The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-21 00:00:00

question was part of a cargo shipped from Plymouth for
Londonderry, on board a vessel named the Sarah, by the
wreck of .which, off Torbay, the cargo was lost except
these twenty-live hogsheads in question, which were
conveyed to St. Katharine's Docks. They were valued
by two brokers, who were of opinion that the tobacco
would not fetch more than from Is. l Id. to 2s. 9d. per
lb., the duty being 3s. per lb. Then, as the Ware-
housing Act makes provision for a remission of part of
the duty in such cases, the plaintiff, by his broker, ten-
dered to the defendant, the collector, the amount of
duty at 2s. 9d. per lb., being, the whole market value of
the article, according to the opinion of the duly qualified
brokers. Mr. Boyd. refused to accept the tender, or to
sign an order for the"delivery of the goods, without pay-
ment of the full amount of duty.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the defendant said, that
the action was improperly brought against the collector,
who, according to the 15th, 23d, and 27th clauses of the
Warehousing Act, had no discretion in the matter, and
was bound to act by the orders of. the Commissioners.
Further he contended that although the Act gave the
Commissioners the power of abating the dut) in certain
cases, it left them expressly the sole judges of that abate-
ment in all cases, by their own discretion solely ; and it
was in no case imperative upon them to make any abate-
ment, be the evidence of the brokers what it might.
It subsequently appeared, that since the commence-
ment of the action the plaintiff paid the full duty upon
six hogsheads which were less damaged than the rest,
and the case went to the Jury in reference to the nine-
teen remaining hogsheads still in the warehouse.
.

The Jury fOund—for the plaintiff, subject to the deci-
sion of the full Court on the interpretation of the Act.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY).

JACKSON V. ASH.
This was an action to recover the sum of 9/. 15s. Bd.
for money advanced by a Loan Society.
Mr. C. JONES appeared for the plaintiff, and said that
the defendant had some time ago borrowed a sum of money
from the North London Loan Society, which sum had
been reduced to that named in the declaration, and
which was to have been wholly liquidated by weekly
instalments. The plaintiff had beef-1 surety for the de-
fendant, and had paid the remainder of the debt due to
the Society for him.
- - -

The defendant stated in his defence that he had paid
4L 16s. for costs, &c. for the plaintiff, and other payments,
which reduced a debt to 21. 16s. 6d.. which being proved
a verdict was taken for the plaintiff for that amount.

M. ODILONf BARROT AND THE

FORTIFICATIONS OF PARIS.

The following letter, in answer to some remarks made
by the Morning Chronicle upon the fortifications of Paris,
has been addressed by Al. Odilon Barrot to the editor
of the Siecle

" MY DEAR CHAMBOLLE—You have very well ex-
plained the cause of the choler of the Morning Chronicle
against the fortifications of Paris. It is evident, that as
long as France remains without defence against new in-
vi sions, her alliance with England must be a compulsory
one, unless she prefers to throw herself into the arms of
Russia, disavowing thereby the principle, as well as all
the morality of her policy ; and every alliance which is
not free and facultative is a dependency, and a species of
servage, rather than an alliance. We, who were parti-
sans of the English alliance, never desired such depen-
dence. We wished that France might suffice to herself.
A nation is not a first-rate nation but upon one condi-
tion, which is, the being able, in a good and just cause,
to combat alone against all, and when Europe says
yes, to say no. Prussia acquired its rank as a first-rate
nation the day that she had the courage to accept the
defiance of all the Powers united against her and re-
sist them. It does not evince too much pride for France to
pretend to the same honour. In this great and unequal
duel, which we neither desire nor provoke, but which is
possible, and necessary to provide against, we should
have to combat two Powers, both beyond our reach—
Russia and England, one cuirassed by the ocean, the
other with the entire breadth of Europe before her, and
behind her the deserts of Asia. Are we to face such
enemies without casque or armour? It would be too
chivalrous, even if resistance could be continued on other
points, after the occupation of Paris—if our population
was united, as it would be were there but the choice be-
tween an established Government and that of the
foreigner; but who does not know that Paris fallen,
and the Tuileries occupied by a Government having
its partisans, announcing itself as the pledge of
reconciliation with Europe, and holding in its hands
all the powers of centralization, national resist-
ance could not be long effectual. Has not mo-
dern history afforded two examples of this last
and cruel truth ? Should we run the risk of a third,
which would probably be the last of French nationality.
Where is the French patriot, who, in 1814 and 1815, has
not shed tears of blood at the aspect of a brave and
numerous population stricken with powerlessness, and
witness of a revolution taking place for the profit of a
family, of which it the day before knew not the existence?
We were then exhausted, discouraged, but less divided
than we are now, and Napoleon still commanded our
armies. Where is the patriot, who, in 1830, when France
resumed the right of disposing of herself, and flung a
defiance to Europe—where is the patriot who did not at
the instant, and from the mere instinct of national inde-
pendence, regard the fortification of Paris as the first
necessity of the country. I was then at the Hotel de
Ville, and I avow I first started the project. Marshal
Soult reminded the Chamber of this during the
late debate ; and he was right. I then looked upon
this measure as so necessary a consequence of the
revolution of July that I did not conceive the
possibility of doubt or contradiction. If later, I com-
batted a system of detached forts, which alarmed Paris,
and did not defend it, and which would have left the po-
pulation, as in 1814 and 1815, mere spectators of the
struggle which was to decide the fate of their country, I
defy any one to cite a word of mine doubting the neces-
sity of fortifying Paris.
As to the alarms which the English journal mani-
fests for liberty, I am nowise moved by them. I love
liberty probably more than the Whig writers of the
Chronicle, but 1 love it proud and strong, with the sen-
timent of nationality. The liberty which might vege-
tate under the dependence of the Cossack knout, or the
insolent and forced protection of England, is not to my
taste. It is not for that liberty that our fathers com-
bated. Let those who affect fears for liberty abstain
from giving their support to the authors of all those re •
action ary measures, which, since 1830, have kept the coun-
try in a state of crisis ; let them join us, instead of re-
sisting us by votes, calumniating us in speeches, and I
promise that we shall obtain by our united efforts such
guarantees that the fortifications of Paris shall no
longer occasion anxieties for freedom. There will then
remain of these fortifications merely what made us
vote them—an immense force for the country, increase
of dignity in foreign policy, and, above all, more internal
security against that extreme of misfortunes, a foreign
invasion, which hangs suspended over the head of the
nation; and which, as long as it remains dreaded, will
expose us to the alternative of desperate resolutions, or
of humiliating and shameful concessions.
" I give you here currently the reflections inspired by
the Morning Chronicle. In the situation in which the
statesmen whom the Chronicle represents have placed
my country, I am more proud than saddened by such
attacks, leaving to others the melancholy glory of merit-
ing the praise of the foreigner. You were right not to
take up seriously the reproach which the Chronicle ad-
dresses to me, of not having in 1830 stipulated more
serious guarantees in favour of our liberties. The men
and the affairs of this country are ill known in England;
this is not the first time that I have perceived it. Not
only was I not Deputy at the moment when the destinies
of our revolution were decided, but I was not in Paris.

It is only in England that people can be ignorant that I
accompanied Charles X. as his safeguard, to Cherbourgh,
and that all I could do on the eve of my departure
was to carry to the chamber (which, alarmed by
the revolution, and anxious to have done with it, was in
haste to fill up the vacancy to the throne) that protest
of the National Guard and the provisional government,
which I developed to the tribune, against any grant of
the Crown before certain guarantees were stipulated as
conditions of that grant. This protest produced the
69th article of the Charter, in which it is repeated, in-
deed, word for word. On my return I accepted the post
of Prefect at the Hotel de Ville, merely as a political
post; and I kept it as long as I found means of resisting
subversive and anarchist passions on one side, or that
reaction which began to manifest itself on the other.
And if in this resistance I ceased to have for auxiliaries
Lafayette at the head of the National Guard of Paris,
Lafitte and Dupont de l'Eure in the Ministry, it is well
known that it was not my fault. It would be sovereign
injustice to render me responsible for my want of power.
The Morning Chronicle, before it speaks of us, should de-
rive its information from other sources than those from
whom its correspondents draw.
" Tous a vous de cceur.
" ODILON BARROT.

" P.S. The Commerce takes advantage of the article
of the Chronicle. It must be blinded with passion to
seek its arms and arguments there !"

THE GARTER.—It is probable that the vacan,
stall in St. George's Chapel will remain for some time
unoccupied.
SOCIETY OF ANCIENT BRITONS.—THE
PRINCE OF WALES.—Yesterday a meeting of the So-
ciety of Ancient Britons was held at the Welsh School-
room, in the Gray's Inn-road, for the purpose of agreeing
to an address of congratulation to her Majesty the Queen,
his Royal Highness Prince Albert, and her Royal High-
ness the Duchess of Kent, on the snfe accouchement of
her Majesty. The chair was taken by Colonel Wood,
M.P. for Brecon, and the meeting was numerously
attended. The address to her Majesty dwelt particularly
on the circumstance of the Royal infant being created
Prince of Wales. Mr. Sergeant Atcherly moved the
address, which was carried with applause. Addresses
to his Royal Highness Prince Albert and her Royal
Highness the Duchess of Kent were also agreed to una-
nimously. The speakers were Dr. Rowland, Mr. Wm.
Williams, M.P., Mr. Bateman, Mr. Jones, and others.
The addresses are to be presented by the officers of the
society at the next Levee day. There are at present in
the Welsh school 120 boys and 65 girls, who are main-
tained, clothed, and educated.
NORTHAMPTON.—(From a Correspondent.)
—A County meeting was held here on Thursday last,
to address the Queen oa the birth of the Prince of
Wales. Mr. Markham, in the absence of the High
Sheriff, was in the chair, and Earl Spencer moved, and
Mr. Cartwright seconded the address. An amendment
was moved and seconded by C. Harrison and T. M‘Far•
containing a statement of the
lane, both working men,
prevailing distress, and a prayer for the remission of all
punishment to political offenders. The amendment was
pit, and in the opinion of the Chairman negatived, but
the Chartists thought otherwise, and appointed a new
Chairman, while Mr. Markham, with the nobility and
clergy left the hail. A number of resolutions were then
passed, and the meeting separated in good order,