The Sun.
London, England, 1854-10-25 00:00:00

THE TRADE OF RUSSIA. TETBOUGH

_NEUTAAL PORTS.

The measures taken by the Allied Governments
at the commencement of the present war with re-
ference to the trade of the enemy through neutral
ports, and even with the subjects of the belligerent
Powers, undoubtedly involved a wide departure
from those severe principles of maritime law which
this country had contended for and enforced in all
previous contests. It may, indeed, be said that,
practically, no war has ever interfered so little with
the course of trade as the present one, and, after
the experience of seven months, some opinion may
be formed of the results of this new system. These
results do not materially differ, except in one re-
spect, which we shall presently notice, from those
which we anticipated when first we had occasion
to discuss her Majesty's declaration of the 28th of
March, and the Order in Council of April. We
were perfectly aware that, in waiving the right of
seizing enemy's property laden- on board neutral
vessels, and in allowing all goods and merchandise
whatsoever, and to whomsoever the same might
belong, to be imported under a neutral or friendly
flAg into any part of her Majesty's dominions, the
Allied Governments had left open a broad and easy
channel to the- trade of the enemy with this and
other countries, limited only by such restrictions as
might be put upon it by blockade ; and it would
be the height of inconsistency to make it a matter
of complaint that these measures have produced
the effect which they were calculated to bring
about. On the one hand, no doubt, the enemy has
suffered less than he had reason to anticipate by
the closing of his export trade ; and the rate of the
exchanges_ between St. Petersburg and London
show that a large amount of gold is still being re-
mitted to Russia in exchange for its produce ; but,
on the other hand, large classes of our own country-
men—and, indeed, the whole community—have ,
been benefitted by the supply of hemp, flax, tallow,
and linseed, which has reached us through the
neutral ports ; and the burdens of the war have
been borne with the more ease and goodwill, be-
cause the industrial activity and wealth of the
country have not suffered from this state of hos-
tilities. - In short, it is impossible to inflict a severe
loss on the commerce of the enemy without parti-
cipating in. that loss to a great extent ourselves,
since we are in ordinary times his principal cus-
tomers ; and it is a mere question of national ex-
pediency whether the injury we do ourselves is
more than counterbalanced by the pressure we can
apply to the resources of our antagonist. One thing
is certain, that it is absurd to apply restrictions
on the trade of this country to which the trade of
neutral States is not subject, for that would be to
damage our own interests, while the indirect trade
of-Russia< would remain free to the rest of the
world. The British Government, acting in con-
junction with that of France, and having in view
the pretensions of manz of the neutral States, had
no option as the waiver Of the right to take enemy's
property out of neutral vessels, for that principle
was one which the French Government would not
abandon, and which we ourselves had frequently
recognised by treaty, though not in actual warfare.
Moreover, even if that right of prohibiting neutrals
from carrying enemy's property could have been
enforced in all its ancient rigour, it would not
have prevented neutrals from carrying the same
commodities in the name of a neutral owner—a
practice to which the law of nations can oppose no
insuperable barrier. Consequently, the only belli-
gerent right which we had it in our power to en-
force-against the trade of the enemy, by whomsoever
it stag carried on, was the risAt pf blockade. Oa
this pant, however, the actual results have been
wilal,y,different from those we were led to anti-
cipate, and the merchants of this country,as well as the
public atlargo, have great reason to complain of the
confusion and obscurity which mark all the acts
and communications of the Admiralty on this subjec t.
It was generally understood that, when the British
Government assented to the wishes of France on the
question of enemy'sgoods in neutral bottoms, we re-
quired and obtained from France an engagement that
the right of blockade should be strictly appliedto all
the ports of the Black Sea, the White Sea, and the
Baltic ; and it was naturally concluded that joint
and complete instructions had been sent out to the
Admirals, pointing out exactly where the blockade
was to be put on, and to what extent it was to be
carried. We are compelled to infer from the known
results, either that no such precise instructions
were sent out, or that they were not executed. In
the Baltic a blockade of the Russian ports has been
enforced, but it was tardily notified by Sir Charles
Napier; and its effect is in a great measure defeated
by the proximity of the Prussian ports. In the
White Sea, whereit might have been absolute, we
believe that 300 or 400 vessels were permitted to
to bring out their cargoes ; and in the Black Sea,
where the ports north of the Danube and in the
Sea of Azoff might also have been hermetically
sealed, no blockade whatever hasbeen established or
notified, except at the mouth of the Danube, which
we ought, on the contrary, to have opened, not
closed, when the Russians left the Principalities.
We cannot tell who is to blame for this extraor-
dinary and unexpected omission, which is at vari-
ance with the express public declarations of the
Government ; but, if any doubt existed on the
subject, the Government had it in its power to
remove that ,doubt by precise and authoritative
instructions. The result has been that our 'own
trade has' suffered under the erroneous impres-
sion" that a. blockade had been or would be
established, while the Russian exports have gone
on as .usual through the Greek houses at Constan-
tinople, who will realise enormous profits at our
expense. In truth, then, the system of relying
exclusively on blockade as a means of repression
on the trade of the enemy has not been fairly tried,
because the blockade itself has been singularly
lax and inoperative.
It. is, however, a question of great moment,
which is anxiously discussed in the mercantile
world, and is said to be under the consideration of
the Government, to determine whether any, and,
if any, what measures ought to be taken to place
further restrictions on the trade of the enemy.
Upon.the principles already adopted, it will not
be disputed that the blockade ought to be rigorously
enforced, and we have a right to ask. why that has
not already been done ? But, in addition to the
blockade, we know of only two other modes of
proceeding—either to prohibit the importation of
Russian produce into this country, or to adopt
belligerent measures against those States which,
under the cover of neutrality, are rendering im-
portant services to the enemy. With reference to
the proposed prohibition of Russian produce into
this country, we are aware that it is strongly urged
by one class of persons whose interest in the matter
is easily perceptible—namely, by merchants and
others who are holders of this produce, and who
would immediately run up the price of their stocks
of hemp and tallow to twice the present rate ; and
we are told large speculations in these articles have
been geling oil under the belief that the Govern-
ment' would be driven to resort to some such mea-
sure. But this fact is in itself a strong argument
against such a. restriction, and it is clear that the
cost of it would fall on the consumer and manufac-
turer in this country much more than on. the Rus-
siaa producer ; for, as this prohibition would only
close the ports of the British empire, and per-
haps- those of France, against Russian produce,
the trade of Russia with the rest of the world
would go on with the same facility as at present
in neutral bottoms, and we should iinpose on
ourselves a privation in which other countries
would not share. Moreover, a trade which must
then -be regulated by certificates of origin and
special licenses opens the door to every species of
equivocation, contraband, and fraud. ,The second
expedient is to resort to coercive measures against
those ports which serve by their geographical po-
sition all the purposes of Russian ports in a neu-
tral territory. These ports are exclusively the
ports' of the old province of Prussia Proper, being
part Of the- kingdom of Prussia, but specially ex-
cluded in 1816 from the territory of the Germanic
Confederation. As long as Prussia remains a
neutral ill tike present war she is entitled to all the
rights we have recognised in neutral States, but it
does not
whether she is a
dePendno:nitrussia alone to determine
might render services to
or a belligerent, and she,
that
oßussia of so positive. justified
important a character we should be Justine(
in declining to invest her
privileges. The restrictions a"
with neutral
privileges.
which the belligegent
Powers could resostto aeatit her must, however,
be acts of war, and would, Ilerefore, be attended
with very important .political
do not say that she should therce°foreecilang:mit\teVde
to pursue a,unjuet and injurious course
events
of but
theit
should be borne in mind that. the
next few months, and. possibly of
weeks, will probably define more clearly next
extDofew
tion of the Garman Power's towards Russia," and
that the question of trade in the produce of the
enemy through German ports will follow the coarse
of policy which may prevail iii Germany when the
navigation of the Baltic reopens next spring. If
any• of the leading German Powers are then at war
with Russia, they will have a common interest
with ourselves in stopping the trade which they
now so materially assist ; and if, on the contrary,
they still lend a clandestine support to Russia,
under the mask of neutrality, it will become ne-
cessary to consider on general grounds the effects
of that ambiguous attitude on the conduct and
duration of the war.—Times.

The-Cologne Gazette notices a rumour current at Brus-
sels, according to which Prince Napoleon, the heir pre-
sumpttre to the French throne, is about to espouse the
daughter of King Leopold, a grandchild of Louis

HEALTH OF LONDON DURING THE WEEK.

(Ron the Report of the Registrar-General. )

The deaths registered in London, which in the first
two weeks of October were 1532 and 1394, declit.ed in
the week that ended last Saturday to 1321. In tho ten
weeks of the years 1844-63, corresponding to last week,
the average number was 942, which, being raised in pro •
portion to the increase of population, becomes 1036.
About 300 persons died last week more than could be
estimated from the experience of former years at the
middle of October.

Last week the deaths from cholera were 163. The
mortality from the epidemic declines, but not so rapidly
as in the same month of 1849. In three weeks of Octo-
ber in that year the deaths were 283, 110, and 41 ; in
the last three weeks of the existing epidemic they have
been 411, 249, and 163. Fatal eases of diarrhoea and
dysentery were 102 and 106 in the first two weeks of
the present month ; last week they declined to 83.
West districts, elevation above Trinity' high-water
mark, 28 feet ; population in 1851, 376,527 ; deaths,
26. North districts, elevation 135 feet ; population,
490,396 ; !deaths, 17. Central districts, elevation, 49
feet ; population, 393,256 ; deaths, 7. East districts,
elevation, 26 feet ; popuation, 485,522 ; deaths, 20.
South districts, elevation, 6 feet ; p0pu1ati0n,616,635 ;
deaths, 93. •

Sub-districts of Kensington—Paddington, St. Mary,
elevation, 82 feet ; population, 17,252 ; deaths, 0. Pad-
dington' St. John, elevation, 76 feet; population, 29,053;
deaths, 1. Kensington town, elevation, 28 feet ; popu-
lation, 29,183 ; deaths, 1. Brompton, elevation, 12
feet ; population, 14,870 ; deaths, 1. Hammersmith,
St. Peter, elevation, 4 feet • population, 4,467 ; deaths,
0. Hammersmith,, St. Paul, elevation, 8 feet ; popula-
tion, !13,293 ; deaths, 1. Fulham, elevation, 6 feet ;
population, 11,886 ; deaths, 2.
- Sub-districts of Chelsea.—Chelsea south, elevation,
10 feet ; population, 19,050 ; deaths,
-3. Chelsea, north-
west, elevation, 12 feet ; population, 17,669 ; deaths, 2.
Chelsea, north-east, elevation, 13 feet ; population,
19,819 ; deaths, 2.
Sub-districts. of
.St. Qeorge, Hanover-square.—Han-
over-square, elevation, 64 feet ; population, 20,216 ;
death, 0. May-fair' elevation, 56 feet ; population,
12,980 ; death, 1. Belgrave, elevation, 12 feet ; popu-
lation, 40,034; deaths, 5.
Sub-districts of Westminster.—St. John, elevation, 2
feet ; population,- 34,295 ; deaths, 2. St. Margaret,
elevation, 4 feet ; population, 31,314 ; deaths, 3.
' Sub-districts of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields.—Charing-
cross, elevation 17 feet ; population, 12,587 ; deaths, O.
Long-acre, . elevation, 60 feet ; population, 12,053 ;
deaths, 1.

Sub-districts of St. James's, Westminater.—Berwick-
street, elevation, 65 feet • population, 10,798 ; deaths,
0. St. James's-square, elevation, 40 feet ; population,
11,469 ; deaths, 1. Golden-square, elevation, 68 feet ;
population, 14,139 ; deaths, 0.
Sab-districts of Marylebone.—All Souls, elevation, 76
feet ; population, 28,841 ; deaths, 1. Cavendish-
square, elevation, 73 feet ; population, 14,687 ; deaths,
1.. Rectory, elevation, 68 feet ; population, 27,633 ;
deaths, 5. - St. Mary, elevation, 79 feet ; population,
22,814 ; deaths, 1. Christchurch, elevation, 92 feet ;
population,
lation 33,895 • deaths, 3. St. John, elevation,
124 feet ; population, 29,826 ; deaths, 1.
Sub-district of Hampstead.—Hampstead, elevation,
350 feet ; population, 11,986 ; deaths, 0.
Sub-districts of St. Pancras.—Regent's-park, eleva-
tion, 87 feet ; population, 31,918 ; deaths, 0. Totten-
ham-court, elevation, 73 feet ; population, 28,433 ;
deaths, 0. Gray's-inn-lane, elevation, 52 feet ; popu-
lation, 26,523 ; deaths, 0. Somers-town, elevation, 60
feet ; population, 35,641 ; deaths, 0. Camden-town,
elevation, 52 feet ; population, 21,115 ; deaths, 3.
Kentish-town, elevation, 110 feet ; population, 23,326 ;
deaths, 0.

Sub districts of Islington.—lslington, West, eleva-
tion, 100 feet ; population, 47,881 ; deaths, 0 ; Isling-
ton, East, elevation, 88 feet; population, 47,448 ;
deaths, 1.

Sub-districts of Hackney.—Stoke Newington, cloys.-
on, 72 feet ; population, 4,840 ; deaths, 0. Stamford-
hill, elevation, 76 feet ; population, 5,549 ; deaths, 0.
West Hackney, elevation, 55 feet ; population, 18,732 ;
death, 0. Hackney, elevation, 44 feet ; population,
20,850 ; deaths, 1. South Hackney, elevation, 44 feet;
population, 8,458 ; deaths, 0.
Sub-districts of St. Giles.—St. George, Bloomsbury,
elevation, 71 feet ; population, 16,807 ; deaths, 0. St.
Giles, South, elevation, 64 feet; population, 19,951 ;
deaths, 4. St. Giles', North elevation, 68 feet ; popu-
lation, 17,456 ; deaths,. 0.
Sub-districts of Strand.—St. Anne, Soho) elevation,
64 feet ;1 population, 17,335; deaths, 0. St. Mary-
le-Strand, elevation, 48 feet ; population, 11,615 ; deaths,
0. St. Clement. Danes, elevation, 36 feet ; population,
15,510 ; deaths, 0.

Sub-districts of Holborn.—St. George the Martyr,
elevation, 66 feet ; population, 18,813 ; death, 0. St.
Andrew, Eastern, elevation, 50 feet; population, 13,971;
deaths, 0. Saffron-hill, elevation, 40 feet ; population,
13,83 ; death, 0.

Sub-districts of Clerkenwell.—St. James, elevation, 44
feet ; population, 21,529 Ideaths, 0. Amwell, elevation,
68 feet ; population, 15,720 ; deaths, 0. Pentonville,
elevation, 84 feet ; population, 11,904 ; death, 0. Gos-
well-street, elevation, 78 feet ; population, 15,625 ;
death, 0.

Sub-districts of St. Luke.-01d-street, elevation, 60
feet ;-population, 10,617 ; deaths, 0. City-road, eleva-
tion, 52 feet ; population, 16,840 ; deaths, 0. White-
cross-street, elevation, 52 feet ; population, 13,657 ;
deaths, 0. Finsbury, elevation, 43 feet ; population,
12,941 ; death, 0.

Sub-districts of East London.---St. Botolph, elevation,
36 feet ; population, 23,824 ; , deaths, 1. Cripplegate,
elevation, 44 feet; population, 20,582 ; deaths, 1.
Sub-districts of WestLondon.-WestLondon (North),
elevation, 36 feet; population, 12,946; deaths, 1.
West London (South), elevation, 24 feet ; population,
15,844 ; death, 0.
Sub-districts of City of London-City of London, south
west, elevation, 21 feet ; population, 9,204 ; deaths, 0.
City of London, north-west, elevation, 44 feet ; popula-
tion, 11,847 ; death,lo. City of London, south, eleva-
tion 21 feet ; population, 11,461 ; death, 0. City of
London, south-east, elevation, 21 feet ; population,
10,594 ; deaths, 0. City of London, north-east, eleva-
tion, 44 feet ; population, 12,826 • death, 0.
Sub-districts of Shoreditch-dolywell, elevation, 36
feet; population, 17,245 ; deaths, 1. St. Leonard, ele-
vation, 41 feet; population, 19,449; deaths, 1. Hox-
ton New Town, elevation, 52 feet ; population, 23,505;
deaths, 1. Hoxton Old Town, elevation, 52 feet ; popu-
lation, 17,431 ; deaths, 1, Haggerstone, west, eleva-
tion, 52 feet ; population, 20,276 ; deaths, 1. Hagger-
stone, east, elevation, 52 feet; population, 11,351 ;
deaths, 0.
Sub-districts of Bethtial-green-Hackney-read, eleva-
tion, 44 feet ; population, 23,910 ; deaths, 1. Green,
elevation, 36 feet ; population, 23,555 ; deaths, 1.
Church, elevation, 36 feet ; population' 21,787 ; deaths,
1. Town, elevation, 36 ; population, 20,941 ; deaths, 1.
Sub-districts of Whitechapel- Artillery, elevation,
36 feet ; population, 6,769 ; deaths, 0. Spitalfields,
elevation, 36 feet • population, 15,336 ; deaths, 1. Mile-
end New Town, elevation, 36 feet ; population, 14,543 ;
deaths, 4. Whitechapel North, elevation, 36 feet ;
population, 12,530 ; deaths, 0. Whitechapel Church,
elevation, 32 feet ; population, 7,818 ; deaths, 0.
Goodnian's-fields, elevation, 28 feet ; population, 12,069 ;
deaths, 0. Aldgate, elevation, 19 feet ; population,
10,694 ; deaths, 0.
Sub-districts of St. George's-in-the-East.-St. Mary,
elevation, 26 feet ; population, 18,067 ; deaths, 1. St.
Paul, elevation, 27 feet ; population, 20,319 ; deaths,
0. St. John, elevation, 2 feet ; population, 9,990 ;
deaths, 0.
Sub-districts of Stepney.--Shadwell, elevation, 7 feet ;
population, 16,179 ; deaths, 0. Ratcliff, elevation, 18
feet ; population, 15,212 ; deaths, 2. Mile-end Old
Town, upper, elevation, 32 feet; population, 29,582 ;
deaths, 0. Mi.e-end Old Town, lower, elevation, 28
feet ; population; 27,020 ; deaths, 2. Llinehouse, ele-
vation, 10 ; population, 22,782 ; deaths, 0.
Sub-districts of Poplar.-Bow' elevation, 12 feet ; po-
pulation, 18,778-; deaths, 0. Poplar, elevation, 3 feet ;
population, 28,384 2 • deaths, 1.
Sub-districts of St. Saviour, Southwark. - Christ-
church, elevation, 2 feet ; population, 16,022 ; deaths,
1. St. Saviour, elevation, 4 feet ; population, 19,709 ;
deates, 6.
Sub-districts of St. Olave, Southwark.-St. Olave,
elevation, 6 feet ; rpopulation, 8,015 ; deaths, 3. St.
John, Horsely down, elevation, 2 feet ; population,
11,360 • deaths, 2.
Sub-districts of Bermondsey.-St. James, elevation, .1
foot ; population, 18,899 ; deaths, 8. St. Mary Mag-
dalen, elevation, 0 feet ; population, 13,934 ; deaths, 2.
Leather Market, elevation, 0 feet ; population, 15,295 ;
deaths, 4,

Sub-districts of-St. George, Southwark.—Kent-road,
elevation, 1 foot ; population,lB,l26; deaths, 6. Borough-
road, elevation, 2 ; population, 15,862 ; deaths, 3.
London-road, elevation, 0 ; population, 17,836 ;
deaths, 2.
Sub-districts of Newington—Trinity, elevation, 1
.., ;
population, 20,922 ; deati, 5. St. Peter's, Wal-
worth, elevation, 2 ; population, 29,861 ; deaths, 10.
St. Mary, elevation, 1 ; population, 14,033 ; deaths, 3.
Sob-districts of Lambeth—Waterloo-road, Ist eleva-
tion, 3 ; population, 14,088; deaths, 0. Waterloo-
road, 2d elevation, 2 ; population, 18,3,48 ; deaths, 4.
Lambeth Church, Ist elevation, 2 ; population, 18,409;.
deaths, 0 ; Lambeth Church, 2d tlevation, 1 • popula•
-
tion, 26,734 ; deaths, 4. Kennington, Ist elevation,
4 ; population, 24,261 ; deaths, 4. Kennington, 2d
elevation, 8; population, 18,848; deaths, 3. Brixton,
elevation, 56 ; population, 14,610 ; deaths, 0. Nor-
wood, elevation, 128 (1) ; population, 3,977; deaths, 1.
Sub-districts of Wandsworth.—Clapham, elevation,
21 feet ; population, 16,290 ; deaths, 1. Battersea,
elevation, 3 feet; population, 10,560; deaths, 4. Wands-
worth, elevation, 12 feet; population, 9,611 ; deaths, 0.
Putney, elevation, 12 feet; population, 5,280; death,
0. Streatham, elevation, 72 feet ; population, 9,023 ;
death, 0.
Sub-districts of Camberwell.—Dulwich, elevation, 68
feet ; population, 1,632 ; deaths, 0. Camberwell, eleva-
tion,
5 ; population, 17,742 • deaths, 4. Peckham, ele-
vation, 43; population, 19,4'44 ; deaths, 2. St. George,
oelevation,;puopuia
t 310;
tzp, oip7u,lBaotsi o n. ,d 15t,
h 8493; d e a t h s , 2.
Sub-districts of Rotherhithe.—Rotherhithe, elevation,
Sub-districts of Gree'nweiach —9, St" Paul, Deptford, chi-
Deptford, n);
vation, 10; popuim. • . •
St. Nich01a5,,24,899
las,,24,899 ; deaths, 1.
0. Greenwich; elevation,Weit '4 ;
deaths, 4 ;
15,22.7
population, 7,071 ; deaths,
Gr6onwic,helevation, 12 ; population, 18,800,
; death,
dockyard, elevation, (2) '
16,228 ; deaths, 1. 'yfoEoais elevation, 7 ; population,
population, 17,146
(1) ;population, . ,
Woolwich Arsenal, ele-
vation,Sub-districts of Lewishare.—geaths, 0.
population, 13,191 ;`death, 0. itutiinstead, elevation, (7);
, pulation, 2,568 ; death, 0.
.10€., all, e:evation, (?feet; population, 8,478; deaths, O. Yati 44
Lewisham•
:Village, elo

vation, 16 feet ; population, 6,097 ; deaths, 0. Syden-
ham, elevation 188 (?) ; population, 4,.501 ; deaths, 0.
Last week the births of 705 boys and 703 girls, in all
1,408 children, werelremistered in London. In the eight
corresponding weeks of p the years 1345.52 the average
number was 1,359. _ _

At the Royal observatory, Greenwich, the wean height
of the barometer in the week was 29.504 in. ; at the
beginning of the week the barometer rose to 30.13 in.
The mean temperature of the week was 46.50 deg.,
which is less by 3.0 deg. than the average of the same
week in 38 years. The mean temperature was below
the average on every day of the week ; 5.8 deg. below
it on Tuesday, and 7.30 deg. below it on Thursday.
The highest temperature was 56.5 deg. on Saturday ;
the lowest were 35.3 deg. on Tuesday, and 35.5 deg.
on Thursday. The mean dew-point temperature was
42.3 deg., and between this and the mean temperature
of the air the difference was 4.2 deg. The wind was
variable during the week. The horizontal movement of
the air was 785 miles ; on Wednesday, 160; on Thurs-
day and Saturday 155 miles. Rails to the amount of
0'47 in. fell on Friday.

MORTALITY IN THE METROPOLIS.
NUMBER OF DEATHS FROM ALL CAUSES REGISTERED
IN THE WEEK ENDING SATURDAY, OCT. 21
Zymotic Diseases

Diseases of Uncertain Seat
Tubercular Diseases
Diseases of the Brain, Nerves and Senses
Diseases of the Heart and Blood-vessels 39
Diseases of the Lungs and other Organs of
Respiration. ... .., 195
Diseases of the Stomach, Liver, and other Organs
of Digestion
Diseases of the Kidneys, &c.
Childbirth, Diseases of the Uterus, &c.
Diseases of the Joints, Bones, and Muscles
Diseases of the Skin, &c.
Malformations - 5
Premature Birth and Debility 3O
Atrophy 4l
.
Old Age
Sudden 2
Violence, Privation, Cold, and Intemperance lB
Causes not specified

DEATHS FROlf ALL CAUSES 1,321
Population -Deaths in corre- Deaths
Enumerated. sponding week in the

1851. of 1853. Week.
West Districts
North Districts 490,396 ... 192
Central Districts-- 393,256
East Districts 485,522
South Districts

Totals
Males 627
Females 694