Lords Sitting of 18 June 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Locomotives; Transfer of Stocks and Annuities; Accessories and Abettors; Criminal Statutes Repeal,
3a Bankruptcy and Insolvency.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that though the Bill might not contain all that some people might wish to find still it would be a most valuable measure. He expressed his earnest hope, and, indeed, his confident expectation, that, whatever difference of opinion might exist on the subject, the Amendments which had been made in the Bill would be accepted by the other House.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I also hope that a Bill upon this important subject, so long desired by the great body of the commercial community, may pass into law in the present year. This Bill undoubtedly has received very considerable attention on the part of Members of the House of Commons, and I think it will be admitted by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, although he may not approve all the Amendments which were made in the Select Committee, that that Committee devoted the most earnest attention to the details of the measure, and that no clause and no Amendment was decided upon by them hastily and without due consideration. The Bill has come back from the Select Committee with considerable alterations, but without any interference with what I look upon as its main principles. Those principles I take to be, in the first place, the amalgamation of bankruptcy and insolvency; in the next place, the question—much discussed elsewhere, but not disputed in the Committee—of doing away generally with the distinction between traders and non-traders; and, thirdly, though I cannot help thinking this a measure of doubtful policy—the extension of bankruptcy jurisdiction to County Courts. In all these three material points the Bill has come back from the Committee without alteration. Undoubtedly, as I said, there are many points on which it has received alterations and, as I think, Amendments. In the first place the Committee objected to that which appeared to them a very unnecessary and useless expenditure—the appointment of a Chief Judge. That proposal was struck out by the Committee; as were also some provisions with regard to the relative duties of the official and creditors' assignees, and other provisions which were calculated to lead to much additional expense—such as the employment of short-
  1218
  handwriters. In some few minor points other Amendments were introduced, and, with regard to all the Amendments, I think I may say that they were made by a considerable majority, and, in some cases, without even a division of voices in the Committee. Now, I cannot but hope that the consideration which the Bill has thus received from a Committee so constituted may not be without weight with the Members of the other House. When the Bill came back from the Select Committee the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), on the part of the Government, professed his readiness to accept the Amendments of the Committee, and did not raise any question with regard to those Amendments—though it is true that a clause of great importance was in this House inserted in the Bill, preventing the retrospective operation of the law upon non-traders, who are now for the first time made subject to the bankruptcy law. But it is said that in regard to the Bill as it now stands ominous words have dropped from a Member of the other House, which make me somewhat apprehensive of the reception which these Amendments may, meet with there. Now, as this is a Government Bill, and as the Government have accepted in this House every Amendment made by the Select Committee, I think I am entitled to ask whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to use the influence which undoubtedly they possess with their colleagues in the other House, and to secure their support and acceptance of the Amendments which have been introduced in this House? I should not ask this question if the Bill were not introduced by the Government and upon the responsibility of the Government, and if I did not hope that the Government had made up their minds, having accepted the Amendments here, to support them in the other House. If, however, the noble Earl is not able to give me this assurance, I hope he will state that the objections of the House of Commons to any of these Amendments shall be sent up to this House in time to give us an opportunity for the full consideration of any such changes. I have looked at the state of business in the other House, and though there appears to be a considerable number of Bills in progress there are not many of them which will be likely to lead to protracted discussion; and, therefore, it is of the more importance that questions upon which you have felt it necessary to introduce important Amendments in the Bill

  1219
  should, if again altered in the other House, be brought up here in time to allow of ample consideration. I am quite sure there are many of your Lordships who felt a strong objection to abolish the distinction now existing between traders and non-traders they acceded to that proposal, however, although they felt it was an experiment of doubtful policy, being mainly influenced by the clause which deprived that portion of the Bill of any retrospective effect. That being so, I do not think it would be fair to this House, if, after the Government have allowed the Bill to pass here without an objection, it should be suffered to remain a considerable time in the House of Commons, and then be returned to us at a period when your Lordships' House is but thinly attended, and when the Government may think they can carry any Amendments. I do not wish to anticipate that that it is the intention of the Government; but I hope the noble Earl will be able to say that the Government will accept the Bill as it stands, and will recommend the acceptance of it by the House of Commons, so as thereby to terminate this discussion by the passing of a measure which in the main will, I believe, be very acceptable to all classes of the mercantile community, though there may be a difference of opinion with regard to some of its provisions.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that what the noble Earl had stated in reference to the proceeedings of the Select Committee were in the main accurate—the Amendments certainly were not agreed to until after much difference of opinion and long discussion. But he (Earl Granville) was not at all converted from his original opinion that in no one way would there be any great advantage in referring the Bill to a Select Committee. By discussing the measure in the House their Lordships would have enjoyed all the advantages derived from its consideration before a Select Committee, with this further and great advantage—namely, that the public would have been made aware of the arguments which were urged on either side. In point of order, too, there would have been the additional advantage, that whereas in the Select Committee four or five noble Lords were sometimes stating their views at once, here only one noble Lord would have spoken at a time. He admitted fully that the Committee had paid an earnest and anxious attention to the Bill according to their respective views of
  1220
  its provisions, and he admitted also as to most of the divisions which had taken place that they were not purely party divisions, but that noble Lords on the same side of the House voted in different ways, and that on the whole the Committee dealt with the Bill in a spirit of impartiality and fairness. He did not think it necessary to go through the different points on which alterations had been introduced. The noble Earl had asked him for so many assurances with regard to the Bill that he could not remember them all.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I only asked for one assurance, and in the alternative for one other.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Earl had asked him to assure the House that the Government would adopt the Bill as it now stood, and would press its acceptance upon the House of Commons, and if any alterations were made in the other House that the Bill should be sent back to this House at an early period, Now, it was quite impossible for him to give such an assurance. The noble Earl said that the Government had accepted the alterations made in this House. They had certainly accepted them to this extent—that they had not abandoned the Bill owing to their having been made. When a Bill of this sort was referred to a Select Committee, although it was perfectly competent for any one to re-open the questions decided upon by that Committee, it was the general practice to accept their decision with regard to the details. There was a majority in the Committee in favour of the Amendments which were adopted, and when the Bill came again before the House there seemed to be the same majority there, BO that it would have been idle to endeavour to reverse that decision. No one could be more anxious than the Government were that a Bill should be passed in the course of the present Session on this important question:—with regard, however, to the assurance which he had been asked for he could not say more than that the Government would carefully consider the altered state of the Bill; that they would accept it if they deemed it for the public advantage to do so, and that if alterations in it were made by the House of Commons they would endeavour to send it back to this House as quickly as was consistent with the due course of public business.
  LORD OVERSTONE: My Lords, I am desirous to say a few words on the present

  1221
  occasion, because I concurred in almost every alteration made by the Committee in the Bill, which in its further progress I earnestly hope will have the real and cordial support of the Government, I am the more anxious to express my feelings with regard to this Bill, because previous to the reference of the Bill to the Select Committee the duty was imposed on me of presenting several petitions, signed by many influential parties connected with the mercantile and trading world, not only in this Metropolis; but in various parts of the kingdom; all these parties expressing some apprehensions more or less distinct of the danger to which the Bill would be subjected from alteration in the Select Committee, But, having attended that Committee regularly, and watched its proceedings with great attention and anxiety, I am bound to say thus publicly, that in my opinion the members of that Committee, to whatever political party they belonged, discussed the Bill with perfect good faith, and with the determination to apply themselves diligently to correct many real defects and render it a practical and really valuable measure. I agree with the noble Earl (Earl Granville) in regretting in some respects that the discussion in the Committee was not taken in a more public manner; had that been so the public would have been made more fully aware of the strong, and I think, unanswerable reasons on which the decision of the Committee was founded. It appeared to the Committee that the creation of a new Judge was unnecessary; that it would only substitute an inferior tribunal of appeal for a better one now existing; that it would create a new officer with a large salary, whose appointment would not be attended by any adequate results; and that, after the first impression of novelty had worn off, tile appointment would assume the appearance of what is called a job. The rejection of this new judgeship was, therefore, most wisely and judiciously decided upon; indeed, it received more general approval in the Committee than any other alteration. There are some other modifications, but those I will not now discuss. I will simply say that, in my opinion, by the changes made by the Select Committee, the measure has been materially improved; and, from what I have been able to ascertain of the feeling of the country on the subject, I may venture to say that a large proportion of the community are prepared to accept the Bill in its present form as a
  1222
  satisfactory measure, from which they may expect to derive many, if not all, of the beneficial results they are anxious to obtain; and if the Bill should miscarry in the other House of Parliament, through want of faithful support from the Government, I think it will be a great calamity, and will cause very general disappointment.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid he was aware that his opinion in the law did not deserve much weight with their Lordships, but he had attended the meetings of the Committee very regularly, and although he had entered it under the impression that the Bill was perfect, he had come out convinced that, by some of the alterations adopted, it had been greatly improved. He regretted to observe the disposition of the Government to depart from the recommendation of the Committee to dispense with the Chief Judge. He had every wish to support the Government on this point; but having listened to the matter fairly, he must say that not the shadow of an argument was adduced in favour of creating such an officer. It was not simply a majority of the Committee that so decided; there was, in fact, a real unanimity upon the subject; and he thought it was one of those things in reference to which the House of Commons would hardly venture to say that they were prepared to be; more extravagant than the House of Lords. True, the Commons had been dealing rather extravagantly of late with the public money; but, seeing that not even the law Lords—to say nothing of the lay Lords—had an argument to advance in favour of the new judgeship, he thought it would be an outrageous act if the House of Commons were to attempt to restore the clause. He hoped, at least, the Government would not lend their aid to such an act on the part of the House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that his silence must not necessarily be considered as an acquiescence in what had just fallen from his two noble Friends, for he conscientiously believed that by doing away with the Chief Judgeship the Bill was mutilated and deteriorated. He was sorry that the arguments which he had used had made such small impression upon the Committee, but his opinion was that there were functions assigned to the Chief Judge which could not be supplied by any other means; that the Bill would not work beneficially without an increase of judicial power, and that there was much reason to regret that that portion of the Bill had

  1223
  been struck out. He believed it was no part of the noble Earl's intention to move the destruction of the Chief Judgeship Indeed, the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) took the merit to himself that neither he nor his Friends had proposed the Motion which had so mutilated the Bill, and, in al probability, if it were not for a Motion emanating from a totally different quarter but for which he had sincere respect, the Chief Judge would have passed triumphantly through the Select Committee. The noble Earl had asked him, before voting against the chief judgeship, whether he was prepared to say that the Government would not go on with the Bill that Motion were carried; and he (the Lord Chancellor) replied, with perfect sincerity, that he was not prepared for such a Motion being made; that he had no authority from the Government for stating that they would not go on; but he believed that without the Chief Judge the Bill would not work beneficially, and there was great reason to doubt its success. That opinion he still retained; and he believed that it would be a very great improvement of the Bill if the Chief Judge were restored. He repeated, however, what he had stated on a former occasion, that he was satisfied the Committee had acted fairly and conscientiously, and with the single aim of making the measure as perfect as possible.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that he had taken pains to point out to the Committee all the functions which the new Chief Judge would have to perform, both in substitution for the present Courts of Appeal and de novo, and certainly all that he was required to do de novo was infinitesimally small. There was no opposition to the abolition of the judgeship in the sense of a division. His noble and learned friend had stated to the Committee very nearly what he had just said; but he did not then give more reasons for the appointment than he had given now. After investigating the question narrowly, he had himself come to the conclusion that there was no necessity for such a functionary, and the Committee were of the same opinion. On other alterations proposed there were divisions, but on this there was none. He was very glad that this short discussion had taken place; he hoped it would remove an impression he was sorry to see had taken root in some quarters—that their Lordships had a sort of normal function of opposing what the rest of the community wished and desired. He was sure that those who witnessed the
  1224
  course taken by the Committee would admit that it could not have come to any other conclusion than that there was nothing of a party character in the Committee's discussions. With regard to the Assignees' clauses, it had been made a question how far the mercantile interest ought to preponderate; but this ought not to guide the decision. He thought it far from desirable that three-fourths of the creditors should decide what the other fourth were to do. It was because this was thought a dangerous provision that the Committee introduced the only substantial alteration in principle in the Bill. It was this—that the management and collection of the funds of the creditors should be placed, or rather remain, in the hands of the official assignees, and should not be in the hands of the creditors assignees. He considered that it was a most beneficial change to make in the Bill, to entrust the administration of the estate to a person who had no interest in concealing anything, and who would expose alike the delinquencies of the creditor and of the debtor. This was the only alteration in substance that had been made by the Committee, for the chief judgeship was a question of the machinery only. There had been a great fallacy prevalent in treating the creditors of an estate as though they were a corporation, whereas, in fact, each had his own individual interests. Why should a creditor for £100 be told that he must leave another creditor, whose debt wag £300, to decide in what way the liquidation should take place? He believed that the old system was the best, and that it was for the public interest that there should be some independent functionary to see that justice was done. The alteration which had been introduced by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) thirty years ago, whereby official assignees were substituted for creditors' assignees, had produced most beneficial results, one of which was the recovery of a sum of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000, which, after lying idle for years, was divided among the creditors who were entitled to it. He, therefore, trusted that when the Bill was returned to the other House it would not be supposed there that their Lordships had been merely intending to obstruct a Bill which would be beneficial to the mercantile community; but that it would be agreed hat they had been endeavouring to render it as fit as possible for the objects which it was designed to carry out.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEbore testimony

  1225
  to the unwearied attention that had been devoted by the Select Committee to the consideration of this Bill. He had concurred in the alteration that had been made by striking out the Chief Judge, for the thought that the arguments of his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) were quite insufficient, and that never before had there been a proposal to create so unnecessary an office. The business which that functionary would have had to dispose of would be only that which the Vice-Chancellor formerly, and now the Lords Justices had to deal with, and he found that the bankruptcy appeals in Chancery only occupied an average of fifteen days a year. It was monstrous to suppose that to dispose of that business a Judge was required of equal rank and with higher salary than the common law Judges, whose whole time was devoted to the performance of public duties.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments; further Amendments made.
  On Question that the Bill do pass,
  LORD BROUGHAMrose to confirm the statement of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) as to the great and beneficial change that had been made in taking the management of estates out of the hands of creditors' assignees and transferring them to official assignees. When he proposed that alteration thirty years ago he was assured by a member of the banking firm of Smith, Payne, & Co., that that house would lose between £3,000 and £4,000 a year by the change, being the amount of interest upon sums of money belonging to various estates which lay idle and unprofitable—as far as the creditors were concerned—in their hands. At the time he referred to a sum of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 was recovered by the official assignees which had been neglected by the creditors' assignees, and dividends were paid; in some cases the debts were fully satisfied and the bankruptcies annulled. The Bill as it now stood contained some very valuable principles, and would, he hoped, be deemed acceptable by the other House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it might be supposed from that conversation that this Bill as it originally stood wholly dispensed with the official assignees. That, however, was an entire mistake. Great benefits had resulted from the labours of the official assignees, but those benefits would be preserved and made even more
  1226
  effectual by this measure. It was the almost unanimous desire of the commercial world that there should be a creditor's assignee appointed by those who had an interest in the debtor's estate, and also superintended by them, and that he should be carefully watched over by the official assignee, who in turn should, likewise, be carefully watched over by the creditors' assignee. As originally framed, the provisions of the Bill in this respect would, he believed, have worked most advantageously.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.

  COMMITTEE (ON RECOMMITMENT).
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on Recommitment) read.
  Moved—That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, their Lordships were about to deal with a great and honourable charity, which was not a fit subject for party discussion, and he now appealed with confidence to the House to rescue that charity from the condition in which it had hitherto stood. Greenwich Hospital had long been used for purposes of Government jobbery by all parties, and it was high time that such a state of things should be put an end to; but this Bill would perpetuate all these evils. The institution was one of such national value and importance that the country generally must feel a deep interest in its proper and efficient management. Its funds, which were very large in amount, were derived from various sources. It had about £3,500,000 sterling invested in Government securities; it had also large landed estates in the north of England; it had mines besides; and a fund of about £500,000 taken from the wages of British seamen. This honoured charity was not a charity only—it had a double claim to public consideration—because it at once offered to seamen a reward for distinguished services and an honourable retreat in which to spend the years which remained to them after an active career. In 1829 the Hospital was found to have been so mismanaged that Parliament interfered with some strong measures to check the evil. The funds had been used by the Government of the day for purposes which it was difficult to-define, and the Ministers suddenly became so alarmed that a Bill of Indem-

  1227
  nity was brought in to protect them from the legal consequences of their acts. An enactment was also passed re-constituting the government of the Hospital on principles sound enough in themselves, but which had led to serious mischief from the manner in which they had been applied. From 1829 down to 1842 the Governors and managers of the institution were political officers who vacated their appointments with the Ministry of the day. In 1841 Sir Robert Peel attempted, without coming to Parliament for the purpose, to remedy the evil by appointing a Commission to inquire into the management of the Hospital. In that he was assisted by Sir James Graham, who, in the evidence which he gave before the Commission on the subject, said that, as far as his experience went, the checks insituted in 1829 with regard to the safe custody of the monies had proved inefficient; and he spoke of the great misfortune that arose from the circumstances that the governorships were filled up on political considerations, and that the Governors were permitted to have seats in Parliament. The spirit of the Act of 1829 was, no doubt, perfectly pure; but as administered by the Government of the day was corrupt in the extreme. The remedy proposed by the Commission of 1842 was the appointment of naval officers as Commissioners and trustees who were to have the management of the estates and funds of the Hospital, but were to have no part in the management and internal discipline, which was placed under a permanent managing body; and the Commissioners were not to have seats in Parliament. This arrangement had, however, broken down. What was wanted in the present condition of the Hospital was a better system of internal management, and detailed discipline, together with the faithful carrying out of the Act of 1829. He now came to the Bill before the House, and he would ask whether it was likely that it would rescue the Hospital from the position which he had described when it was considered that the measure would hand over the management of the funds, estates, and patronage of the establishment to the Board of Admiralty? The whole management of this great national charity was handed over more than ever to the jurisdiction and administration of the Lords of the Admiralty for the time being, thus rendering its government a political matter, instead of being, as it ought to be, vested in the Crown, or in Commissioners
  1228
  appointed by the Crown, independent of all exercise of political power whatever. What he would recommend was very simple. He would say that the Crown, naturally having the power, should be authorized by Parliament to appoint a body of independent gentlemen to be Commissioners and trustees, perhaps three in number, to hold the estates and properties of the Hospital; adding, if they liked, two Ministers of the Crown. These Commissioners should be thoroughly independent of any control whatever, and should not be permitted to have seats in Parliament. They should be the managers of the estates and properties belonging to the Hospital, there being also a receiver and a banker; the Admiralty should then come in to deal with the property for the benefit of the Hospital, its whole appointments, details, and discipline being handed over to them. He would, however, separate as much as he could the government of the estates from the political control of any party, except with the consent of Parliament. He hoped their Lordships would deal with this Bill in such a manner as they thought would best secure the interests of the Hospital. He held a strong opinion on the subject, and he must enforce that opinion by a division. For the purpose of raising the question he should move that the Bill be recommitted this day week, in order that the Bill might be amended in the form he proposed.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Week.")
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that when he understood the noble Earl intended to oppose this Bill, he was curious to learn on what grounds he meant to do so, for it was strictly founded on the Report of the Commission—its whole scope and object was to place the estates and management of Greenwich Hospital on a better and more satisfactory footing, in order that the funds should be applied more effectually to the benefit of the inmates. On the former occasion he stated strong reasons why the Amendment was rejected. He then, from statistics of good authority, compared the cost of the pensioners in the Hôtel des Invalides with those in Greenwich Hospital. The cost of maintaining a pensioner at the Hotel des Invalides in France was £31 16 s.; the cost of a pensioner at Greenwich Hospital amounted to £59 6s.—almost double. The cost as to food and care was very much the same in both; the great difference arose on the cost for discipline, administration, and the care of the

  1229
  sick. In France the cost per head for these purposes was £5 5s.; in Greenwich Hospital it was £28 18 s. This alone showed that some change was required. With regard to the management the proprosal of the noble Earl was that the Crown should appoint two or three independent gentlemen, and that they should have the management of the Hospital. That was the very thing the Government proposed to do—they proposed that a Rear Admiral should be appointed for five years, removable at the end of that term; that a Medical Commissioner connected with the navy should be appointed, also removable at the end of five years; and that one civil Commissioner, to act as an accountant, should also be appointed. The appointment of civil Commissioners to be of a more permanent character. This was quite in accordance with the suggestion of Sir James Graham, who said he saw no necessity for more than one Civil Commissioner. There would be no patronage beyond what was now exercised by the Admiralty in the appointments connected with the Hospital and the dockyards. The noble Earl objected to the Commissioners having seats in Parliament. He (the Duke of Somerset) quite agreed that there should not be political appointments, and when he proposed that the Commissioners should be a naval officer, a medical man, and an accountant, he never anticipated their going into Parliament. With regard to the livings belonging to the Hospital, the Act of George IV. appointed the First Lord of the Admiralty patron. It was provided that they should be filled by chaplains in. the navy, and chaplains would be appointed to them hereafter. The nominations to the upper school at Greenwich used to be with the Lords of the Admiralty, and one of the first things he did on coming into office was to give up that patronage, placing the matter in the hands of a very competent body. Examinations were to take place, and candidates were to be selected, according to regulations which were to be laid before Parliament. It had been said the accounts of the Greenwich Hospital estates were not brought under the Audit Office. There was a clause in the Bill which provided for an effective audit, and, as that clause had been drawn up with the assistance of the Accountant General of the Navy, and of Mr. Anderson of the Treasury, he had no doubt it would answer its purpose in every respect. The monies were to be paid
  1230
  into the Bank of England, the accounts were to be rendered from time to time to the Admiralty, and were to be submitted to the Commissioners for auditing the public accounts. With regard to the general purposes of the Bill, his object was, in the first place, to increase the advantages of the Hospital to seamen. He had already raised the allowance of a certain class of pensioners, and done many other things which he was able to do without an Act of Parliament. But a new Act was required to put the whole establishment on a better footing than heretofore. The existing system of management had not worked well, and he had no doubt that the plan proposed in the Bill would be found a great improvement. He proposed, among other changes, that the subordinate offices connected with the Hospital should be filled by persons appointed for the efficiency of their services, and not from motives of benevolence. More money would then be available for the real objects of the charity. The Bill was founded upon the Report of the Commissioners, though he had thought it inexpedient to adopt the whole of their recommendations. One of their proposals which he had rejected was that arrangements should be made for the accommodation within the Hospital of the wives and families of pensioners. Upon several other points he had not adopted the recommendations of the Commissioners; but he had followed their Report wherever he had found it practicable to do so. He believed that the plan for bringing in fresh men every five years would give life and activity to the management of the Hospital. The present Governor was to be retained, but his administrative duties would be transferred to the new Commissioners. He might still, however, exercise a useful supervision, and communicate with the Admiralty from time to time, The noble Duke concluded by stating his readiness to insert a clause, prohibiting the Commissioners from sitting in Parliament, and to give a careful consideration to any other Amendment which the noble Earl might see fit to propose.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it was some time since he read the recommendations of the Commissioners in respect to the pensioners of Greenwich Hospital; but so far as his recollection went the alterations recommended did not require an Act of Parliament. They could be introduced by the Governor himself. Undoubtedly there had been for a long while serious mismanage-

  1231
  ment of the affairs of the Hospital, which could not be remedied without an Act of Parliament. With regard to the last named officer, it appeared to him (the Earl of Derby) to be a singular course to pursue, and contrary to the practice of modern times, to leave the Governor in his high and honourable office, and to deprive him of all interference in the management of the institution.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that that was a recommendation of the Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it might be so; nevertheless it was contrary to practice to make these appointments mere honorary offices, and to prevent the head of the Department from interfering in the management. But his main object was to call attention to the circumstance that the noble Duke had not drawn a distinction between two subjects totally different—namely, the Hospital and the arrangements connected with it, and the management of the estates which provided funds for the Hospital. He quite agreed with the noble Duke that the management of the Hospital might be conducted by Commissioners acting under the control of the Admiralty, and removable at a certain period of time; but he could not conceive any arrangement so absolutely destructive of good administration as one by which the agent managing an estate should be removed at the end of five years.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETexplained that the estates had been managed for a great many years by a receiver who had brought them to a high degree of improvement; and he never thought of removing him from office. But no person was immortal, and it might be necessary that another should be appointed. The receiver, however, would have to render his accounts as before at the Commissioners, and they would be audited by the Audit Office.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the explanation of the noble Duke seemed to be that the Commissioners would have the nominal management, but they would have nothing to do with the estates in the hands of the receiver. It appeared to him that the management of the estates should be wholly distinct from the management of the Hospital. Then with regard to the livings, the noble Duke said they had been under the control of the Admiralty for a long period, and that it was desirable that they should so remain. Now he (the Earl of Derby) thought it much better that the
  1232
  advowsons should be sold and the proceeds carried to the credit of the charity.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEthought he was quite right in the course he had taken, but would not divide the House upon his proposition. He would remind the noble Duke that according to the charters of 1775 and 1809, it was provided that the management of the Hospital should be under the control of officers who had lost a limb or had been otherwise disabled in active service. And now the noble Duke was preparing a scheme which was precisely contrary to the intentions of the founders.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn;
  Then the Original Motion was agreed to;
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 12 (Continuation of Office of Governor),
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHconsidered that the office of Governor of Greenwich Hospital should be conferred on the ground of great public services; and he objected to making it an honorary employment. It might be honorary, but it was not honourable to place an old officer in such a, situation, giving him nothing but money and a house furnished, and depriving him of all power. He proposed to leave out the words at the end of the 12th Clause, "and shall not take any active part in the management of the Hospital."
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that if the Governor were to take any active part it would unhinge the whole management, and it was, therefore, thought advisable to appoint an officer in whom the Admiralty had confidence, and who could give them an independent opinion, but without conferring on him a power which would clash with that of the Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that might be avoided if the Government would adopt the suggestion of his noble and gallant Friend, and give the Governor the internal management of the Hospital and that of the estate to the Commissioners.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause was then agreed to without a division.
  Amendment made; the Report thereof to be received on Friday next.

MILITIA.—ADDRESS FOR RETURN.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEmoved an Address for a Return of the Establishment,

1233
Effective Strength, and Numbers present at the Training of Militia regiments in 1860; and a similar return for the present year. What he wished to ascertain was how the regiments had come out this year, numerically speaking, as compared with last year?
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, his noble Friend the Secretary for War, who had been obliged to leave the House owing to other engagements, had commissioned him to say that the Militia had come up during the present year in greater numbers, and had displayed greater efficiency, than was the case last year. Perhaps the noble Viscount would not move the return at the present moment. His noble Friend had ordered a comparative return to be prepared giving the precise information which was desired, and it was a great source of satisfaction to his noble Friend and the Government that this return would show increased numbers and efficiency on the part of the Militia in the present year.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Friday next, half past Ten o'clock.