VISCOUNT ENFIELD (Lord STRAFFORD)wished to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether any steps will be taken to carry out any of the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1871 with respect to the management of the revenues and the constitution of the Royal Hospital of St. Katherine, near the Tower, but now situate in the Regent's Park? The noble Lord said, that in the year 1871 a Royal Commission, comprising the names of Lord Hatherley, Mr. Spencer Walpole, M.P., and Sir Travers Twiss, made an elaborate Report upon this subject, together with certain recommendations, 22 in number; but he believed that no action had as yet been taken in the matter. The present moment was not an inopportune one for moving in this question—first, because the post of Master of the Hospital, vacant through the death of Mr. Ashley nearly a year ago, had not yet been filled up; and secondly, because just now a stir was being made with a view to procure a suffragan Bishop for the East End of London; and this Hospital, being in part an ecclesiastical foundation, some of its funds might, with propriety, be diverted towards providing a stipend for this auxiliary Bishopric in the East and North of London. He might remind their Lordships that the Hospital and its revenues originally belonged to the Eastern part of this Metropolis, and that about the year 1825, the St. Katherine's Dock Company, under the powers of their Act of Parliament, took possession of the site of the Hospital near the Tower, and the church and other buildings of the Hospital were removed to their present site in the Regent's Park. With respect to its revenues, he could only quote with any accuracy the receipts for five years between 1864 and 1868 inclusive. They were—in 1864, 1383 £9,144 5s. 1½d.; in 1865, £9,74610s. 8½d. in 1866, £6,834 4s. 11½d.; in 1867, £6,528 16s. 5d.; in 1868, £6,212 14s. 2d. In reference to the expenditure during those years, the Report of the Royal Commissioners said that it nearly balanced the receipts. It was stated on the authority of such experienced officials as the Messrs. Clutton, that by an improved system of management these receipts might be very materially increased. He would not go into the details of the scheme advocated by the Commissioners of 1871; but as some time had now elapsed since that Report, and as the claims of London for additional ecclesiastical, educational, and charitable assistance were annually increasing, he ventured to ask those in authority, Whether, in their opinion, the funds of this ancient foundation, originally established in the year 1148, and rejoicing in the patronage of Queen Matilda, Queen Eleanor, Queen Philippa, and Queen Katherine, might not, under the beneficent rule of Queen Victoria, contribute more than it had hitherto done towards the promotion of sound education and true religion within the area of the Metropolis.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that in pursuance of precedent, and following the example of what had been done in reference to the Reports of other Royal Commissions, Her Majesty had signified to the Lord Chancellor her desire that rules for the better management of the institution referred to by the noble Viscount should be prepared. Those rules were in the course of preparation, and in drawing them up the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners would be duly considered.
EARL NELSONexpressed surprise that neither the noble Lord who asked the Question, or his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, had made any reference to the action of the House of Lords in this matter in July, 1871. The House then sent an Address to Her Majesty, praying that, in any scheme founded, on the Report, due attention might be paid to the spiritual and educational necessities of the parishes adjacent to the new precincts. Her Majesty was graciously pleased to accede to this prayer, and he (Earl Nelson) sincerely hoped the Lord Chancellor would not forget such claims in drawing up the proposed rules. If the hospital was removed to the East of London, the money and influence of the inmates would be 1384 of great good, even if the constitution of the body was very little altered; and the old traditions would lead many to work among the sick, and to attend to their spiritual necessities. The 29th clause of the Report distinctly ignored these local claims, and the House, after debate, deliberately resolved in their favour.
§ LORD HATHERLEYsaid, the Hospital was founded in the 12th century, and its patronage was remarkable, being vested in the Queen Consort for the time being, and if there was no Queen Consort, then in the Crown; the revenues of the foundation had largely increased, and he thought should be made more useful for public purposes than hitherto. In considering the Report of the Royal Commissioners, due weight would be given to the points suggested by the noble Lord.