GREENWICH HOSPITAL (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 179.]—COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 8 June 1865)

§ MR. CAVE
expressed his approval of the main object of the measure. He believed that the congregating in almshouses and asylums of people who had been accustomed to a totally different kind of life, and worrying them with rules and regulations, was a kind of charity much more agreeable to the giver than to the receiver. There was, in fact, too often more ostentation than charity in such arrangements. You might keep birds in a gilded aviary, with all appliances for their comfort, but the birds would rather live a much rougher life in their native woods. So far, he thought, the Bill proceeded in the right direction. When he came to the provision for the staff whose employment would be at an end, he saw that there at least there was no evidence of the ingratitude of Governments, and he could not help feeling that the best post under the Crown was that of an abolished officer. But though not only titles and salaries but even the residences of the abolished officers were to be continued to them—["No, no!"]—this was certainly the case with some, no one could doubt that—there must be a very considerable quantity of building for which no present use could be found, and he ventured to suggest a manner in which a portion might be disposed of. Every one who had passed up and down the Thames was familiar with the Dreadnought, an old man-of-war lent by the Government as an hospital for seamen of all nations. A more useful charity did not exist. He had heard foreign sailors describe with tears in their eyes the kindness they had received on board the Dreadnouyht from strangers when left behind by their own countrymen to die or recover as best they might in a foreign land. He regretted that it was proposed to abandon the ship for an hospital on shore, as the sight of the old three-decker, with the pale-faced convalescents on her deck, was more calculated to attract the notice of those who 1315 passed to the great port of London along the watery highway from every country in the world than a building on shore, which would in their eyes be little different from any other hospital; but, if they were to adopt this course, and he believed the reasons for it were cogent, then what more appropriate use could be found for a wing of Greenwich Hospital? It had been suggested that if the hospital was placed in a Government building, people would look upon it as supported by Government, and would withhold their contributions; but the same might be said of the Dreadnought, and the difficulty might be met by simply placing over the hospital the same inscription—" Hospital for Seamen of all Nations, supported by voluntary contributions." Too much money was spent in building by the managers of charitable institutions, and he thought that this proposal, which would save the funds of the Hospital £60,000, was worthy of consideration.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, he wished to suggest the insertion of words authorizing the Admiralty to grant pensions as well as gratuities to the widows of non-commissioned officers and men. The grant of a pension was not always the best mode of providing for widows, but it would be well that the Admiralty should have power to make such provision in cases in which they might think it appropriate.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he desired, before they came to the part of the clause to which the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) would apply, to call the attention of the Committee to the circumstance that the clause as it stood entirely excluded all claims on the part of merchant seamen to participate in the benefits of Greenwich Hospital, as out-pensioners, which benefits would be confined to the Royal Navy and Marines. There was no dispute that any man who was wounded or disabled in service in presence of an enemy or in defending his ship against pirates was entitled to the benefits of the Hospital. He thought that he should have been justified in extending the claim to the widows of such men; but as he understood that his hon. 1316 Friend the Junior Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Childers), while admitting the claims of the men, was not prepared to include their widows, he had confined the Amendment of which he had given notice to the reservation of the rights of seamen of the mercantile marine as they now existed. As, however, his hon. Friend had given notice of an Amendment upon the subject, he should not move that which he had placed upon the paper, but would leave his hon. Friend to deal with the subject.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that as it was the object of this Bill to maintain unaltered the rights of all parties as they now existed, he could not consent to include in this clause the widows of merchant seamen; nor did he think that it would be desirable to introduce the Amendment recommended by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for "Wakefield (Sir John Hay). The means by which he proposed to effect the object aimed at by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was the insertion in this clause, authorizing the grant of pensions to certain classes of persons, of the words "and seamen of the merchant service for the time being entitled to the benefits of Greenwich Hospital."

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, that he had an Amendment to propose, which would come in before that of the hon. Gentleman. This clause provided that pensions should be granted to "officers," and defined them to be "captains, commanders, lieutenants, masters, paymasters, and warrant officers." Prom a Report signed by the Junior Lord of the Admiralty, which had been presented to the House, it appeared that according to the interpretation placed upon it by the Government, the term "officers" did not include medical officers or chaplains. Chaplains were dealt with by a subsequent clause, and therefore medical officers were the only class of officers who were excluded from the benefits of this Bill. This was the more unjust because the Commissioners who inquired into the state of Greenwich Hospital reported that the only part of the establishment which required no reform was that which was under the control of the medical staff. The hon. Member concluded with his Amendment proposed, that in Clause 5, line 12, after the word "officers" the words "medical officers" be inserted.—(Mr. Hennesy.)

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he could not consent to the proposed Amendment, as 1317 in the first place, the words proposed to be inserted were superfluous, the word "officers" including medical officers; and, in the second place, because the medical officers not being deprived of any advantage by the scheme, were not entitled to any benefit from it. The Bill proposed to substitute certain benefits for certain existing advantages. Neither chaplains nor medical officers would lose any advantages under the present scheme. There would be as many employed as there were at present.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, the question which had just been raised justified the objection which he had raised on a former occasion, as to the indistinctness of the Bill. He entirely agreed in the opinion that medical officers ought to share in the pensions, but neither medical officers nor engineer officers—who likewise should be—were included in the Bill. If there had been a schedule to the Bill they might have been inserted. At present there was no guide as to the mode of dealing with these pensions. The Bill was most indistinctly worded, and the paper which had been laid before the House for the purpose of explaining the Bill omitted the two classes of officers from the list of those who were to share in the benefits of the charity.

§ MR. MOOR
said, he wished to inquire whether the medical officers were to be excluded from sharing in the advantages of the Hospital.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that the clause would not exclude them as they came within the general word "officers." There would be two occasions annually when the matter could be discussed. In the first place, when the Orders of Council in reference to the Hospital were laid upon the table, and secondly, when the Vote in aid of the Hospital was proposed. But he repeated that it was not at present intended to give additional pensions to medical officers.

§ MR. C. P. BERKELEY
said, the medical officers would still have open to them the appointments to Greenwich Hospital. There was, however, another class of officers, who were altogether omitted from the Bill—namely, the Marine officers. They had subscribed to the funds of Greenwich Hospital as well as to that of Chelsea, but when they made any application they were told that they ought to be charged upon the funds of Chelsea Hospital, and when they applied there they were told 1318 that they ought to be charged upon the funds of Greenwich Hospital.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, the Marine officers were expressly included in that list, while the medical officers were as expressly excluded from it. Not withstanding the assurance the hon. Gentleman had given them that medical officers were included in the general word "officers," some hon. Gentlemen had doubts on the subject which might easily be removed by the two or three words necessary being inserted in the interpretation clause.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he would take care that the wishes of the hon. and learned Member (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) should receive attention.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, he wished to know exactly in what position the medical officers were to stand, as the only paper purporting to give a list of those who were to share in the advantages of the Hospital expressly excluded medical officers. The only way of settling the matter was to insert the words.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, he thought the matter would be much complicated by interpolating the words "medical officers," those officers being included in the general term "officers." It would be invidious to name them alone.

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, after the assurance of the Junior Lord of the Admiralty, that the medical officers were included in the word "officers," he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he should be sorry if the hon. Member withdrew his Amendment, on the supposition that medical officers were intended to participate in the benefits of the scheme. Medical officers hold appointments in the Hospital at present, and those appointments they would not be deprived of, so that, as they lost nothing by the scheme, they could not fairly hope to derive benefit from it.

§ MR. HASSARD
said, he thought the words in the clause sufficiently large to include all officers.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, the clause did not affect individuals, but simply operated to give pensions to certain classes. He should take care that the interpretation clause was so framed that the word "officers" should bear the usual construction of that word in matters relating to the Hospital.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, he should like to have some explanation of what was really meant by the words "nothing in this Act or in any Order of Council shall give any person any title to a pension unless money is provided by Parliament for the payment thereof." Supposing a meritorious officer was entitled to and had granted him a pension of £1,000 a year out of the revenues of Greenwich Hospital, it appeared by this clause that no pension or annuity should be paid unless out of monies voted for that purpose by Parliament. Did that mean that such pensions should depend upon a Vote taken year by year in that House, and so that the source of livelihood of a person should he liable to be stopped by the Government, backed by a majority of the House? It might be thought that he alluded to a particular case, and it was quite true that he did so. A well known and distinguished officer was granted a pension, and the Ministry, having a command of a majority of the House, availed itself of its power, and intercepted the payment of money actually due to the individual to whom he referred.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to have ascertained what the effect would be of subsequent clauses of the Bill. Under the 13th clause, for example, existing officers would be compensated by way of annuities purchased at the National Debt Office without the necessity of an annual Vote, or its being requisite that the names of the officers should appear on the Estimates. The operation of the clause under discussion would be simply to place Greenwich future pensioners in the same category as those in existence in connection with the army and the navy.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he could not understand why this noble Hospital, with its income of £150,000 a year, should have every part of its expenditure voted by Parliament.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that the idea involved was that the dispensation of pensions should come, as it always had done, under the cognizance of that House.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, he was not satisfied with the answer of the noble Lord. Suppose that under the Act a pension was granted, being approved by this House, would the grantee hold it independently of this House, or would it 1320 be in the power of the Government to come down to this House and, by its command of a majority, stop the payment of the pension?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, these pensions would rest on the same footing as all others which were granted by Parliament. The constitutional practice was that all such pensions should be voted annually by this House, although the faith of Parliament might be pledged to their continuance. Of course, it was open to anybody to propose that Parliament should violate the engagement it had entered into, but this was not a probable contingency.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, the clause expressed what its framers hardly meant to convey. It declared that this House was to determine annually whether these pensions were to continue or not. The intention of the Government, no doubt, was that the pensions, though the amounts were to be voted annually, should not be called in question after being once granted; if that were so, the clause should be framed accordingly.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he thought that the grant of these out-pensions would be liable to great abuses, and that they should come under the notice of Parliament every year just as other pensions did.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, that these pensions did not stand on all-fours with those which were granted out of the taxation of the country, and which were, therefore, rightly open to the annual revision of Parliament; they were derived from a fund applicable for certain purposes. He wished to know what was to become of the surplus revenue, supposing the whole of it should not be expended.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that subsequent clauses would provide for the investment of the balance precisely as it was now invested. With regard to the clause to which objection had been taken, it should be looked into, and if it was found open to the objection that had been raised it should be altered.

MR. HENLEY
said, it was quite clear that the revenues of Greenwich Hospital were confiscated and merged in the national funds, and that all pensions connected therewith would in future depend upon the mercy and annual Votes of Parliament. The present officers did not appear to have confidence in "the faith of Parliament," or of the Government, as they ap- 1321 peared 'to think an independent annuity better for them to have than a pension—at least so it appeared from the clause quoted by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers).

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) was mistaken in supposing that the funds of Greenwich Hospital were liable to be dealt with by Parliament. The Admiralty, as trustees of the Hospital, would be able to invest any funds of the Hospital without coming to Parliament at all.

§ MR. HASSARD
said, he thought that it was clear from one of the sections of the Bill that all investments of the funds of the Hospital were to be made by the Admiralty exclusively for the benefit of the Hospital. By another clause Parliament would have the power of annually revising the pensions, but no injury could accrue to the recipients unless the Government neglected to ask the House to vote the annual grant.

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY
said, he would move the omission of the clause, on the ground that if retained it would put it in the power of the Government for the time being, not by a Vote of the House, but of its own mere Motion, by simply omitting the Vote, to deprive persons who might be entitled to pensions of what was their right. And something of the same kind had been done in the case of a well known contract not long since. By the omission of the Ministers of the Crown to move a Vote for the payment of money actually due, an individual who had performed his contract was deprived of what was his due. What he desired was that the Government should distinctly pledge themselves to put this Bill into such a form that when once a pension was granted it should be the absolute property of the grantee, unless by some misdemeanor he forfeited his right to it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, there could not well be two things more entirely different than that of the contract to which his hon. and learned Friend had referred and the case now before the Committee. In the former ease the contract was never authorized by Parliament; but the Government thought fit to give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject, because, when the money for the packet service was voted, specific words were inserted that no part of such money should be applied to the contract in question. But, with regard to the case now before the Committee, if at 1322 any future time the Government omitted to do its duty, the House had the remedy in its own hands, for it had always the power to move an Address to the Crown. His hon. and learned Friend knew very well that there were a great many persons who received their pensions by annual grants, and it was not the habit of the Government to omit asking the House to grant them.

MR. CORRY
said, that in all cases in which the sanction of Parliament was required it ought to be required but once. They were told that this was a Bill to secure vested rights; but, if that were so, what need was there for subjecting the Vote to the annual revision of the House?

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, the clause did not refer in the smallest degree to existing rights, which were all provided for under Clause 13. The clause before the Committee simply related to future pensions to officers, exactly like good service pensions now, which were voted in the gross every year by the House, after having once come separately before it for approval. It was simply proposed to put the two classes of pensions on the same footing.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, he thought that the Report of the Royal Commission contemplated very distinctly the maintenance of the post of Master and Governor of Greenwich Hospital. The Commissioners paid great attention to the subject, and they found there was very strong reason for maintaining that office, even though it might be considered in some degree a sinecure. Much more benefit was conferred by it upon the navy than there would be by frittering the amount away in five or ten pensions. His object was to move the omission in the tenth line of the clause of the words "and of Governor," in order to retain that office. It was the only prize at present open to distinguished officers of the navy, though in the sister service various regiments were open to old officers. From its commencement it had been held by men eminent for their merits in the profession. It had been looked forward to as the prize of honourable ambition by officers of the rank of admiral; and he felt quite sure that the navy would 1323 regard the abolition of the office with great jealousy and dislike. He trusted that the House would agree to the omission of the words.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he could by no means agree to the Amendment, and he doubted whether any considerable number of officers of the navy would agree with his hon. and gallant Friend. Parliament was about to abolish various comfortable offices in the Hospital by this Bill, among them flag officers, and would it be consonant with justice to leave the Governor alone in full possession of his large income? It would be extremely unfair to the other officers to make this office an exception. The Bill, moreover, assumed that a Superintendent of the Hospital would be appointed, and he and the Governor would be something like the two Kings at Brentford. Such an alteration of the Bill would only lead to difficulty and dispute. The sum saved by the abolition of the office of Governor would be much better bestowed in pensions to flag officers than in maintaining a sinecure of this kind. He trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, he was very loth to withdraw his proposal. It must be recollected that the office of Master and Governor stood on a different footing from that of other officers appointed to Greenwich Hospital for the fulfilment of various duties within it. He would appeal to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ingham) whether the Commissioners did not devote considerable time to the matter, and whether they were not of opinion that the Master and Governor was appointed on the ground of his merits in his profession, and not for the benefit of the Institution. From the first to the last an officer of the most distinguished qualities and character had been elected to that appointment, which was one coveted very earnestly by the members of the navy.

§ MR. INGHAM
said, that this matter had been before debated, and that he, as one of the Commissioners, had already expressed his agreement with the Report and his concurrence in the desire to preserve an office which had been held by so many distinguished sailors who had cast lustre upon the appointment.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, that if 1324 the hon. and gallant Member went to a division he would support him. Because Greenwich Hospital refused reform the Admiralty had pushed changes to an unnecessary extent, and in fact were effecting a complete revolution in the establishment. He saw no reason for doing away with one of the prizes of the Royal Navy, and he regretted that it seemed intended by the Government to reduce the establishment, like Haslar or Netley, to the position of a mere hospital for the sick under the management of a Superintendent.

MR. CORRY
said, he questioned whether the pensioners would not feel it as a degradation that an old and distinguished admiral should be removed from the post of Governor. He was aware that under the Bill the present Governor would not be removed, but no admiral would in future be appointed as Governor.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that the scope of the Bill was that for the future, after the death of the present Governor and Lieutenant Governor, there should not remain at Greenwich Hospital great sinecure offices, and he trusted that the House would agree to the plan of abolishing sinecures and supplying their place by a large number of moderate pensions. Pensions of a moderate amount would be given to different ranks of the service, and there would be ten pensions to flag officers of £150 a year each.

§ MR. LYGON
said, he must deny that the post of the Governor of Greenwich Hospital was a sinecure. The esprit de corps of the Hospital would be preserved by the retention of the office for a distinguished officer renowned for great services and heroic actions.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that in support of the retention of the office he might advert to the hardships inflicted on admirals serving on foreign stations, where their appointment, instead of being a source of emolument, occasioned great expense to them. If any compensation for that hardship could be given it ought not to be refused. He said this, having been the Chairman of the Committee. Take this one prize of the Governorship away and the principal one was removed. He did not think that other officers in the navy would be jealous by its falling into distinguished hands. The continuance of this office, as a prize for the reward of conspicuous merit, would benefit the profession.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that if this office was to be kept up so much must be deducted from the emoluments of the other flag officers whom it was proposed to benefit by the present scheme. Was the money which it was intended to pay over to the other ten flag officers to be so paid, or was it to go to this great office?

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, he believed the majority of the profession was in favour of the retention of the office. He thought that the officers of the navy would much rather have the one great office of Governor retained than that there should be a great number of officers at small pensions.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
said, he thought the profession would regard the abolition of the office with great regret.

§ MR. C. P. BERKELEY
said, the officers at Greenwich Hospital, although they rose in rank, would not rise in pay.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, the Greenwich Hospital funds were not intended for large salaries for insufficient work. He hoped the House would adhere to the principle of the Bill, which was that as many pensions as possible should be granted.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, that the opinion of the Committee having been so evenly balanced on the subject of his Amendment, he should deem it right to take the sense of the House on it again upon the Report.

§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, he meant to move the omission of the clause— Provided that if any Commissioner or any officer who was removed from office was at the commencement of that Act in receipt of any superannuation allowance in respect of any former employment in the Civil Service, he should be entitled to continue to receive, in addition to the annuity given under a previous provision, the amount of superannuation allowance of which he was in receipt at the commencement of that Act, and no more. If he succeeded in carrying the omission of that clause, he proposed to substitute for it another, of which he had given notice, namely— Whereas Sir Richard Maddox Bromley, night Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, and now one of the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, will be entitled upon the passing of this Act to an annuity for his 1326 life as hereinbefore provided; and whereas the said Sir Richard Maddox Bromley is likewise entitled to a superannuation allowance in respect of the office of Accountant General of the Navy, heretofore held by the said Sir Richard Maddox Bromley, be it enacted, that the said Sir Richard Maddox Bromley shall henceforth receive the full amount of such superannuation allowance without any deduction in respect of his said office of Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital or the salary or emoluments thereof. When Sir Richard Bromley, somewhat broken in health by his devotion to the public service, applied to the Lords of the Admiralty on the subject of his retirement, the Duke of Somerset offered him the position of Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital, and the correspondence which passed at the time showed what the intentions of the Government were with respect to his emoluments. A Treasury Minute also recorded the high sense entertained by the Government of Sir Richard's eminent services as Accountant General of the Navy during the last thirty-four years. After accepting the Commissionership of Greenwich Hospital by Patent Sir Richard Bromley was astonished to find in a few months that the Treasury thought he was not entitled to the full benefit of the position he had held, and that they limited the amount paid to him to what had been allowed him as Accountant General of the Navy only. Sir Richard held that the previous intentions of the Government in regard to his position had not been carried out, and he received the limited sum offered to him under protest. He had taken good legal advice on the subject, and he meant to prosecute his claim to that which he believed himself entitled at the hands of the Government, and which had never before been withheld from those who had occupied his position. But that clause would, by ex post facto legislation, entirely shut the door against his claim. On that ground he proposed the omission of the clause.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he quite endorsed what had fallen from the hon. Baronet as to the eminent services of Sir Richard Bromley; but what was the real question as to this clause r Under the Superannuation Act an officer already in receipt of a superannuation allowance, on obtaining fresh employment, was entitled only to draw a sufficient amount of superannuation allowance to make up, together with his fres employment, the full amount of 1327 his original emoluments. Sir Richard Bromley had received £1,300 a year as Accountant General of the Navy. He also received £300 a year as Auditor of Prize Accounts. He resigned the Accountant Generalship of the Navy two years ago, and on the same day was appointed Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital with emoluments equal to £818 per annum. The Treasury, in fixing his superannuation, prescribed that he should only draw enough to make up with the emoluments of Greenwich Hospital the original £1,300 a year. He continued to be Auditor of Prize Accounts, and thus received in all £1,600 a year. The effect of the present clause was to entitle him to receive for life the £1,300 a year in respect of his superannuation and the Greenwich Commissionership, and be long as he continued to be also Auditor of Prize Accounts he would in all receive £1,300 a year. In other words he would receive for doing little or nothing during the rest of his life the same emoluments as two years ago he received for, perhaps, the most onerous office under the Crown. He (Mr. Childers) did not think that the House of Commons, if they had any regard to consistency in dealing with the Civil Servants of the Crown, would think of giving him more.