The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-20 00:00:00

"{I•
of the model lodging-houses, and other questions that re-
quired an act of Parliament.

Sir M. SEYMOUR said the report had failed to take
care that the suggesti.ns should be in accordance with the
real objects for which the hospital was founded. There
were grounds therefore for considering and reconsidering
the report brought before the house. He approved of the
objects of the gallant admiral, and had great pleasure in
giving them his cordial support.

Mr. BRISCOE could not refrain from offering his
humble tribute of thanks to the gallant admiral and to the
commissioners who had prepared the report. It was cha-
racterised by great ability and singleness of purpose, and
it should be read and studied by every member of that
house and every man out of it in the very critical times
in which they were now living. The commissioners
said nothing of the great misapplication of the funds, and
to which the serious attention of the house should be di-
rected. The assertion of the noble lord was that it would
require an act of Parliament to carry out the recommenda-
tions of the commissioners, but the intention of the motion
was not that they should do so at once, but honestly and
fairly do so hereafter. The revenue of the hospital was
£156,000 a-, ear, and as there was an actual surplus of
£28,000 a-year, there could be no difficulty in improving
the condition of the pensioners. He should most cordially
give the motion his support, and trusted the house would
affirm it.

Lord J. RUSSELL observed that the report of the com-
mission was the act of the Board of Admiralty, for they
appointed the commissioners, and it was their intention to
consider it with a view of carrying its recommendations
into effect. It was not intended that all the details of that
report should be carried out, nor did the house require it,
and he could therefore see no objection which could be
urged against the course taken by the Admiralty. His
noble friend the Secretary for the Admiralty stated that an
act of Parliament was necessary, and if, as had been urged
by his hon. friend who had just sat down, it was not re-

quired, then the law officers of the Crown must be con-
sulted, and their opinion taken, Another objection to the
adoption of the report of the commissioners was, that a
considerable grant of money would be required to carry out
their recommendations, and he did not think the House of
Commons would be disposed to vote it at that period of the
yesr. His noble friend said he had only just recieived the
report ; that he would consider it ; and under th6se circum-
stances he did not think it would be wise in them to say by
their vote that all the recommendations of the commis-
sioners were to be carried into effect. His noble friend was
perfect reasonable, and he hoped his suggestions would be
adopted and carried into effect.
Alderman SALOMONS thought the proposition of his
noble friend a very fair one, because, of course, it would be
impossible to adopt all the recommendations of the
commissioners. There were, however, some things in the
hospital which required some amendments, such, for ex-
ample, as compelling petty officers to mess with common
sailors. Then, again, sailors and marines were classed to-
gether, which was felt to be a great grievance, and there
was great difficulty thrown in the way of persons who en-
deavoured to obtain an admission. He hoped, however, his
hon. and gallant friend would not divide the house, but that
he would be content with the assurance given by the noble
lord the Secretary for the Admiralty.
Sir J. PAKINGTON hoped the hon. and gallant officer
would not divide en his motion, though he admitted the
condition of the hospital was anything but satisfactory. He
thought, however, the assurance given by the noble lord
ought to be considered as satisfactory. He promised that
the report would be taken into consideration, and that in
the course of the next session means would be taken to
effect the desired improvements. He hoped they would
also consider the question of pensions, and the condition of
the wives, many of whom were obliged to go into the work-
houses. Now, that was a disgraceful state of things, and
should not be tolerated any longer.
Mr. LINDSAY hoped his hon. and gallant friend would
not press his motion to a division, especially as it pledged
the Government to all the details of the report made by the

commissioners.
Mr. HEN LEY thought the report disclosed a most ex-
traordinary state of things which required instant remedy.
He would, however, be sorry to give any vote which would
pledge the Government to carry out all the details of the
report, but there was no doubt that the funds were misap-
plied, and that tke expense of management was greater than
it should be. It was, in point of fact, out of all proportion,
and great injustice was done the poor seamen in the way in
whin things were conducted in that establishment. He
thought, however, it was better at present to leave the
matter in the hands of the Government, and upon them be
the responsibility.
Lord PALMERSTON said the right hon. gentleman
who had just addressed the house expressed really good
sense on the matter, and therefore ha thought the house
ought now to go into committee. The case was not one of
the kind described by the gallant admiral, and he thought
it was not one in which the house would interpose be-
tween the Government and the responsibility which rested
upon them.
Lord LOVAINE quite agreed in -what had fallen from
the noble lord. His object in rising in reference to the sug-
gestions of the gallant admiral was, that the pensions to be
given to sailors should be considered pani passe with those
to be given to soldiers in the army.
Admiral DUNCOM BE considered the motion of the hon.
and gallant admiral was one of great importance, but he
nevertheless thought it desirable for him not to press it on
the present occasion. With regard to the model lodging-
houses, he hoped the Admiralty would carry them out upon
a judicious principle, and if the experiment were to be fur-
ther carried out, it would be in a limited manner and at a
limited expense.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER, after a few words from Sir
James Elphinstone, consented to withdraw his motion, and
subsequently a modified motion, which he was permitted by
the house to submit as a substituted motion, was negatived
without a division.

SUPPLY.
The house then wont into committee of supply.
RETIREMENT OF NAVAL OFFICERS.

On the motion tha a sum of money should be granted
to her Majesty to enable Lord Clarence Paget to carry out
his proposed scheme for the retirement of naval officers,
• Sir CHARLES NAPIER took exception to the scheme
of the noble lord. The retired list since the time of Sir
Francis Baring had been very much increased. In the first
place the list of admirals had been increased upwards of 00.
The hon. and gallant member, after entering into some of
the details of the plan, said that it seemed to him to be
wholly uncalled for. The last plan of retirement, so far,
was working very well for the public service. If ever
they again arrived at a point when they could not get an
admiral under GO years of age, it would be quite proper to
devise some new scheme of retirement, but under the pre-
sent plan they could get plenty of admirals under 40 years
of age, and he saw no necessity whatever for any new
scheme. There was this additional reason why the
scheme should not be persisted in. The whole of the naval
profession was totally and entirely dissatisfied with the
plan, and he felt it to be his duty to give it his most stre-
nuous opposition.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE said he opposed this new plan
of retirement on three grounds. First, he objected to cut-
tin; off the time served as mates. He could not understand
why the time served in that capacity should not count in
reckoning the time of an officer's service. It was equiva-
lent to cutting off the time served as second-lieutenants
and adjutants in the army, and he asked if such a proposi-
tion were made whether it would not be immediately
scouted. (Hear.) He had received many letters from
commanders and captains in the navy, pointing out the
injustice which the plan would lead to if it were adopted in
this respect. In the second place he objected to cutting off
the time served in the coast •guard. No dicer in that
branch of the service ought to have his time cut off. It
was the most irksome, and in many cases the most dan-
gerous to which an officer could be attached. At a time
when there was no fighting abroad, many of our officers
choose service at what were called the " fighting stations"
of the coast-guard, such as Hastings, and at these sta-
tions skirmishes frequently occurred equal to little battles,
in which officers received severe wounds. Besides, in all
cases they were liable to fall down pits and subject to nu-
merous other casualties, and he must, therefore, oppose a
plan which took no account of the time thus spent. His
third objection was with regard to the officers on the re
served•list, who had a bargain with the Admiralty for their
succcession to appointments:according to their length of ser-
vice, and the mode in which they were dealt with in the

estimates was a complete breach of that bargain. He had
received letters from officers thus affected by the new regu •
lation, complaining in strong terms of the treatment to
which they were subjected, though the Admiralty had
always considered them to be on the active list. The Ad •
miralty had, nevertheless, reduced some of those officers to
the rank of commander, and refused them the increase of
pay to which they were entitled under a solemn bargain,
besides forbidding theta from accepting any civil em-
ployment. Several of these officers had served at Tra•
falgar and the Nile, yet, while the Admiralty squandered
millions of money in waste every year, they withheld from
those deserving men the pittance to which they were en-
titled, and which for the whole list would not exceed £5 a
day. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Droitwich, that the subject ought to be referred to
a select committee. At present a great amount of dis-
content existed among officers of the service, who felt that
they were improperly dealt with, and unless the matter
were promptly considered, it must seriously interfere with
discipline.
Sir M. SEYMOUR said he thought the treatment to
which those officers were subjected was of so arbitrary a
character as to be positively unjust. He could not see why
the Admiralty should bring forward a plan which openly
ignored length of service, in opposition to the previous set •
tlement of the question under the authority of a royal com-
mission. He hoped the noblelord would not press his plan
on the house,
Sir 3. PAKINGTON thought the discussion showed
that the plan of the Government was not agreeable to any
side of the house. The letters he had received showed that
the plan was unworthy of the Admiralty; the house
not sanction it ; then why did the Government persevere
in promoting it ? (Hear, hear.) The proposal did not an-
swer any of the conditions named by the Government, lie it