The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-17 00:00:00

THE ARMY.

Major-General Dalbiac, Inspecting General of Cavalry in
Great Britain, leaves London this evening for Dublin, to in-
spect the men and horses of the 7th Hussars, under orders for
Canada, after which the troops destined for that service will
immediately proceed to Cork for embarkation. On their de-
parture the King's Dragoon Guards are to move from Dun-
dalk to Dublin to undergo a similar inspection, and will re-
ceive a route for Cork to embark for the same destination.
The number of horses to be taken out is 20 per troop.
The Bth Hussars, from Newbridge, will, it is expected, re-
place the 7th in Dublin, their various detachments having been
called into head-quarters.
The 20th Regiment, commanded by Col. Thomas, the ex-
Member for Kinsale, has received orders to move from Can-
terbury to London, and to take up the quarters of a battalion
-of 013 Guards in the Tower.

The 97th Regiment, at present stationed at S:ockport, has
received orders to hold itself in readiness to move in Dublin
and replace iu that garrison the battalion of Guards at pre-
sent quartered there ; on the arrival of the 97th the Guards
will receive a route for London via Bristol.
The 22d Regiment, from Cork, replace the 23d Fusileers
in Dublin garrison.

The depot of the sth Regiment at Portsmouth hare enlisted
as recruits 50 of the men of the Spanish Legion lately re-
turned from St. Sebastian.

The Times cannot understand how any man, or any party-,
will conscientiously discharge a public duty without receiving
what it denominates " a quid pro quo" for the service. The
thing is possible, however, notwithstanding the very naturaL
scepticism of our contemporary. For the decisive majority by
which Ministers were enabled to defeat the motion of Lord
Sandon we cannot help thinking they have been rather more
indebted to the honesty of their supporters, then to the influ-
ence of that profligate corruption which the Times seems to
think is the only motive that can influence the conduct
of public men. And, in proof, we are willing to abide
by the illustration afforded by our contemporary; not,
of course, in its conduct, but in its columns of yestet day.
In an article unusually florid with the rhetoric peculiar
to Puddle-dock we are told that " the fellows hiring oat
their personal service towards the manufacture " of
the majority of the Bth have each on account of his

vote "titles recognised at the base Treasury to claim
some recompense from the produce of the tnxes." For the
edification of those unskilled in the mode of acquiring such
a " title" our contemporary has given a sketch, which, no-
mine niutato, bears the impress of a personal reminiscence.
By an ingenious exercise the imagination " the fellow" is
brought into the presence of a certain Lord M--_-. and the
Under-Secretary of the Treasury, whom he addresses pith a
familiar boldness that would do no discredit to Benjamin D'ls-
raeli:—" Lordill—, Mr. Stanley has long since known my
wishes, and of course he will now comply with them." Mr.
Stanley, in reply, is supposed to plead " the difficulties"
under which the Government labour. To whie:: the " fel-
low" thus courteously rejoins, " Difficulties, IV:e. Stan-
ley ! Difficulties be damned. If you want my vote,
give me your promise ; and if you won't promise me
you and Lord M may all go to the devil
together. I'll vote for Molesworth, or Peel, or both, and
take my chance afterwards with a Tory Ministry." And a
good chance it would be, no doubt ! Now, was ever such
stupidly absurd stuff as this addressed to any class of readers
by the very lowest print? Badly as we think of the Tory
mode of " manufacturing a mejority," we would not do them
the injustice of imagining such a scene even between Peter
Borthwick and Mr. Goulburn, though it is not impossible it
may have been founded upon a passage between an agent of
their party and a hireling journalist driving a hard b•irgain for
the service of his pen. This theory of corruption, however,
would not be complete without a practical illustration„
which, it is needless to add, the Times finds in the conduct of
the Government towards Mr. O'Connell. Our contempo-
rary "has learned " that " a certain Colonel Hodges is
about to be appointed" to an important consulship. Mr.
O'Connell being one of the " fellows" who acquired a " title"
by his vote of the Bth of the present month, and being anxious
according to this account, to liquidate an obligation incurred
to Colonel Hudges for having attended his son in a duel some
years since, he has insisted upon his appointment to the con-
sulship in question, and accordingly lie is about to be appointed.
It so happens that upon the 26th of December, 1836, just
fifteen months before this division, it was announced in the
Morning Chronicle that Colonel Hodges had received his ap-
pointment from Lord Palmerston, and he has been actually
more than twelve months engaged in the active and very
efficient discharge of his duties The Times, however, with
its usual felicity in alighting upon mares' ❑ests, " has learned
that he is about to be appointed." And our readers have seen
what a very ingenious application it makes of the discovery.—
Morning Chronicle.
A curious instance occurred yesterday in the Hull Election
Committee, of what very odd notions some very Hon. Gentle-
men do, on some occasions, form of justice and impartiality.
Mr. Earnshaw, the Under-Sheriff of Hull, was the first wit-
ness examined, all the other witnesses having been ordered to
quit the room—a very common and a very proper course, as
all experience in courts of justice has abundantly proved.
Well, the second witness called was Mr. Earnshaw's clerk ;
and being asked by Mr. Hildyard, one of the Counsel for the
sitting members, on the voir dire, whether he had been in the
room during the examination of his master, he admitted that he
had—notwithstanding that he had heard the order of the Com-
mittee that all the other witnesses were to leave the room.
Upon this Mr. Hildyard submitted that, according to the practice
of Committees, tliisperson could not give evidence. And what
does the reader suppose the decision of the Committee to have
been? " \Vhy," replies the reader, " of course that the evi-
dence of the man was rejected." Well, so we should our-
selves have guessed; but, behold another striking confirmation
of the humiliating truth, that man is naturally prone to error I
Reader, the decision of the Committee way precisely the re-
verse ! The Committee decided (contrary, iedeed, to all
practice—but what of that ?) that the evidence of Mr. Earn-
shaw's clerk should be received ; but whether because he had
the advantage of having heard his master'e evidence, or be-
cause he obtained that advantage by knowingly and wilfully
violating the rule which the Committee had laid down, tho
Chairman, Sir George Strickland, did not condescend to in-
form his wondering audience—which is the more remarkable,
if it be true, as we are informed it is, that his vote decided
the matter, the Committee dividing jive and five. We need
hardly say that we can have no positive knowledge as to
that fact : but we believe it—first, because we have
been told it on what we believe to be good authority—
and secondly, because Sir George Strickland, in giving the
decision, said he was desired to express the strong opinion of
the Committee, thatein future persons who had been present
at the examination of witnesses should not themselves be re-
ceived as witnesses. " Strong opinion," indeed ! We should
think so! No Yorkshireman, we apprehend, would risk so
close a run a second time, or suffer his friends to risk it, if a
" strong opinion" could save them from so great an impru-
dence. By the way, what did that Government print, which
is commonly called the "crawling Courier," mean by an-
nouncing to its readers last night, that " in the Hull Election
Committee there are eight Reformers and three Tories?"
Suppose there are—what is that to you, or to us, or to any-
body else, always excepting Mr. Coppock, who got up the
petition, and the worthy Hole-in-the- Wallites, who must pay
the costs if it should be found frivolous and vexatious ? But
there is an end to the folly and the inmertinenee of these
Government scribes—and so we conclude 'for the present. Au
recoil., ye curiously just and impartial gentlemen of the Hull
Election Committee !—Tinges.

No one was surprised at the House of Commons refusing
its assent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into
the operation of the Corn Laws, with a view to their repeal.
The majority of its Members being land-owners, it was not to
be expected that they would voluntarily become parties to any
measure which, by reducing rents, would cause a probsble
re-
duction in their incomes. But all parties must feel surprise
and astonishment that the industrial classes, who are by these
laws annually plundered to the amount cf several millions ster-
ling-, should regard the continuation of the system with so
much indifference and. apathy. With the exception of the
landlords—a comparatively small, and, for the most part, an
idle and non-productive class—there is not one party in the
state whose interests are not most seriously injured by the
operations of these laws. Even, as was clearly demon-
strated in the lucid and philosophic speech of Sir W. Moles-
worth, the gross demoralization of those of the weaker
sex who infest all our large towns may be distinctly,
though remotely, traced to the difficulties which the
law opposes to procuring the means of sustaining
human life. Yet the people seem indifferent to these results 1
In no instance does the cloven foot of Toryism display itself'
in more monstrous deformity, than in this and the Poor-law
question. While affecting the deepest and most disinterested
sympathy for the sufferings of the pauper, and exerting all
their might to provoke a popular demonstration against the
deficiency of relief, and the severity of the mode in which it
is afforded, they combat for the continuance of the law to
which pauperism is mainly attributable, with as much zeal as
if they were defending their dearest interests from spolia-
tion. Away with such factious manifestions of sympathy for
the poor ! If the Tories he sincere in their desire for the wel-
fare of the labouring classes, let them consent to the free
introduction of food from the cheapest market, and there
will be little need of denouncing the severity of the work-
house system, or the cruelty of the Poor-law Amendment Act,
as few or none will be reduced to the ordeal of their opera-
tion. There is a custom prevails in some of the cantons
of Switzerland, which hears a ludicrous resemblance to the
conduct of the Tories on these questions. Fifers in these
Cantons have the privilege of placing those who offend them in
the sunshine near a wall, and then lashing the shadow on the
wall. Such precisely is the treatment of the Cora-laws by
the Tories; they place these laws, the parent of the evil, in
the sunshine of their favour, and lash with demoniac fury the
comparatively unoffending shadow—the Poor-law, while the
substance of the grievance is allowed to stand rampant over
the general misery. Let this substance be removed, and the
shadow as a natural consequence roust disappear with it. It
was estimated by Mr. Villiers, that upwards offilieen millions
and a half sterling were extracted by the Corn-laws from the
pockets of the community. This estimate, we are prepared to
prove, is much under the actual amount, not a penny of which
is appropriated to defraying the expenses of the State, but is
wholly engrossed by the landowners, and—we be a pardon for
the omission—the Churchmen, who of course come in for their
share, as the tithes are proportional to the fictitious standard
to which prices are raised. • Thus the landlords and church-
men are the only classes benefited by a system which throws
one class of the people out of employment, exposes another to
excessive labour, in order to procure the necessaries of life,
and reduces all to penury and demoralization. But even the
landowner is not benefited in proportion to the amount wrested
from the community, for, independently of poor-rates iocreased
by the numbers which the check on manufacture throws out of
employment, he bears a share, though a minute one, of the
burden, in the increased price of every article of his indi-
vidual consumption. There is no absurdity more monstrous
than that of supposing • that the high price of corn facili-
tates the payment of general taxation, as if ooe bur-
den wore to be lightened by the imposition of' another in
juxta-position with it. The great majority of consumers, and
thus of tax-payers, live by industrial excHon, and the effect
of the Corn-laws on this vast majority is to make them pay for
sustenance as if existence were a privilege held at Li:, option
of landowners, and vouchsafed only through thous tender
mercies. The interest of our national debt is, in round nuni-
bers 28,000,0001. per annum ; the extra price extorted from
the consumers of corn is lowly estimated at hi,500.0001.
Hence may be deduced the following indisputable conclusion—
a conclusion to which public attention cannot be too often nor
too forcibly directed—that the abolition ry. the Cora-laws
would directly relieve the nation if a bust/ten equal to more
than one-half the interest (f the National Debt. Yet the
people of the E-npire repose in listless quietude, and see this
consummation defeated by their Representatives, as it they
had no interest in the question, or had ssme generous patrons
amongst their Tory friends, who kindly volunteer to pay their
taxes for them.—Morning Advertiser.

Rosebud, the famous hunting ware beiongial, to
Mr. A. Istcd, of Ecton, Staffordshire, died on Tu,.sday tNeek,
aged 24 years. She was hunted 11 years ‘vi;lli.nit being lamed.
—Wolverhampton Chronicle.