The Sun.
London, England, 1842-10-24 00:00:00

wasting, but if that connection inspires Sir JOHN
TYRREL with satisfaction, and affords a ground of

hope to the farmers, we will not rudely snatch it
away. It isnot otherwise than pleasant to us tolearn
that the agriculturists are so proud of their own
productions and think so meanly of those of other
countries, because they may then allow us to leave
them without any fear for their own interest.
Now that Sir JOHN has found out such an excel-
lent reason for not being alarmed at American
pigs, can he not, in good time, to prepare for
PEEL'S next step, find out some equally good
reasons why the farmers may admit American
flour without any loss? The worthy Baronet
must know that it is ground with soft stones, and
is gritty ; that American wheat is never well
cleansed, and is not worth as much as Essex
wheat by at least one-fourth. If Sir ROBERT
PEEL only gave the word to allow the free hn-
portation of American flour, Sir JOHN TYRRELL
would find many alleviating circumstances quite
as rational as the affecting statement that Ame-
rican pork is, worth little or nothing, because
American pigs teed on sheep.

A petition was presented to the Middlesex
Magistrates on Thursday from certain Chartists,
praying for a dancing and music license for a ,
building in Holborn, belonging to what is called
" The National Association of the United King-
dom, for Promoting the Political and Social Im-
provement of the Poor," and, after counsel had
been heard for and against the application, the
license was refused by a large majority, only four
hands being held up in its favour. We are at a
loss to discover any good reason for the course
adopted by the Magistrates on this occasion,
especially after the liberal speech made by their
Chairman, and the manner in which he
pointed out the expediency of provid-
ing moral edification and amusement for
the people. That speech, according to the
report, was loudly cheered from all parts of the
• Court, yet in a very brief space after this cheer-
ing had subsided they declared that to one class
at least, and that rather a numerous one, such
amusements shall be denied. The petitioners, too,
did not belong to that violent sect called " Phy-
sical Force men," but to another which has se-
parated
from the general body, and which pro-
poses to accomplish its objects by peaceful
means, by mental, physical, moral, and political
instruction, and by healthful and rational recrea-
tions, which may serve to cheer the working
classes after the toils of the day. Singing is
considered by many a very rational amusement,
and Sir ROBERT PEEL has such a high opinion
of its moral tendency that he intends to propose
a public grant of money for its encouragement.
Dancing also is considered rational exercise—at
least it is practised by many rational peoPle, and,
though its moral effects may not be so conspl-
cuous, it is patronised by Almack's, by the
Nobles, and the highest ladies of the land, and,
indeed, with a few exceptions, by the whole com-
munity, from the kilted Scotsman, who rejoices
in the " Highland fling," to the QUEEN herself.
The petitioners, therefore, cannot be charged
with asking permission to carry on illegal or im-
moral practices ; nor would the license for which
they prayed enable them to give more effect to
doctrines which may not be suited to
the taste of the Middlesex Magistrates and the
Vestry of the united parishes of St. Giles and St.
George. If the lessons they teach are danger-
ous and illegal, let the place be shut up at once,
let the leaders be tried for their offences, and
the public be convinced that they are in the
wrong; but let not public functionaries, entrusted
with great powers, exercise them with partiality,
and grant permission for harmless amusements
to one class of her MAJESTY'S subjects, whilst it
is refused to another. These remarks are sug-
gested without any reference to the political
tenets of the parties, but from a sense of justice,
and a conviction that these useless annoyances
and unreasonable antipathies only frustrate their
object. Does not the very fact, that these men
are not treated like others, tend to confirm them
in one of the fundamental doctrines of the
Charter, that they are not faithfully represented
in Parliament? And would not a license for
such a place have rather taught those peo-
ple respect for the Magisterial bench,
and put them on their good conduct,
in order that they might confidently apply
for its renewal? But when they find them-
selves a marked sect, and are refused privileges
granted to the frequenters of Exeter-hall and
other places, not remarkable either for the
moderation or the charity displayed at the
meetings, they cannot be expected to entertain
greater reverence for public functionaries,
or a better opinion of that Constitution by which
they consider themselves oppressed. If we are
to believe the poets, music humanises the mind
and even tames the brute creation; and the Ma-
gistrates of Middlesex might therefore have tried
the experiment at least for one year, to see what
would be its effects on the moral-force Chartists

The Madrid mail of the 13th brings nothing
of importance from the capital or the provinces
of Spain in the way of news, and the specula-
tions of the journals are destitute of interest.
The Three per Cents. were done at 211 at 60
days, and Five per Cents. at 27 271 27 at 60 days.

The remarkable letter of Lord ABERDEEN,
addressed to the Lords of the Admiralty, rela-
tive to the slave trade, furnishes an ample topic
for discussion in the Paris papers of Thursday. In
that letter itwas admitted, on the authority of the
Advocate-General, that
.the proceedings at Gal-
linas Rio Cestos, and Sea-bar were not strictly
justifiable, and that the instructions given to her
MAJESTY'S naval officers could not with perfect
legality be carried into effect. His Lordship
submitted also for tire consideration of the Ad-
miralty, whether it might not be proper
to caution our naval officers respecting
the manner in which they acted on their
instructions for blockading the mouth of
of a river; lest the duty confided to them in
suppressing the slave trade might be confounded
with the very different one of the actual blockade.
The writers in these journals generally express
satisfaction with this document, while at the
same time they adduce it as a confirmation of
their assertions, that the right of search had not
been executed according to the law and right of
nations. No doubt they are justified in drawing
such inferences from the letter, and Lord ABER-
DEEN, on finding that our cruisers had received
defective or illegal instructions, did no more than
his duty in redressing the grievance, and taking
precautions against its recurrence. It must, at
the same time, be remarked, that the points re-
ferred to by his Lordship do not bear directly
upon the great question—the right of search
but the French writers, nevertheless, take ad-4
vantage of the circumstance, and consider the
admissions made by the British Minister as very
good reasons for abrogating the treaties of 1831
and 1833.

" Officers," says the Commerce, " who are so little
competent to understand the instructions given to
them for the repression of the slave trade along the
coast of Africa, and who have been guilty of acts of
pillage and destruction, which cannot be considered
as sanctioned by the laws of nations,' ought not to
complain of being calumniated, when we charge them
with wanting moderation in the exercise of the right
of search. By a strange coincidence it is at this
moment, when M. Guizot, in order to defend that
right, repelled the accusations adduced against the
British navy, that Lord Aberdeen confirmed the jus-
tice or our complaints in his letter to the Lords Com-
missioners of the Admiralty. M. de St. Aulaire may
boldly present himself to Lord Aberdeen; and, with
the letter of his Lordship in his hands, demand the
abrogation of the treaties of 1831 and 1833."
" The British Government," says the Courrier
Francais, " appears to feel that her honour engages
her to disavow the acts of barbarity and pillage coin-
mitted by her cruisers at Gallina and at Rio Sestos.
We now ask all those who have read Lord Aberdeen's
letter, whether the Minister ought to have confined
the effects of his displeasure to a soft of public censure
of the acts which he points out to the attention of the
Admiralty ? Is this a sufficient reparation for such
excesses ? We are aware that the Minister who drew
up those homicidal instructions quitted office with
Lord Palmerston, and that he is no longer responsible,
except to public opinion ; but does not Great Britain
owe an indemnity to the people who have suffered ?
and is not this conclusion wiQted to Lord Aberdeen's
letter ? A great nation, wli it has outraged huma-
nity, ought Rot to be satisfied with making a public