the great subject of taxation. The Mem-register their votes. Within the last few bers of that House were now taxed by the days, he might say hours, he had read the Votes of the House of Commons, and there- advertisement of an election committee fore he could not understand why a Peer to support a candidate for the new conof the Realm should not have a right of stituency of the University of Edinburgh, voting for Members of Parliament and and the chairman of that committee was taking part just as another individual in the Duke of Argyll, who, he had no doubt, the general business of a free country like would make a most admirable chairman, this, with the view of protecting his pro- and would direct and guide the operations perty and guarding his own interests. of that committee with the utmost zeal As to the doctrine laid down by the right tempered with discretion. He thought that hon. Baronet, it might be a version of the all this showed that the Resolution which British Constitution to be found in De was first passed two centuries ago, and Lolme, or some other author; but in his which was adapted to circumstances which (Mr. Disraeli's) judgment it was not a fair had now changed, ought rather to be omitreading of the British Constitution. When ted from the Resolutions of the House the House of Commons, at the period of than set up in a statutory form. Taking a the Long Parliament, came to this Reso- great interest in the success of the Bill, lution the possession of power as regarded he did not at that moment see that the the respective branches of the Legislature adoption of this clause would be one of the was very different to what it was at that most conciliatory courses they could take moment. It appeared that Peers of the towards securing the concurrence of the Realm did now take an interest in elec- Upper House. It would certainly not protions of Members of that House. For ex- mote the passing of this Bill to inform the ample, at the commencement of the Ses- House of Lords that they had sent them sion his attention had been called to the up a clause which would inform the Lords fact that a noble Friend of his-a Peer Spiritual as well as Temporal, that their much respected on both sides of the House interference in the Elections of Members -had taken the chair at a registration of that House should be considered as meeting in his own county; he was asked misdemeanour, and that they should be a Question on the subject, and he made prosecuted accordingly. One would almost some constitutional observations upon it. be led to suppose that the right hon. If it was a misdemeanour on the part of a Baronet was animated by some vindictive Peer of the Realm to connect himself with feeling were it not that he had taken care the registration of his county, why was it to insert a proviso that the Bishops were not mentioned in this clause? This clause not to be prosecuted at the Quarter Seswould not touch him as it only applied to sions. Whatever might be the view of interference in elections. The omission the House of Commons as to the conduct rather invalidated the position of the right of noble Lords interfering in the Elections hon. Gentleman. At the last Election for for Members of that House, he would rethe University of Oxford, when the right mind them that they had a right to be hon. Gentleman the Member for South tried by their Peers, and that right still Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) was a candi- existed, independently of the House of date, more than one Peer of the Realm not Commons. If such a question had been only took a lively interest in those pro- brought forward at a younger period of the ceedings, but actually registered a vote. Session he thought it would probably have The distinguished Bishop of his (Mr. occupied three nights' debate. The prac Disraeli's) diocese was a supporter then of tical point before the House was, were the right hon. Gentleman, and, in the they interested in the success of this Bill, spirit of his constitutional rights and pri- and if so, were they to send it up to the vileges, registered his vote for him. An- House of Peers with this clause? He other Spiritual Peer, the Bishop of Dur- thought the subject might reasonably be ham, had also the satisfaction to register reserved for the consideration of the New his vote for the right hon. Gentleman on Parliament. the same occasion, and a noble Earl, bearing an illustrious name the descendant and representative of Lord Chancellor Cowper also supported the right hon. Gentleman. Practically, Peers of the Realms did interfere in Elections and could MR. GLADSTONE said, he thought the pith of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the First Minister of the Crown) was contained in the last sentence. He should be very glad to persuade his right hon. Friend that there was no advan tage in proposing a clause of this kind to a Resolution of this kind in a future Pargive a rigid form to that which had not liament they would have the same power been hitherto the statute law of the coun- to enforce it which they had always had. try. But if it were deemed right to raise The privileges of the House were part of the question, it could not well be raised the law of the land, and had been always upon this Bill. He entirely concurred in recognised as such; and if it were part of the conclusion at which the right hon. that law that Peers should not vote at Gentleman opposite had arrived, but he elections, it would be the duty of the must make a protest on behalf of the Re- Judges to disallow such votes. But the solution of this House. The right hon. real object and purpose of the Resolution Gentleman did not give sufficient weight to was not to strike off this or that vote, but the fact that they were responsible for it. to prevent unconstitutional interference on It had been remarked by Earl Russell the part of Members of one House with when Leader of that House-that although the independence of the other House. the Resolution of the House was not law, Should the clause be omitted, however, and was not susceptible of a rigid and there was nothing in the Bill which would uniform application, yet, on the whole, it prevent that House from vindicating its operated to check and restrain within nar-privileges in such a case. If they atrow bounds the interference of Peers in tempted to turn this interference into a elections, which, if not so restrained, crime, they would be doing a different might grow to a great inconvenience. That was sufficient to justify as a practical measure the Resolution of the House of Commons, but he hoped his right hon. Friend would not press his proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Peers of the Realm in this country, at the time when this Resolution was first passed, possessed a power of separately taxing themselves, but it required the whole weight of the right hon. Gentleman's authority for him to believe such a state ment. MR. BOUVERIE said, that the Resolution had hitherto been enforced by Election Committees, as the law of the House, though not the law of the land. By the law of the land Peers could interfere as well as any other individuals. The practice of that House had always been to vindicate their privileges by striking out the votes of Peers at an election, but that power they had parted with by placing their jurisdiction in the hands of an independent tribunal, which would have no power to strike out such votes. He might observe with reference to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the First Lord of the Treasury) that Peers had always exercised the right of voting at and taking part in the elections for the Universities. Had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead (Sir William Hutt) proposed a clause forbidding Peers taking part in elections-without subjecting them to punishment as being guilty of a misdemeanour-it would have been carried. SIR ROUNDELL PALMER said, if it should be the wish of the House to pass thing from what had ever been done by a Resolution of the House, or intended to be done. He thought, therefore, that the Committee would do well to adhere to the existing state of things, and not to assent to the clause now under consideration. MR. EYKYN said, that these votes had invariably been rejected by Revising Barristers. MR. RUSSELL GURNEY said, he believed that the Revising Barristers had always expunged the names of Peers from the lists of voters. MR. HADFIELD supported the clause. MR. AYRTON said, he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Hutt) should bring up the clause in a different form to meet the objection that had been made. He believed the only way to prevent the interference of Peers in elections was to enact that all elections compassed by the unconstitutional interference of Peers should be declared void. If the right hon. Gentleman would bring up a clause to that effect it would find a good deal of support in the Committee. He was rather surprised to hear it asserted that Peers might interfere in elections, and propose and vote for candidates, for if that were so it would go far to demonstrate that there was no necessity for the House of Lords. SIR ROBERT COLLIER said, he apprehended that Peers had not a right to vote for Members of Parliament. It was so stated by Lord Camden, and it was not a subject on which doubt should be entertained. Clause withdrawn. MR. DARBY GRIFFITH moved the following clause: (Payments defined by former Acts to be illegal to be bribery.) "Any payment of money or any valuable consideration by any candidate, or by any person on his behalf, for or under the head of travelling expenses or conveyance, which has been defined by any former Act to be an illegal payment, shall be deemed to be bribery within the meaning of the second Clause of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854,' and the receipt by any voter of any such payment for travelling expenses or conveyance shall be deemed to be bribery within the meaning of the third Clause of the same Act, and the vote of any voter who shall pay or receive any money or any valuable consideration for or under the head of travelling expenses or conveyance shall be deemed null and void." THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, he thought that the punishment attached by this measure to acts of bribery would be far too heavy for the offence to which the hon. Gentleman's clause referred. MR. KARSLAKE opposed the clause. MR. THOMSON HÄNKEY said, that though not going to the full extent of the clause, he thought that something clear and definite should be laid down with reference to such expenses. Clause negatived. House resumed. What was the state of things prior to 1865, when the Greenwich Hospital Act was passed, and what was the state of things at the present moment? In passing he might remark that the very fact of a Committee having recently reported on the Act was a sufficient proof that that Act had not worked in a beneficial manner. In considering this matter, it was necessary to bear in mind that the word "Hospital" originally meant a shelter and refuge for the destitute, and not merely a receptable for persons suffering from disease. Now, the Act of 1696, under which Greenwich Hospital was founded, said— "Whereas, the Seamen of this Kingdom have for a long Time distinguished themselves throughin their Employments, and by their Courage and out the World by their Industry and Skilfulness Constancy manifested in Engagements for the Defence and Honour of their Native Country: and for an Encouragement to continue this their ancient Reputation and to invite greater Numbers the Sea, it is fit and reasonable that some compeof His Majesty's Subjects to betake themselves to tent Provision should be made, that Seamen who by Age, Wounds, or other Accidents shall become disabled for future Service at Sea, and shall not be in a condition to maintain themselves comfortably, may not fall under Hardships and Miseries, may be supported at the public Charge, and that the Children of such disabled Seamen, and also the Widows and Children of such Seamen as shall MR. MONK asked when the Bill would happen to be slain, killed, or drowned in Sea Serbe again proceeded with? MR. DISRAELI said, he proposed to place it on the Paper for To-morrow, but would be able more definitely to inform hon. Members on the subject later in the evening. vice, may in some reasonable Manner be provided for and educated. And also the Widows of such Seamen, Watermen, Fishermen, Lightermen, Bargemen, Keelmen, and Sea-faring Men, who shall be slain, killed, or drowned in the Sea Service, and the Children of such Seamen, Watermen, Fishermen, Lightermen, Bargemen, Keelmen, or Sea-faring Men so slain, killed, or drowned, and not of Ability to maintain or provide comfortably Committee report Progress; to sit again for themselves, shall be received into the said To-morrow. NAVY-GREENWICH HOSPITAL. OBSERVATIONS. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, that in rising to move that the House should adjourn to Monday, he would take the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the very able and lucid Report which had been presented to it by the Committee on Greenwich Hospital, though it was certainly not his intention to criticize one of the cleverest and most interesting documents which had ever been laid before Parliament. The fact of such a Report having appeared was a justification for inquiring fully into the origin of Greenwich Hospital, and how the inten Hospital, and there be provided for.”—[7&8 Will 3, c. 21.] Such, then, was the spirit of the founders. Not only was the Hospital intended for sailors of the Royal Navy, but the Act distinctly said that it was designed for mer chant seamen and for their widows and orphans. The principle on which the institution was founded had, however, been de parted from, and great injury had been thereby inflicted upon the seamen of this country. Anyone, indeed, who read the inscriptions on the building would see that it was intended originally to be an asylum, a refuge, and a home for aged and wornout seamen. Now, what were the regula lations affecting the Hospital prior to 1859. It appeared from the very able Report made by the Royal Commissioners in 1859 "In the year 1814 there were 2,710 pensioners in the institution. In 1849 the authorized number of in-pensioners being 2,642, there were but three vacancies in the Hospital. At that time the admissions into Greenwich Hospital were regulated by the following Admiralty Memorandum of the 1st of January, 1852-1st. Out-pensioners for life, having served ten years and upwards, and who, on account of age or infirmity, are unable to work. 2d. Out-pensioners for life, with less than ten years' service, who are rendered totally incapable, by reason of wounds, hurts, injuries, or sickness received in and by the service, of assisting in any way to support themselves, reference being had to their age. Men who are not pensioners:-1st. No man shall be considered eligible for admission with less than ten years' service, with a good character. 2d. Unless he has been maimed or disabled by wounds in the service."" The Commissioners, in the admission to Greenwich of naval pensioners, recommended "That no man be deemed eligible for such admission who does not fall under one of the following descriptions:-Description (A). Seamen and marines, whether in the Royal Navy or the merchant service, who from wounds received in fight, or from bodily injury by accident while engaged in the service of the Crown, or from ill-health contracted in the service of the Crown, and not from want of proper care on their part, are in need of the medical or surgical treatment provided by the Hospital. Description (B). Seamen and marines entitled to an out-pension of not less than £9, who, through age, imbecility, or disease, have become incapable of maintaining themselves, and proper objects for the medical and surgical assistance provided by the Hospital. Description (C). Seamen and marines, of good character, by age unfit for further service at sea, who shall have served in the Royal Navy, at sea or abroad, between the ages of eighteen and forty-eight for twenty-one years; two years in the Naval Reserve to count as one year at sea or abroad, and one year of war service to serve as one and a half years of ordinary service." Such was the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1859. It would, no doubt, be hardly believed that at the time that Commission was appointed the members of the Establishment numbered only 452, beginning with the Governor and Lieutenant Governor, and ending with the warehouseman. The expense of the establishment was £57,000 a year, and the number of pensioners 1,600. It was proposed by the Commission that there should be 2,300 pensioners, that there should be 173 persons on the establishment, and that the salary and allowances should be only £31,000 per annum. But what was the state of the case now? While there was an establishment of 173 persons the number of pensioners at the present moment was only 410, each of whom cost the country no less than £120 a year. In twentyeight years the officers' quarters had had £46,000 expended on them. Therefore, instead of an improvement having been effected, things had actually become much worse than they were under the old system. The object of the Bill of 1865 was on a former occasion clearly stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) who said— "Greenwich Hospital was intended, so far as the building was concerned, to be for the future an asylum for infirm, helpless, and wounded seamen, and that seamen were not necessarily entitled to be received as inmates merely because they were in receipt of pensions, and because they were unfit for longer service at sea."-[3 Hansard, clxxix. 1011.] But the principle laid down by the founders. had been entirely overlooked. It was clear from the Memorandum of the Duke of Somerset that by the Act of 1865 it was proposed to conduct the Hospital on a principle it never had been founded on and never would have been founded on. That Memorandum stated "In former years the out-pensions were supplemental to the relief afforded by the Hospital; in later times the out-pensions constituted the chief source of relief, to which the Hospital is a supplement." In 1865 the men were driven out of the Hospital, each of them getting £36 10s. a year. He believed that 900 of them left, and that within fifteen months no fewer than 400 of that number were dead. That was not to be wondered at, because, in point of fact, the men had been driven from their homes. The only object was to get rid of them. One of the regulations then made was this "Pensioners can only return with the loss of their pensions, and not in good health; they must be aged or infirm, or under medical treatment. Unless residing at a naval port they must go to Somerset House to be surveyed, married men being only allowed 2s. a week for their wives." Some of the medical evidence as to the difficulty of obtaining admission to the Hospital was very instructive, He should refer to only two or three passages. Sir David Deas, Medical Inspector of Haslar, stated "Two or three years ago we were constantly Hospital, but we met with so many rebuffs and applying to have men admitted into Greenwich refusals that we ceased to make them, and the result is that the men themselves have almost forgotten that there is such a place as Greenwich Hospital in existence, and it is only when the his parish, take action themselves, and make remedical officers, seeing that a man must be sent to presentations to the Admiralty, that they occasionally, but very rarely indeed, succeed in getting them in." In the evidence of Dr. James Salmon, MR. DARBY GRIFFITH moved the following clause : (Payments defined by former Acts to be illegal to be bribery.) "Any payment of money or any valuable consideration by any candidate, or by any person on his behalf, for or under the head of travelling expenses or conveyance, which has been defined by any former Act to be an illegal payment, shall be deemed to be bribery within the meaning of the second Clause of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854,' and the receipt by any voter of any such payment for travelling expenses or conveyance shall be deemed to be bribery within the meaning of the third Clause of the same Act, and the vote of any voter who shall pay or receive any money or any valuable consideration for or under the head of travelling expenses or conveyance shall be deemed null and void." THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, he thought that the punishment attached by this measure to acts of bribery would be far too heavy for the offence to which the hon. Gentleman's clause referred. MR. KARSLAKE opposed the clause. MR. THOMSON HANKEY said, that though not going to the full extent of the clause, he thought that something clear and definite should be laid down with reference to such expenses. Clause negatived. House resumed. What was the state of things prior to 1865, when the Greenwich Hospital Act was passed, and what was the state of things at the present moment? In passing he might remark that the very fact of a Committee having recently reported on the Act was a sufficient proof that that Act had not In consiworked in a beneficial manner. dering this matter, it was necessary to bear in mind that the word "Hospital" originally meant a shelter and refuge for the destitute, and not merely a receptable for persons suffering from disease. Now, the Act of 1696, under which Greenwich Hospital was founded, said— "Whereas, the Seamen of this Kingdom have for a long Time distinguished themselves throughin their Employments, and by their Courage and out the World by their Industry and Skilfulness Constancy manifested in Engagements for the Defence and Honour of their Native Country: and for an Encouragement to continue this their ancient Reputation and to invite greater Numbers the Sea, it is fit and reasonable that some compeof His Majesty's Subjects to betake themselves to tent Provision should be made, that Seamen who by Age, Wounds, or other Accidents shall become disabled for future Service at Sea, and shall not be in a condition to maintain themselves comfortably, may not fall under Hardships and Miseries, may be supported at the public Charge, and that the Children of such disabled Seamen, and also the Widows and Children of such Seamen as shall MR. MONK asked when the Bill would happen to be slain, killed, or drowned in Sea Serbe again proceeded with? MR. DISRAELI said, he proposed to place it on the Paper for To-morrow, but would be able more definitely to inform hon. Members on the subject later in the evening. vice, may in some reasonable Manner be provided for and educated. And also the Widows of such Seamen, Watermen, Fishermen, Lightermen, Bargemen, Keelmen, and Sea-faring Men, who shall be slain, killed, or drowned in the Sea Service, and the Children of such Seamen, Watermen, Fishermen, Lightermen, Bargemen, Keelmen, or Sea-faring Men so slain, killed, or drowned, and not of Ability to maintain or provide comfortably Committee report Progress; to sit again for themselves, shall be received into the said To-morrow. NAVY-GREENWICH HOSPITAL. OBSERVATIONS. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, that in rising to move that the House should adjourn to Monday, he would take the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the very able and lucid Report which had been presented to it by the Committee on Greenwich Hospital, though it was certainly not his intention to criticize one of the cleverest and most interesting documents which had ever been laid before Parliament. The fact of such a Report having appeared was a justification for inquiring fully into the origin of Greenwich Hospital, and how the inten Hospital, and there be provided for."[7 & 8 Will 3, c. 21.] Such, then, was the spirit of the founders. Not only was the Hospital intended for sailors of the Royal Navy, but the Act distinctly said that it was designed for mer chant seamen and for their widows and orphans. The principle on which the insti tution was founded had, however, been departed from, and great injury had been thereby inflicted upon the seamen of this country. Anyone, indeed, who read the inscriptions on the building would see that it was intended originally to be an asylum, a refuge, and a home for aged and wornout seamen. Now, what were the regula lations affecting the Hospital prior to 1859. It appeared from the very able Report made by the Royal Commissioners in 1859 |