The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-04 00:00:00

SUET,

LO N DO N,

no way composed of the representatives of the large
centres of industry and intelligence. On the con-
trary, there were numbered among the minority such
important localities as Glasgow, Manchester, Bir-

mingham, Westminster, Southwark, Marylebone,
Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Finsbury, Newcastle,
Hull, Oxford, Derby, York, Stockport, Worcester,
Sheffield, Canterbury, Aberdeen, Montrose, Bath,
Dundee, Preston, Greenwich, and Edinburgh. Be-
sides this, upon the same question the city of London
was divided, Leeds was divided, Bristol was divided,

and there were also divided the two great counties—
the one vast and the other populous—of York and
Middlesex. Speaking himself as Member for the
West Riding, the largest of all the constituencies of
the United Kingdom, Mr. COBDEN candidly and sig-
nificantly remarked that there was only one subject
upon which he would more confidently ap-
peal to the electors than upon the question
of the Militia Bill, and that subject was
the question of free trade or of protection.
When it is remembered, moreover, in addition to
these somewhat suggestive particulars, that upwards
of eight hundred petitions had been laid upon the
table of the House against the obnoxious measure
introduced by her MAJESTY'S Government, it must
be allowed that upon its demerits rather than upon
its merits the opinions of the people appear to pre-
ponderate.

To a considerable extent nothing could well be
more reasonable than the suggestion now made by
Mr. COBDEN, that the national defences should
be secured by the concentration of that mari-
time power which has hitherto been un-
necessarily scattered over our widely-distributed
dominions. As upwards of a month since we our-
selves had reminded the country, so yesterday even-
ing the Member for the West Riding reminded the
House of Commons, that within the seventeen years
last past the naval expenses of England have heen
increased by no less than 2,000,0001., the estimate
for that department of the public service being in
1835, 4,500,000/., whereas in 1852 they have
attained an aggregate of about 6,500,0001. Now, of
this increase in our maritime expenditure we are not
by any means disposed to complain. Mr. COBDEN
is, of course, as a member of the Peace Society,
and as a wholesale, and we cannot but think likewise
in this matter, an undiscriminating advocate for a
reduction in our expenditure. Upon this point,
therefore, we are compelled to differ toto ccelo
from the • Honourable Representative, regarding
his judgment, as bewitched by the foci-
nating: dreams of Arbitration. But, on the
other hand, we coincide with him to the full
and most cordially when (directing the attention of
the House to this increase since 1835 of 2,000,0001.)
he demands a more rational employment of this
munificence than has certainly been, heretofore, any-
where perceptible. Descending from the considera-
tion of abstract principles to particulars, Mr. COBDEN
insists upen the advisability of diminishing the
number of our foreign stations, or, at any rate, of
diminishing the number of the vessels on those
foreign stations. Our foreign stations, remember,
are seven altogether, namely —tha East Indies and
China, where there are nineteen cf her Maeaser's
ships in commission ; the West Indies and North
America, where there are thirteen ; the Cape of Good
Hope, where there are nine ; the west coast of
Africa, where there are twenty-two; the south-east
coast of America, where there are eight ; the west
coast of America, where there are nine; and the
Mediterranean, where there are nineteen. A
force such as this squandered over so many
seas widely separated from each other, and,
in two or three instances, indisputably super-
fluous, might surely, as Mr. COBDEN suggests, be
more judiciously employed for the advantage of the
empire by a wiser distribution. It is, of course, as
undeniable as it is satisfactory, that the statements
made by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ork-
ney and Shetland prove beyond all question the ac-
tual as well as the numerical superiority of the mari-
time steam power of England when compared with
the maritime steam power of France. Testimonies
as to the extent of this superiority are easily given—
statistical testimonies, showing that whereas the
Royal Navy of England, in 1848, had 174 steam-
vessels of all classes, with an aggregate of 44,480
horse-power, the Republican Navy of France, in 1849,
consisted merely of 78 steam-vessels of all classes,
giving an aggregate of 17.740 horse-power : while
the contrast presented by the commercial steam-
power of the two countries yields a result no less won-
derfully in our favour—the commercial steam• shipping
of France being estimated, in 1849, at 3,000 horse-
power, with an aggregate of 10,000 tons, whereas
that of the United Kingdom reached the extraordi-
nary tonnage of 300,000, with actually upwards of
100,000 horse-power. Thanks to the researches of
Mr. ANDERSON, facts like these have been placed be-
yound the reach of contradiction. Yet a knowledge of
our sy stem of maritime administration must force upon
us at the same time the conviction that the superiority
thus revealed in figures is by no means so remarkable
in reality—by reason of our energies being superflu-
ously scattered abroad over the whole of the vast
superficies of our dominions. Better, therefore,
say we, than a hundred Militia Bills, one vigorous
and well-considered measure for the husbanding of
our naval strength 1 Better a standing navy, than a
thousand rifle corps! Better a re-organization of the
marine artillery, than the drilling of a dozen batta-
lions of shopkeepers skilled in the use of the minis
bullet, or of COLT'S revolver, or of that yet more
celebrated weapon—the formidable zundnadelgewehr.

It has long been notorious that the principal diffi-
culties interposed in the way of obtaining large and
comprehensive measures of legal reform were occa-
sioned by the numerous parties having what were
termed vested interests in the abuses complained of.
Nothing, however _absurd or unreasonable, could be
attacked, that persons of various ranks, and receiving
different degrees of emolument, were not forthcoming
to declare that they obtained their livings therefrom,
that they had accepted their respective offices on the
faith that they would be permitted to retain the
same for life, or, at least, during good beha-
viour, and that any change in the system,
even though beneficial to the community, would be
absolutely ruinous to themselves. These parties had,
in many instances, sufficient influence to obstruct and
impede the progress of any measure that might be
brought under the legislative consideration, and
ultimately to have it rejected unless they obtained,
under the name of compensation, higher sums for
doing nothing than they would have received for
their labour under the moat favourable circumstances.

These evils arose, in a great degree, from the
infamous " fee system," which, as we have repeatedly
stated, "converted what should be the• temple of
justice into dens of thieves." In place of having
the officers of the court, who were occupied, or sup-
posed to be occupied, in the public service, paid ac-
cording to the amount of trouble, and the ability
required for transacting the business of their situa-
tions, they were allowed to take fees from the suitors,
which were levied under the most frivolous and ridi-
culous pretexts; useless forms were multiplied, not
for any benefit that could possibly arise to the parties
to the suit, or to the administration of public justice,
but merely that additional emolument might flow
into the pockets of the sleek and overpaid
officials. Thus the chief abuses that have crept
into the Court of Chancery, the enormous ex-
penses end vexatious delays, are mainly ascribable to
the system that caused the subordinates to be paid
by fees in place of by fixed payrnents_a system
that could never be satisfactory ; for if the fees
amounted to less than the services were worth, corn-
plaints would be speedily preferred, and the matter
rgeucatdifiruedp:e bat
what the
on
partythe
oughthand, t e
receive,
they
they were
pocketed quietly, and nothing was heard on the
subject until some searching investigation was insti-
tuted, and the truth, or something approximating to
the truth, was with difficulty elicited from reluctant
witnesses.

If any person should doubt the extent to which the
grievance 131 s reached, we would invite his attention
to the reports of the Select Committee of the House
of Commons on the subject of fees, and to the speech
of Sir W. PAGE Woon when introducing the first
Bill for the relief of the suitors of the Court of Chan-
cery, at the commencement of the present session.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman clearly and dis-
tinctly established the proposition " that it is not
right to tax suitors with the maintenance of the Court