The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-02 00:00:00

PRINCE,

about thirty years old, a very low, thick set fellow, of Guinea blood—
rough features, and much addicted to the use of spirits—well known in
Ballahac a:ld OM Neck : has a mother living near Mr. Benjamin Tom's,
and a wife at Mr. Job Goodwin's. I will give twenty-five dollars re-
ward for his apprehension, if taken in the State, Fifty Dollars if taken
out of the State, or in or on the borders of the Dismal Swamp. I will
also give Twenty-fire Dollars for information, by which I can prosecute
with effect, any persons who has or now do harbor or conceal said fellow.
I will give Fifty Dollars reward for the apprehension of a Negro
Fellow by the name of

ABRAM,
•
if taken in the State; Seventy-five Dollars if out of the State, or in or
on the borders of the Dismal Swamp. Ancl I will also give Twenty-
five Dollars for information by which I can prosecute with effect, any
persons who has or now do harbor or conceal said fellow. Abram is
about forty-two years old, 5 feet 6 or S inches high, a slick, black fellow,
well made, and has some knowledge of the use of carpenter's
tools, an artful and ingenious fellow, and upon the whole a great scoun.
drel. He was conditionally sold by me about six years since, for his
misconduct, and made his escape. He has a wife near Hertford, and is
known in that neighbourhood by the name of " Abram Copeland."—lf
those fellows are taken, I wish them lodged in some safe jail, and infor-
mation given me of the fact.

Durant's Neck, N. C. Dec. 7, 1838.
ILLUSTRATION XIV,

JON. H. JACOCKS.

The Subscriber offers for sale his Blacksmith Nat. He is decidedly
the best
.Negro smith I ever saw. He is well acquainted with making
and tempering all kinds of steel springs, welding cast steel to iron, on the
latest improvement, making ploughs and axes. He has been chiefly
engaged in making the iron work for Carriages and Gigs. He is about
2B years of age, remarkably large and likely. I will also sell his wife,

a likely woman, about 38 years of age, with her youngest child, about
18 months old. The only cause of my selling him is, I cannot con-
troul him.
Hertford, Dec. 5,183 S. J. GORDON.
Not even a desire intimated to sell husband, wife, and child togetlitt

PROPOSED EXTENSIVE EMBANK-

MENT OF THE THAMES.

The following report was agreed to and ordered to be printed at dos
last Court of Common Council. It comprehends projects for the most.
important improvements that ever have been suggested, and was brought
up by Mr. Robinson, the Chairman of the Navigation Committee.
" TO THE RIGHT HON. THE LORD MAYOR, ALDERMEN, AND COMMONS OF'

THE CITY OF LONDON IN COMMON COUNCIL ASSEMBLED,

" We, whose names are hereunto subscribed of your Committee for.
improving the navigation of the River Thames, and for preventing en—
croachments on the said river, do certify that on the 6th day of Dccem.
ber. 1830, it was referred to your Committee to consider the expe-
diency of applying to Parliament to authorize the granting in fee
certain parts of the soil or bed on each side of the river Thames; in.
pursuance of which on the 3d day of August, 1832, your Committee
presented a report to your Hon. Court recommending an application
to Parliament for that purpose, accompanied by a full report from
Sir J. Rennie and Mr. Mayne relative to embanking the liver, in the•
conclusion of which report those gentlemen state, that viewing that;
.inportant subject in every possible manner, they are decidedly of
opinion either as regards the improvement of the navigation, or the
salubrity and ornament of the metropolis, that some arrangement for
regulating the line of wharfs should be carried into effect as early as
possible; which report was ordered to be printed, and the consideration
thereof adjourned. •

" That in the year 1535 an application was made to your Com—
mittee by the Select Ccmtnittee of the House of. Commons appointed
to consider and report upon such plans as might be most fitting and
convenient for the permanent accommodation of the Houses of Parlia—
ment, stating that in order to carry the intended ;plan of the new,
Houses of Parliament into effect, it wc,uld be necessary to embank
part of the river Thames contiguous to Palace yard and the House
of Lords.

"'That your Committee, after considering the said application,
gave permission to the Commissioners of hit; Majesty's Woods and
Forests to make the proposed embankment, provided that, in order
to make the said embankment uniform and beneficial to the river, the
Parliament Houses, and the public, power should be given to the
Corporation of London to allow all parties desirous of making pro-
jections at their wharfs, or other premises, into the river to continue
the embankment upon such terms as might be agreed upon between,
the parties desirous of prcjecting and the Corporation of London.
" That on the 30th day of March, 1836, your Committee were at-
tended by Mr. J. Walker on behalf of his Majesty's Commissioners of
Woods and Forests, who laid before them a plan for embanking the
river above and below Westminster-bridge on the Middlesex side, and
also on the opposite shore, between Vauxhall and Blackfriars.bridges,
and stated that it was the wish of Government to embank in the front of
the new Houses of Parliament, and from Westminster.bridge to Fife-
house, in the line and to the extent shown in the plan ; and your Com-
mittee, after considering the same, saw no objection to the plan sub-
milted to them by Mr. James Walker, provided the. Government would
aree to a general line of embankment, and to support a Bill authorising
the same.

" That the cofferdam for the embankment of the new Houses of Par.
!lament was shortly afterwards commenced, and is now completed, and
the effect has been, as your Committee anticipated, to occasion a great
accumulation of mud both above and below the same, to the injury and
annoyance of the wharfingers, the watermen plying at Westminster-
bridge, and the inhabitants of the houses above and below the bridge,
several of whom have made complaints to the Commissioners of her
Majesty's Woods end Forests, and to your Committee on the subject.
" That your Committee being of opinion that a continuation of the
embankment at Westminster is the only effectual remedy for the evils
complained of, and that an embankment on both sides of the river
would materially improve the navigation of the same, appointed a depu-
tation to confer with the Commissioners of her Majesty's Woods and
Forests upon the subject, who, on the 16th day of August last, held a
conference with the Commissioners at the office at Whitehall-place,
when the Commissioners expressed themselves favourable to a plan of
embankment from London-bridge to Vauxhall-bridge, but considered
that the first step to be taken was to have a correct survey made by some
eminent engineer to ascertain the best line of embankment to be
adopted both for the improvement of the navigation of the river and the
property on each side thereof, and they requested your Committee would
communicate with them in writing upon the subject.
" That on the 17th of September last the Remembrancer, by, the di-
rection of your Committee, sent the following letter to Mr. Alexander
Mylne, one of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests :
." Guildhall, September 17, 183 S.
, _

" Sir,—l am requested by the Navigation Committee of the Cor-
poration of London to state to you, for the information of the Com-
missioners of her Majesty's Woods, &c., that the great inconvenience
occasioned by the accumulation of mud near the embankment for the
new Houses of Parliament renders it necessary that some immediate
step should be taken to obviate the same, and that. the Navigation Com-
mittee considers that the annoyance can only be effectually removed by
continuing the line of embankment. Under these circumstances, the
Navigation Committee are of opinion that a survey and plan should be
made of the river Thames, for the purpose of ascertaining the most
desirable line of en-.lsankment on both sides of the river nom London_
bridge to Vaux hall.bridge, and also the expense of making the pro.
posed embankment, and of excavating and deepening the bed of the
river where requisite; and that a Bill should be brought into Par-
liament in the next Session for embanking the river Thames, accord.
ing to a pla❑ to be agreed upon, in which power should be given to
the Commissioners of Woods, &c., to embank the bed and soil of the
river opposite the Crown property, and that power should be given
to the Corporation either to embank themselves or to permit the owners
of the wharfs and Property on each side of the river to embank under
their directions, upon such terms as may upon consideration be thought
desirable, half of the expense of the surrey and the Act of Parliament
to be borne by the Commissioners of her Majesty's Woods, &c.
" ' The favour of an early answer is requested, in order that the sub-

Ji>ct may be brought under the consideration of the Court of Common
Council before the time expirl a for giving notice of en application to
Parliament.

" I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
" EDWARD TYRRELL, City Remembrancer.'

" Mr. Alexander Mylne.'
" And on the 4th of January we received the following answer from
Major. General Sir B. C. Stephenson, another of the Commissioners of
Woods and Forests, enclosing the following let ter from Mr.Edw•ard John
Stanley, one of the Secretaries of the Treasury :

" Office of Woods, &c., Jan. 4, 1839.
" Sir,—With reference to your letter of the 17th of September last,
stating that the great inconvenience occasioned by the accumulation
of mud near the embankment for the new Houses of Parliament
renders it necessary that some immediate steps should be taken to
obviate the same, that the Navigation Committee of the Corporation
of London consider that the annoyance can only be effectually re.
moved by continuing the line of embankment, and that under these
circumstances the Navigation Committee are of opinion that a survey
and plan should be made of the river Thames for time purpose of ascer-
taining the most desirable lire of embankment on both sides of the
river, i rom London-bridge to Vauxhall-bridge, and also the expense of
making the proposed embankment, and of excavating and deepening the
bed of the river where requisite; that a Bill should be brought into
Parliament in the next Session for embanking the river Thames accord_
ing to the plan to be agreed upon, in which Bill power:should be given
to the Commissioners of her Majesty's Woods, &c., to embank the bed
and soil of the river opposite the Crown property, and that powers
should be given to the Corporation either themselves to embank or to
permit the owners of wharfs and other property On each side of the river
to embank, tinder their directions, upon such terms as may upon con.
sideration he thought desirable, and that half of the expense of the sur.
vey and of the Act of Parliament should be borne by the Commissioners
of this Board, and intimating that it would be desirable that the subject
should be brought under the consideration of the Court of Common
Council before the expiration of the time fur giving notice of an
application to Parliament ; and on behalf of the Commissioners
of her Majesty's Woods, &e., I have to acquaint you, for the
information of the Navigation Committee, that the said Commis..
sinners have brought the subject matter of your said letter under the
consideration of the Lords of her Majesty's Treasury, who, by a letter
dated the 27th ult, from Mr. E. J. Stanley (of which a copy is enclosed
herewith), have signified to the said Commissioners their Lordships'
authority to take measures for having the necessary survey and estimates
proceeded with by such engineers as may he mutually agreed upon by
the Commissioners of this Board and by the Corporation, at the joint
expense of the Crown and the City of London.
" 1 have therefore to propose that Mr. James Walker, of No. 23,
Great George-street, Westminster, civil engineer, be employed on behalf
of the Commissioners of this Board and the Corporation respectively, to
make the survey, plan, and estimates requisite on this occasion, prepa-
ratory to an application on the subject being made to Parliament, which,
however, the said Commissioners apprehend it would not be practicable,
to accomplish in the ensuing Session.
" I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
" Mr. Edward Tyrrell.' "'B. C. STEPHENSON.

(Enclosure.)

" • Treasury Chambers, Nov. 27, 1838.

" My Lord and Gentlemen,—The Lords Commissioners of her
Majesty's Treasury having had under their consideration your Report
of the 30th ult., on an application from the Navigation Committee of
the Corporation of London for a survey of the river Thames from Lon-
don.bridge to Vauxhall bridge, with a view to further embankments, I,
have it in command to convey to you their Lordships' authority to take
the necessary steps for having the survey and estimates referred to in
your Report proceeded with by such engineers as may be mutually
agreed upon by you and the Corporation, at the joint expense of the
Crown and the City, as recommended by you.
I am, my Lord and Gentlemen, your obedient servant,
" E. J. STANLEY.

" ' The Commissioners of Woods and Forests, &c.'
" And your Committee, considering it to be desirable that a survey
and plan should be made of the river Thames, for the purpose of ascer.
toining the best line of embankment on both sides of the river to Vaux-
hall-bridge, and approving of Mr. James Walker, with the assistance of
Mr. Stephen Leach, the Clerk of the Works of the Thames Naviga-
tion, as the engineers to be employed for that purpose, recommend to
this Hon. Court to give their sanction to the proposed survey and plan
of the river Thames, upon the terms mentioned in the letter of Major.
General Sir B. C. Stephenson, and that half of the expense of the same
to be borne by the Corporation of London should be charged upon the
rental navigation fund. All which is respectfully submitted to the
judgment of this Hon. Court. Dated the 17th day of January, 1639.
" J. ROBINSON. " W. S. HALE.
" It. TAYLOR. " E. WILSON.
" JAMES FRISBY. " FORD HALE.
" ISAAC NEAL. " JOHN HOARD.
" JOHN DIXON. " T. MITCHELL.
" J. THOMAS. " T. CORNET.
" W. STEVENS. " R. WESTWOOD."

The Earl and Countess of Antrim arrived at Mi-
vart's Hotel on Thursday evening, accompanied by their family,
from Ensharn Hall, near Witney, where they have been visiting
the Hon. Colonel Parker.

Mr. Edward Clark has been appointed Recorder of
Hastings and Rye in the room of Mr. Austin, resigned.
Sir A. L. Hay has addressed the electors of Banff,
&c., intimating his intention of offering himself as a candidato
for the representation of these burghs at next election. His
letter is dated from Ghent. Mr. Fox Manic we understand,
also intends to offer himself.—Edinburgh Observer.:
CRIMINAL STATISTICS.—•A table taken from the
Imblished returns of the number of criminal cases disposed of
at each of the Police offices of the metropolis in the year
1838:

Determined
Sent for Trial. Summarily.
Bow-street 2 O2l 5,739
Queen-square 1,787 5,749
Marlborough-street 1 703 6,124
Marylebone. 2,824 4,556
Hatton-garden 0,772 4,097
Worship-street 2,442 5.658
Whitechapel 2,380 2 B9B
Union- Hall 3,057 6,945

Thames Bl5 . _
2,673

Total 19,801 44,430

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We observe that Mr. O'Cennell, at a meeting of his con-
stituents on Wednesday last, announced the course he should
pursue on several questions. He should vote for the repeal of
the Corn-laws. With respect to the Canadas, he disapproved
of the violent means to which the insurgents had had recourse,
but he was opposed to all measures of severity against them.
In the case of Holland and Belgium be should oppose the Mi-
nistry, and vote that the people of Luxembourg and Limburg
should be under whatever Government they pleased. Fortu-
nately for the peace of Europe, Mr. O'Connell will not find
any to join with him in abetting an attempt which would lead
necessarily to a general war. With respect to the Ministry,
he humorously observed that " he will support them on the
same principle that Pat put his hat into the broken window—
not because it let the light in, but because it kept the wind
out." If the Government did not remove Lord Oxmantown,
he would make a motion on the subject. With respect to the
Chartists, he so far agreed with them that he was in favour of
Universal Suffrage ; he was not, however, for Annual Par-
liaments. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman announced
on the preceding day (the 29th), that this session would be
passed by him as much in Dublin as in London.—Morning
Chronicle.

Of the discreditable supporters of the Whig Government,
the most discreditable, beyond question, is Mr. Daniel O'Con-
.nell. We notice this infinitely contemptible person, on the
present occasion, in his character as a " Repealer"—of the
Corn-laws. At a meeting of his supporters, a few days ago,
Mr. Daniel O'Connell adverted to the question of the Corn.
laws in the following strain :—" An idea had gone abroad,
that the agriculturists would be injured. No matter who
was injured—the people had a right to cheap bread ; and he
would vote for the abolition of the Corn-laws.—(Cheers.)
The repeal would give two slices of bread to the poor woman
for her children, where now she could get but one.—( Loud
cheers.) He bad determined to resign, if his constituents were
opposed to him on this point, but he was glad to hear that
cheer. Then hurrah for a Repeal of the Corn-laws." Mr.
O'Connell happens to be emir oltly unskilled in all those branches
of knowledge that appertain to the business ofstatesmanship. His
talents, besides, are of the most vulgar description. Cunning and
treachery, an inherent and incurable falseness of disposition,
impudence, and cowardice in almost equal proportions :—these
qualities in combination with a large stock of animal energy
constitute the ground-work of Mr. Daniel O'Connell's claims
to distinction. A baser, or more contemptible assortment of
characteristics never before met in any individual, possessing-
-to the disgrace of the age which produced him—the
slightest influence over the movements of his contemporaries.
On the miserable twaddle, therefore, of Mr. Daniel
O'Connell, as to a repeal of the Corn.laws " giving two
slices of bread to the poor woman for her children, where now
she can get but one," we shall not waste a sentence. When,
however, this honest gentleman observes, that the Corn-laws
ought to be repealed, " no matter who may be injured," we
are reminded, that if any one cause, above, perhaps, all others,
could render Ireland a more miserable country than she
is, at this moment, that one cause might be found to be a
repeal of the English Corn-laws. A repeal of the Corn.
laws would, in one moment, narrow the Irish labour market
to the extent (it may be) of one-half, inasmuch as the produc-
tion of corn for English consumption furnishes employment to
a very large proportion of the Irish peasantry wbo are lucky
enough to find employment at all. It is scarcely, therefore,
within the power of arithmetic to express the extent to which
a repeal of the Corn-laws would operate as an aggravation of
Irish misery. A repeal of the Corn-laws would, within an in-
credibly short period, reduce England to the Irish level of
civilisation and of comfort. A repeal of the Corn-laws would
therefore, as a necessary consequence, destroy in England the
means of consuming Irish produce :—yet even if the means of
the English community to consume food could be imagined
to remain undiminished, after such a frightful revolution,
still Ireland, as a producing country, would be altoge-
ther excluded from the English market. That market, in so
far as it should exist at all, would be supplied by the corn-
growers of Lesser Russia—by a race of men who could supply
all the corn that might be required for England, at a cost less
by a third, than the corn-growers of Ireland could. In me-
lat.chy truth, however, a repeal of the Corn-laws would (as
we showed yesterday), in a very fee years, lease England
without the means of purchasing food for one-fourth part of
her population. Mr. Daniel O'Connell is, of course, too
ignorant a person to understand thoroughly the Corn-law ques-
tion in its more intricate bearings;—yet Mr. Daniel O'Con-
nell, dull and ignorant as he is in all that appertains to social
and economical philosophy, is cunning enough to perce:ve
bow a repeal of the English Corn-laws might aid him in
his darling project--the subversion of the Protestant
Established Church. We have more than once adverted
to this important consequence of the present conspiracy—if
that conspiracy shall prove successful—of the cotton capitalists
against the agricultural industry and property of the kingdom.
Let us once more direct the attention of our readers to this
point. A repeal of the Corn-laws would, by confiscating by
far the larger portion of agricultural capital of every kinre
necessarily subvert. the Protestant Aristocracy of England.
The saute cause which should, in the eireurneances suppoe
subvert Protestant Aristocracy, would consign to beggary
ni'e-tenths rf the Protestant farmers of the United Kinglorr.
All tithe, moreover, would ho annihilated by a repeal of the
Corn-laws ; no farther APPROPRIATION CLAUSE would, in
short, be necessary, if the cotton capitalists should succeed
in their present designs. With the temporal sources of the
Protestant Ecclesiastical Establishment's stren7th swept
away—and with the roost important classes of Protestant
proprietors reduced to beggary—Mr. Daniel O'Connell's
chances of re-establishit g in England the suyemacy of the
Church of Rome, would oe strengthened to a degree scarcely
calculable. Instead of English Protestant landowners and
farmer:, Mr. Daniel O'Connell would, in the event of a re-
peal of the Corn-laws, have to deal only with " exporting
manufacturers" whose pursuits "owe no allegiance to our
shores ;" and who would, in all probability, be much more
anxious to save their mills from destruction at the hands of
agricultural labourers whom their machinations had deprived
of bread, than to struggle in behalf of any farm of religious faith.
To tilt se " exporting manufacturers" Mr. Daniel O'Connell
would gladly promise the protection of a " legion of precur-
sors" in the form of a rural and civic police, with his coura-
geous self to head them : the price of that protection being,
amongst other things, the acquiescence of our " exporting
manufacturers" in the re-establishment of Popery. It is not
without strong motives—such as they arc—that Mr. Daniel
O'Connell takes up his position amongst the Corn-law re.
pealers. We shall, in our next number, advert to the argu-
ments which Lord Fitzwilliam, and the few other agricultural
advocates of Corn-law repeal, have hazarded on this might)
question.—Morning Herald.
It tray be observed that all the advocates of Corn-law Re-
peal, and especially the unscrupulous Times Journal, treat
the whole question as if there were no other ela-s of people
in the world but those who live upon the profi:s of capital em-
ployed in mercantile or manufacturing business. In all their
statements they absolutely put out of the question not only the
mass of petiole dependent upon agriculture, but also the capi-
til sunk in agriculture. They treat both as if they were of
no account at all, and not to be named in the argument. We
hope the agriculturists will be so far moved from their remark-
ably dignified forbearance as to see that this way of consider-
ing the Corn-law question is not followed in the House of
Commons as it has been in the agitating Journals. Thus the
Times says that the encouragement of home cultivation making
the people pay twice as much for bread as they can purchase
it for abroad, such an encouragement is an unjust and wicked
waste. Now, granting that such encouragement does make
the people pay a much more considerable price for
their bread than if they bought it abroad, where is the waste?
The manufacturing part of the nation pays more, but it pays it
to another part of the nation. That which they pay is not
lost. Would it not be much greater waste if they paid the
less price to a foreign nation, which bears no part of this
country's taxation ? As the law stands, the nation has its
corn and its manufactures, which are prepared to exchange
for the corn. They are both produced at home—both en-
joyed at home. There is no want of what the nation has
laboured to produce. But suppose we get our corn abroad,
the manufacturers may be a little better off—supposing the
possibility of other things to remain as well for them as they
are—but the nation is not so well off; for foreigners, and nut
our own people, receive and enjoy the manufactures prepared
to exchange for corn. It is only the manufacturers, that
is to say, the manufacturing capitalists who pay more.
The people at large pay for their subsistence with
their labour. It is most likely that the manufactur-
ing labourer would get less in exchange for his labour
than he now does, supposing the foreign loaf could be
purchased here for a penny the pound ; but it is quite clear
that the agricultural labourer would in that case get nothing
at all for his labour, for who would want him ? All the corn-
growing work would be done abroad. Is it not then absolute
nonsense to say that he would get his bread cheaper ? He
would have nothing but his labour with which to pay for it,
and the same legislation which would make the loaf cheap
(measured by money) would make his labour so valueless, that
the loaf would be dearer to him than ever. It would, indeed,
be so dear to him as to be absolutely unattainable. He would
starve amid sterile fields, because agriculture would not be
worth following. Whether is it more waste (to the nation)
that the manufacturing part of it should pay a little more for
food, or that the whole mass of labouring power and of capital
applicable to home agriculture should be thrown away, and ren-
dered of no value ? If we were a people beginning our na-
tional career, and having to choose between agriculture and
manufactures, then—putting security, and the risk of
being starved through foreign enmity out of the question—it
might be very well to consider whether we had not better de-
vote all our capital and industry to manufactures, for which
we have so many natural advantages. But that is not our
position. We have accumulated a vast mass of riches in the
form of improvements upon land, which riches are applicable
only to agriculture. Must all this be wasted—must it be
thrown away—must it be lost to the nation as a whole, be-
cause a part of the nation could buy a little cheaper from
foreigners? Have the owners of these riches, upon whom so
many of the national burthens have long been thrown—have
they no claim to be protected ? Is their capital, upon which
they do not ask to receive more than three per cent. as annual
income, to be completely neglected by the Legislature, in
order to show especial favour to the owners of capital
who are not satisfied with less than an annual return
of thirty per cent. ?Is this reasonable—is it honest ?
We affirm that it is neither. The Times says that " Corn
may be raised from a gravel walk, but is the community to bo
called upon to pay for so foolish an outlay ?" That is an un-
fair way of putting the question. The gravel walk has been
brought into cultivation at a vast national expense, will you
now abandon it? No doubt it would be absurd to undertake
the cultivation of an inferior soil expecting the community to
pay for the dear crop, but if in the hour of need, when
foreign supply could not be obtained, the capitalists have
come forward, and changed this inferior soil into a produce

tive one, at a vast expense, shall it then be said (and by people
who advocate economy too !) that after this has been
done—after all the capital has been expended, it is then
to be abandoned ? Never was there greater absurdity
heard of. But it never would be heard of were this
question argued as a national question. It is not so
argued. The manufacturers argue this question as if there
were no capital, no interests in the country, but their own, and
as if whatever was not vested in manufactures or in com-
merce had no right to legislative care and protection.
This is one point more of gross misrepresentation which we
cannot let the day pass without noticing. The Times says
that the material wages of the British labourer—that is, his
wages measured by the quantity of necessaries which his
remuneration enables him to obtain—are less than the ma-
terial wages of the foreign labourer. This is either absolute
ignorance or absolute untruth. Nowhere in Europe does the
remuneration of the working man enable him to obtain as
much as it does in England. The statement of the Times
upon this subject is as untrue, as if it had been said that it was
a consistent and modest journal, or that the Cathedral of St.
Paul's was a mean edifice of brick, situated a mile to the west
of Somerset House.--Morning Post.
That the peace of Europe will be speedily broken up, as
that of Asia evidently already is, there can be no doubt. The
manifesto of the Governor-General of India, as to the causes
which had led to the determination of extending the influence
of the British arms into the kingdom of Affghanistan, will
have pointed to Russia as an attire partisan in hostile move-
ments detrimental to the interests and even the safety of our
Indian empire. The recent news from Persia of the retire-
ment of the British Ambassador, Mr. M'Neil, in consequence
of the Shah's rejection of the last propositions of the English
Cabinet, fully confirmed the determination with which that
power, under the influence and support of Russia, was de-
termined to persevere in the cause of aggrandizement
she has for these two years been carrying on. Simulta-
neous with these indications of a conflict for supremacy
in the East, we receive in the semi-official organ of the
Russian Government, called the Augsburg Gazette a docu-
ment the most extraordinary, and at the same time
the most important we ever saw, in which it is boldly
announced that a " War with a great Power is considered
probable nest summer," and that power is England, and who
is told, " it would be useless to attempt to spread the opinion
that diplomatic efforts will allay the storm once more." Our
readers, and the country in general, have for some time been
perfectly aware that it would be impossible, unless Russia al-
tered the course she was pursuing, of destroying British inte-
rests in every part of the globe, and endeavouring to excite
every nation with feelings of jealousy or hatred towards
England, to avoid a conflict with that Power. But, aware as
they were of this, they certainly could not have been prepared
for the formal Manifesto, couched in the terms of insolence and
defiance it is. That Russia has at last thrown off the mask
we are not surprised, as the course of political and commercial
events in Turkey, as well as Asia, has rendered it incumbent
on her to abandon her treaties and alliances, or by arms to
maintain them. Russia has chosen the latter. She consi.
ders the moment most opportune, England " having other
embarrassments on hand ;" and therefore, it " is the precise
motive for Russia no longer to defer the contest I" Be it so ;
and we way say that the sooner Great Britain commence the
better. Every line—there is reason to believe—of that ex-
traordinary document had undergone the revision of the Im-
perial Cabinet, and there can be no mistaking of its authentic
character. The whole document furnishes a-display of a tho-
rough knowledge of all our relations with the East, as fully
borne out by what has appeared at different times in the
columns of this journal. Had Herat fallen, it " would have
become the central point of the Russo-Persian expeditions;
and from that place troops might have been sent to the Indies
with greater rapidity than England could have sent them I"
We are told that in the " interior of India the English have
before them none but hostile populations ;" that the alliance
with Runjeet Sing is unhealthy ; that " a war with the Bur-
mese seems to be inevitable, and the inhabitants of Nepaul are
only waiting for a favourable opportunity to make the attack."
And who is, who has been for years at the bottom of all this ?
Why, Russia ! I !—Morning Advertiser.
The corn law meetings still continue to fill our columns. We
recently discussed the pernicious results of the Corn-laws by
practical and experimental arguments drawn from their fatal
effscts, by causing a continually augmenting exportation of
raw materials; by a similar exportation of machinery ; by the
emigration of British artisans to other countries ; by the ex-
patriation of British capitalists; by the diminution of manu-
facturing profits ; by the decay of home trade, and the fearful
languishment of foreign commerce. It we look at the matter
briefly in a theoretical point of view, we shall be led to the
same conclusions as to their unjustifiably oppressive charac-
ter, and as to the inevitable certainty of their ruinous re-
sults. Adam Smith has justly said " that the most im-
portant practical question which concerns a trading com-
munity, is the I?ight of Industry." The great object
of the exertion of industry, all over the world, is now,
and ever has been, to obtain food. There are secondary
objects, but that is its principal object. Now the first
duty of a Government is tel protect its subjects in this vital
acquisition of the necessaries of life by the ezer-
ti,ns of industry. The Corn-laws interfere with that most
sacred duty of Government. They compel it to betray its
trust, and to violate the fundamental condition on which r.ll
society has been framed. The rights of industry are the real
‘• rights if man." They entitle a man to work :it whatever
occupation he pleases ; to gi't the largest remuneration he can
for his work ; and to buy arid sell where he is most likely to
get that remuneration. Now the Corn-laws tyrannically in-
terfere with this paramount right of all free citizens in a
tree community. They denounce free trade as well as free
industry. They compel consumers to buy their bread dear,
when they might get it cheap, and exchanged for their
work. In short, they oppress every descriptionof industry ;
they starve the workman ; they diminish the wages of labour,
and the profits of capital ; they injure our foreign equally
with our home trade—shutting the Englishman out of
foreign markets, and foreigners out of English markets ;
and for what purpose is all this ruinous mischief acooniplished.
Is it to bent-fit the farmer? No. It does not benefit the far-
mer in the least, as sae shall presently show. Is it to benefit
the revenue? No. It brings the revenue little or nothing.
The Corn-laws are merely intended to benefit the landed pro-
prietors, by yielding them high rents—or, in other words, by
keeping bad lands in cultivation. The farmer, as we have
said, gains nothing by the Corn-laws. The farmer's labourer
gains nothing by them, (Jr rather suffers materially. Dear
bread diminishes the profits of all capital, the farmer's capital
included. The firmer and the farmer's labourer eat dear
bread as well as others. We come now to complete the cir-
cuit of our argument. It is entirely for the benefit of the land-
lord that the Corn-laws subsist. They are the tax of the landlord,
and the landlord only is interested in maintaining them. But are
they in reality for his interest? "'Flint is the question." ‘Ve deny
it. We say that they are founded entirely on a mistaken
view of the interests of the larded proprietors—engendered in
barbsirous, ignorant, and unenlight.,ned times. The agricul-
tural interest and the manufactu,ing interest are inextricably
bound together. The manucacturers are the customers of
ihe farmers and the agriculturists. The Corn-laws, there-
fore, by depreciating the prosperity and cutting up the means
of the manufacturers, destroy the customers of the very agri-
culturists for whom they were mistakingly made. By oppress-
ing the trading and mercantile classes of the community, they
destroy the goose that lays the golden eggs. But there is a
final " moral to point" this " talc" of ruinous absurdity and
national suicide. Mr. M'Culloch calculates that the whole
amount annually which the landed proprietors gain by the
Corn-laws—i. e., in order to effect the equivocal purpose of re-
cipteical injury to all classes which we have just described—is not
more thanl,Boo,ooo/. This is thewhole sum that goes to the land-
lorss by the operation of the Corn-laws. But the same statistical
writer also calculates that the nation is taxed by the Corn-laws
to the amount of 18,200,000/. So that all the surplus of the
first-stated sum—that is, 16. millions sterling—is perfect
waste to the country, as much so as if it were thrown into the
British Channel. We think we have now said enough upon
this important subject to rouse every man who has a bead to
think, a heart to feel, or a hand to labour for his family and
children, to exert himself to the utmost in agitating that great
and vital question—the abolition .of the Corn-laws—until jus-
tice be obtained—until the sacred rights of industry be vindi-
cated, and the ultimate ruin of the country averted. It is
their lffe which is at stake; for—
" You do take my lfe
When you do take the bread by which I lire."
—Morning Advertiser.