The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-02 00:00:00

APPOINTMENTS.

Lieutenants.—Spencer H. Pichard, from the Imps-
riense, to the Odin ; T. M. Campbell, from the Archer,
to the Euryalus ; Allan Bathurst, from the Euryalus,
to the Archer.
Surgeon W. F. Noott, from the Neptune, to the
Hecate.
Mate Alexander Henderson to the Neptune.
Assistant• Surgeon Andrew M'Munn to the Plymouth
Hospital.
Second Master E. P. Cox to the Neptune.
Master's Assistant H. L. Kelly to the Pylades.
Midshipmen.—G. F. H. Parker to the Duke of Wel-
lington ; H. Packe to the Orion.A.
Naval Cadet R. G. Baker to the Majestic, 80.
The following gentlemen cadets of the practical class,
studying at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich,
were on Wednesday commissioned as officers of the
Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers :
To the Royal Engineer.,.—William A. Frankland, W.
S. Boileau, Alexander Dirom, Walter M. T. Campbell,
Douglas G. W. Moncrie', Morgan C. Molesworth, Rd.
B. Rimington, Percy G. L. Smith, and E. Daniel.
To the Royal Artillery.—Henry D. Pitt, Hale Yonng
Wortham, H. B. 11.1aule' Charlei W. Walrond, William
S. Smith Neil, Henry Le Q. Geary, Wa,'tcr B. Rice, G.
U. Knox, W. N. Persse, 0./H. Goodenough, James H.
P. Anderson, Joseph N. P. Dadson, H. C. Farrell, E.
111‘Laughlin, C. F. Robert', A. S. Hunter, Graham R.
J. Stevenson, and G. A. Crawford.

THE OFFICERS AND CREW OF THE TIGER.
The Court-martial on the officers and crew of the
Tiger will not take place until the arrival of the Tra
falgar, 120 (now hourly expected). •

THE TRANSPORT SERVICE.
The General Screw Steam Navigation Company's
transport Calcutta, No. 195, Ettained into Portsmouth
harbour yesterday morning, and ranged up alongside the
Camperdown, 1.04, until this morning, when she will
drop alongside the dockyard jetty, and commence
altering her fittings for the reception of the Ist Royal
L Lancashire Militia, who will not embark yet this week

( From the Times of this day.)
This evening was fixed for the consideration of the
new measure devised for the re-arrangement of the news-
paper postage and stamp duties, and we are sure we
may readily bespeak the attention of our readers, even
at a conjuncture like the present, to a subject so in-
timately concerning both ourselves and them. It has
been proposed to revise entirely the enactments regu-
lating the obligations and claims of newspapers, and
what we assert is, that the legislation recently projected
is fraught with the most glaring absurdities in principle,
with great detriment to the interests of the public, and
with the grossest injustice to this particular journal.
Heretofore it has been compulsory on all newspapers
to carry an impressed stamp, and in return they were
carried to and fro by the Post-office free of charge, with•
out reference to their weight. Of this system we will
only say that it had produced, or at any rate had not
impeded, the production of what, by universal consent,
was the best, the freest, and the most influential press
in the world—a press conducted with greater enterprise,
greater talent, greater respectability, greater success,
and greater independence than had been ever witnessed
in any other country at any time. This system, how-
ever, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had been in.
ducial, In deference to the importunities of a small, bul
clamorous knot of agitators, to discard in favour o
an *nether, by which the stamp duty was to be entirely
removed. . As far as concerns the operation of an un-
stamped press, we are perfectly content to leave the
question te experiment, nor can we, indeed, profess the
smallest apprehension of any honest competition, or any
desire of legislative protection. What we complain of
is, that in the readjustment of the postal duties, conse-
quent on this change of system, the obvious dictates of
equity and common sense have been disregarded together,
and the just claims of the Times and its subscribers set
at nought. That we 9re not remonstrating without good
reason the reader may very easily be convinced.
When it was proposed to remove the stamp duty
from newspapers the equivalent in the shape of free
postage ceased also, and a question was then immediately
created de novo as to the terms on which periodical publi-
cations should pass through the post. Naturally, a special
tariff was required in this respect. The distinction be-
tween printed matter and private correspondence was
already recognised in practice by provisions favourable
to the former ; and it was, of course, self-evident that
the chief demasris on the Post-office would be made by
the subscribers to the daily press. All this was so ob-
vious that measures were devised accordingly, -and a
new unit of -weight was selected to be covered in these
cases by the penny stamp. But what was this unit ?
Why, nothing more nor less than one whiCh would ex-
clude from the Post-office two-thirds of those very com-
modities for the carriage of which provision was pro-
fessed to be made. The penny stamp was to carry four
ounces, whereas of the 90,000 newspapers which are put
into circulation every day from the metropolitan press,
60,000, or thereabouts, are above that weight, so that
two-thirds of all newspaper readers would be robbed of
the accommodation hitherto provided by the Post-office.
It happens that the 60,000 copies is question all belong
to a particular journal—viz., the Times, but that,
though it concentrates the injustice of the enactment
upon ourselves, does not in the least degree affect the
question as one of principle. We are entitled to ask, and
we'do ask, on what assumption this particular unit of
four ounces was selected rather than three ounces or
two ounces, or any other weight I It is obvious that
the issues of the daily press must have been kept in
view during the concoction. of this precious measure ;
but why was a standard taken which, out of every three
newspapers brought to the letterbox, would exclude two,
and admit but ene I What would have been thought of
the original penny postage scheme if the weight to be
covered by the penny stamp had been so determined as
inevitably to shut out from the pest two letters out of
erery three 1 To put the outrageous injustice of the
proposed measure in a still more forcible light, let us
suppose that the daily circulation of the metropolitan
press--viz., some 90,000 copies, was distributed among
nine different journals, each circulating 10,000 each.
Now, what would the public or the House of Commons
say. to a proposal which, while professing to be a
measure of relief for the encouragement of this class of
publications, should debar from the use of postal
accommodation six journals out of the nine ? Yet
the case is precisely the same as it now stands ; the
same proportion if newspapers would be excluded
from the Rest, and the same number of readers ex-
posed to injury, the difference being merely this—that
whereas, on the former hypothesis, the injustice would
be shared by six journals alike, it is now concentrated
upon the head of the Times. In fact, the unfairness of
the measure stands confessed in a clause which proposes
to exempt net from damage by special provision for the
space of ten years.
It surelj r ought to be clear to every understanding
that in a regulation for securing :newspapers and their
subscribers the advantages of the national Post-office the
standard of admissible weight should be determined by
the largest of these publications, even if this example
did not, as in the case before us, represent two-thirds of
the entire arculation afloat. Such a plan would insure
all alike against harm, as every smaller journal could
follow in the wake of the greater with perfect facility
until it grew to the same size. A great philosopher has
been exposed to everlasting ridicule, because, as the
story goes, he cut a small hole in his study door to
admit a kitten, by the side of a large one which had
served as a passage for his cat. But our legislators were
far more foolish. in their designs, for they cut a hole far
the kittens only, and left the cat shut out altogether.
There was ne glimmering of reason or justice in Mr.
Gladstone a proposal, for the four ounce standard re.
presented neither the largest nor the smallest of the
daily pLiiiers. While the Times weighs more than four
ounce/3 the Standard and others weigh less, and to
meine.ure out our allowance of weight by that of the
211 orating Herald is just as unjust as it would have been
to prescribe to the Morning Herald the dimensions of
tit e Globe or The Sun.
'Are think these plain and incontestable arguments
pi t ive beyond all question that if a maximum of weight
is . to be fixed it should be determined by that of the
lap gest existing newspaper which is to come under the
opi !ration of the act—in other words, that the standard
sh luld be six ounces, instead of four ounces. We are
pi spared, however, to go further, and to maintain, i:_
ths , interests of the public, that the mere element
.f
we ight should not enter into consideration at
all.
If there is any difficulty in precisely. defining what
is " news," there calk be
none is Periodicallyoti
vacther or not any publication
reiraiicaifniin
i. emu id at such short dateso—sauldygle inittetrhvealse sos
ef nnt
ioatl
le es than seven days,
suchpepaunbyl, with obvious
bent tilt to the public, and
ications
chat re toter of a newspaper,s"
1 awndi' 0
hay, s the run of the Post-office
id without entailing either loss or
inom tv enience- on the !Establishment. For that matter,
indeed, the Post-office is made for the public, and not the
pew, -1 for the Post-office ; but, if it is simply provided
that a/It . publieoation to enjoy. thin advantage should con-
, .