The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-06 00:00:00

GRAND BALL AT GUILDHALL.

Mr. Deputy BROWN moved, that the use of the Guildhal
on some day after the 9th of November be granted for a bal
for the benefit of the ward schools of the City.

The motion was unanimously agreed to.
RAILWAY Dimucrons, SHAREHOLDERS, &C.
Mr. Lorr rose to move the following :—" That no mem-
ber of this Court whp is a shareholder an, or director of, or
solicitor, engineer, or architect, to any railway company,
speculation, or undertaking, shall be eligible to sit or vote
upon any committee, or to vote in this Court, whilst any
matter affecting or concerning such railway shall be under
the consideration of this Court or any of its committees."

He with great regret found it necessary to bring forward
such a motion, but he trusted the Court would have the
good sense to maintain its purity, and he did not see how
that could be done without th eadoption of the motion he
took the liberty to make.
Mr. L. TAYLOR seconded the motion.
Alderman SIDNEY hoped the Court would reject such a
motion, as a reflection upon its integrity and an offence to
its understanding. They might as well think of stopping'
the course of the Thames as stop those great tributaries to
the Thames—the railroads. And if all who were in some
way or other connected with railroads were to be excluded
from the power to vote, there would be no such thing as a
railway at all.--(Hear, hear.)
Alderman IV'ism entertained quite a different opinion
from that just expressed by Alderman Sidney, and said it
would be most creditable in the Court to adopt the measure
proposed by Mr. Lott, if it could be legally adopted. He
hoped, at all events, that all the gentlemen who were in •
terested in railways would have the modesty to retire
when any questions affecting them came to the vote.—
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. L. JONES said the motion cast a stigma upon the
Court. He called upon the members to look to the conduct
of the Directors of the Bank in discussing its own charter in
the House of Commons. Was it for a moment insinuated
that they were not to vote on the questions most interesting
to them? And was it in other cases objected that persons
deeply interested in great speculations ought to be exempted
from the privilege?—(Hear, hear.) He never held a rail-
road share, but he should be ashamed to attempt to prevent
those who were shareholders from voting on the subject of
introducing a railroad into the City.
Mr. HALL said the subject was one one which ought to be
discussed in a full Court, and suggested the adjournment of
the discussion.—(Loud cries of " No, no.")
Mr. SELSON then, as daylight was disappearing and dinner
hour was arrived, cried out " I move the adjournment of the
Court."—( Loud cries of " Hear.")
The Loin) MAYOR, upon putting the question, declared the
Court to be adjourned.

THE CORN-LAWS and RELATIONS

WITH AMERICA:— - -
Next in magnitude and public importance to that all-
absorbing topic of the day—how are we to avert a famine?
—is the present position of our relations with the United
States, whether we view them politically or commercially.
We have often heard of foreign quarrels being encouraged
for the purpose of diverting attention from domestic dissen-
sions ; but, in the present case, we fear that the well-founded
apprehensions of calamities at home are excluding from due
appreciation the dangers to which we are exposed abroad.
We are led to believe, from information on which we are en-
-titled to rely, that, notwithstanding the importance of the
" food question," which has occupied the deliberations and
negotiations at Washing-
territory, has been a divided the opinions of the Cabinet in their recent
mtortiinngs,regtahrde itsotatthee oofrets.oounr
ques-
tion scarcely less perplexing and embarrassing. Certain
it is, from all we can glean of public opinion iu the states,
and from all we can learn from private sources of the views
of the Cabinet at Washington, and of their power to control
public opinion, even were they disposed to do so, in order to
effect a friendly settlement of this question—and it is with
reluctance and sincere regret that we make the avowal—
there appears at present scarcely a chance of such views being
entertained in the pending negotiation at Washington as will
or can meet the acceptance of an English Cabinet. Nor are
our fears on this score lessened when we refer to the apparent
precautionary preparations which the recent activity in the
various Government dock-yards would indicate against
apprehended danger; nor when we refer to the fact
that' our cruizers stationed on the west .oast of South
America have sailed to the north with sealeclorders.
The approach of the meeting of Congress, when as a matter
of course the President in his message will be under the ne-
cessity of declaring the views of his Government in regard
to this •now exciting question, renders it a matter of necessity
that our Ministers should be decided as to their policy.. How
far Mr. Polk may, in his message to Congress, change the
tone of his inauguration speech, we will not venture to say,
but it is certain that the events which have since then oc-
curred in America have been such as rather to increase than
subdue the popular appetite for " territory." It has seldom
happened that an English Cabinet has been called upon to
deliberate upon two questions of such vital importance to
the country—famine, with all its social consequences, at
home, and war, with commercial disruptions serious
as could well be both in their nature and extent,
abroad. We protest most earnestly that we are desirous to
avoid creating unnecessary alarm, but seeing the danger, we
feel that we should be most remiss in our duty to the public
if we shrunk from following, the present evidences which are
before us to conclusions which, sooner or later, appear inevi-
table, unless, something be done materially to alter the tone
of public opinion in America with regard to its relations
with this country. However far separated, at first sight, the
two grave questions may lie which at present engross the
attention of the repeated meetings of the Cabinet; a little
-closer investigation will shoit that they are not only nearly
allied in their origin, but that the difficulties in each case
can be best met by the same course on the part of
this country. Looking to America, it is highly
instructive to observe the origin and growth of
the popular excitement with regard to Oregon,
and by whom such recklessness is displayed as to the con-
sequences which may. result to the peace of the two coun-
tries. No one, even in America, pretends to cling to their
asserted right to any portion of the Oregon territory from
the intrinsic value which they attach to it as a possession ;
on the contrary, the tenacity with which they adhere to
those rights, and the propensity which they evince to increase
their pretensions, appear more dictated by a hostility to their
rival joint occupants than by any estimate of the value of
the country. This appears even more evident when we ob-
serve by whom-these feelings of hostility are most evinced.
It is exactly in proportion as parties
are alienated from
England, by an exclusion from a beneficial intercourse with
us, that we find them intemperate and reckless as to the
consequences of a quarrel with respect to Oregon.
islt
not the cotton growers of the eastern or southern
states, nor the commercial classes in the middle and
northern states, that we find heedless of the conse-.
quences of these disputes. The intemperate tone which pre.
veils on this vexatious question excites no less anxiety in
New York, New Orleans, and Boston, than it does in London,
Liverpool, and Glasgow. Singular as it may appear, the
meetings and violent resolutions in regard to Oregon are
chiefly confined to the great agricultural states of the Union;
to the growers of wheat in the west. and of Indian corn in the
south ; and to that large portion of the public and the press
which are enlisted in those interests. Countries and commu-
nities which are bound together by mutual interests will not
lightly hazard an interruption to their intercourse. The road
to mutual concessions, and the adoption of any fair and rea-
sonable proposition for the settlement of disputes, are com-
paratively easy, where it is the interest o both par-
ties to avoid a quarrel. New Orleans would see its inter-
course cut off with New York with 'less, ;regret than
f
it would that with Liverpool. Manchester and Glasgow, as
far as their interests are concerned, could view a bombard-
ment of New York as little less
injurious than that of any
part of our own country. But our policy of protection to
agriculture at home has cut off our communication with the
large agricultural classes in America; and, we are now reap-
ing the bitter fruits cf that policy in the condition to which
our prospects are reduced of the means by which the country
is to be fed for the- next twelve months, while we have
alienated from English sympathies that large class in the
United States with which we should be most closely associated
in mutual interests. The difficulties of the Oregon question in
America, and of the " food question" in England, may well be
considered in relation to each other in their origin, and more
so to to the mew by which they can be most agccesefully

surmounted. Sir Robert Peel should feel no small consola-
tion from the fact, that the two great evils which at present
threaten the country, and which so much perplex his coun-
cils, can be best averted by one and the same policy. He
need have no hesitation as to the course to pursue with regard
to the one difficulty, lest it should aggravate the other ; there
need be no fine balancing of so much good the one case
against so much mischief in the "other. England, and
Ireland in particular, are notoriously deficient of the neces-
sary supply of food to last till.next harvest. If we look
round us everywhere, the United States is the only
country from which any important supplies can be
obtained. An opportunity, consistent with our urgent wants,
presents itself to the Minister to gil*the corn-growers in
America as deep an interest in the rtenance of peace a=
the cotton-growers have now. It is a fact to which we are
enabled to speak, that the chief difficulty which the Ame-
rican Government now feel, with regard to the policy which
will be practicable in respect to the Oregon question, arises
from the views taken by that very class whose interests in
favour of an unbroken peace between the two countries, a
common regard to our own present necessities should lead us
to conciliate. Can any man seriously believe that any
great party in America, who had a real interest in the
continuance of the peace of the two countries,
would interpose objections to any mode by which
such an honourable adjustment could be effected of such a
questions as that now pending between the two countries?
But Sir Robert Peel must make up his mind, if he will allay
fears at home, and dissipate the antipathies against us among
the agricultural classes in America, to abandon for ever his
long- cherished principle of a sliding-scale, which has ever
proved especially harassing to the corn-growers in America,
and which had, in many respects, the appearance of being
especially directed against them. There never was an occa-
sion when a minister had it in his power to avert so much
danger, present and future, by a single act, as Sir Robert
Peel now has, by a repeal of those restrictions of our trade in
grain which have endangered the best interests of this coun-
try equally at home and abroad.—Chronicle.