too ‘ sion (for that is ord) under-w ich it groans—and 1y and ave-lo come again ofthemselves the report from Littlington parish (Cam. ridgeshire) there _ the following rcmarka. 1e statements,—‘ﬁinformant, Mr. Kimpton, a overseer, a constlcruhle occupier. told me hat * " the land vrithin the parish was

-. S

A ply sufﬁcient to employ all the labour. iffaur-

t cultivated ;' that it was ‘ a light chalky ﬁt it, naturally poor, but capable ofa very high er egree of cultivation by the aid of artiﬁcial rl pure;' ‘but that the taking of Tithcs in Jl at! no a great restraint and impediment to

he cultivator ot'land or this character ;’ that. in some cases the indisposition to cultivate ecms to have arisen in part from irritation of ind on the subject; a Mr. -——, occupying 00 acres, having abandoned the cultivation of island altogether. being a person of capital. nd independent of farming proﬁts ;’ and that ie general result has been to throw larg‘c - numbers of able-bodied men on the parish who ight otherwise have been kept in the candi. ion of indcpcudzmt laborers. ,The same. Com- , issioncr mentions four other parishesin (‘um' ' idg‘Cshire in Nubia], but for the tithes. inclo- arcs of valuabie lands might have been eti'nct- . , which would have prmidcd labor for him" reds: The Tithcs, the chains, the taxes, ex- . Iain all. Not but what other Ci.'cunrsl:u1c‘c§ . ay have helped to accelerate ourdownwurd areer, such as the manners, as well as the (~‘(. ctions ofour (Henry—tho shame as well as the eight ofour chains—the mode as well as the mount ofour taxes; but that to pay so much 0 priests, i‘ncltiloggers, and tax-vathercrs, i. lore than enough to drive any people to per- lliou.‘

OMl’ARTI VIC 87‘]? lill'i’ 1TH OI" THE FIVE GREJ'." POM/LIEU (1!“ I'd/POPE.

In the present pesture of atiuirs in E”. ope, it may be worth while to trim a lance, (it must of necessnty be a min!“ no) at the comparative strength of the ive inﬂuential powers of Europe—Russia, Austria, Prussia, France, and England. "e may dismiss the population in a word; but will put down the ﬁgures as we after- vards have occasion to refer to them. Tb; population of Russia is about 60 mills.

nstria :33 Prussia 13 France 3.“ Great Britain 2 l

\Vith respect to Great Britain. ifu'e add to her account the population of her Indian .4 Colonial l’oswssions, we should swell _ total ofthe inhabitants of the British dominions to at least MO millions ; a berequal to the pepulation or" the other four great powers of Europe. But it is , hot alone from the number of the popula- tion under its rule,that aStute derives its aggressive power, but from the revenue it can raise to set that population in motion. Let us seeme the Five Powers ai'e rela- tively circumstanced in this respect. The revenue of Russia is about 14 m. stg. Austria 12 Prussia 8

'ill'll-

THE BRITISH AMERICAN.

38 54

France Great Britain

.' Let us see how far those revenues are

applicable to external purposes; for the apparent large revenue of a kingdom is as deceptive as the delusive long rent roll of a land owner, whose income is reduced by the Interest on nis mortgagespso national revenues for the disposable purposes of their Governments, are minus the inte- rest oftheir debts. The National Debt of Russia may be cal culated at—including charges of Interest

‘ Collection 55 millions 3 mills. Austria 60 3 Prussia 28 1 1-2 France 200 10 Great Britain 770 28

The amount of interest on the respec- tive nationaldebts being; deducted, we shall ﬁnd that the'surplus disposable revenue of each stands thus:—

Disposable Reveriiie,at‘ter paying them-

terost of the Nation Debt of Russia 11 millions Austria 9 ,Prussia 6 1—2 ‘ France 28 Great Britain ‘16

The disposable Revenue, thus stated, it must be borne in mind, is more or less ab- sorbed in the necessary expenses of the ln- ternal Government, independently of the expenses incurred in the maintenance of armies in a state of warlike efﬁciency. we shall have to recur to this point again presently. \Ye may observe at this place, that the power of F. .gland, as to its dispo- sable revenue is lesx than that of France, although equal to the whole of the revenue of the three other states. We shall on- deavnur to show, however, that the real revenue power of Great Britain is vastly superior tothat of France; but, ﬁrst, let us have befbre us such figures as are ne— cessary in our consideration. A brief sur- , vey 0T the actual state of the fleets and armies of the live great Powers of Europe ‘, will be useful in considering the means of aggression of each at the present time. We will tirst take the lice-ts; and, here, the pro-eminence of England is so great, that the naval forces ofthe other states under consideration, sink into utter insignilicance. in stating the number of vessels of war of each. state, we must classil'y them in a l general way, or sl'udll lull lill’O erroneous deductions. The total number of vessels' of war in the possession of Russsia, (we do notcare for minute correctness, it is the comparative strength ol‘cuch state that: we

are endeavouring to arrive at) is 128 Austria 72 Prussia 2 France . 230 Great Britain 604

37'

But those gross numbers do not express all we want to know; let us make more ph- vious the respective strength of each navy, by a little classiﬁcation. the general term of “ vessels of war” into, “ ships of the line,” “ frigates," and “ armed vessels of all denominations.”—~0f these

Ships of the line. Frigates. Armed vessels

Russia has 48 30 50

Austria 3 8 61 Prussia 2 — — F ranco 60 53 9.07 G. Britain 162 l 18 324

It is difﬁcult to ascertain the actual num- ber of the armies of each state, in. a con- dition of warlike etiiciency: we may form an estimate, however, sufﬁciently ac- curate for our purpose; but it must be borne in mind, that the numerical strength of the army of a State, is a very delusive indication ofjts military power; it is the ﬁnancial means ofa state to supply that army with all the material which forms efﬁciency for action, that is the grand con- sideration. in these times, it is seldom that a state need be in want of soldiers, if it isin possession of the money to pay and maintain them. nln ancient times, war was carried on with men, in modern times it is carried on with money. It is obvious, however, that on some occasions, a large number of men, trained to military habits, and really for the ﬁeld, may place a state of minor resources in a superior and tem- porarily commanding position in respect to another state really far superior in power. But, before we pursue this thoright farther, let us look at. the armies of the Five States under consideration.

RUssia is supposed to have, ot‘soldiers of all sorts throughout her wide spread do-

minion: 600,000 Austria 350,000 Prussia 250,000 France 406 5000 Great Britain 1 10,000

The number of soldiers of Russia is commonly stated at a much larger amount; as high as a million, but although this may be strictly true, if we include the militia, and the barbarous troops of its distant, and Asiatic dominions, it may be doubted whe- ther Russia could bring into the ﬁeld a larger number of etlicient troops. than we have stated. And if Russia has its million of soldiers, France has hardly less. But these troops, powerfalns they may be in resisting invasion, (in Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, they availed nothing) are cer- tainly not to be counted on as any aggres- sive military force. We have now Lefor us, a general View of the respective stat” tics ofthe Five Powers of Europe, imirf‘ diately atfected by the contemplated Ml" lites between Holland on the one side “l” , France and England on the other. 1“," t be seen that, as a navy and defd‘w ~

I .

We will divide '.