The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-22 00:00:00

in 164.1." He thought that, as they were made by order of
Parliament, they should be in the library of the House.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought it his duty to
oppose the motion in the last Session of Parliament, and he
saw no reason to support it in the present. It was a survey of
Church lands made in the time of the Conqueror, and it was
cont;ined in forty folio volumes. Ile doubted, first, the right
of the House to demand that surve::, and he, secondly, thought
the expense of printing it would be enormous. For these rea-
sons he could not agree with the motion.
An Hos. MEMBER (name unknown) said that all the neces-
sary information on the subject of the survey of Church lands
was to be found in the works of the Record Commission.
Mr. HUME said the documents were Parliamentary, made
by order of Parliament, and to Parliament therefore they be-
longed. Moreover, he thought that the House should call on
the Archbishop of Canterbury to explain how they came into
his possession.—( A laugh.) His (Mr. Hume's) object was
to have the originals brought to the library of the House.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the Hon. Member's
object in that case was foreign to the terms of his motion.
Mr. HUME would change his motion so as to meet the
Hon, and Learned Gentleman's objection. He would move
that the words " original documents" be substituted for
" copies."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hoped the Hon. Member
was not serious. He was not aware that the House of Com-
mons had the power to order such a transference. The case
was wholly unexampled, and without precedent.
Mr. HUME said that as there seemed a difficulty in the
way, he should leave it to his Hon. Friend the Member for
Finsbury to mect.---( Laughter ) In his opinion the only way
was to appoint a Committee of Inquiry, to ascertain how the
Archbishop got them.—( Laughter.) Under these circum-
stances he should postpone the further consideration of the
subject until the second Monday after the recess.
MEN-OF-WAR.
Mr. HUME moved for a return of the number of men-of-
war that have been lost at sea since 1820, with the names of
the Commanders or Captains, the dates when these Command-
ing Officers entered the naval service, the number of years
they served as Midshipmen, Lieutenants, and Commanders,
their age at the time of promotion as Lieutenants, Command-
ers, and Captains ; also the expense incurred in repairing the
vessels run on shore, and the value of those lost at sea. His
object was to prove that the practice which existed at the Ad-
miralty of promoting young officers and passing over the se-
niors was the cause of the enormous losses of ships and men
which took place since that period.
Admiral ADAM thought it would be extremely repro-
het. cible to lay such returns before the House. When any
acciewnt occurred to one of his Majesty's ships the officer in
commakid was always tried and punished if neglect of duty
was proved against him. Latterly these matters had been
generally investigated by Courts Martial. He would put it
/o the House whether, under such circumstances, it would be
reasonable to re-open these matters, which would be the effect
of the Hon. Member's motion, and bring the cases of officers
once tried again before the country ? The House of Com-
mons was not a proper tribunal to investigate the subject. It
was entirely in the province of the Executive. If the Exe-
cutive did not do their duty then let a case be made out
against them. With respect to the part of the motion which
included the subject of promotion, he begged to say that
officers were never placed in the command of a ship until they
lad served a certain number of years in the various subordi-
setae stations. Then they were fully eligible by the law, and
it was for the Executive to promote them or not, according to
their deserts. Under these circumstances he should oppose
the motion.
Mr. A. CHAPMAN said that the motion, if agreed to,
could be of no service to the country, while it might have the
effect of injuring individuals by a sort of side wind. By its
means a slur might be cast on many deserving young officers,
who were, in point of fact, wholely blameless. Accidents
were unavoidable at sea ; and, besides, in regard of vessels run
on shore, the Captain was rarely accountable, inasmuch as he
was always allowed a pilot on entering port. With respect to
the difference between young commanders and old ones, he did
not know of any worth taking into account. If there were any
it was in favour of the former ; for a man in the prime of life
was certainly better fitted for the command of a man of war
than an old man. He opposed the motion.
Sir T. TROUBRIDGE said it wouldbe the most unjust of
all amjust acts to proceed as it were to the re-trial of officers
whet bad been tried before for the same ground of offence.
That was the object of the motion, and therefore he should
oppose it.
After a few words from Mr. HUME,
Captain PECHELL said that as he believed the motion
would be of advantage to the navy, by showing how few losses
of ships had occurred in the period moved for by the Hon.
Member, he should give it his support.
Mr. ROBINSON said that if the returns were ordered,
the finding of the various courts-martial should be ordered also,
together with the cases in which the captains or commanders
had pilots. Unless these were added to the motion, it would
be unjust to agree to it.
Mr. HUME was willing to adopt the suggestion thrown
out by the Hon. Member. He had given notice of returns
from /820, but by a misprint it was made 1830 in the papers of
the House. His object was to make out a case, not against the
present, but against the former Admiralty Boards, and unless
he was granted official documents, it would be impossible for
LiM to do so.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL opposed the motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL felt a strong objection to give any
information in a partial form, from which unfair inferences, to
the prejudice of individuals, or bodies of individuals, could be
drawn. The returns moved for by the Hon. Member for Mid-
diesex were open to that objection ; for by them, as they were
framed, an inference of want of skill could be drawn from
putting the age of the commanding officer in juxtaposition with
the fact of the less of his ship. That would not be fair. He
therefore objected Le furnishing any such partial information
as the Hon. Member required, as well as to going into the
whole question.
Mr. lIUME asked the Noble Lord, as he would not give
him the information he required in either shape, whether he
had any objection to grant him a Committee.
Lord J. RUSSELL was inaudible if he replied at all.
Sir R. INGLIS said that the House of Commons had no
authority in respect to itself in the matter. So lung as a given
number of ships and men was granted by Parliament to the
King, the Executive alone had the power over them. He ( sir
R. Inglis) objected to the motion, inasmuch as it was in the
nature of a fresh bill of indictment, by which the names of
those who had been once tried were to be again published be-
fore the empire.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority... 3l
Mr. HUME moved for a return of the number of Com-
manders posted to the flag in the last naval promotion of the
10th of January.—Agreed to.
Mr. HUME also moved for a return of the number of Ad-
mirals employed more than once, and the respective periods of
their service, since the year 1625.
Admiral ADAM objected to this return, as a direct inter-
ference with the Executive in the selection of officers.
After a few words from Captain BERKELEY,
Mr. HUME said he should not press the motion as it was
objected to.
The motion was nessatived.
Mr. FAZAKERLEY moved that the name of Mr. Fresh-
field be substituted for the name of Mr. Loch on the Poor
Law Committee, and that Mr. Loch be discharged from at-
tendance.—Agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. HUME, a return was ordered of the
'lumber of executions for the last nine years.
The House went into Committee to consider the Report of
July, 1832, on the Turnpike (Ireland) Bill.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.
The House having resumed,
• The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the Impri-
toereent for Debt Bill be re-committed, it being, as he under-
Stood, the general wish of the House that the Bill should be
further considered in Committee.
Sir R. YYVYAN presented a petition, before going into
Committee, from the Chamber of Commerce in Bristol, against
the Bill.
The House having gone into Committee,
Mr.' RICHARDS protested against the further proceeding
with
e this Bill in the absence of the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber f,
r,)r Exeter, and other Hon. and Learned Members.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that it was his duty
t
tip proceed with the Bill, and it was the duty of the Hon Ge-
ntlemen who were opposed to the Bill to be in attendance.
He regretted the absence of his lion. and Learned Friends ;
but
ile could not desert his duty.
Mr. RICHARDS objected to the Bill, on account of the
slovenly
manner in which it was prepared, and there being
no punishment provided for fraudulent debtors, as well as that
v,o
uld enable debtors to give an undue preference to some
creditors.
Mr. M. PHILIPS also objected to the Bill, on the ground
that„, it made no provision against fraudulent debtors.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that lie would an-
swer all those objections on the third reading of the Bill, but
at present he wished to have the details of the Bill only con-
sidered.
The first clause being put,
After a few words from Mr. Alderman Copeland, Mr.
"I'DnhY, and the Attorney-General, relative to the conditions
°n which a creditor could hold copy hold property from his
debtor, the clause was agreed to.
The clauses from two to six inclusive were then agreed to.
Clause 7 was likewise agreed to, as were also clauses 8
to 11,

On clause 12 being put,
Mr. WASON, in the absence of the Hon. Member for
“llro, moved, as an amendment, the omission of those words
!),I. the clause recognizing the exemption of Members of Par-
liament from its full operation.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the House had been
takenby surprise by this motion, and suggested to the
on. Member for Ipswich the propriety, considering the state
of the House, of postponing it until the bringing up of the
Report,
'
Mr- WA SON said be considered it impossible to postpone
'e motion._(llear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered it unfair again
:° take the sense of the House, upon a question which he
had considered decided when the Bill was previously in Corn-
sbittee.
lir' RICHARDS objected to the Bill being proceeded
with in the absence of the Honourable and Learned Member
10, their
Faeter, and otl:er Honourable Members, who bud given
attention to the measure. When he (Mr. Richards)
re de such a seggestion to the Learned Attorney-General, he
I.7etired that he could not be rerponsible for the absence of
R _on Members ;he was there to do his duty, He (Mr. Richards)
out answer so were those on his side of the Lions e