The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-26 00:00:00

Morning Neon, and Night, thereby insuring a TOWN and COUNTRY CIRCULATION, at ONE CHARGE.

berland, July 15—E. Reeve, fruiterer, Liverpool, July 16—
J. Burkili. merchant, Louth, Lincolnshire, July 24—T. C.
Hodson, litiendraper, Leominster, Herefordshire, July 19—
G. iliorrey, publican, Stradford-upon-Avon, July 22—S.
Saunders, loOging.houselteeer, Golden-square, St. James's,
July l6—J. 1:ell, surgeon, Norwich, July 16.

THE POST-OFFICE.
A discussion took place last night on Mr. Duncombe's 2no-
tion for a Committee of Inquiry respecting the statutes which
empower a Minister of State to open letters passing through
the General Post-office. The interest which the House took
in the matter is not confined to the walls of Parliament ; it
is looked upon as one of personal application, as well as of
public importance—as involving considerations of private
comfort and security, not less than of national character and
constitutional privileges; and those who took part in the dis-
cussion of last night seemed to be fully aware of the atten-
tion with which it is likely to be regaided by the constituent
bodies of the kingdom. For our own parts, we have already
expressed our opinion with tolerable candour upon the con-
duct which has provoked complaints and petitions. That
opinion remains unaltered. We believe that State necessity
alone warrants the occasional exercise of a power which
habitual toleration would make arbitrary, vexatious, and op-
pressive. The privilege of opening private letters—in other
words, of violating confidence—is one which it would require
some eloquence, and more sophistry, to reconcile to English
notions and English habits. It is, perhaps, the most odious
privilege with which a British Minister could be entrusted. It
offends the pride of individuals ; it does more, it rouses a jealousy
for the liberty of the subject. It is one which should be
used very seldom; and then only with extreme caution and
the most tender moderation. But still, even under a consti-
tutional Government, and among a people keenly alive to
the slightest infringement of their civil rights, it is not un- .
wisely reserved as a defensive instrument against the
Machinations of intrigue and the plots of sedition. In every
state there are times when danger may be apprehended from
sudden tumults and secret conspiracies; and often where
alarm is not felt for outbreaks at home there may be reason
to suspect the residence of foreign conspirators and designing
exiles—men who make the land of their adoption the point
from which they may best assail the hind of their birth and
their former crimes. In the first of these cases domestic
policy, in the second the unwritten compact of international
obligations, necessitates the adoption of measures which
nothing • but emergency could justify. In both of them,
however, the vigour which is beyond the constitution may
be the best upholder of the constitution. It is far better that
one or two dozen letters should be opened than that the
nation should be shocked and its character sullied by
some madbrained tumult or some monstrous outrage
on the persons of distinguished foreigners visiting
in the character, and entitled to the immunities of
guests. So far, then, we differ from those who de-
claim against the existence of such a power. But we
agree with them when, as in this instance, they say that not
only ought it to be exercised with discretion, but also that
the cause of its exercise ought to be fully explained and
justified. The constitution of this realm wisely challenges
examination and discussion for every other act of Ministerial
authority. Why should the most unusual and the moet ob-
noxious be permitted to pass unscrutinized and unexplained?
Yet this is the striking feature in the present case. Mr.
Mazzini's letters—no fewer than seventy—have been de-
tained and examined at the Post-office before they reached
his hands. Of Mr. Mazzini we know nothing. Mr. Carlyle
informs us that he has " a martyr-soul," and a great many
other properties, perhaps more indicative of an heroic person-
age than a quiet citizen. Ile may be a restless, enthusiastic,
• and, in the minds of certain Ministers, a dangerous man.
But this is no reason why he should be treated worse than
the inmate of a felon's dungeon. His political vagaries and
his political zeal cannot palliate conduct at which Peachunt
would have blushed, and Lock it have cried "Shame!" If
he was suspected of carrying on a treasonable or seditious
correspondence with foreigners in this country, or foreigners
abroad, it might surely have been left for Lord Lowther or
Lord Aberdeen to intimate to him that his movements were
watched, and his letters would be examined. This mode of
proceeding would have been strong and severe; but it would
also have been honest, manly, open; and, on explanation,
might have been justified by the emergency of the case.
But, instead of such a proceeding, in steps Sir James Gra •
ham and takes the whole management of the matter into
his hands ; simply, we suppose, because it required to be
treated with the greatest delicacy, the most consummate
moderation, and by one who enjoyed fully the confidence of
all men and all parties. Sir J. 'Graham—with the " great.
Mutt case" staring him in the face—Sir J. Graham, who
was taunted with having opened the letters of several Mem-
bers of the House—Sir J. Graham, who, whatever he had to
do, was sure to do it in the most offensive and arbitrary way
—why, if there had been the strongest a priori reasons in
the world for opening Mr. Mazzini's letters, they would all
have been neutralized by the official interference of the
Home Secretary. Had Lord Aberdeen, on the remonstrance
of some friendly power, felt it his duty to examine a sus-
pected correspondence, some people might have murmured
at the arbitrariness of the act ' • none would have censured
the motives of the agent. Lord Aberdeen's public character
is known ; it is, therefore, respected, and his actions would
be construed fairly and favourably. Sir J. Graham's public
character is equally well known, lout we cannot append the
same inference of opinion to any action in which lie is mixed
up. But the best commentary on the conduct of Sir J.
Graham is supplied by the division of last night. 162 Mem-
bers voted for the Committee of Inquiry, 206 against it ;
thus giving the Home Secretary a majority of only 44 on a
question which really went to determine his fitness for con-
tinuing to hold the seals of his department one day longer.
We wish him joy of his majority; and we trust that Minis-
ters will learn from this division how dangerous a thing it is
to intrust extraordinary powers to a colleague whose acts
and whose character, instead of inspiring confidence in the
goodness of his intentions, never fail to excite suspicion,
jealousy, and alerm.— Times.

THE LATE DIVISION.

TO 'I lIE EDITOR OF THE MORNINC:

Sir,—The votes of certain free-traders who suppovted the!
Government on Monday night last against Mr.
amenclawet have been the subject of severe animadvert ion in I
the columns of your paper. There has been much inisre-
presentation, and, I trust, unintentional sophistry in those
comments. The conduct of public men is fair matter for
comment or controversy; but political polemics need. not
altogether eschew the maxims of political morality.
" A Thorough Free-Trader" in your paper of SatuedrY,
undertakes in a letter addressed to Mr. Cobden, to " riudica to
his principles," from the charge of "impracticability,r whit h
that gentleman, he says, has for a moment stamped upo
them by his vote on the sugar duties. To vindicate a prim •
ciple from the charge of " impracticability," would seem to
require some relation between the arguments used, and the•
particular mode in which that principle was sought to :5e ap-
plied. But throughout the lengthy letter of this " Thoneugle
Free Trader," there is not a single attempt made to
connect the purpose of the letter with the principle of fr,ee
trade. It is, from beginning to end, a tissue of special plead-
ings, irrelevant pretexts, and a most uncandid substitution
of technical forms for practical realities. 'The fair and only
question which this " Thorough Free Trader" had to consider,
in reference to that debate, was simply whether or not Mr.
Miles's amendment proposed to give more or less protection to
the West India planters than the measure of the Govern-
ment. That was the question. There was no other before
the House. Not a speech was made on either side, during the
Friday or Monday nights' debate, which did not altogether
proceed upon this assumption. There was no shifting of the
question at issue upon a mere technical form. It was a
direct and acknowledged division, on both occasions, for or
against-31r. Miles's amendment. It will not do to plead the
letter of a mere form against the spirit of a direct purpose.
To place the issue on any other grounds than the express and
avowed conviction of every man who took a part in the dis-
cussion, is an uncandid paltering with the common sense of
the community, and an attempt to salve sensitive con-
sciences into a quibbling acquiescence with suspected fraud.
The " character of impracticability," which your corres-
pondent says Mr. Cobden has stamped on the principles of
free trade, requires a little more explanation at the hands of
a " Thorough Free-Trader" to make his meaning clear. It
is one of those phrases which men sometimes use to reconcile
party purposes with the practical repudiation of recognised
principles. Had Mr. Cobden thought more of displacing a
Government than advancing a great principle—had the free
traders thought less of free trade, and more of the chances
that political anarchy might' have thrown up for political
speculators—they would not have been charged with stamp-
ing the principles of free trade with " impracticability," but
would have been hailed as the patriots of party, purchasine-
political reputation by repudiating past professions and
avowed avowed principles. A" Thorough Free-Trader"says the vote
on Friday:night was simply as to whetherthe old sugar duties
should or should not be continued till July the sth. That the
technical forms of the House necessitate such a proposition as
preparatory to the introduction of certain modifications of an
old law, to be afterwards introduced, is undeniable • but can
any man, without a gross preference for subterfuge over
plain dealing, maintain that in that proposition was not con-
, tained, or held to be contained by the whole house, the sanction
or rejection of the general scale of duties proposed by the Go-
vernment, in contradistinction to the sanction or rejection cf
the duties specifically stated in Mr. Miles's amendment ?
Was there any doubt in the public mind, or real difference of
opinion in the House, as to the consequences involved in the
division ? Did the almost fanatical cheers that followed the
announcement of the majority against the Government, on
Friday night, proclaim or not that the amendment of Mr.
Miles had been virtually carried ? Look to the newspapers
of the next day. What was the announcement made by every
one of them, without exception, to the public? Why, that Mr.
Miles's amendment had been carried against the Government.
In face of these facts it is an idle attempt to defend '
policy against principle, when the mere forms of the
House—in contradistinction to the known consequences which
they involved—are raked up for the purpose of complicating
and mystifying to the simple apprehensions of the public a
plain question of more or less protection to the West India
monopolists. A "Thorough Free-Trader" goes into some
lengthy animadversions on the conduct of Mr. Cobden, for
not voting on Monday night for the 20s. duty on colonial
produce propssed by Mr. Miles, and then reserving to himself
the right of moving the rejection or modification of the 345.
duty on foreign sugar at some future stage of the proceedings.
That, he says, was the proposition then really before the
House. Does this " Thorough Free-Trader" honestly believe
this ? Can lie believe it ? Had not a distinct vote been
previously taken on the question of differential duties ?
Had not Mr. Ewart, supported by Mr. Cobden
and the free-traders, proposed an equalization of
duty on all sugars, foreign and colonial, and had
not that proposition been negatived by a large ma-
jority? The only question the free-traders could have
originated had been disposed of; an equalization of the duties
had been been rejected; and as no free-trader could consist-
ently originate any motion recognizing the principle of
differential duties, their business, and their sole business, was
to make the nearest possible approximation to their own prin-
ciples, by supporting the measure that gave less protection to
the colonies, in opposition to that which practically proposed
to give them a great deal more. The "Thorough Free-
Trader" agrees with Mr. Cobden " in preferring the measure of
Sir Robert Peel to that of .21.1 r Wiles ; but then he aseerts,
" that neither of those series of to odDrications was under discus-
sion." What was under discussion ? Why, he says, the 20s.
duty on colonial sugar propoSed by Mr. Miies ; and he
professes honestly to believe, that no other con-
sequences were involved in that vote than the
simple diminution of the duty -on West India sugar from
245. to 20s. the cwt. Now, is this a fair or candid statement ?

It was open, be says, to Mr. Cobden to have moved -;;;;,
amendment he pleased when the 345. differential duty came
under discussion. That such a course was open to Mr. Cob-
den, or any other free-trader, is unquestionable; but what
was the real position of affairs in the House at that time?
Mr. Evart had already movedfor an equalisation of the duties
on all sugars. . That motion had been rejected by a large
majority. Who composed that majority? The monopolists
of every section, whether Whig or Tory. What peculiar
grounds, then, for confidence, had the free-trade party, under
such circumstances, in the representatives of the late Go-
vernment? They had preciously voted with the monopolists to
reject Mr. Ewart's motion, and they were at that very mo-
ment in strict alliance with the most bigoted and extreme
section of the protectionists, to uphold a measure which "the
Thorough Free-Trader" himself admits was worse than that
of the Government. What would have been the position of
the free-traders, had they voted with the Whigs? One of
two consequences must have ensued. Either the Govern-
ment would have surrendered their measure, or they would
have retired from office. In either case, the present prohi-
bitory duty on foreign sugar would have remained precisely
as it is, without modification or amendment. Had Sir Ro-
bert Peel resigned, does any man believe that any possible
combination of parties could have re-constructed a Govern-
ment on a more liberal basis, either economically or politically,
than that which had been overthrown? Would the Whig
party have attempted to form a Government? If they had,
what would have been the fate or policy of such an administra-
tion ? Would a dissolution of Parliament, at the present
moment, have given them any additional strength ? Possibly
some accession to the numbers of the " thorough free-
traders" might have resulted from such an experiment; but
the Whigs, as a party, would probably have found them-
selves as powerless as before. Under such circumstances,
what hope could the free-traders have entertained of consis-
tently advancing their principles by any wild and objectless
renunciation of the practical advantages that were before
them? There was little in that debate to inspire confidence in
the party leaders on either side. Nothing to justify the
fres-traders in promoting a transference of official power,
by voting against their own principles. Throughout
that debate the sole object of the so-called leaders of the
Liberal party had appeared to be, to bid for monopolist sap-
port—by proclaiming themselves better monopolists than
their opponents. Both Mr. Labouchere and the late Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Baring) distinctly avowed that
their policy, when in power, had been to give more protection
' to the West India planters than that proposed by the Peel
Ministry. It was the to quoque argument altogether—
" Codlin's the friend—not Short." What have you gained,
asked Mr. Baring on Friday night, pointing to the discon-
solate planters and Cesnservatives behind the Ministry—
what have you gained by rejecting us and accepting Peel?
Tfre promised you Its. differential duty—and a final
measure. Your pet Minister gives you 10s, and transition ?"
That cry was the main hearing of the debate. There was no
great principle at issue between any of the real combatants in
the strife. It is a hollow and unveiled sophism to assume
that any other consequences were involved in the issue than
the retention of a little more or less protection to the mono-
polists. The hot rancour of party has been stirred by the
failure of close chances in what, at the best, can be regarded
only as an aimless struggle for a fruitless and momentary
triumph. But calm and reasoning men will look only to
the plain and palpable merits of both sides of the real ques-
tion—and I, for one rejoice that the principles of free trade
have suffered no contamination in this contest, by any eons.
promise of honest conviction with the self-seeking plausibib-
ties of political expediency.
One word more as to the political consequences said to be
involved in this division. Your correspondent terminates his
letter to Mr. Cobden by asserting "that the free-traders have
saved from annihilation a Government which tramples freedom
under its feet in Ireland The instant," he says, " a rumour
reached Ireland of its destruction, there was almost a uni-
versal jubilee. O'Connell released, the wishes of the Irish
considered, justice obtained for Ireland, the termination of
the Orange rule and of packed juries, instantly rose as visions
full of hope to the Irish."
Surely the " Thorough:Free-Trader " himself must have
been dreaming when he penned the above passage, for a
mere visionary disregard of plain and sober fact was never
exhibited in waking hours. Let him turn from 'the
division on Friday night to the state of parties
upon Irish questions, only forty-eight hours before, as evi-
denced on the Wednesday night previous, on Mr. Ward's
motion for a Committee to inquire into the state of the Irish
Church, and he will find a clear majority of 95 in favour of
the Government. And this has been about the working ma-
jority of Ministers on all questions of Irish policy during the
present Parliament. What there was in the heterogeneous
combination of extreme protectionists and Liberals on Fri-
day or Monday night to reverse this majority, the vision of
your correspondent does not seem to have disclosed. Such
monstrous and most unfair attempts, however, to create in
the sensitive minds of the Irish people an impression that the
free-traders have been instrumental in retarding the recogni-
tion of their claims to justice must fail from its utter and
transparent absurdity.—l am, Sir, yours respectfully,
June 22, 1844. A. W. PAIJLTON.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE HORNING CHRONICLE.
Sir,—From comments which have appeared in several of
the public papers, an impression has been created that I pur-
posely abstained from voting on the Last division on Mr.
Miler's amendment. I am anxious to explain the reason of
my absence from that division.
Not expecting any such important division coming on, I
had made arrangements which required my absence from
town, and was, therefore, unable on the second division to
vote against the proposition of the Member for Bristol. I
may, say, however, that I fully coincide in the view of the
question taken by those free trade Members who supported
thp Government, and regret exceedingly that I was not

"TO THE EDITOR OF THE GLOBE.
" SIR,--In your leading comments of Saturday and
hesterday upon the debate on the sugar dutiea, you
ave conveyed the impression that, whilst Lord John
Russell and his party were opposed to the exclusion of
slave-labour sugar, the' free-traders who voted with the
Government were supporters of that absurd discrimina-
tion. I trust you will, in fairness, permit me to inform your
readers that Mr. Miles's amendment and the Government
plan both excluded slave-grown sugar. So far from the
free-traders having sanctioned the principle of distinguish-
ing between free and slave labour produce, you will find that
they recorded their votes upon Mr. Ewart's motion iu favour
of the equalisation of the duties upon all foreign and colonial
sugars.—l am, Sir, your obedient servant,

06frHaas'stthh amendment`,rForwne
"Free
Tra deablest
wcWoenedd
itihrceatevotelfy gdi
thoseevreinv
de non
ftrlm
support
eptnobrewt
defenceht oo Mpurt.
" A. W. PAULTON."
and we have conveyed no impression with regard to the
as their only symbol of political union, except such as
organ. That impression we may briefly reproduce as
follows :—Those gentlemen say that their " only ac-
knowledgment of party compact is strictly bound up in
the advancement of" the single principle of free trade.
They assume the right, therefore, to ask no other
question with regard to this Government measure than
—whether the scale of duties proposed by Government
or their opponents approach nearest to free trade. That
right we should admit unreservedly, were no other
considerations involved in this question. Were it a
mere question of figures between two scales—were it
I merely a question whether Sir Robert Peel's figures,
,or Mr. Miles's, should be preferred, we should not dis-
pu‘'e their preference. indeed, as matters stand, we
shout.i hardly have thought it necessary to criticise
their cliejee, if it were not put forward, with some con-
fidence, fbk- "the approbation and imitation of others."
This is a tone and style which challenges animadver-
sion. We dispute altogether that a single commercial
principle should guide all public action. We say
that tie higher principles of national conduct are
to at all risks, and on all occasions, and by every
individual vote, vindicated ; and that, if those prin-
ciples are invaded by this Sugar Bill of the
Government, no risk of inconvenience, from the
possible event of delay in substituting something better
for it, should have swayed the vote of a single man, who
preferred his character as Englishman to any immediate
interest as trader or consumer. If this language is
strange to gentlemen, whose " only acknowledgment of
party compact" is a principle of trade, we can only sky
we are sorry for it. Our idea of conduct in national
matters embraces trade certainly—but something more.
Our idea of the duty of all men in all their votes
upon this Sugar Bill is—that they should first ask
themselves—not whether this or that figure of any scale
is eligible for the present year—but whether this or
that principle of national legislation is to confront the
world as English. It is this which legislators have
first to lay to heart, even before next year's
consumption. A new principle is propounded
to regulate our dealings with friendly. nations. Is it
sound or vicious—calculated to maintain or lo wer cur
national character—calculated to simplify or embarrass
our relations with the great family of mankind ?
We have not hesitated to say that any conceivable
inconvenience of the moment is escaped too dearly by
setting up a wrong principle in the face of all nations,
simply to cover the retreat of the ruling party here from
a false position. Even regarded in a solely commercial
point of view, the adoption of such a p rinciple
is stated by the able free-trade organ above
alluded to, as calculated to give "just cause
of offence and estrangement," and provoke mea-
sures of retaliation. Even, therefore, with sole re-
ference to immediate commercial interests, v'e deem
this a good reason for resisting such m mea-
sure at every stage. But, we repeat, there are higher
than immediate commercial interests, important as
these are. There are higher than commercial reasons
for giving no men " just cause of offence and es-
trangement." We contend that, neither in this nor in
any case, involving national equity and fair dealing. is
it the part of independent men to calculate whether
their vote may be followed by this or that consequence
of an inferior order to the considerations on which that
vote is given. It is the duty of legislators to assert, by
their every vote, the great principles of legislation. If
those principles are infringed by this measure, that in-
fringement is the " great fact" which should swallow up
lesser facts in the minds of those who are called upon t(
represent England to the world.
STANDARD.—In the Committee of the Mullis ,of
Lords upon the Bill for suppressing brothels, Earl 'Fitz-
hardiner'v, in the indulgence of that peculiar tas tel of
which he has given more than one proof, renew. ul his
attack upon the Dean and Chapter of Westmi; aster,
charging that venerable body with connivance a t the
abuse to immoral purposes of several miserable tene-
ments held by lease under them. The Bisho p of
Gloucester again very clearly demonstrated the the
Dean and Chapter were in the matter guiltless ei ten of
neglect, inasmuch as they had uniformly refus ed to
renew leases to those wlio bad so infamously per. tertecl
their property to the service of vice, and bought in the
outstanding leases wherever they had the opport unity.
That the Dean and Chapter had not waited fo r this
receist rebuke in Parliament, the Right Rev. Lord proved
by a reference to the letter of Mr. Hunt, their sui •veyor.
Whether it is Earl Fitzhardinge's purpose, in the course
he takes, to protect brothels, or to asperse the clergy 'of tho
Established Church, we are unable to conjecture.: But
whatever may be the design of the Noble Earl,
we think it possible that he may have been doing
good unconsciously. Among other of his Lor
invidious remarks, he stated that several nol
and gentlemen had caused to be inserted in ly zilding
leases a penal clause, providing that the applica 'ion of
any house to be built upon the premises lease, I shall
work a forfeiture of the lease. These penal clans es are,
we know, now very commonly inserted in Ist adding
leases, but they are altogether a novelty ; there is pro-
bably not one lease in existence, forty years
old, containing such a clause, and of course. even
were the present Chapter of Westminster to he held
responsible for the acts of their predecessors', -forty
years ago, they can hardly be blamed .for not
having thought of a measure of precaution that; at the
time had never occurred to any one else. Th.! intro-
duction of these clauses is curious, and it is to. be ex-
plained by two causes. First, and most gratify:ing, the
general improvement in morals, manners, antl tastes.
Secondly, the change that has taken place in the
system of building, which has given effect to
the moral improvement in this manner. For-
merly houses were built singly ; recently they are
built by streets, and even by collections of- streets.
Now the builder of a single house, if morally indiffe-
rent, had no care whatever for his neighbours,. bet with
the builder of a street or a collection of streets' it is dif-
ferent—the respectability of the neighbourhood which he
is creating is a matter of great pecuniary importance to
him. The presence of one or two disreputable houses
in a street is known prodigiously to depreciate the
value of all the other houses in that street, and, thus the
most profligately regardless of public morals still feels
the necessity of protecting his property from taint by
the penal clauses of whicb we have spoken. In the case
of old leases, however, a landlord, whether of one or
more houses in a neighbourhood, is wholly without
remedy, though his moral feeling may be outraged,
and his pecuniary interest, too, injuriously affected
by the abuse of his property. This we believe to be
precisely the condition of the Dean and Chapter of
Westminster. Now the unconscious good for which we
give Earl Fitzhardinge credit, is the placing the import-
ant subject of the Bishop of Exeter's Bill in this new
and practically useful light. Whatever the Noble Earl
and others like him may think of the obligation of the
Legislature to guard the morals of the people, all
will admit the duty of Parliament to protect
property ; but property is, as we have intimated,
enormously depreciated by the proximity of those
infamous houses which the Bill of the Bishop of
Exeter would suppress. Might not the Legislature
wisely and justly interpose to protect property from suck
depreciation by giving the authority of a general law
to the principle of the penal clauses, of which mention.
has been made ? What objection, for example, could
there be to a provision added, to the Bishop of
Exeter's Bill, to the effect, that a conviction of
the tenant of any house for using such house as, &e.,
should operate as a forfeiture of his lease to his
immediate lessor, and so upwards. This would be one
of that best kind of laws, laws that execute themselves
for the inhabitants of any neighbourhood disgraced and.
impoverished by oneof these abominable nuisances 'weak/
lose no time in effectually relieving themselves from it,
after the law had supplied them with the means.
We have not seen the Bill—it may, for anything we
know, contain such a provision • but if it does nOt, that
provision certainly ought to be added.

The Mermaid steam-ship, Joseph Hearn, com-
mander, arrived on Monday afternoon, at two o'clock. from Ft.
Petersburgh, having left the Thames at noon on the 4tk
inst. This is the quickest voyage vet made with cargo be-
tween London and the Russian eapital.
-
NEWLY INVENTED SPECTACLES, Deafness Relieved
Telescopes, Opera Glasses, &c., 39, Albemarle street,Pic.
cadil ly. Deafness Acoustic Instruments—lnvisible Voice
Conductors when fixed in the cavity of the ears are not
perceptible, they enable individuals at an advanced age,
and of forty and fifty years' standing, of extreme deaf-
ness, instantly to join in general conversation, and tes
catch the sound of a distant low speaker at churclh,
theatre, &c.—lt pours the conversation into the ears to
such an extent that in most severe cases deafness cannot
be observed. Also original Ear Cornets, French
German, and Spanish Artificial Ears and Improved hear-
ing Trumpets of every description. Immediately the
Newly Invented Spectacles are placed before imperfect
vision that mist and dullness which appear before that
eyes is removed, every object becomes clear and distinct,,
so that the most aged defective sight becomes bright and
brilliant, and is brought to its youthful, natural, and ori-
ginal state. Also Achromatic Waistcoat Telescopes and
Opera Glasses. Every kind of Telescopes of larger sirs,
with increasing powers, for Shooting, Sea purposes, and
upon stand fur astronomical observations, with the cele-
brated Lenses of the most clear, transparent brilliancy;
the powers are so great and the Lenses so bright anti,
brilliant, that minute objects at an extraordinttry distances
are brought completely under the eyes.—Sportsmen, Ton.
rists, and sea-side visitors will indeed hate a great treat.
Cautior.—Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, Opticians anti
Aurists, are not in any way connected with a person of
the same name in their immediate neighbourhood sior
in any part of the country. To prevent mistakes be
cautions, and observe,—Only to be had at39,Albetuarkie
street, Piccadilly, opposite the York Rota