§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state to the House why no steps have been taken since the Royal Commission of 1870 to ascertain the wishes of the pensioners of Chelsea Hospital to remain or to leave; whether it is true that a pensioner of the name of Kirk, belonging to the left wing of the hospital, has been sent for seven days to confinement for sharing his regulation loaf with his wife, aged seventy-two; and, whether there is any sergeant in Chelsea Hospital who had been removed from Millbank for too great severity to the prisoners under his charge there?
§ MR. CARDWELLSir, the inquiry of 1870 was conducted, not by a Royal Commission, but by a Departmental Committee. It did not recommend, as the hon. Baronet seemed to suppose, 222 that any steps should be taken to ascertain the wishes of the pensioners to remain or to leave. No married or in-pensioner is required to remain in the institution. Resumption of out-pension at any time is freely allowed. The pensioners are fully aware of this privilege, and a few avail themselves of it every year. I am informed that no pensioner named Kirk has been punished for sharing his regulation loaf with his wife. But a pensioner of that name was confined to the Hospital for seven days for attempting to take away fuel, the property of the Hospital, and to take his food outside at a forbidden hour. Though he had stated on admission that he had no relative dependent on him, he was afterwards allowed a pass to take his food to his wife at the proper hour. No sergeant or other person removed from Millbank for too great severity to prisoners is employed at Chelsea Hospital. The Sergeant of Police was formerly employed at Millbank, but he voluntarily resigned the employment, and left it with a good character.