The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-22 00:00:00

bean fixed to the number of admirals in active service, and
that, whatever might bo the case in the army, an admiral
could not help being at the seat of war when his ship was
engaged with the enemy.
Captain SCOBELL observed that 95 cadets had entered
the service last year, instead of 75, the number prescribed
by the Admiralty regulation. The number of cadets admit-
ted into the service during the last eleven years had
amounted to 1,433, While there had been only 595 mates
promoted tb lientenincies, and the number of cadets ad-
Mated this year exceeded that of any former year, and
amounted to mere than 100. The consequence of this was
that there were between 300 and 400 mates, who had
passed their examination for lieutenancies, waiting for
promotion, whereas there had been only 52 vacant ieu-
tenancies during the past year. He thought, therefore,
that it would be absolutely necessary to reduce the num-
ber of cadets admitted into the navy.
Sir J. GRAHAM entirely agreed with the gallant of-
ficer that it was necessary to chock the number of those
admitted into the service, but the evil complained of had
been, to a great extent, cured by recent regulations. The
Admiralty regulation limited the number of cadets ad-
mitted, but there had been what he considered a very pro-
per indulgence extended to captains on their first appoint-
ment (as we understood) of nominating cadets, and the ex-
cess alluded to had arisen from this cause. As far as the
Admiralty, however, was concerned, the regulation was en-
forced that the number should not exceed 75. Tho num-
ber of mates who had passed their examination and were
waiting for promotion was 210, and not 300, as stated by
the gallant officer.
The vote was then agreed to.
Two sums, 483,1341. for military pensions and allow-
ances, and 148,3941. for civil pensions and allowances, were
also agreed to.
A sum of 152,9501. was proposed to be granted for the
conveyance of troops,
In reply to questions by Sir F. BARING and Mr.
HUME,
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that in framing the votes he
had endeavoured to leave an ample margin, so as fully to
cover the expenses of the year. He wished to explain the
cause of the increase in this vote, which, strictly speaking,
ought to have been included in the army or ordnance esti-
mates. One-fifth part of the British army was on ship-
board, at sea, every year, and it was right to consider
what was due to the health and comfort of the soldiers
under those circumstances. Hitherto there had been pro-
vision made of berths under hatches for only two-thirds
of the entire number on board, while one-third were
obliged to remain on deck at all times, without reference
to climate or weather. That was an arrangement so un-
just, and he might say so cruel to the soldier, that it com-
manded the attention of the Government. The question
had been referred to a commission of officers, who decided
that due provision should be made for the accommodation
of every soldier on board, and hence arose some increase
on this vote for the present year. (Hear.)
Sir W. JOLLIFFE expressed his great gratification at
the statement of the right honourable baronet. A crying
evil had existed, which he hoped would now be cured.
It was also a matter of some complaint on the part of
officers, that sailors received one-third more provision on
shipboard than soldiers, and that the latter had not enough
to eat. He wished to ask whether any increase had taken
place in the provisions allowed to soldiers at sea ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that it had been decided that the
allowance of each sailor should be increased from to 11b.
of meat per day, and that a corresponding addition should
be made to the rations of the soldier. The soldier, how-
ever, did not undergo the same amount of labour as the
sailor, and it was therefore right that the latter should re-
ceive a larger allowance.
The vote was then agreed to.
The Chairman then left the chair, and the house re-
sumed.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN brought up the report of
Friday night's supply, which was received.
GRAND JURY CESS (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
OFFICE OF EXAMINER OF COURT OF CHAN-
CERY BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. MULLINGS said that he had several amendments
to propose in the bill, and he hoped that the Solicitor-
General would postpone the committee.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL pressed on the house the
propriety of proceeding with the bill.
Mr. PHI NN would not offer any obstruction to the bill
going into committee, but there were several points to
which he wished to call his learned friend's (the Solicitor-
,General's) attention. It was well known that before the
bill of last session, with regard to the Master's offices, there
were no means in the Court of Chancery of obtaining oral
evidence of any fact before it, and that bill had afforded
facilities as contrasted with the former practice; but
there were many questions which would arise upon that
bill, and he hoped his learned friend would adopt sugges-
tions for its improvement in some future measure. When
parties now went before the examiner there were no
particular facts to which his attention was confined, and
there were also no limits within which the examination
was conducted. Again, the bill of last session gave no
power to the examiner to decide on what evidence was
material or relevant to the inquiry ; and the consequences
were, a great accumulation of unnecessary evidence and
great expense to the parties. Again, it was necessary to
bring witnesses from different parts of the country; and if
the duty of examining these witnesses was imposed upon
the different district commissioners of bankruptcy, who
now enjoyed the lives of comparative idleness, there would
be great saving of expense to the parties and of time to the
examiners. There were various matters connected with
the working of this bill to which he could call his learned
friend's attention ; but there was one vice which seemed
to pervade the whole system, viz., that while the power of
cross-examining was introduced, one person had the oppor-
tunity of judging of the demeanour of the witnesses, and
another had to decide upon the facts in ignorance of their
demeanour thereby destroying the advantage of cross-
examination. He wished to suggest that an understanding
should be come to with the gentlemen who took the office
of examiner that they should not be:entitled. to retire, and
claim compensation, should it bo hereafter deemed conve-
nient to impose additional duties upon them, or to render
their office rather judicial than ministerial, by requiring
them, instead of examining witnesses, to decide points re-
ferred to them, their decisions being subject to appeal.
Mr. WALPOLE thought that the bill ought merely to
go through committee pro. forma now, because the third
clause, relating to retiring allowances for the examiners,
required material alteration. The provision for giving a
retiring pension to the amount of three quarters of his
salary to a ministerial officer, after fifteen years' service,
was altogether new ; and it was unreasonable that a person
who became an examiner at 30 or 35 years of age should
have the option of retiring upon such an allowance at the
age of 45 or 50, a time of life when he was best capable of
rendering active service to the country.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, with respect to the
wording of the third clause, that it had been literally
copied from the bill of last session. He thought the better
plan would be to allow the bill to pass through committee,
and ...to consider the amendments on bringing up the
report.
The house then resolved itself into committee, and clause
1 gab Agreed td, With some verbal amendments.
On clause 2 being proposed,
Mr. MULLINGS moved that it be omitted. He objected
to it becatise it lakepesed to establish an entirely new prin-
ciple with regard to examiriere. fie was quite sure the
Solicitor-General would agree with hint itt thinking that
the persons who had been heretofore appointed to these
offieek namely, solicitors of good standing, were quite as
competent) if net more so, to take examinations of this
description as baerletere df isreen years' standing. He
thought it desirable to leave the right of appointment, as
at present, in the hands of the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. MURROUGH also objected to the clause. Ire
thoitatt the , attorneys had some right to complain whet
they Edna Met, OW) by rtep, modern legislation had a
tendency to strip them of the resting-places which they had
been accustomed to enjoy after an arduous life. They now
found that colonial governorships, commissionerships in
bankruptcy, and examiners in bankruptcy, were to bo de-
voted to those paragons of wisdom and discretion, barristers
of seven years' standing. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
The committee then divided. The numbers were—
For the clause 72
Against it 3O
Majority for it —42
MULTANGS felt bound to move that the Chairman
repdtt intogtest, belieVing that the clause would establish a
precedent vicious in principle and pernicious in practice.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would not object to re-
porting progress.
The motion was then agreed to, the Chairman left the
chair, and the house resumed,
NEWSPAPER STAMPS,
Mr. BROTHERTON moved for a return of the number
of newspaper stamps, at ono penny, issued to newspapers
in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, for 1851 and.
1852, specifying each newspaper by name, and the num-
ber of stamps issued in each of the above years to each
newspaper (in continuation of parliamentary paper, No.
42, of session 1852.) He (Mr. Brotherton) thought this a
description of return exceedingly useful. It had been
granted in former years, and, though discontinued in 1837,
was subsequently resumed. On the subject of newspapers
it was desirable that they should have a return up to the
latest period.
Mr. J. WILSON hoped his honourable friend would not
persevere in asking for this return. His honourable friend
had stated the case quite correctly as to the return being
laid before the house year after year, and discontinued
from 1837. It had been dropped on representations from
a very large number of editors and proprietors of news-
papers throughout the country, who complained, and he
thought with very great justice, that this was not an ordi-
nary revenue return, but one which would interfere with
the private concerns of individuals. It had been a prin-
ciple observed in ordering returns, that, whilst they gave
every inforrdation as regarded the revenue, care should be
taken that they should not expose the private concerns of
individuals. On this ground this return was dropped in
1837, and when asked for afterwards, it was always refused
for the same reason. However, when the committee on
newspaper stamps sat two years ago, they called for a return
subsequent to the one formerly presented. This was pro-
duced and laid before the committee, and in the course of
last session was printed aft a parliamentary paper with the
report of the committee. His honourable friend had now
moved for a continuation of the return. There was no hesi-
tation in laying before the house any return which could
elucidate the state of any branch of the revenue, but
the house must feel that they were bound to respect the
objections brought against returns which interfered with
the private transactions of individuals. He thought his
honourable friend would see the force of this objection if
he applied the same argument to other branches of the
revenue, and how much inconvenience would be felt, for
instance, if they called for the quantity of spirits made by
private distillers, or for the different returns made by indi-
viduals to the income-tax. He thought, therefore, that
individuals interested had a right to complain, and on that
ground alone Government objected to give the returns.
There could be no objection whatever to lay before the
house returns of newspaper stamps arranged in classes, as
country newspapers, Scottish, Irish, London weekly, and
London daily newspapers, so as not to interfere with pri-
vate concerns, but he hoped his hon. friend would not per-
sist in the present motion.
Mr. GIBSON said he had been chairman of the commit-
tee to which the hon. gentleman referred to. This matter
had come under its consideration, and they had been
unanimous in calling for the return, though perfectly
aware of the objection which had been mentioned, and
which was one incidental, of course, to all returns, that
they might perchance give information with regard to the
trade of particular persons. His object in supporting his
thosehoour
returns,a bl e fr friend h e
di was
waaapublicsure
thatone ; n
o h e
otherdesiredformtowhoauTde
give such satisfactory information as the one proposed. If,
incidentally to the production of this return for public
purposes, certain information of a more private kind were
given, they had at least this satisfaction, that it would
give nothing but the plain truth as regarded the circulation
of particular papers. That was his object undoubtedly in
supporting this motion. It would make the truth known,
and there could be no objection on that ground, for adver-