The Express.
London, England, 1847-10-09 00:00:00

alit ervrtOsS.

MAILS.
The Wok tolls NMI, Ng Oar be Med" Neallewse, all
the lieverea. lo mole up ea Os esarestegetthe lea Ostober.
Tbe sees lfoe, Open% Mike. OM; and Olbreltor
will be owlet ea Ow swim et Os Oa Owlecer.
The mole bar Ml* Mb Ilenwidegrisylee Mallet
Stair, will Mods so ea Ow 11111=2 Ow lift
Tbe treethael Olbeeller Offille.Oriele, Ow lodes Liam&
EllatAdoloolliotbehdOwellookocut calm osimataamork
wi Elsie rip es wondwi etas Oelsher.
MEN~ dewed mills Ws limy mar. be tke Moilleenwoo.
it Vt.= am( Iwo be., will be oak up ea the
Vt.
The mile fa Ihre MIL wale.. it Dienea's I. all MT
be smilow es the ewealag at the lat ltwoober.
n• sob he the Ilarne. the Ricer Mace. Meals /lie% Pantos.
that, ltlYtt. Mecktro. sot bares Ayres, wIII be owls up ow the
.1,1 aft 4th Nowesher.

10 COIIIIPONDENTIL
•.• ilanentaboata Mamba Or lb Sabra lamb. ~tat jamb nab la
at Ur OM 14 leambxnet, b lan Veleta ma lb. W epallibtaban.

BIOS WATIR AT lASDOA•DIIIDOL
Twe 39 MIS. pan . Attimea.. IS AY. pint 11.
?i•BMMw—B.iw, 13 WA. Mg .M~•M!'=

LONDON, SATURDAY, OCT. 9.

THE Quarterly Review has fallen into the unfor-
tunate vein of finding fault with everything that the
world is doing, with every step that the world is
taking. What we call progress, it calls retrocession.
Even the bending of the choice spirits of its own
party before the mighty and resistless currant of
opinion, it stigmatises as treason and denounces as
weakness and folly. Does not the probability occur to
it of one mind being more likely to err than a multi-
tude? All these changes in law, in policy, in opinion,
are the result, not of speculative theory, but of
wants and of grievances, which these changes seek to
supply or to remedy. To argue sanely, these wants
must be seen and admitted, and some abler mode of
meeting them than the progressive one adopted, should
be pointed out.
Take, for example, the Jews, and the question of
their admission to full political and civil rights.
There is scarcely a state in Europe that does not feel
the existence of the Jews in the midst of its popula-
tion, shut out from common rights and national
interests, to be a very serious evil. It is the neutral-
ising for great national purposes, of the power, the
wealth, the intellect, and experience of a large body
of citizens, possessing these in an eminent degree.
AU governments are, therefore, striving to enrol
the Jews with the rest of their population, so as to en-
joy the advantages of their concurrence and citizenship.
This is the case in hyper-catholic Austria, as under
the zealously protestant government of Prussia. Those
two countries, which represent the two opposite poles
of political theory—the absolute and the free—are
alike desirous of making the Jews one with the rest
of the population. This doesnot proceed merely from
love of the Jewish creed or race, but from necessity.
We have in the midst of our great commercial cities
numbers of the laraelitish persuasion, wealthy, power-
ful, possessed sf electoral and other rights. It is
highly dangerous and pernicious that they should be
excluded from the pale of our political and social
system, and left to exercise their power and rights, of
course in hostility to the system which excludes
them. The Emperor of RUSSIA sees equally the
danger of leaving masses of men, like the Jews, ex-
cluded from his system, and he is determined to
absorb them. Each country and government goes to
work after its fashion ; the Czar with ukases, Lord
JOHN RUSSELL with the removal of disabilities. The
Czar ordered some years ago that the Jews, like his
other subjects, should become soldiers. He has now
ordained that they shall be citizens, and shall join
some guild or corporation of citizens, instead of form-
ing a political, as well as a religious, sect apart. We
doubt the success of absolutism in thus sweeping away
distinctions which freedom and tolerance can alone
remove. Bat the Czar is but seeking to remedy in
his way the same species of evil and of danger which
we labour to remedy in our way.
Were we addressing the public at large, these are
not the grounds on which we should propose the
political emancipation of the Jews. We would
appeal to higher and nobler feelings, to the great and
Christian principles of tolerance and justice. But in
meeting the objections of the old tory school of
church and state, we merely explain that ministers
are not embarking upon a stream of gratuitous phi-
lanthropy,but are compelled to deal, one way or other,
with a question that forces itself upon them.] (And
that question is, are they, the disciples of religious
tolerance, to fling back the wealthy and enlightened
Jews, who mingle in all classes of oar society, upper
and middle—are they to fling these Jews into a moral
Ghetto, and make their feelings rankle, and their
every effort be directed against that country and that
government, which so treat them ?
Even the Quarterly Reviewer cannot but admit the ,
danger and inexpediency of this. But in admitting
the danger of exclusion, he may argue the still greater
danger of admitting the Jew to the highest political
rights. Christianity, it may be said, and the
interests of the church, are threatened by the
admission of a few members to parliament belong-
ing to a sect which forbids proselytism, which prides
itself on entertaining an exclusive and traditional
Greed, and what is more a curious and singular phe-
nomenon, necessary too for the fulfilment of a pro-
phecy, than aught menacing to, or disturbant of, the
great and expanding religions and churches of oar
time. It is one of the exaggerations of the middle
ages. to consider the Jews as the great foes to Chris-
tianity, of which their existence is, on the contrary, an
appendage. But foes or not, far from making them
more dangerous we make them less so by assimi-
lating and absorbing them in the dense mass of a
Christian population.
The Quarterly Reviewer, and those who reason
hire him, consider Christianity and Protestantism as
infant and weak opinions, which require tutelage, and
protection, and support, which demand to be kept
apart and fenced around, and which it is dangerous to
allow to go forth into the open field of life, lest they
should contract contagion, or be run over by some
sudden and stronger opinion. We mast confess that
we entertain none of these fears. We look upon
neither Christianity nor Protestantism as children, but
as full-grown, stout, self-subsistent opinions, fully able
to make their own way, exert their own
strength, repel hostility, detect treachery, and
come off victorious even in jostling a foe. There
was a time, indeed—a good old tory time—when the
church, it was thought, could not stand or walk, ex-
cept when leaning on the arm of the state. This
very belief and prescription made the church a cripple.
It has now learned to stand, like its brethren, more on
its own legs; and the result has been, that the church
has not only waxed strohg,. but formidable, by
borrowing the self-reliant principle of its rivals. The
idea of the great fraternity of Christian churches
being at the present time of day in danger from
Judaism is something too preposterous to need serious
refutation.

The shipowners, in their outcry for protection, are
especially unlucky, for they have not only the free-
traders, but a large portion of their fellow protec-
tionists for opponents. Nobody can form a notion of
a protectionist, likely to give up any of the good
things that are going, to eke out the pittance of a
brother protectionist, who laments that his share of
the plunder is a small one. It will not be denied
that the Navigation Laws are upheld by shipowners
because they make freights dear. And dear
freights can be of no advantage to the British
manufacturers, who are competing with all the world
abroad, and with no small world of our own at home.
Let us take cottons, silks, or even linen wares, which
are all, or, in great part, constructed of foreign raw
materials, worked up with English capital and
English skill. Are these manufactures protected by
the navigation laws ? How then will the demand to
uphold these laws be met by any party in the house ?
Railroads require ships to feed them, and to be
fed by them—witness Birkenhead and the very
judicious alliance proposed between the promoters of
the carrying trade on shore, and its promoters on the
water. Even agriculturists speculate on cheap con-
veyance of produce, and it forms one of the numerous
antidotes which purveyors of consolation administer
to hypochondriacal patients from corn-law repeal.
But before it can reach theircsse —before Irish, Scotch,
or Welsh rents can augment from cheaper carriage:of
corn and cattle, the navigation laws must be cot off
root and branch. Not only must our foreign trade be
thrown open, our coasts must also allow competition
to throng their harbours. If we are not misinformed,
there is lees difference between Irish and American
freights than many of our readers perhaps ima-
gine. It is, no doubt, vastly convenient for
a shipowner to keep on an old vessel marked
E 2 in "Lloyd's List" for years at the risk
of life and limb to the crew, and at the cost of heav y

insurance to his customer. But he will ask you how
collet he else afford to stand a contested election in the
conservative cause —a cause as dear to his purse as to
his heart ? If, however, as Sir R. Pen and Lewd
&mu' tell their tenants, and as we firmly believe is
practicable (not without many u doubts
i to the wis-
dom of the scheme), England s able to bid defiance to
foreign supplies by the abundance and cheapness of her
own produce, it will certainly be necessary to provide
cheap modes; of conveyance; and for the farmer none
are so essential as cheap means of shipping. But, it
will be said, your cheap shipping will bring in the
foreigner's goods to compete with us in our own
market. For this argument, if it were even worth
anything on another score, we fear it is too late.
Manufactures of all kinds are allowed to enter at a
fixed duty, which it will not be easy to raise. Bat
the freight paid forms • very small pa-tentage on
the cost of production. It is only where profits are
fiee-drawn and goods bulky, as in the farmer's case,
that such an addition is of consequence. If our
manufacturing supremacy be well founded, and be
not trifled with, not only will it suffer no-
thing from cheap freights, but, inasmuch as
they tell both ways, it will not be much to the
credit of our merchants if they do not make them act
to their advantage. In short, when the torn and
tattered standard of protection is once more hoisted,
we are very desirous to know what interests will rally
round it.

.----
Taking the broad view of the question, the problem
solves itself than. As all the advantages granted by
the abalition of restrictions on navigation are reci-
procal, how do we stand against the world in the race
for profit which we thus open ?
The last number of the Edinburgh Berle e gives
as a succinct statement of statistical comparisons.
which we hero use. The commercial navy of the
Baltic and the German Ocean, including Holland,
does not together amount to one-fifth of the tonnage
of England. France has vessels measuring about
one-sixth of our tonnage. The United States com-
mercial shipping engaged in foreign trade is nearly
equal to one-thud of the British shipping. Is it
not fair to ask, if the first effect of the change
be to the profit of shipowners arising from
increased baffle, who is in a condition to profit
most by it—other nations or ourselves ? To suppose
that the removal of restrictions would depress the
shipping interest, is to go against the stream of all
experience. But were that the result of giving up
these laws, would not foreigners, who have so many
demands for capital in other branches of industry, be
the first to abandon the losing trade ? If, on the
contrary, more ships are required, who is in a condi-
tion like ourselves to build new ones? The same
article furnishes an argument that must effectually
deprive the shipowners of the alliance and support of
the ship-builders. In reply to the supposed advan-
tages enjoyed by foreigners for ship-building, an
enumeration is given of the vessels built is English
and in colonial dockyards.
It is not easy to mention an 'Avant/ige enjoyed in
the Baltic or in the Mediterranean that is not shared

by some one of our numerous colonies, which have
also the command of English capital and of English
artificers ; and yet do they monopolise ship-building ?
We see they do not. Our registered shipping on Ist
Jan., 1847, was 24,002 vessels, measuring 3,148,323
tons, of which only
1,727 of 548,827 tons were built in North American colonies.
99 of 53,964 „ „ British India.
11 of 1,344 „ „ West Indies.
lof 379 „ „ Mauritius.
lof 143 „ „ New South Wales.

1,639 colonial built in all.
Let it, too, be remembered that the maintenance of
these laws, now so universally denounced as a national
grievance, will cause them to be adopted as a measure
of reprisals by Prussia and other states that have
hitherto rejected the principle; and thus the orders
which our engineers have hitherto been accustomed to
receive from those countries will stop. How many
British-built vessels now ply on the Rhine and in the
Baltic Sea, where, if we insist upon insulting our
neighbours with indefensible preferences, they will
assuredly be prohibited ? Should we, under similar
circumstances, tolerate foreign vessels on our waste ?
We must repeat our curiosity as to the support
which shipowners reckon upon in or out of parlia-
ment, if they meditate seriously opposing a measure
alike called for by the interests of trade and of
humanity—a measure more than any other calculated
to subdue the barbarous tendencies of uncontrolled
ambition, and to open a sphere of activity that must
satisfy the most daring spirit of adventure.

EVIDENCES that landowners are beginning to apply
common sense views to the management of landed
property multiply around us with great rapidity. All
seem to be earnest in their desire to improve their
estates, but amongst much that is sound and intelli-
gent, we are condemned to hear a good deal of a dif-
ferent character. Too often some favourite theory is
pushed to an extreme, and uniformity is sometime.
sought to be enforced at the expense of real utility.
Upon the whole, however, what may be called the
public opinion of the landowning class, in relation to
landed property, has of late assumed a wholesome
and practical aspect.
The October number of the Westminater and Fo-
reign Quarterly Reties°, just published, contains
an excellent article on the ' Improvement of
Landed Property," which may be cited in illustra-
tion of this remark. The writer is plainly a bad-
owner, and the value of the views he has announced
of the conditions under which agricultural law fa
England must be improved, is increased by the shrewd
and practical knowledge of husbandry hie paper dis-
closes. The ostensible object is to review Mr.
LETTON COOKE'S work on the value of landed pro-
perty, and Mr. BANYIELD'B " Four Lectures on the
organization of industry," delivered before the Uni-
versity of Cambridge in IMO.
The reviewer fally admits the backward condition
of agriculture over great part of the surface of the
United Kingdom, as compared with the advances made
in other branches of industry ; and dwells on the ad-
vantage to be derived from growing on our own soil the
extra quantity of grain we obviously require over that
of importation. This is not to be produced by any
artificial stimulus to agriculture, such as was
attempted by the corn-laws,but by forcing us so to im-
prove our rural affairs as to enable us to grow the
required supply at a cheaper rate than we can import
it. In this there is really no difficulty. "This is to
be done, not " says the reviewer, " by the general
breaking up of pasture, as is sometimes hastily called
for, but by a more skilful and economical cultivation
of the land actually under tillage ; " and he fairly mug-
geds that in increasing the breadth of tillage by the
breaking up of grass land, the circumstances that til-
lage land requires
.more capital, and that capital I.
wanting to the majority of farmers, must not be lost'
sight of. He truly says that " the land will require
skill and capital beyond that which has usually been
applied to it; and judgment is indispensable in the
selection of the agent who is to frame the covenant
between the landlord and tenant in the altered cir-
cumstances in which the latter may hereafter be
placed." The reviewer then enters somewhat fully
into the question of what proportion of the pro-
duce is due to the landlord, and refers to the
definitions of rent adopted by RICARDO, VCULLOCII,
MALTHUS, and other economists, preferring, with Mr.
BANPIELD, the earlier definition of ADAM SMITH, that
rent is what the occupier "finds it worth while to
pay for the use of land." For practical purposes,
this is amply sufficient, and for the business of hus-
bandry is far more aocurate than the more analytical
definitions of later economists. So the laboured at-
tempts of Mr. Cooxz to define what is the proper
rate of profit on agricultural capital, are shown to lead
to nothing but confusion and error. The truth is,
that the profit made by farmers on the capital they
employ, varies so much with the circumstances under I
which they hold their farms, or with the means eL
the tenants as compared with the extent of their
farms, or with their skill and enterprise, that no dr
finite rule can be obtained, however comfortable gosh
a rule might warn to be to land agents and valuers.
Competition amongst farmers has, indeed, raisedrents
to the highest rate the land will bear, aooordlog to
the prevailing systems of management and teensea
That rents in England may be greatly increased, es
well as farm produce, we believe; but such a champ
must be accomplished by an alteration of the mutton 1
of the owners, as well as those of the tenants of the
soil. That all this is in coarse of being worked out,
we believe, and, in the main, sa •
11 On a subject which hr engaged the attention et I
landlords a good deal, eassaly, the letting cotters
directly to farm laboursee se with Go &rm, the se.
viewer writes with musk sem god ilisehntealkm.
He alga—
l!' it is the duty of landlords to provide fit habitations for
the population required for the cultivation of their estates, it