The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-22 00:00:00

in the long run, except those connected with the levying
taxes, is benefited by these schemes of mutual plunder ;
but industry is restricted, every occupation is harassed by
noxious regulations, and the separate classes are conti-
nually brought into vexatious and angry collision. It is
high time that the public welfare should be preferred to
class interests, and that public men should be able to state
some more valid reasons for continuing this noxious system
of mutual aggression than those which are whispered into
the ear of the President of the Board of Trade by deputa-
tions of corn-growers or sugar-refiners. To continue the
present system of sugar bounties one day beyond the sth
of next month, and not then to bring into operation at
least the reduction proposed by the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, will be, we assert, wantonly and wilfully to
plunder the public for the benefit of the sugar owners ;
and the present duties can only be continued one day, after
they expire by law, by the act of the present Ministers.

The long-agitated question of the seizure of the Vixen by
Russia was again brought before the House of Commons
last night by Sir STRATFORD CANNING, in the form of
motion for the appointment of a Select Committee, to in-
quire into the truth of an allegation contained in the peti-
tion of the owners of that vessel, to the effect that they
acted in that unfortunate affair under the approval and
sanction of the Noble Foreign Secretary and the British
Ambassador at the Porte. After a long and not uninterest-
ing debate, in the course of which the Right Hon. MOVER,
Dr. LUSHINGTON, Lord STANLEY, Lord PALMERSTON, Sir
ROBERT PEEL and Lord JOHN RUSSELL severally ad-
dressed the House, the motion was negatived by the
slender majority of sixteen votes—there being one hundred
and eighty-four votes given for the motion, and only two
hundred against it. We call this majority very slender,
inasmuch as the question at issue was not one of party, but
one involving both the foreign and mercantile relations of
this country. Our opinions respecting the conduct of the
Government in the affair of the Vixen nre well known to
our readers. Adverse they have always been to the
course pursued by the Noble Foreign Secretary,
and adverse they will continue to be, for any effect
produced upon us by the speeches of the Noble
Lord, and his supporters in the House of Com-
mons last night. Dr. LUSHINGTON laboured hard to prove
that in declining to give any opinion on the legality of the
expedition of the Vixen when applied to by the owners, as
to whether England recognised the right of Russia to
blockade the Circassian coast, the Foreign Secretary acted
with the greatest prudence—inasmuch as he reserved to
himself the right of taking what future steps circumstances
might render necessary, without either yielding to Russia,
or provoking a war with that power. Now, with all due
respect for the opinions of the Learned Civilian, such a line
of argument appears to us exceedingly erroneous. In 1783
Russia, from a political motive, which we shall presently
advert to, acknowledged the Sovereignty of Soudjonk-
kale, and some other ports along the coast of Circassia, to
belong de jure to Turkey. At that time, as well as since,
Circassia was recognized by Great Britain and all the
other European Powers—Russia excepted—as a free and
independent State. In 1831 Russia, to veil her aggres-
sions upon the freedom and independence of the Circassians
from the Great Powers of Western Europe, and parti-
cularly from England, obtained from the Porte a
formal cession of the territory which she had recog-
nized as belonging to the SULTAN on the coast
of Circassia in 1783. This involved no sacrifice on the
part of the Porte. The ceded territory no more belonged
to the SULTAN than does the actual sovereignty of Jeru-
salem to the King of NAPLES ; and the right of Russia to
a foot of ground in Circassia is not a jot better founded
than would a claim of MEHEMET AEl's to the dominion of
Judea, founded upon the formal cession of that country to
the Egyptian Viceroy by his Neapolita❑ MAJESTY.
Well, in 1831, the fact of this mock cession by
Turkey to Russia of certain ports on the Circassian
coast was formally communicated by Count NESSELRODE
to Lord PALMERSTON—with an intimation that the
imperial Government intended to established quarantine
regulations along the eastern shores of the Black Sea.
What answer did his Lordship return to such an extra-
ordinary communication? Did he renionstate against such
an atrocious attempt to deprive a free people of their in-
dependence ? Did be attempt to show that Turkey could
no more cede Circassia to the Emperor than she could
' cede Gibraltar or 'Malta? Did he intimate that the
mock ce.,,sion of Circassia by the Porte, at the instigation
of the Cabinet of St. Petersburg, afforded a satisfac-
tory clue to the political motives of that Cabinet in
1783, in formally recognising. the SULTAN as the lawful
Soscreign of the finest harbours of that country ? The
Noble Foreign Secretary did none of these things. lle
was silent, and of course Russia interpreted his silence as
a tacit acknowledgment that England was not disposed to
dispute any claim she might set up. Dr. LUSHINGTON
argues that his Lordship's silence left it open for him,
at any future period, to adopt what course he might
think proper, and, therefore, that he acted wisely. We con-
tend the very contrary to be the fact—especially as this silence
has been long enough to allow Russia, in the face of Europe,
to effect settlements on the Circassian coast. Well, his
Lordship had six years for reflection before the sailing of
the Vixen. Surely in that long period he had ample time
to make up his mind as to what line of conduct it behoved
England to pursue. When applied to by the owners of
the Vixen, in 1836, he gave them clearly to understand
that the Government of this country recognized no impedi-
ment to a direct traffic with the Circassian tribes. His
Lordship asserts that he did not encourage the
owners to undertake such a voyage. We ask in
our turn did he discourage them ? Did he point out
to them that the consequences might be a war with
Russia ? We distinctly and emphatically state that such
is not our impression. On the contrary, we do not believe
that any merchant would have hesitated to undertake such
en expedition, after receiving such explanations from a Mi-
nister of the Crown as his Lordship admits having given.
There is no use in trying to hoodwink the country. By
permitting Russia to seize and confiscate the Vialp,
without protesting against such a fiolation of our flag,
her MAJESTY'S Ministers have as formally ceded the
claims of Russia to Circassia as if they had signed
a dozen treaties to that effect. Had Russia not dared
to capture the Vixen, we should have been entertained for
months with a flourish of trumpets from the Foreign-office
about the naval terrors inspired by England ; but as the
CZAR manifested a determination to carry out his projects
with a hostile hand, the Noble Foreign Secretary took care
to back out of the matter by the official extinction of Mr.
URQUHART, and the desertion of his quondam dispatch-
bearer, Mr. BELL. As this may be the last time we may
have occasion to refer to this affair, we shall conclude with
stating, that we regard it as every way disgraceful to the
Government, and humiliating to the national dignity of the
British Empire.

The Railway Companies are getting up petitions
against the Bill for the conveyance of the mails by railway.
Mr. PEASE presented two last night, and we believe one
or two of the same description were presented on Wed-
nesday. We are not aware at present what the arguments
are upon which the Companies rest their opposition to the
measure. As soon, however, as the petitions are printed—
should they be thought entitled to that distinction—we
shall subject them to a careful examination. All that
we can gather of the sentiments of those few persons
who take part with the Companies is contained in
the effusions of a single Morning Contemporary,
who seems to possess much more zeal than discretion in
the cause of which he professes himself the advocate. If
we are to take him as the exponent of the views of the
Railway Companies, it is clear that these Companies carry
their pretensions to the extent of a perfect and most rigid
monopoly. The Companies are ready to give every as-
sistance in their power to further the conveyance of the
mails by railway, but they cannot submit to Legislative in-
terference. If they are to be compelled by law to
allow the mails a free passage on their roads, it is " the
sheerest piece of wanton and gratuitous robbery ever
attempted. It is impossible"— that it is " to state
the case too strongly, or to apply to it epithets, however
forcible, that are not thoroughly deserved." Hoity toity
What a quantity of disinterested wrath is here thrown
away ? Does our Contemporary, in his extraordinary
warmth, remember that the Bill against which he so strongly
protests, gives full compensation for any loss sustained by
the Railway Companies, through the means of the Post-
office? This, we think, should silence all clamour about
robbery. But we fear that the spirit of monopoly has taken
possession of the Railway Companies, and that their real