The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-12 00:00:00

trittlidits

LONDON, MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1844.

Accounts have been received from Tangiers which
leave little doubt that the war between France and
Morocco is at an end. This will be a terrible blow
to the fire-eaters in Paris. They calculated upon
serious results from the march of Marshal Boos Ann
into the territory of the Moors. They repudiated the
interference of the English, and would be satisfied
with nothing less than some important station oppo-
site to Gibraltar. They
.knew well that England
could not stand by quietly and allow any maritime
power to establish itself. on the Straits, and they
cheered on therefore BUGEAUD and JOINVILLE
to act with decision, have they been
disappointed, and furiouiv will be their outcry
age,lnst M. Guizor for Buffering the English Consul

to have one word to say in the matter. There is no
chance of war then in that quarter, and they must
fall back upon the Pacific for some more substantial
ground of quarrel. There must be no compromise
then. " One PRITCHARD" excited the Otaheitans
to rebellion against their protectors. PRITCHARD must
be sacrified, and BRUAT and D'AUBIGNY exalted
to the rank of patriots, and if their Foreign Minister
acts with common justice and common honesty, he
will be denounced as a traitor to his country. No man
who has attended to the spirit which animates the Op-
position journals of Paris for some time can fail to see
that their object is war—war without rhyme or
reason against England and LOMB PHILIPPE. We
believe, however, that these rabid journals do not re-
present the feelings of the French nation. There are
many good and great men in that country who know
that war could not benefit France, that England
wishes to live at peace, that they have gained much
under the administration of the present Sovereign,
and that before they risk a collision between the two
greatest nations in the world there must be some
other casus belli than a miserable squabble about a
petty island on the other side of the globe.

The Morning Herald of Saturday last came out
with a desperate rebuke to the Anti-Corn-law League,
en masse, and a censure (meant to be extremely dig-
nified) for Mr. COBDEN, in special. The exhibition,
as usually happens to very angry remonstrants, is a
most unfortunate one for our Contemporary "at her
time of life"—for Mr. COBDEN, it seems, has now lent
his authority to the vague rumours that have long
prevailed as to the sex and senility of the complainant.
People should not permit themselves to be
betrayed into such a pucker about what she
calls " Mr. COBDEN'S impertinences." The
very exclamation one might have anticipated
from ancient and somewhat irritable prudery! But
we did not expect to find our doubting question of
Friday last, so speedily justified, as well as an-
swered. " What will be thought in Shoe-lane," we
then inquired, " of the license which Mr. COBDEN
allows himself in toying, in Covent-garden Theatre,
with such disreputable topics as political economy ?"
And, lo! on Saturday, the lady of that manor repu-

diates all Mr. COBDEN'S good-humoured pleasantries
(delivered, too, in such a place and neighbourhood)
as " impertinences," and, with a sad lack of temper,
asks—" What is to be expected from uneducated
persons, placed by circumstances in a posi-
tion for which they are ludicrously un-
fitted." Mr. ConDEN, for whom this is palpa-
bly intended, needs no vindication at our hands—
nor from any others. He is so well able to vindi-
cate himself, that we are sure it will never occur to
him that this is matter which should call upon him
for any notice of a feeble—scolding! Besides, his
sobriquet has attributed a certain age to the party.
" Hinc illae lacrymre." He can scarcely have a
right to complain of any resentment exhibited at
such an affront. Yet let it be permitted us to
remind the Morning Herald that the facts attend-
ing Mr. COBDEN'S attainment of the "position" he
occupies supplies the best proof that he is eminently
" fitted" for it. To have been the rallying point
of the League; the inexhaustible, indefatigable, in-
vincible, expositor of its " great argument," within
the walls of Parliament, and without it in a hundred
different parts of the kingdom,—to have faced all op-
position, courted all discussion, challenged all anta-
gonists,—to have achieved, in these combats, so many
victories, acquired so many supporters, conciliated so

many enemies—all this bespeaks, surely, the posses-
sion of no ordinary average of intelleet—no every-day
amount of moral and physical energy. We say
nothing of the discoUragements and difficulties
under which he has obtained the respect of both
parties in the House of Commons, and a
high degree of consideration even among those
classes of the community—(they are few, indeed)—
who are still opposed to his doctrines of free-trade, or
that much larger portion of the public who still resist
his doctrine of low prices. But the Herald, of all
papers under the sun, we should have expected to find
among the most eulogistic admirers—or enviers—of
a man, through the instrumentality of whose extra-
ordinafy tact and unremitting perseverance, a fund of
50,0001. in one year, and of 100,0001. in another, has
been subscribeed towards the purposes of the League.
But the Herald, with the report of last week's
League meeting in Jalack and white before it, is so
infirm or so jaundiced of vision, that it believes the
Association's'," influence, consideration, and respecta-
bility (if it ever possessed any) have disappeared."
There are certain ages, and certain social relations—

that the Herald is supposed to know something
about—which require artificial aids for the cor-
rection of natural infirmities. Where were its
spectacles when this was written ? Or could nobody
be found to read its own report aloud? But in what
follows there is something which implies so great a
hardihood in an ancient lady—who should, in all
things, discous age the habit of speaking untruths—
that we almost blush for our friend.

" In good truth the life or death of the Anti-Corn-
law League, considering the quantity of influence it has
had on public opinion, is a matter of the greatest indif-
ference, except inasmuch as it is to be lamented that con-
federations for the extortion of money have become so
frequent as to be springing up and disappearing almost
annually. Whether the League be at present dead,'
or merely in a swoon, we do not possess sufficient skill to
decide. If it be only the latter, however, its managers
would do well to look that the public be not deceived
by its quietness, and bury it in oblivion by general
consent."

Fie! fie ! If the life or death of the League be so
indifferent to you, why so angry at its proceed-
ings and its leaders' speeches? If you suppose it
dead, why denounce in the intemperate terms that
crowd the article before us, the vehicle of a
" screamer," as brother Jonathan has it, against Mr.
COBDEN, Mr. BRIGHT, and all Radicals,—against
Mr. D'IsRAELI, and all others of Young England or
Old, who are opposed to the policy of your hard task-
master, Sir ROBERT POL ? If you believe that the
League is only slumbering, why in such haste to
pronounce a parting denunciation against it ?
Another time, our fair (?) Contemporary will do well
to be less angry or more artificial. She defeats her
own object of misrepresenting, by exaggeration and
inconsistency. VituPeration is not the language of
indifference. To be believed in charging Mr. COBDEN
or any other Member of the League with " scurrility
and abuse," the Herald should not recriminate in
language precisely of that quality. But if it thought
the League, indeed " a ricketty speculation," how
came it to devote a very conspicuous article to its at-
tack ? It ought to have fallen, of its own accord.
On the contrary, it will live to quiz the Herald again
next year, and to the tune, we suspect, of " money in
both pockets."

Returning to the "Report of the Commissioners of
Revenue Inquiry," to which we directed public at-
tention on Saturday last, we shall again address our-
selves to some of its more remarkable features. We
have no doubt that all who have perused the "report"
itself, will have arrived at the same conclusion with
ourselves ; namely, that for many years past the
revenue of customs has been annually defrauded of
hundreds of thousands of pounds, through the com-
bination or conspiracy of certain officers of the Crown

• this department of its service, with private
importers or their agents. It is to be ob-
served that whatever the meagre extent of the
knowledge which thepublic, as yet, possesses of the
evidence which has been taken by three examining
parties—(namely, the Board of Customs itself--sub-
ordinate officers, under them, delegated to conduct
particular investigations and to report the results
thereof to that Board ;—and this Commission of
Revenue Inquiry)—that evidence clearly implicates
to a vaguely surmised, but formidable extent, many
parties who had not yet been subjected to interroga-
tion, and many more who have been dismissed some
time since, but against whom the witnesses produced
before the Commisioners of Inquiry seem to be
capable of affording cumulative evidence.
The Commissioners of Inquiry after setting forth their
desire "to inquire farther into the manner of conduct-
ing that part of the business of the Customs more im-
mediately in connexion with the two first heads of
fraud, which are therein described, and which is con-
ducted by the Searchers' Department,' " remark
that their previous Report (of 22d May last) was de-
voted exclusively to the subject of fraudulent impor-
, melancholytationsol
silekn,nlfaecsesn
,igioves, and fancy goods. It is a
which they are called upon to
make—that sufficient- disclosures had been already
made to them, to prove that paid officers of the Go-
vernment had
been easily induced to facili-
tate the designs .of #l4.‘, fraudulent trader in
his attempts to -cheat the Revenue, "by