The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-19 00:00:00

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL,

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the third reading
pf this bill.

Lord BROUGHAM considered that the fusion of bank-
kuptcy and insolvency law was a great improvement, and
always lied his approval, but he objected to the retrospec-
tive clauses of the measure.
The Earl of DERBY defended the amendments made in
the bill. He said the representatives of the Governmentin
this house had accepted the amendments which their lord-
erhips bad considered necessary, and he hoped they would use
their influence with the other house to induce their adop-
tion. However, if they would not do that he trusted they
470u1d secure the objections made by the ether house being
/submitted to this house in time for full discussion.
Earl GRANVILLE, who was very imperfectly heard,
paid that it would be impossible to give the noble earl the
assurance which he required relative to the adoption
+of the bill as amended by their lordships in the
other house. On the part of her Majesty's Government
he would undertake that the bill should be brought up again
before the house as soon as was consistent with other public
bulginess.
Lord OVERSTONE passed a high eulogium on
the proceedings of the select committee, every mem-
ber of Whom had acted in a spirit of good faith,
and without reference to political feeling. They had applied
themselves most carefully to introduce amendments in this
most important bill, and he entirely approved of the altera-
tions that had been made, particularly with regard to
the chief judge of the Court. He thought the
appointment of such an officer would be a most unne-
cessary expense to the country, and that he would have no
adequate functions to discharge.
Lord LYVEDEN also objected to the appointment of
the functionary in question.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, with respect to the
Chief Judge, that the amendment in reference to him com-
pletely mutilated and deteriorated the bill. It was indis-
pensable to the measure that that judge should be ap-
pointed, for he would have peculiar functions to dis-
charge. The bill could not work satisfactorily unless
there was an addition to the judicial authority of the court.
Lord CRA.NWORTH defended the alterations, which
be contended materially improved the bill. No principle
could be more dangerous than allowing three-fourths of the
creditors to have a control over the other fourth. The chief
alteration that had been made in the bill was, that the funds
should remain in the hands of • the official assignees,
which he considered was a most desirable change.
After a few words from Lord Wensleydale, Lord
Brougham, and other noble lords, the bill, with some fur-
ther alterations, was read a third time and passed.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.
On the order for committee on amendments,
The Earl of HARDWICKE reminded the house of the
national importance of this noble institution, and the neces-
sity there existed of keeping its administration free from all
political or party influences. Its funded property was 31
millions sterling, it had very large landed estates, valuable
mines, and about half a million more which had been drawn
from the wages of seamen. It was not only a charity, but
was used also as an honourable retreat for those who had
served their country well. The noble earl having detailed
the steps which had been taken from 1829 down to the pre-
sent day, to reform the administration of the hospital, pro-
ceeded to say that at the first period named it was found that
a million of the money had been abstracted by the Govern-
ment of the day, for what purpose it was very difficult to de-
fine, but so alarmed were they at the consequences of their
own act that they procured an act of indemnity, after which
a commission was appointed. Sir J. Graham was examined,
and he strongly recommended that the administration of
the hospital should be free from all political influence. The
result was the passing of an act for the better management
of the hospital, and if that act were properly carried out
there would be no necessity for further legislation. But
the noble duke now brought in two bills, transferring the
whole patronage and control of the hospital, with power to
manage and deal with its funds, appointments, and livings,
to the First Lord of the Admiralty, Ana rendering it more
subject to political jobbery and influence than ever. What
ho (Lord Hardwicke) would recommend to be done was,
that Parliament should give the control of the funds to a
body of independent gentlemen, when the appointments
and discipline of the hospital might remain with the exist-
ing Board of Admiralty. He would separate the manage-
ment of the hospital from all political control. With these
views he moved that the committee be postponed for a
week, in order that the noble duke might be able to bring
back the bill in an amended form.
The Duke of SOMERSET said that the only object of
the bill was to put the hospital and its funds under a better
system of management than it enjoyed at present, and that
more of the money should go to the seamen. He found that
the expense for keep for each man in the Hotel des Invalides
was £3l 165., and in Greenwich £59 65., being nearly double.
But the difference did not lie in the cost of maintenance,
which was nearly the same in both places, but in the ex-
penses coming under the heads discipline and administra-
tion. In the Invalides the expense was £5 ss. per head,
and in Greenwich £2B 18s—(hear, hear)—and it was to re-
form such a state of things that he had brought in thisbill.
It provided that all the appointments of administration
should only be for four years, and that the governor should
be a rear-admiral, the same as in the dockyards. He quite
agreed that the appointments should be non-political,but he
thought that the patronage would be less valuable than at
present, when the existing Government had the giving of
appointments for life. He thought that the livings should
be given to chaplains in the navy, and he had so disposed of
one ; and he was quite willing to insert a provision prohibit-
ing any of the commissioners from holding seats in Parlia-
ment. In regard to the security of the public money be-
longing to the hospital, he felt anxious on this point, and
therefore he had requested the Accountant-General of the
Navy to prepare a scheme under which the accounts would be
audited,and all moneys would be paid into the Bank of Eng-
land. In respect generally to the purposes of the bill his ob-
ject was first to provide for the hospital becoming efficient,
which it had not been of late years on account of it having
been badly managed. He had already increased the weekly
allowance of the poor pensioners, but he found that it re-
quired an Act a parliament to put the hospital under
some other management, and he believed the bill was cal-
culated to be of great service to the hospital, but if the
noble earl (the Earl of Harawie
Vtould suggest any
improvements he would be glad listenkteiaii to them. He
ssitoners should sit
had not contemplated that „the co
in Parliament ; indeed, he thought
SO would be ob-
jectionable that they should do
fore he should provide against it. There
Iliew—hgoat
ing in this matter. He had appointed cemroineel partil thfeel-
into all matters right and left, and to report faithfully
they thought would be best for the hospital
ha
adopted their recommendations. What he thought Was most
required was that the persons appointed to office in the hoe_
pital should not be appointed for life, because, after being
in office for a few years, they fell into a sort of routine and
became idle, while fresh men every five years would give
life to the new system of management which would be bene-
ficial to the hospital. With that explanation he hoped their
lordships would consent to the bill being recommitted.

The Earl of DERBY said it was some time since he read
the report of the commissioners in respect to the pensioners
of Greenwich Hospital, and so far as his recollection went
tho alterations recommended did not require an act of Par-
liament; they could be introduced by the Governor him-
self. Undoubtedly there had been for a long time serious
mismanagement of the affairs of the hospital, which could
not be removed without an act of Parliament. With regard
to the last statement of the noble duke, it would be a sin-
gular course to pursue, and contrary to everything in modern
times, to leave the governor in his high and honourable
.office and to deprive him of all control over the officers, or
interference in the management of the hospital.
The Duke of SOMERSET said that was recommended
by the commissioners.

- The Earl of DERBY—That might be so. But it was con-
trary to practice to make those appointments mere honorary
offices and to divest the head of the department of all con-
trol in its management. The noble duke had not drawn
any distinction between two subjects totally different, viz.,
the hospital and the arrangements connected with it, and
the management of the estates which provided funds for
%the hoapitel, lle quite agreed that the management of the
hospital should be confided to the officers for five years,
subject to the control of the Admiralty, but that principle
Was wholly inapplicable to the government and management
of. the estates. It 'would not be desirable to remove the
commissioners of the estates every five years.
The Duke of SOMERSEL explained that the estates had
been managed for a great many years by a receiver, who
had brought them up to a high state of improvement, and
he never thought of removing him from his office; but no
person was infallible, and it might benecessary that another
should be appointed. The receiver would send in his ac-
counts, and they would be audited by the audit. office.
The Earl of DERBY—The explanation seemed to be that
the commissioners would have the nominal manageme
the
but that they would really have nothing to do With the
estates.. It appeared to him that the management of the
estates, should be kept wholly distinct from the control of
noblethe h Theii with regard to the livings, the