The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-08 00:00:00

WHITSUN HOLIDAYS.

motion of the CHA.NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
44. .IS agreed that the hoase at its rising adjourn until
Thursday next.

THE GREENWICH SIXPENCE.

Oa the motion for going into Committee of Supply,

Mr. TREVELYAN called the attention of the House
to the case of the old seamen who paid the Greenwich
sixpence before the year 1831. Ho said he had presented
a petition from the old sailors of the merchant service
who hail for a length of time had sixpence
a month deducted from their wages towards the
support of Greenwich HospitaL The Ad men had never
received any benetit from such contribution, and they
prayed that the case might be taken into favourable consi-
deration by the house. The Government had stated they had
proposed that-a portion of Greenwich Hospital should be
appropriated as an infirmary for the mercantile mariner,
but the old men would rather have the money they had
paid returned to them, as it was now very unlikely that
seamen of the merchant service would ever receive any
benefit from Greenwich Hospital, which was now wholly
appropriated to nip(' seamen of the Royal Navy. He
would not conclude by making a motion or moving for
papers, but he would resume his seat after asking the Go-
vernment to take the claims of the old seamen into their
favourable consideration.

Mr. LIDDELL said if doubts existed as to the rights of
these old men, ho hoped the Government would give
the benefit of the doubt to the petitioners.
After a few observations from Mr. hicamm in favour of
the appeal,
Mr. CHILDERS said as he had the honour two years
ago to introduce the bill under which the Greenwich

Fund was administered, he would like to make one
or two observations. At the time that bill was under
discussion this matter was touched upon, and it was
thought then that those persons had no - ground for
their appeal. If the house elected to give those men any-
thing, it must be done by direct vote of the house, as there
was no part of the Greenwich Fund available for such
purpose. In 1711 it was enacted that no parson but those
serving in the Royal Navy should be entitled to the ad-
vantages of the hospital ; but some time after it was
enacted that merchant seamen maimed or disabled
in the defence of the country should
_be ad-
mitted to the hospital provided they produced
certificates of good character, therefore the hospital was
not altogether appropriate to the men of the royal navy.
Mr. CORRY thought the merchant service had received
more advantages from Greenwich Hospital than was equi-
valent to their contributions. He did not think that

the claims of the petitioners rested on any valid ground.

Mr. CANDLISH said it was evident these men had no
legal claim, or they would have a legal remedy without
applying to Parliament. Ho thought it was a great hard-
ship that men for thirty years should have the sixpence
taken from them by law, and then when they stood in
need of assistance that they should be refused the slightest
help.

The subject then dropped.
THE SALE OF LIQUOR ON SUNDAYS BILL.

In reply to Col. EDWARDS,
Mr. J. ABEL SMITH postponed the motion for the
second reading of the bill until the 26th of June.

Mr. TREVELYAN, or. the usual motion for supply,
called attention to the case of the old seamen in the
mercantile marine, who, having paid 6d. a month out of
their wages to the support of Greenwich Hospital prior to
the year 1834, when the payment ceased, complained that
they had derived no advantage from that institution. The
hon. member argued that, if this payment had been made
solely for the benefit of the seamen of the royal navy, with-
out the merchant service participating in it, the proceed-
ing was one totally opposed to the commercial policy of the
country; whilstif it were intended that both classes should
share in its advantages, the seamen of the mercantile ma-
rine had been treated with injustice.

Al tea few observations from Mr. Liddell, Mr. Ingham,
and Mr. Candlish, all of whom supported the claim set up
by the hon. member for Tynemouth,
Mr. CHIDLERS, who opposed it, stated that a commit-
tee of the house had reported that no case whatever existed
for this appeal, and that the revenues of Greonwirh Ting-
pit al were appropriated to what was considered their proper
destination, namely, the maintenance of sailors of theroyal
navy, and in aid of officers' pensions. If the hon. gentle-
man were to succeed in proving that the claim was a

charge upon the country it would become the duty of the

House of Commons to make provision for it; but. the act
of 1865 set the question completely at rest. Moreover,
going back to a remoter date, the act of 1711, describing
the purpose to which Greenwich Hospital was to be ap-
plied, directed that no seaman should be admitted besides
sailors of the Royal navy, whilst' the act of 1721 extended
the institution to others who had been wounded i❑ action
or in resisting pirates at sea.

Mr. CORNY supple:Rented this explanation by saying
that the sixpence a in)uth was not paid with any benevo-
lent intention, but as a consideration for the protection
which the navy give to the commerce of the country.
The subject here dropped.
Sir J. GRAY put some questions to the Chief Secretary
for Ireland relative to the distress prevailing in the west of
Ireland, and

Lord NAAS stated the measures which had been taken
with a view to its alleviation. These were the commence-
ment of three or four public works connected with fishery
piers and the supply of considerable quantities of In-
dian meal to the district, whilst the poor-law authorities
and the Law Life Assuranc3 Society were doing all in
their power to find employment for the people.
The house thou went into committee of supply, and re-
sumed the consideration of army estimates.
On the vote for barrack establishments services and
supplies, Mr. Alderman LUSK took an objection to the
item of £2,000 for the furniture of billiard rooms, which
he moved should be struck out. The item WAS defends

by Sir J. Pakington, Col. Nortb,.and other members, and
opposed by Mr. Otway and Mr. Monk. On a division the
motion was rejected by 72 to 12.
A conversation of some interest to the members of vo-
lunteer corps also took place on the vote in aid of this
force, in the course of which Sir J. Pakington, alluding to
the delay which had taken place in the payment of the
capitation grant, said that it was caused by the obvious
necessity for a careful investigation by the military autho-
rities of the state of the regimental- accounts. With the
view of avoiding such delays hereafter there was at this
moment a proposal under consideration at the War-office
for putting the capitation money in the hands of the com-
manding officers, to be disposed of at their discretion and
if that step were adopted he had no doubt that all ground
for future complaint would be removed.
On the House resuming, after agreeing to numerous
votes for the military service, the order was moved to con-
tinue the adjourned debate on going into committee on the
Bankruptcy Bill, and Mr. Ayrton proposed the amendment
of which he had given notice, to the effect that it was un-
just to pass a measure by which an insolvent person who
had contracted a debt amounting to £5O, or several amount-
ing to £lOO, should be discharged from liability for all his
debts, except as regarded his future acquired property or
eerninzs, to the extent of half the amount of his debts,
while insolvents who had contracted debts to a less amount
would be liable to repeated imprisonment to compel them
to pay their debts in full.
Mr. HENLEY did not regard the bill as affording a pro-
per opportunity for raising a debate on this important
question. As an expression of opinion, however, he quite
concurred with the amendment, though he hoped it would
not be pressed to a division. He was well aware that there
were many thousands of persons annually imprisoned for
very small debts under the county courts system, and that
they were treated not merely as debtors but subjected to the
same gaol regulations as fmudulent debtors. He looked upon
it as a crying injustice, that whilst the House was endeavour-
ing to abolish the practice of imprisonment for debt it
should be continued for small people, and that under a
false pretence. He hoped, therefore, the Attorney-General
would give the matter consideration, and see whether it
was fit and proper that these people should be kept in gaol
in this manner. For his part he did not understand why
a man who owed a hundred thousand pounds and did not
pay it should be allowed to go scot-free, while the wretched
man who owed a five pound note was locked up. It was
wrong to continue such a state of things.
Mr. Norwood, Mr. Barnett, Mr. Alderman Lusk, and the
Solicitor-General also took part in the debate ; and even-
tually Mr. Ayrton allowed his amendment to be negatived
without a division.

The house then went into committee, but immediately
resumed.

The Judgment Debtors Bill and the Bankruptcy Acts
Repeal Bill were also committed pro forma.
The Railway Companies Bill was read a third time and
passed.
The amendments to the Court of Chancery (Ireland)
Bill were considered ; and after the remaining ordors had
been gone through, the house, at eight minutes to one
o'clock, adjourned over the Whitsuntide holidays until
Thursday next.