The Sun.
London, England, 1845-09-29 00:00:00

THAMES.

EMBEZZLEMENT BY A RAILWAY SERVANT.—Frank Fowler,
a young man, aged 24, who is respectably conn' cted, was
brought before Mr. Ballantine, charged with embezzling the
sum of 251. 135., the moneys of the London and Blackwall
Railway Company.
The prisoner, who is a well-educated young man, has been
lately reduced to a state of great distress, the consequence of
his dishonesty, and for several weeks past has been vending
penny bottles of ink about the metropolis.
Mr. Arthur Wightman, the superintendent of the Black-
wall Railway, stated that the prisoner was money-taker at
the Cannon-street station on Sunday, the 20th of July last.
It was the custom of the money-takers to remit all the cash
taken in the course of the day to the office at Blackwall, at
five o'clock in the evening. The prisoner did not comply
with this regulation on the 20th of July, and witness re-
ceived information that he had left his post before the trains
ceased running, and taken all the money with him.
Mr. BALLANTINE said he should remand the prisoner for
the production of the necessary evidence till next Tuesday.
Mr. Wightman—Will you be so good as to remand him
till Wednesday. I have to attend the Board of Directors on
Tuesday.
Mr. BALLANTINE—Let it be Wednesday then.
CLERKENWELL.

Mr. James Hall, an attorney, was charged with upsetting
the fruit-stall of William Jacques, a boy in the City-road,
and also with having assaulted Judd, a policeman of the N
division.

It appeared that the defendant was passing through the
City-road whilst drunk, and he upset Jacques's fruit-stall,
and the fruit was destroyed. The boy made an alarm, and
Judd the policeman came up. He followed defendant, and
advised him to pay the boy for the injury he had sus-
tained, when defendant said "you be d—d, pay the boy
yourself;" and, at,the same time, he struck the constable on
the head. He was taken to the station-house, where he was
locked up until the morning, at three o'clock, when he was
bailed out.

Mr. Hall, in defence, said he had been dining out, and was
certainly the worse for wine, but he denied upsetting the
fruit-stall intentionally—it was a perfect accident. He
denied assaulting the policeman intentionally, and when at
the station-houselhe offered the boy a sovereign for the
damage done, rather than be locked up. He said he dropped
some gold in the station-house which had not been restored
to him, and he thought he was harshly treated. He had
paid the boy Jacques 10s. compensation.
Inspector Thatcher said the defendant was so drunk that he
was locked up for safety. He denied the imputation cast
upon the police.
Judd, the constable, proved the assault upon him, and the
prisoner was convicted in the penalty of 205., which he paid,
and left the court.

NEW RAILWAY STATION IN
BELGIUM.

A Company, called the " Anglo-Belgian Company,"
has formed a plan for establishing a new port in the
Belgian territory, at a short distance from Dunkirk.
The scheme has caused great excitement among certain
parties in France, who seem to regard Belgium as too
much under the influence of England. The following
are extracts from some of the Paris journals on the
subject :
National.—" The Commerce de Dunquerke has drawn
attention to a prospectus which has been issued with
some mystery by an Anglo-Belgian Company. This
Company proposes to construct, within a kilometre of
our frontier on the Belgian coast, a port for merchant
shipping, to be called Adinkerque Point, and to serve as
the head of the Belgian railroads, communicating with
Dover by a regular packet service, and thus assuring to
our neighbours the whole transit of goods and pas-
sengers which takes place between England and a great
part of the Continent. The establishment of a Belgian
port at the extremity of the harbour of. Dunkirk is a
fact which, if executed, loudly accuses our Ministers of
incapacity; it proves that, notwithstanding all the sacri-
fices made by us in favour of Belgium, this little king--
te-t- it lust totry [lea °tigernl3eigia'n' -67;e=a;
not a right to establish a port on any point of its shores
that it may think fit? We think it certainy has. This
fact causes us an immense prejudice, and our Ministers
ought to do all they can to prevent it being carried into
effect, but since Belgium has been made a kingdom, that
kingdom has the incontestable right to make docks,
build jetties, and facilitate on its coasts the arrival of
merchant vessels. This is an evil, but one which is a
necessary consequence of all the faults that have been
heaped on each other for the last fifteen years on the
subject of Belgium. In 1830, nothing was easier than
to unite Belgium to France, or at least to bind the two
countries together by treaties, such us would prevent
either from entering into enterprises unfavourable to the
other. Since then we took up arms in the most
chivalrous manner to free King Leopold from the dis-
agreeable presence of the Dutch. We there spent
much money and the blood of many brave soldiers of
our army. In exchange for our sacrifices, we could and
ought to have exacted some guarantees for the futims,
and taken precautions to assure the well-being of cur
commerce. We did not do so, preferring to trust to the
gratitude of King Leopold, whom we had taken is the
mud of the rout of Louvain to fix on his little throne.
Leopold has no memory of the heart. We can reproach
him with the fact. But where is the treaty which pre-
vents him from placing his Government and his new
country at the service of the English, his real country-
men ? In fin:, four years back nothing was more easy
than to form with Belgium a Customs' Union which
would have served as a counterpoise to the Zollverein.
Here it was not alone before the English interest that
the French Government gave way. It wished for the
Union, but did not dare pronounce in favour of it, because
twenty or thirty manufacturers who supported the Minis.
try were unwilling to see their produce competed with by
Belgium. The leaf of the English, the leaf of M.
Minerel and of M. Fulehiron, was the cause of our
leaving Belgium in a state of isolation. And yet is it
not true that if the Customs' Union existed, no person
would ever have thought of making a Belgian port
within a few steps of Dunkirk, and thus ruining that
port, so dangerous to our commerce, and so full of glo-
rious reminiscences of our naval power? New that the
fault is committed, its consequences must be put up with.
But the fact of the project of establishing the port of
Adinkerque being authorised by the Belgian Govern-
ment shows that that country has entered heart and soul
into the alliance of the Governments which we have
most cause to distrust. Belgium, notwithstanding all
that she owes us, acts prejudicially to our interests.
What we have to do is to use reprisals, to withdraw from
her the commercial advantages which we have too libe-
rally accorded her, and to require that the works, if
they be executed, be carried out under the surveillance
of French Commissioners, in order that in case of war
and disembarking no danger may result to us. We are
much mistaken, if, in case we assumed such an attitude
with respect to Leopold, the Belgian Chambers would
permit him to expose himself to the just reprisals of
France."

Commerce.—" Some journals, in speaking of this pro-
ect, appear to us to have much exaggerated its conse-
quences in a commercial point of view. We cannot see
that the competition presented by the new port can be
more dangerous than that of Neuport and Ostend. We
cannot, besides, prevent Belgium from reaping all pos-
sible advantages from her situation. It is our business,
on the other hand, to profit as much as we can from
our own position. The only point of view on which we
could oppose the construction of this port near our
frontiers is the military one. There is not any doubt
that the French Government ought to demand explana-
tions from the Belgian Government on this subject. We
cannot allow an establishment, which may be made in
the hands of our enemies a means of aggression,.to be
constructed at our very doors."
Courrier Frangais.—"Adinkerque, become the centre
of the communications of England and the Continent,
would not only ruin the Belgian port of Ostend, but its
competition would be fatal to Dunkirk. The danger is
imminent, and the Government ought to think of pre-
venting it. But how? Will it forbid the Belgian Go-
vernment to allow a maritime establishment to be opened
at Adinkerque, under the pretext that it would augment
the prosperity of Belgium ? Will it endeavour to oppose
the progress of communications amongst our northern
neighbours? Would that be an equitable and in-
telligent intervention ? Would not Belgium have
a right to reply :—' Improve your own com-
munications if you dread our rivalry, but
allow us to ameliorate ours. If you do not wish
to enter into the path of material improvement, if your
Government has allowed itself to be passed in this course
by all the Governments of Europe, is that a reason why
we should remain behindhand also ? If you will not
yourselves go in advance, do not throw obstacles in our
way. You have no right to do so.' Assuredly it would
be difficult to reply to such objections. But are we re-
duced to such a state of abasement as to be obliged to
oppose advancement amongst others, because we cannot
realise it ourselves ? If such be the case, let us sign
our abdication as a civilised and progressive people !
We are the very lowest of nations. We are afraid of
the prosperity of Belgium, and want to prevent her
from progressing! In truth that would be too shameful !
Fortunately there are other means of opposing this
ruinous project. Why has this project been started
when Dunkirk is close to Adinkerque? Is not Dunkirk
the natural point of junction of the transit line from
London to Brussels ? Why then found an additional