The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-25 00:00:00

2.11.10,
16

2.14.6
7.4.0

the amendment of Mr. Deedes for limiting the continuance
of the act to three years.

The numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
92
Majority
The preceding amendment was agreed to. ,
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the house rc-
snmed.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
On Clause 1,
Sir G. BOWYER moved the omission of the wcrda
canon laws" in line 13.

The discussion was interrupted, it being 4 o!cicck, atd
the chairman reported progress.
The sitting was then suspended.
The house resumed at 6 o'clock.
NAPLES AND SICILY.

Mr. GRIFFITH asked the Secretary of State for Foreign

Affairs whether information had been received that, to avoid
a civil war, the King of Naples had ordered the whole of
Sicily to be evacuated ? The hon. gentleman also inquired
whether the .noble lord had received any information that
the King of Sardinia had sent an aide-de-camp to General
Garibaldi to request him not to make any attack against the
Neapolitan mainland ?

Lord J. RUSSEL.L--I have received a telegram from her
Majesty's Minister at Naples, saying that the King of Naples
had ordered that Messina and other parts of Sicily, still
occupied by his troops, should be evacuated. With respect
to the hon. gentleman's second question, I have to say that
the Neapolitan Minister, at present in London, informed
me that the Neapolitan Envoy at Turin had had an inter-
view with Count Cavour, and after that interview, the King
of Sardinia sent an aide-de•camp to Sicily with a message
to General Garibaldi. What the purport of the message
was I am not informed.

MAIL PACKETS.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN asked the Secretary to the Treasury,
whether, prior to the granting of any future subsidy to any
contractor for ocean postal service, it is the intention of her
Majesty's Government to demand an undertaking that dis-
tinctions of race or colour should not be made by the ser-
vants of such contractors as regards the treatment of pas-
sengers upon vessels performing such services.
_ _ _

Mr. LAING believed that no principle was more settled
than that any subsidy given for the performance of the pos-
tal service should be confined exclusively to the object of the
conveyance of the mails. With regard to the passenger or
mer.4...=4:.......4......m,...4,0,...._z—ti.- .....,u packets, the Go-
vernment had no more responsibility in connection with it
than in the case of any other class of vessels. He had no
reason to think it likely that the established principle in
this matter would be departed from by any future Govern-
ment.

COASTGUARD SUPERANN UAT lONS.
Mr. WATLINGTON asked the Secretary of the Admi-
ralty whether the case of the civilian chief officers in th.
Coastguard service, appointed prior to the 4th of August,
1829, had been under the consideration of her Majesty's
Government, and whether it was intended to grant any
additional retiring allowance to those officers ?
Lord C. PAGET said the civilian chief officers of the
Coastguard service had superannuations granted to them in
accordance with the Civil Service Superannuation Act. He
believed their grievance was that they were not put upon
the same footing as to pay and superannuation as those
officers belonging to the navy who were liable to be called
to active service at any moment. It was not the intention
of the Admiralty to propose any such additional retiring
allowance as that referred:to in the hon. members's question.,

THE PAPER DUTIES.
Mr. DISRAELI—It was stated that we should be in

formed to-night when the motion for a change in the paper
duties will be brought forward. Perhaps the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, as he is now in his place, can say when
the proposal will be made ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER--In the
absence of my noble friend at the head of the Government,
lam unable to give an answer to the question. I do not
know what are his arrangements as to days, •

Mr. DISRAELI—I trust that we shall hear. Perhaps
the noble lord the member for the city of London may be
acquainted with the arrangements.

Lord J. RUSSELL—I had a communication from my
noble friend this morning, informing me that he meant to,
state the day to-day. He is not now in the hou,,e ; but no
doubt he will fix a day in the course of the evening.
Mr. HORSMAN—Is he coming down ? (A laugh.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—Yes.
NAVAL PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT.
Sir J. PAKINGTON, in rising to move for the appoint-
ment of a Royal commission " to consider the present sys-
tem of promotion and retirement in the Royal navy, and
the present pay and position of the several classes of naval.
officers," said—lt is not in any party spirit but solely ins
the belief that I may thereby improve the position of her
Majesty's naval service that I make this motion. In fat $, the
spirit in which I propose it is very much that of national
defence in which the noble lord the First Minister yesterday
made his very able statement ith reference to fortifications;
because it is certainly an element in our national defence
that the officers of one of our great services should not be
discontented, and should not feel that their country treats
them with anything like injustice. I shall not have to detain
the house at any considerable length, because my proposal
turns very much upon arguments which have been used in
the course of the debates upon the plan of naval retirement
which has been proposed by my noble friend opposite. Thee
first ground upon which I make this motion is that an im-
proved system of promotion and retirement has become ne-
cessary to the welfare of the naval service, and that the
plan lately brought forward by the Admiralty is not satis-
factory. I shall not trouble the house with my own views,
because I am fortified by the authority of my noble friend
opposite himself. The first result of my experience at the
Admiralty was that the service had reached a state of abso-
lute stagnation of promotion which was depressing to the
spirit of officers and injurious to the welfare of the navy.
That has been stated by my noble friend as broadly and as
distinctly as I could state it. I have frequently asserted
that I was convinced the plan of the Board of Admiralty
for promotion and retirement would not be satisfactory to
the service. On Thursday evening, in the last speech which
he made upon this subject, my noble friend expressly stated
that that proposal ought to go further, and that, as it stood,
it could only be considered as a step in what he called the
right direction. It only remains for me to guard the house
against being carried away by the fact that this plan is in-
troduced to it by one who is himself an admiral of high and
just distinction. My noble friend has proposed this plan,
not as an admiral, but as Secretary to the Admiralty. I
think that no one can have heard his statement upon the
subject without clearly seeing ihat in bringing it forward he
was only doing the bidding of the Board of Admiralty with
which he acts, and the only fault which I am disposed to
find with his conduct in this respect is that he consented to
act for the Board of Admiralty in this matter, of which it
is easy to see that his own judgment does not approve. I
think that my noble friend ought to have said to the Board,
" It is true that I am your secretary, but I am also a British
Admiral, and have the feelings of a British sailor, and I
cannot consent to be the medium of proposing to Parliament
a plan which will be regarded by the great majority of the
service as doing them great injustice." I will now ask the
house to consider the position in which .this retirement plan
of the Board of Admiralty stands. It is [true that it has
been proposed by my noble friend opposite, who is himself a
distinguished sailor, but it has been condemned notlonly by
two gallant admirals, who are generally in the habit of op-
posing the policy of her Majesty's Government, but by two
experienced and distinguished admirals, who are in the
habit of supporting that policy, the hon. members for De
venport and Southwark, nor has any man of naval rank or
naval experience, who has taken part in our discussion
supported it. That is the state of feeling within these walls .
What is the feeling out of doors ? I mentioned to the
house on Thursday evening that I had received numbers of

letters from ►officers of all ranks thanking me for my oppo-
sition to this proposal, and entreating me to continuo it.
Since then almost every post has brought me similar let-
ters, and within the last hour I have received three or four.
They come from men who are entirely unknown to me,
from officers of all ranks, and from those who are now serv-
ing on board her Majesty's ships, as well as from those who
have long been retired, and they all lament that my noble.
friend has been led by his official position to propose a plan
which, upon his own showing, is insufficient and unsatis-
factory, and which is condemned by naval officers as doing
them great injustice and treating them with great harsh-
ness. One of the writers states that he was an officer in the
navy before my noble friend opposite was born, but did not
obtain his commission as lieutenant until my noble friend
had been two years in the service. Another informs me
that he had served 19 years as midshipman and mate before
he obtained his lieutenant's commission, but now all that
service was to be disregarded. Surely that was a great and
manifest hardship. 1 think there is also great hardship in
the arrangement as to the coastguard• I cannot approve the
decision of the Government that three years' coastguard
service shall count as one year of sea service. lam not
perhaps prepared to contend that coastguard and sea service
should be put upon the same footing, but I think that the
difference between three years and two would be as. much as
justice requires. One of my correspondents, whose name I
shall be happy to give to the noble lords in private, states
that the circumstances of his case are so peculiar, that under
this new system of retirement, 34 years' service would only
count as seven years and a half. I need not multiply these
proofs that the plan which has been brought forward by the
Government is not only a•lmitted by them to be partial and
incomplete, but is condemned by the naval sere ice. The
Admiralty have not, in my opinion, acted wisely i n pressing
forward such a plan in opposition to the sense o f the pro-
fession and of this house, the only man who has said a word
in its favour, except the noble lord himself, being the right
hon. baronet the member for Portsmouth. I will only refer
to the plan which I framed as the result of my experience
at the Admiralty, to say that I have every reason to believe
that it was acceptable to the naval service, and to submit to
my noble friend and the Government that, as there are
two opposite plans for the settlement of this great and im-
portant question, and as no one can deny that it ought to
be settled upon some grounds of general fairnes s and jus-
tice, and above all, upon some comprehensive pr inciple, so
that we may reasonably expect it to be a permany ent adjust-
Iment of the difficulties of the questiobn;
rethiserns.:
de
taobu.aurdoyanal
reason why the whole subject should ,