ye."
Sir G. GREY regretted that this case had been brought
before the House, which, in his opinion, was not the best
tribunal for deciding nice questions of law.—(Hear, hear.)
He believed that the decisions of the courts of law were con-
flicting as to the proper construction of the term of notice.
He concurred with the Hon. and Learned Member for Mid-
burst, that the Committee once sworn would be legal, and
that it had not been alleged that the parties petitioning
against the swearing of the Committee had suffered any
injury or incoavience from the alleged mistake. The ques-
tion for consideration was, whether there were clear and
distinct grounds for the House interfering, and saying
that the Committee should not be sworn. His own opinion
wa., that there were no grounds strong enough to warrant
such an interference, and he should 'therefore vote against
the resolution of the Hon. and Learned Member for Cocker-
mouth.

Mr. AGLIONBY intimated his intention of taking the
sense of the House on his resolution.

Mr. T. HOBHOUSE thought that this case would not be
settled by any decision they might come to, but would ulti-
mately find its way into the courts of common law. In a
case of'such importance he could not accept the ipse dixit of
any man, not even of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Midhurst. He thought his Hon. and Learned Friend who
and introduced the question should withdraw the motion,
foci substitute another for referring the matter to a Select
Committee.- (Cries of " No.") There were some Hon..
Members near him who thought that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Speaker could throw great light on such a ques-
tion as this.
Sir D. DUNDAS counselled the House not to be afraid of
anything which the courts of law might do in this question.
The 68th section of the Act distinctly declared that the lega-
lity of a Committee once sworn could not he called in ques-
tion on any ground whatsoever. He differed from the Hon.
and Learned Member for Midhurst and from the Home Se-
cretary, and maintained that the words to which they were
referred were not directive, but imperative.—( Hear.) He
did not find anything in the Act of Parliament which would
make him believe that the words were merely directory. Let
them look at the Act itself. The Hon. and Learned Member
for Midhurst had omitted all mention of the publication in
the Totes. But the Hon. Gentleman thought the words "14
days" meant 14 clear days. He (Sir D. Dundas) was of that
opinion also. No one, he thought, could doubt that that was
the meaning of the words. The House was then acting ju-
dicially. Though it was painful to him to vo e against
those with whom he had been in the habit of acting, he felt
obliged to oppose them then, for such was his clear convic-
tion in point of law.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
Ayes ... ... 79
Noes ... ... 204
Majority against the motion ... —.125
The Committees were then sworn on the St. Alban's and
the Aylesbury election petitions.
QUESTIONS. _ _ _ _

Mr. B. OSBORNE wished to know from the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government when he intended bringing
forward the Parliamentary Oaths Bill?
Lord J. RUSSELL said it would be brought on some
time in April. He wished to take that opportunity of stating
that he should move on the order of the day on Monday for
a Select Committee to inquire into our relations with Kaffraria
and the South African Continent.—(Hear.) He mentioned
that in reference to a motion which an Hon. Member oppo-
site had on the paper.
An HoN. MEmBEa asked, would the question come on
first ?
Lord J. RUSSELL.—Yes. _ _ _

Mr. ADDERLEY said, he did not know why the Noble
Dord did not consent to his motion. He was glad, however,
that the subject should be left in more efficient hands; and,
therefore, begged to withdraw his notice.
The motion for going into Committee of Supply, having
been put,
Colonel DUNNE was understood to move a notice he had
on the paper.
Mr. HUME said he understood the Budget was coming on
on Monday.—(Several voices, " Friday. ") He understood
that it was on Monday, and that no supplies were to be voted
until after that had been brought forward. They had been
called on to vote men for the navy, and he had thrown no
impediment in the way of that ; and be supposed because
they had agreed to it, they were to be called on to vote the
army and the ordnance estimates before the Budget was in-
troduced. If the House supported him he would move that
there be no further proceeding en the estimates until after
the Budget. He was not aware that there was any obstacle
in the way of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from bringing
on the Budget on Monday, or even at that moment if he
wished.
The SPEAKER said the question before the House was,
" that he now leave the chair," of an amendment to which
the Hon. and Gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel
Dunne) had given notice.
Mr. WILLIAMS—I rise to second the motion of my
Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose.—(Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said he was not aware that any un-
derstanding had been entered into that they were not to pro-
ceed with the estimates until after the Budget. He thought
they were fully justified in proceeding with the estimates
then, with a surplus in the Exchequer, even before the Budget
was brought forward.
Mr. WILLIAMS said it struck him as being very strange
that the Budget had not been introduced long before this.
He was surprised the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for
one moment longer than was necessary to bring it forward.
The Right Hon. Gentleman had said be proposed to reduce
the duties on timber, coffee, and tea. Now, the complete
suspension produced in the trade of these important articles
was very injurious to the commerce of the country.—(Hear.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE said he understood it lees not competent
for the Hoe. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) to go on
with his motion, in consequence of tine previous motion of
his Hon. and Gallant Friend (Colonel Dunne). Now, although
he was not one of those mho would unite in such an extreme
measure as that of stopping the supplies, he could not but
think the Noble Lord at the head of the Government haa
not acted fairly towards his friends in the matter of the
Budget. He, too, had understood that the Budget was to
be brouget forward before any more money was to be voted.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would then rise up in
his place and say he would take off the window-tax.—(Hear
and laughter.) - the Right Hon. Gentleman would calm the
apprehensions of many Hon. Gentleman at his side of the
House. Perhaps the Right Hon. Gentleman would favour
the House with a brief financial sketch then of his intentions.
The CHANCELLOR cf the EXCHEQUER said he di
not think his Hon. Friend made a very reasonable
request.
ue.The Hon. Member for Montrose should be aware that that
was a particular time of the year, which made it necessary
that the men for the service should be voted. If not done
before the sth of April the public service would be put a
stop to.
Lord JOCELYN intimated to the House that he would not
move the nomination of the Select Committee ofwhich
had given notice until Monday next.
Mr. HENLEY suggestei the exclusipnofallnaanireessilof
persons connected with any of the great rive comp
terested in the inquiry. 1.11 o
tr a
tt
vseny.,
a
Sir B. HALL said he understood the foalsafter the division of the other morning,
ing he would take the army estimates, and would state when
the Chancellor of the Exchequer_ thwoeuldeemssiaelnee,
hheiswefivnear,nctihael
statement. In the early part of
Noble Lord had said he would tabsttsirnali.y
Hesatilmoattehseuagfthetr
that financial statement. No"'
they ought to have that statement before they proceeded any
further. The matter becamemoTrehey serious id consequence of
the notice of the Noble Lord.
soon arrive at
the Easter recess, and they
tshoeultde
considerbe th
trownhe financial one night
further on, and have less time
statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were
neral condemnation of hrgeeelleundgltetelt
to take the navy eestigmates, then have the Bud t.
consequence of
which had beenutllhdaid-beefore the House, he hadt
be a new one made; and that theays gl t
suppose there would
to have, to enable them to judge of the views of the"Gol-
vernment, before they voted the large item which they were
then called upon to do. If they voted the number oi men,
of course they should vote the necessary supplies to maintain
them. few words in explanation from the CHANCEL-
After a
AEcxy E CHEQUER,
R
LO onfEthLe
VANS said that the notice given by the
Sir
Noble Lord, and which might lead to a protracted debate
had made it doubly important that they should have a finan-
cial statement at once. The window proposition of the
Right lion. Gentleman had been most unpopular, The
general opinion was that the tax should be repealed, and
it was most desirable any mistake on the subject should be
cleared up.
air. ADDERLEY said until they had a financial state-
meat they could not know what means .they had to meet
such an aggression as the Kafir war.
Sir W. MOLES WORTH gave notice that he would move
as an amendment upon the Noble Lord's motion, that it was
the duty of the Government to relieve the country from any
expense of any war with the Kafira or others at the Cape of
Good Hope.—(Hear.)

SUPPLY.
Colonel DUNNE than rose to move the following resolu-
tion of which he had given notice on going into Committee
of Supply That orders having been given not
to receive any more pensioners into the Royal
Military Asylum at Kilmainham, it may be inferred that it
is the intention of her Majesty's Government to
abolish that establishment, and it is the opinion
of this House that suck abolition is not advisable.
1. Because unjust to the old soldiers of Ireland who
have served her Majesty and been worn out in the service of
the country. 2. Because the land on which the Royal
Hospital was erected was granted by Charles 11. to trustees,
for the purpose of erecting an asylum for the reception of
the old soldiers of Ireland, and that asylum was built by
means of a fund created by deductions from the pay of
Irish soldiers. 3. Because the saving which would be effected
by such abolition would be so inconsiderable as to give no
colour for such injustice, the expense of supporting a pen-
sioner at Kilmainham being much less than at Chelsea. 4.
Demo the trans* 0 the Irish est4l)l4llgamt to Epgland

stems part of a system of centralization unjust and ruinoud
to Ireland, and impolitic, as tending to weaken those feelings
of mutual interest which can be the only basis of uinon 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 SPeAKER 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. RUSSELL 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 rot put an end to the asylum was to be found in
the fact that the building had been erected out of money
kept Iv m the pay of Irish soldiers; and as the Irish Par-
liament had been bound to make, a grant fur the maintenance
of the establishment after it had been so founded, the Par-
liament of the United Kingdom were subject to the same
obligation. The Marquis of Anglesey had, on a former oc-
casion, given it as his opi,,ion that the removal of the lr.s-
pital would be both unjust and impolitic; and Sir Hussey
Vivian had at two different times put forward a similar opi-
nion. Ile had in favour of the view he advocated a still
higher authority- the authority; of a statesman who might
one day possess great. power in this county—he 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 oich
n
local interests; he had also acknowledged the injury wh
that system had inflicted on Ireland; and be had further de-
clare I that the only excuse that could be offered for it would
be some large saving to the public. New he (Colonel
the in
Dunne) denied that there could be any large saving
present instance. It appeared that the whole sum charged
to the public in the estimates for that establishment was
8,417/. ; while the expense of maintaining the pensioners at
Chelsea was estimated at 6,174/. ; ao that the whole of the
sum to be saved would only amount to a little more than
2,0'01. a year. There were in Kilmainham Hospital 205 pen;
sioners ; and the sum required for the support of a pensioner
thei"e
there was 71. or 81. a year less than that required for
maintenance of a pensioner at Chelsea Hospital.
alone there were required 51. a head less at Kilmainham than
at Chelsea. If, therefore, cheapness were the only matter to
be co- suited, he would say that they ought to remove Chel
In foodan
sea Hospital to Kilmainham—(Hear, hear)—instead of re-
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 further
appeared that Kilmainham Hospital was possessed of funds
of its own, which should be taken into account in esti!
mating its cost to the public. They would find at the end
of the army estimates that the hospital was entitled to rents
for land to the amount of between 4001. and 500/. a year;
and in addition to that the barrack-master was entitled to a
certain rents to the amount of between 200/. 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. He
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 governor(
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 loss to
conceive how that sum could have been spent. The hospital
had another claim on the country at large. A number of
officers on the staff in Ireland had apartments in the hos-
pital ; indeed, he believed there were quite as many apart-
merits 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. He 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
had consulted two eminent counsel—the present Chief
Justice Blackburne and Mr. Justice Crampton—for the
purpose of ascertaining whether they had the power of
removing the hospital, and those distinguished lawyers
had given it as their opinion that it could not be removed
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 see so
ancient and popular establishment as Chelsea Hospital
abolished. But the Right Hon. Gentleman ought to have
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
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.—(Hear.)
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. GEIOGAN 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, veil
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 un-
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? He
hoped, however, that it had been taken up hastily, and
ould 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 Kilmainham to this country, and
the trustees thought it their duty to take a legal opinion on
the subject, which was sent to the Lord-Lieutecant. What
was the re°ult? _ _ _

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?
Before taking such proceedings the law officers of the Crown
should be caled on to give their opinion.
Mr. F. MAULE said he hardly knew how to deal with the
question now before the House.— (Hear, hear.) From what
bad been said, one would suppose that he had proposed to
expunge the vote for Kilmainham altogether • but if Hon.
Gentlemen would turn to the army es'imates, they would find
the vote proposed to be taken for the hospital at Kilmainham
was just the same this year as it was in the year just past.
But he must say, as this question had been raised, that he
was one of those who had formed a very deliberate opinion,
that the system of in-pensioners in the British army was not
popular with soldiers.—(Hear, hear.) This being the case,
why should the British Parliament be called on annually to
vote money for that purpose? It was quite true that when
those and kindred institutions were founded, they were the
only refuge for maimed and wounded soldiery, 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 tio 501-
dies in past times, or up to 1795, ever contributed one single
sixpence. Formerly the pay of a soldier was distributed into
two parts, one called subsistence, the other given to provide
clothing • and'the only portion of the pay which belonged
to the soldi was that which came under the name of sub-
sistence. T other part went to provide clothing and other
es .
articles, and a always paid to the colonel of the regiment.
For many years these two pavments, he was sorry to say,
were very generally in arrear. Subsequently an arrangement
was made to pay more regularly, but a deduction was made
of ls. 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.— ( Hear, hear.) He admitted that a question
was raised in 1834 as to converting Kilmainham into an
artillery barracSs, which could only be accomplished by an
Act of Parliament. But it was a very different thing when
they came 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 estimat' a.
--(Hear, hear.) He had certainly stated in his evidence
that be should like to see Chelsea maintained, but he ad-
mitted at the same that there was no absolute necessity for
its maintenance. The soldier infinitely preferred spending
his pension in his own family than in an institution where
he 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 nevertheless 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
been made out. It was said that these establishments were
kept up for show, but he denied that. Any one who had
visited the splendid establishment at Paris, the
ort Hotel des
Invalides, would admit the great value and impance of
such institutions. Some of these pensioners would probably
prefer living with their friends, but they all saw that there
gpinbiteolipie
of Ire-
, were 500 or 600 at Chelsea, and 200 or 300 at Kilmainhiria►
who preferred these public establishments. It was said_tis :
these institutions were not popular, and yet the Right 1(11f?,
Gentleman did not say that it eas his intention to ah 3!
Chelsea Hospital. How far was that consistent with his
declared intention to abolish Kilmainham. He denounced
the paltry economy which, for the sake of savivnaiguaansfbyerewpteuhibgolhuie:
sands per annum, would do away with these
ofnecgalnimre
institutions.
Colonel RAWDON said the only argumentse the
urged by the Right Ho,. Gentleman was, that h
was room room in Chelsea the necessity for mota.itnuhtaei
ham had ceased to exist; but did not the
denim treat with contempt the feeling
land on this subject? He reminded the
main.enance of
strong feeling feeling expressed elso upon the .sosouse of the
rnainham by Sir H. Vivian. They werefa sohrtt andmonument
of national gratitude to men who bad .oug
on of the peopal
le of
their country. What would be the opi nj
England if it was proposed to abolish
nthet Greenwich
theHpoeseppiltee?f
He assured the Right Hon. Gentleman
e against the Ireland felt strongly upon this questiop. . If the Government
insisted in carrying out an abstract princift
thr!ey
ecsou d not any longer
ge-
neral feeling of the Irish people,
expect the support of thei know I 1 n (Hear.) Hon.
Lord orders to Chelsea as be had
Lord NAAS wished to whether-- the Right Eon.
Gentleman had issued the sa
He hoped no unfair preference
issued to Kilmainham?
Chelsea establishment. With regard.
would .be shown to the
to the mode, in which these institutions were supported, it
would be found th9t they rested on a very different footing.
The support of Kilmainham arose entirely from poundage
levied off the actual pay of the Irish soldiers ex-
clusively, and that continued up to 1795. The feeling
_of
very strong upon this question, and be
the
ecdouthnetrsiziwg as
hop ht Hon. Gentleman would reconsider his de-
termination.
Mr. F .MATILE said the authority on which he bad made
hia etateulent way the ;pew% (4114 101 l Q 1141101191 Of til*