The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-07 00:00:00

CROM WELL'S DESCENT.

The following extract from Sir Samuel Meyrick's twenty-
first lecture on the History of England, delivered lately at
the Hereford Mechanics' Institution, traces the genealogy of
that remarkable man (Cromwell) in a light which we are
sure is perfectly new to many of our readers :
Oliver Cromwell was descended from a very ancient and
highly allied family, of Welsh origin, sprung from Cadwgan,
second son of Bleddyn ab Cynvyn, Prince of Powis, the founder
of one of the Royal tribes of Wales, His great great grand-
fatherwas William ab levan, who held an honourable office in
the household of Jasper Tudyr, Earl of Bedford ; one of whose
sons, Morgan ab William, was also called Morgan Williams,
and he lived at a house named Cwm Castel], in the parish of
Newchurcb, Carmarthenshire. This Williams married a
sister of Thomas Lord Cromwell, created Earl of Essex in
1540 ; and his eldest son, out of respect to his uncle's me-
mory, obtained the royal licence to assume the name of Crom-
well. Sir Henry Cromwell, the son and heir, resided in Cam-
bridgeshire, and was the father of Sir Oliver Cromwell,
created Knight of the Bath in 1603, who died without issue;
and of Robert Cromwell, Esq., who settled in the town
of Huntingdon, and relieved the scantiness of his
patrimony by engaging in the business of a brewer.
Robert Cromwell married the widow of William Lynne, of
Bassingbourne, Cambridgeshire, (laughter of
f Sheircamßeo,beornt
Stewart, a Knight of the city of Ely ; and
hthise
u2nscthle.of Tl
015v9h9,isthmeaptearnreanits
aonf •
eOs
ri vye,r
h,
pang d
from
the same stock as King Charles I. ; but as this fact is very
curious, I shall give it in detail :
Alexander Stuart died in 1286.

1. John Stuart, died in 1298. 1. Andrew Stuart.
2. Walter Stuart died in 1320. 2. Alexander Stuart.
3. Robert 11., King of Scotland, died 1390. 3. John Stuart.
4. Robert 111., died in 1406. 4. John Stuart.
5. James I. died in 1437. 5. Thomas Stuart.
6. James 11. died in 1460. 6. Richard Stuart.
7. James 111. died in 1488. 7. Nicholas Stuart.
8. James IV. died in 1513. 8. Nicholas Steward.
9. James V. died in 1542. 9. William Steward, Ely.
10. Mary Queen of Scots died in 1567. 10. Elizabeth, married to
Robert Cromwell.
11. James VI. of Scotland died in 1626. 11. Oliver Cromwell, Lord
Protector.

12. Charles 1., .
education in the Free School of Hunting-
Oliver received his
of England, died 1646.
eI ,n
ne a; 1
tradition br id g e ;
King
and wasave removedstudied
nei
Lincoln'sCo lCollege,
don, who.ndcetoheh
adding, his chambers were immediately over the
gatewa,y. Ho is reported to have led a dissolute life in Lon-
don, but to have been reclaimed by marriage, which took
place before he was full age, when he returned to his
native town, from which he was removed to Ely, to take
possession of an estate bequeathed to him by his ma-
ternal uncle. He was drawn from retirement by his first
cousin, the well-known John Hampden, who well knew his
talents, and which he had exhibited in the Short Parliament
of 1628; he was therefore returned a Member to the Long
Parliament at the general election. It is a curio-as fact, that
this principal regicide had at one time intended to go with
his cousin and some of the more zealous puritanical party, to
New England, and had actually embarked in the river
Thames for the purpose, when they were all stopped and
compelled to return ashore by an order in Couucil.—The
Cambrian.

PRINCESS'S THEATRE.—We perceive that Mr. M'Lean,
the messenger of this establishment, has announced his in-
tention;of taking a benefit on Thursday, May 14th. An at-
tractive bill of fare will be provided for his friends, and we
trust that his efforts will be well supported. His general
civility, and anxiety to promote the welfare of others will
not, we are sure, he overlooked on the present oceas_on, and
we feel certain that his friends will rally round hit:).
FINDHORN.—The take of salmon on the Irie;:lhorn,
which has been rather scanty of late, is now fast improving; the
fishermen below the suspension-bridge, having few nights 4K;
$4101%100 Alle salannef-Aftegt4 Ovirtiftr. . •

SUGAR DUTIES.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Sir,—The Gazette of lait Friday quotes the average price
of West India sugar at 3Gs. 7d. per cwt. Sugars, quality
for quality equal to this West India sugar, the produce of
Cuba, Porto Rico, and other foreign possessions, may be
roadily bought at 20s. per cwt., showing a difference of six-
teen shillings and sevenpence per cwt. (or 24d. per lb.)
by the time it reaches the actual consumer.
This immense gain, this fraudulent fruit of monopoly,
goes directly from our pockets to these of the British stegar
producers. One shilling per cwt. paid in excess of wi`tat
Havannah, Brazil, and other sugars will command, is equi-
valent to 250,000/. ; or four millions sterling and upwards one
the annual quantity, at 16s. 7d. per cwt., of sugar con- •
sumed in the country.
. West India sugar is here particularised, because the
planters in those colonies are the only parties who can or do
set up even a shadow of pretence to a just claim to be pro-
tected by a differential duty, and they only can do so on
the plea that they are obliged by the conditions of the law
to yield to certain differential duties in favour of other
British colonies in the purchase of their food and lutru'eer.
The West Indians send home about a moiety of the sogar
consumed in the United Kingdom, and in order that WV'
may receive two millions sterling we, the consumers, arc
compelled to pay four. Monopoly invariably operates in this
clumsy and partial manner. What does the Government
propose to do to abate the expensive nuisance? Why next
to nothing! Sir Robert Peel has given notice that he means
to reduce the differential duty on free labour sugar (about
10,000 tons) 3s. 6d. per cwt., maintaining the absurd fiscal
distinction between free and slave labour sugars. The West
Indians, who have been told to rest perfectly quiet under this
attempt to impose upon us, actually chuckle in the hope that
Sir Robert will be enabled to carry his project. No one
knows better than Sir Robert Peel that the way to deal with
the sugar question would be to abolish the ridiculous laws
which oblige the planters in the West Indica, by differential
duties, to purchase their food and lumber of other British
colonies. Let him allow these planters to buy their supplies
in the cheapest markets, and thereby sweep away all gleends
to their claim to protection, especially seeine, as he must do,
that in the end the home consumers of Nsest India sugar
have to pay the piper.
Flow much wiser would it have been in the 240 Protec-
tionists in the House of Commons, both as relates to their
own breeches' pockets and to those of their tenants and de-
pendents, to have insisted upon the abolition of all protecting
duties, including those levied for the supposed benefit of the
colonies, prior to the annihilation of the corn-laws, so that
they themselves, their tenants, and others had had time to
lay in their stock of necessary articles at the unprotected
price, before they were either of them compelled to sell their
produce on the like terms, rather than stand out, interrupting
the commerce of the country, by striving after the retention
of a§monopoly which they must have felt months since was
doomed to the tomb of the Capulets. Had they manfully
stood upon that point, they would have had some degree
of justice on their side, and enjoyed besides just as many
opportunities of abusing Sir Robert Peel as they
have had ; but it was not their good fortune to be
so prudent—in lieu cf pursuing a course similar to that
described, however, it is reported in Mincing-lane these
gentlemen are prepared to vote for as much protection
as their united energies can obtain for all colonial produce.
Protection, they say, is their principle, and therefore they
will exert themselves to maintain the slightest vestige of it;
to be sure, the valiant promise was made to the West Indians
before the first division on the corn-laws ; that may have
taught them to moderate their tone, and look more closly to
their own interests and to those of their dependents.
As the planters of the British sugar-producing settlements
ship various qualities of sugar, and are likely to be placed
in active competition with foreign producers, it would he
but Justice, as I pointed out in a previous letter, to impose
an ad valorem duty on all classes of sugar; so that the West
Indians, who send to market very inferior qualities to the
Whith llavannah, &c., should only pay a duty according to
the worth of their sugar.—l am, Sir, your obedient servant,
B. S. R.