The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-24 00:00:00

FIRES IN THE METROPOLIS.

Mr. HAN KEY called attention to the state of the law
respecting the prevention of fires in the metropolis. Stat-
ing the enormous amount of property in the metropolitan
area, he observed that no municipal regulations whatever
were now ih force in the city of London for the protection
of this vast property from fire. The Fire Brigade, sup-
ported by the insurance offices, which rendered very effi-
cient services, was founded, he contended, upon a wrong
principle ; the insurance offices ought not to bear the ex-
pense of puttinge out fires, which fell ultimately upon in-
surers, wherees the general community, insurers and non-
insurers, had an interest in preventing the loss of life and
.property by fire. In his opinion this was a function of the
police, and it might be cheaply performed by them.
Sir G. LEWIS thought it clear that if all the expendi-
ture now frittered away by separate parishes formed one
fund, and was placed under one management, it could be
more efficiently and economically applied to the extinction
of fires than at present. The Fire Brigade was a voluntary
force employed by the insurance offices, and the companies
might make some contribution to the fund. The subject,
he thought, deserved consideration.
CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.

Mr. STIRLING called attention to the return of Civil
List Pensions, and more especially to the pensions conferred
for literary and scientific services. He complained that
this small fund seemed to be the refuge of the poor relations
of rich families. With regard to pensions to literary per-
sons, great caution, he observed, ought to be exercised ;
and he suggested reasons for believing that caution was
not used in all cases. He thought it would be desirable
that the precise works should be indicated of a person re-
warded with a pension for literary services.
Lord PALMERSTON said he was not at all aware that
any of these pensions were granted to necessitous members
of wealthy or aristocratical families. He had numerous
applications for these pensions, which were very small, and
was obliged to reject many ; but, small as they were, the
assistance they afforded relieved much suffering. He ex-
plained the circumstances connected with a particular case
referred to by Mr. Stirling.
SUPPLY.

The house then resolved itself into committee of supply,
Mr. Massey in the chair.
On the motion that a sum not exceeding £185,140 be
granted to her Majesty towards defraying the expenses of
superannuation allowances,
Mr. WILLIAMS took exception to the vote, which ex-
ceeded £7,000 that of last year. If proper economy had
been resorted to, many of the persons who had been re-
ceiving those superannuation allowances might be appointed
to other offices; but instead of that, other persons were ap-
pointed to them by the Government. lie found in this vote
a party who had been in receipt of £320 a-year for 30 years,'
on the ground of ill health, and another person who had
been 40 years in receipt of a large pension on the ground of
infirmity of body. He also found in the vote a grant for
the Queen's Coroner. He should like to hear some expla
nation as to what was meant by the Queen's Coroner.
Mr. PEEL explained that the salary of the Queen's
Coroner and Solicitor was £3,000 a-year ; but that the
office had been done away with by the Court of Queen's
Bench, and the grant in question was agreed upon as corn-

pensation.
The following votes were then agreed to :
£l,OlO for Toulonais and Corsican emigrants.
£32.5 for the Refuge for the Destitute.
£3,210 in aid of the Polish refugees and distressed
Spaniards.
£3,951 towards defraying miscellaneous charges formerly
on civil list.
£2,539 towards defraying the expenses of public institu-
tions in Ireland.
£2,600 for the Westmoreland Lock Hospital, Dublin.
£7OO for the Rotunda Lying-in Hospital, Dublin.
£2OO for the Coombe Lying-in Hospital, Dublin.
£7,600 for the House of Industry and Hospital, Dublin.
£2.500 f ,r the Cork-street Fever Hospital, Dublin.
£6OO for the Meath Hospital, Dublin.
£29,740 having been proposed for Nonconformist clergy-
men,
Mr. HADFIELD objected to the vote on the ground that
the paucity of numbers of these dissenters did not justify
such a grant. There were now 550,000 Presbyterians in
Ireland, and the vote for their ministers was much greater
than it was in 1834, when their numbers were 20 per cent.
higher than at present. In fact the donum was double at
present what it was when the number was greater. The
rate of allowance was increased, not in proportion to their
increasing numbers, but to their diminishing numbers.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. member stated that the Govern-
ment had withdrawn from the Society for Spreading the
Gospel in Foreign Parts the small grant of £7,000, and what
did the society do ? Why, they raised as much as £70,000
by voluntary subscriptions. Why, then, should this grant
of the Regium Donum be continued? He thought hon.
members opposite who favoured this vote would find that
it would not last for the term of their natural lives. The
hon. member moved as an amendment that the vote should
be reduced by the sum of £28,000.
Mr. CARDWELL said it had formerly been the practice
to oppose this vote in committee, but it had at length been
agreed that the sense of the house should be taken upon the
grant, and last year the member for Montrose in a very
able speech, moved in a full house that the grant should be
discontinued, but the motion was lost by a large majority,
and the grant was sustained. After that decision he hoped
hon. members would permit the vote to pass.
Mr. P. DAWSON defended the vote.
The committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the vote
Against it
Majority
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of £3,750 for the expenses of the ecclesiasti••
cal commissioners of England,
Mr. WILLIAMS said that the commissioners in question
had, during tho years 1855, 1856, 18.57, and 1858, ex-
panded £98,000 upon lawyers and solicitors. lle would
take the sons of the house on the vote.
Sir G. LEWIS said the duties of the commissioners in
connection with the property of the Church were very great,
and the expenses were therefore necessarily very heavy.
Hence the necessity of this vote.
Mr. HADFIELD wished to know what these commis-
sioners had to do. He could not really understand their

duties.
Mr. CAIRD objected to immense sums paid to land and
timber surveyors, £10,840 having been so spent in 1855,
and n 0,546 in 1858. lie objected to these persons being
paid by commission, and thought they should be attached
to the office and paid a reasonable salary; £10,000:a•-year to
a land and timber surveyor was out of all character. The
solicitors also got an amount higher than the salary of the
Lord Chancellor himself.
Mr. DEEDES defended the commissioners.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said the hon. gentleman had failed
to show any reason why any portion of the public money
should be applied at all to the purposes he had indicated.
No doubt the commissioners had to deal with large sums;
but since the year 1801 no public money had been granted
to build charges, and the money having many years since
been spent, the functions of the commissioners ought to
hare ceased long ago, The woltll of the church was ehor-