- Email: [email protected]
THE ADMIRALTY AND THE REVENUES OF GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
383 Whether it will so exonerate him remains to be power might have been obtained for. the extension of. the of Greenwich Hospital to younger men. proved; we think it will not. We have nothing to do with i benefits The following table shows the number of naval pensioners the questions of fact upon which Mr. Holland is at issue I, for in the estimates 1869-70, and the number of with Dr. Rumsey, who is, as we all know, perfectly well provided them deriving no benefit from the revenues of Greenwich able to take care of himself, and who will possibly have Hospital:something to say about the flagrant errors" into which it is alleged he has fallen. Our sole object in referring to the matter at all was to protest against the introduction, into what ought to be a calmly conducted discussion of a scientific question, of the expressions and tone of personality
tested.
which
observed in Mr. Holland’s paper, but which we do certainly not find pervading Dr. Rumsey’s Birmingham address. Mr. Holland says that Dr. Rumsey’s attack upon the 11 earlier sanitarianswas made at a time when no reply was possible; but we have always understood that Mr. Holland was present at the Birmingham Social Science meeting, and he would have a difficulty in satisfying us that if he had thought it prudent to do so he could not have made his protest at one of the meetings of the Health Section, where Dr. Rumsey would have had an opportunity of immediate reply. Better have done so, than to have brooded over the subj ect so long, and reopened it so violently.-ED. L. we
THE ADMIRALTY AND THE REVENUES OF GREENWICH HOSPITAL. To the Editor
of THE LANCET.
SIR,—Mr. Childers stated in the House of Commons, on, March 5th, that it was his duty to make the appointment of Governor to Greenwich Hospital. Now, the fact is, that it was optional with the Government to appoint to that sinecure office, for the clause in the Greenwich Hospital Act. of 1865 is permissive. With respect to the salary, it may be’borne in mind that the Admiralty procured an Order in Council in February of the present year fixing the amount at £1200 for an admiral and £1000 for a vice-admiral, whichever might be
appointed. The Admiralty can act upon this Order in Council any day, and can draw £1200 from the hospital revenues annually for an officer sine curg," but at present it pleases their lordships to divert from the pensioners only £433 10s., making up the salary, by half-pay-viz., £766 10s. The admiral lately appointed to the office has given up .6300 a year Good Service Pension, which has been already bestowed on another officer ; therefore "no additional charge for pay or half-pay is involved," says Mr. Childers, and "Hear, 11
It is evident that the revenues of the hospital are considered fair game whilst the Estimates are scrupulously guarded. Another statement by Mr. Childers is to the effect that the extra pension has been bestowed on 5412 men, instead of 5000 as originally contemplated—that is to say, that the extra pension has been extended to all seamen and marines that have been for five years on the pension list, if upwards of fifty-five years of age. In this way, .658,407 are bestowed in lieu of £48,000. The Admiralty are evidently taking credit for a simple act of duty done by their predecessors in office in 1868. The Act required what has been done as respects the pensioners, and did not limit the number or age of men to receive extra pensions-that was the will of the Admiralty of 1866. The question is, Whether the residue of the revenues (after the payment of the working expenses of the institution) has been conferred on pensioners ? Mr. Childers seems to aver that the extra pension has been conferred on all entitled to receive it. Possibly there may be error in this statement; but, admitting its accuracy, it may justly be contended that the revenues of the hospital would be "more beneficially applied" by extending the extra pension to naval pensioners that are now excluded from it by the wording of the Order in Council, which only grants Greenwich Hospital pensions to seamen and marines of fifty-five years of age in receipt of, or five years of, ordinary naval pensions. If all these claims were satisfied,
hear," say the members of the House of Commons.
Surely, it would be better to apply the revenues of thehospital to as many seamen and marines as might be possible, than to pay £433 10s. out of the revenues to an officer for doing nothing. Let it not be forgotten, more-
that the £433 10s. may be raised to £1200 whenever it may suit the Admiralty to do so. I now proceed to notice the statements, by Mr. Childers.,. respecting the medical officers and medical pensions of Greenwich Hospital. Mr. Childers does "’not propose toappoint more medical men to Greenwich or any other hospital than are required for the public service, merely in order to give employment and salary." Very proper, Mr. Childers, very proper ! On May 29th, 1865, the Civil Lord (Mr. Childers) said in Parliament: " With respect to the doctors, the Government did not propose to take away any part of their employment." Nevertheless, the office of Inspector-General at Greenwich Hospital was abolished by the’ Liberal Government on Sept. 30th, 1865; and now the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Childers, quondam Civil Lord). states in Parliament what appears above. This is playing fast and loose with the medical profession, and contrasts strongly with what is meted to the combatant class in the appointment of an officer to the hospital, not for employment and salary, but for salary only, which might be continued or compensation exacted, if Greenwich Hospital were closed. With respect to the medical pensions derived-from Greenwich Hospital revenues, it may be necessary to mention that they were granted for the first time in 1866, although combatant officers of the navy had been in receipt of Greenwich Hospital pensions for many years past. The medical pensions consist of one of £80 to a deputy inspectorgeneral, and fourteen of £30 each to staff-surgeons and surgeons. It may be here remarked that commanders (ranking with staff-surgeons) receive =865, this circumstance exhibiting class-favouritism, such as is prevalent in the public services of the country. No pensions are given to inspectors-general, although ten are bestowed on flag officers. Inspectors-general take rank with flag officers, yet they are excluded from Greenwich Hospital pensions. The medical profession is wronged as well in regard to pensions as in the matter of employment in Greenwich Hospital. To sum upthe matter: Mr. Childers has made an unnecessary appointment to a sinecure office; has acted up to the letter, rather than to the spirit, of the Act in reference to the seamen-pensioners; and has broken faith with theover,
medical
profession. I am,
Sir, your obedient servant, FREDERICK JAMES
Rochester, March 9th,
THE
BROWN, M.D.
1869.
DRY-EARTH To the Editor
of
SYSTEM.
THE LANCET.
SIR,—With all respect for so high an authority as Dr. Rolleston, I beg permission to offer to your readers the following reIlli1rks on his article, in this week’s LANCET, on "the Earth-Closet System.,,That letter, grounded on an of the system, grievously misrefor it either denies or it ignores merit and an presents it, which the , efficacy experience of several years (and that for
inadequate conception
tested.
which
observed in Mr. Holland’s paper, but which we do certainly not find pervading Dr. Rumsey’s Birmingham address. Mr. Holland says that Dr. Rumsey’s attack upon the 11 earlier sanitarianswas made at a time when no reply was possible; but we have always understood that Mr. Holland was present at the Birmingham Social Science meeting, and he would have a difficulty in satisfying us that if he had thought it prudent to do so he could not have made his protest at one of the meetings of the Health Section, where Dr. Rumsey would have had an opportunity of immediate reply. Better have done so, than to have brooded over the subj ect so long, and reopened it so violently.-ED. L. we
THE ADMIRALTY AND THE REVENUES OF GREENWICH HOSPITAL. To the Editor
of THE LANCET.
SIR,—Mr. Childers stated in the House of Commons, on, March 5th, that it was his duty to make the appointment of Governor to Greenwich Hospital. Now, the fact is, that it was optional with the Government to appoint to that sinecure office, for the clause in the Greenwich Hospital Act. of 1865 is permissive. With respect to the salary, it may be’borne in mind that the Admiralty procured an Order in Council in February of the present year fixing the amount at £1200 for an admiral and £1000 for a vice-admiral, whichever might be
appointed. The Admiralty can act upon this Order in Council any day, and can draw £1200 from the hospital revenues annually for an officer sine curg," but at present it pleases their lordships to divert from the pensioners only £433 10s., making up the salary, by half-pay-viz., £766 10s. The admiral lately appointed to the office has given up .6300 a year Good Service Pension, which has been already bestowed on another officer ; therefore "no additional charge for pay or half-pay is involved," says Mr. Childers, and "Hear, 11
It is evident that the revenues of the hospital are considered fair game whilst the Estimates are scrupulously guarded. Another statement by Mr. Childers is to the effect that the extra pension has been bestowed on 5412 men, instead of 5000 as originally contemplated—that is to say, that the extra pension has been extended to all seamen and marines that have been for five years on the pension list, if upwards of fifty-five years of age. In this way, .658,407 are bestowed in lieu of £48,000. The Admiralty are evidently taking credit for a simple act of duty done by their predecessors in office in 1868. The Act required what has been done as respects the pensioners, and did not limit the number or age of men to receive extra pensions-that was the will of the Admiralty of 1866. The question is, Whether the residue of the revenues (after the payment of the working expenses of the institution) has been conferred on pensioners ? Mr. Childers seems to aver that the extra pension has been conferred on all entitled to receive it. Possibly there may be error in this statement; but, admitting its accuracy, it may justly be contended that the revenues of the hospital would be "more beneficially applied" by extending the extra pension to naval pensioners that are now excluded from it by the wording of the Order in Council, which only grants Greenwich Hospital pensions to seamen and marines of fifty-five years of age in receipt of, or five years of, ordinary naval pensions. If all these claims were satisfied,
hear," say the members of the House of Commons.
Surely, it would be better to apply the revenues of thehospital to as many seamen and marines as might be possible, than to pay £433 10s. out of the revenues to an officer for doing nothing. Let it not be forgotten, more-
that the £433 10s. may be raised to £1200 whenever it may suit the Admiralty to do so. I now proceed to notice the statements, by Mr. Childers.,. respecting the medical officers and medical pensions of Greenwich Hospital. Mr. Childers does "’not propose toappoint more medical men to Greenwich or any other hospital than are required for the public service, merely in order to give employment and salary." Very proper, Mr. Childers, very proper ! On May 29th, 1865, the Civil Lord (Mr. Childers) said in Parliament: " With respect to the doctors, the Government did not propose to take away any part of their employment." Nevertheless, the office of Inspector-General at Greenwich Hospital was abolished by the’ Liberal Government on Sept. 30th, 1865; and now the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Childers, quondam Civil Lord). states in Parliament what appears above. This is playing fast and loose with the medical profession, and contrasts strongly with what is meted to the combatant class in the appointment of an officer to the hospital, not for employment and salary, but for salary only, which might be continued or compensation exacted, if Greenwich Hospital were closed. With respect to the medical pensions derived-from Greenwich Hospital revenues, it may be necessary to mention that they were granted for the first time in 1866, although combatant officers of the navy had been in receipt of Greenwich Hospital pensions for many years past. The medical pensions consist of one of £80 to a deputy inspectorgeneral, and fourteen of £30 each to staff-surgeons and surgeons. It may be here remarked that commanders (ranking with staff-surgeons) receive =865, this circumstance exhibiting class-favouritism, such as is prevalent in the public services of the country. No pensions are given to inspectors-general, although ten are bestowed on flag officers. Inspectors-general take rank with flag officers, yet they are excluded from Greenwich Hospital pensions. The medical profession is wronged as well in regard to pensions as in the matter of employment in Greenwich Hospital. To sum upthe matter: Mr. Childers has made an unnecessary appointment to a sinecure office; has acted up to the letter, rather than to the spirit, of the Act in reference to the seamen-pensioners; and has broken faith with theover,
medical
profession. I am,
Sir, your obedient servant, FREDERICK JAMES
Rochester, March 9th,
THE
BROWN, M.D.
1869.
DRY-EARTH To the Editor
of
SYSTEM.
THE LANCET.
SIR,—With all respect for so high an authority as Dr. Rolleston, I beg permission to offer to your readers the following reIlli1rks on his article, in this week’s LANCET, on "the Earth-Closet System.,,That letter, grounded on an of the system, grievously misrefor it either denies or it ignores merit and an presents it, which the , efficacy experience of several years (and that for
inadequate conception