The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-19 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY' EVENING, JUNE 19, 1851.

• tI:INDEPINDII24T ELECTORS ol
11011111100111 0111111111WW/L
—A VIM. bi•tai WI/WA r lb. Misgaily at
yew W_rr lesemi des* Kr. lam 4 11w Imes
syssW e =MOW ke row
=
AilmoseZpielemi IPA Widow ors Pawn Pe new
wait ea e„, se sawn to Irma' egrA
pikpass efiZiamed•
alai NW paled whom NW I sea ay tint pea vU
eel la an • /no osmats• 4 so estanlos esikew sad •
swag pmeler ing siewares sapid le swilsesse We wattles
say ow Oita* isq lbse PAW, et bas pars
• Rasa tam alssassmot el Wit, Ow lb, iMs••W 4
this wassay. 1 bellssesW, apsiewa eel
=l6trria peeeil. a:A ta at
diwase kr Sew= et saws WWI Mem Is. la
bilk INS saw ial week st We pa
wend WWI= Idswilrimi Ihe early isrlal 4my NM
te diebilles awl sawspawkswessoftsitomenewlpeniel kw awl
maw% sem Row tesilaswi tap w ire
es bar yweralseest Pa Media 11/
MON priesipas gem= Owe WI, ts, tits
Nadas 4 Pladasass, ban swing* mac sin et nails
nut sal bodssonn, no lOW 4 Me% I =l.l* my. 1 One
Medan* *lima dasibilll/1110 dam Ss es as/ is.
Swale se Yastaay.
I law am ep to Was et Indoses. sal awe bend
Ina MO Ma ssainlala assionlnl
Tel
Toe nay, Onts-
OM% Pei lees/
ay seppeedep sli wawa Main se lairirs tin
woad Pei. anwesak W areseause at Its sysairy, tad
=4, ems SA awe hassiefessiy mama your nal
I natimals sad prlaslols• as solis.
Waal • Ingo silsdly of per Inds: sad, lianas reeling sirs
sinsais• assomonss al sopoort, flask wilt sceldsass M Us Is, of
elsetlia yoa OM me wonky Os disdastros las lawn.
at MO ~ I sew es
I wad%
San
DA % BAL01101f&
Kris Park, has la, IL%

.owl

&sally reJeded by the government of Brazil in two
elaborate Notes bearing date the 24th of April and
the WO May; Mr. HUDSON, on the one band, con-
that, under the 18th article of Lord Pox-
postallja Treaty, Brazil and Buenos Ayres are
obliged to give England six months' notice before
they can enter on hostilities ; and Senhor PAULIN°,
arguing that the article refers restrictively only
to a rupture arising out of questions in-
volved in the negotiations for the definitive treaty con-
templated by the preliminary Convention, and
has no reference whatever to matters unconnected
with negotiations for such a treaty ; otherwise
theme two states would have deprived themselves
of the power of attack or defence belonging to all
communities.
But, it is further observed by Senhor PAULIN°,
the government of Brazil has no intention of making
war on Buenos Ayres, and even were the article
applicable, Brazil cannot, therefore, give the intima-
tion it requires. Any hostilities that Brazil may enter
on will be against the Banda Oriental, and they,
at all events, are clearly not included in the 18th
article of the preliminary convention ; for if that
article included such hostilities, why, it is asked,
was it not appealed to by England in 1842, when
Buenos Ayres invaded the Banda Oriental ? By
what principle Gan the article, which was not
deemed applicable to the Governor of Buenos Ayres
in 1842, when ho attacked General Itivana, be so
now to Brazil when it has a quarrel with General
ORIBE ? _

Interesting, however, as such questions are to the
governments of Brazil and Buenos Ayres, the question
that concerns the people of this country, is the ex-
tent, if any, to which we are bound to interfere
whenever disputes or differences arise in the Plate.
Has England, or has it not, guaranteed the Conven-
tion of 1828 with all its results ; and if so, where is
such guarantee to be found? Serious questions these
are, seeing that the Plate is never free from embarrass-
ments.

On the very eve of witnessing the signature of the
treaty of the 27th August, 1828, Lord PoNSONBY ex-
pressly stated, we repeat, that he was not authorised
by his government to contract any obligation in
reference to it ; and ho refused to guarantee its
stipulations ; all that he did was to mediate
between the two states, and to attest the
execution of the fruits of his mediation
by the Brazilian and Buenos Ayrean Plenipoten-
tiaries. Consistently with this state of things
General Rosss always repulsed our intervention when
engaged in hostilities with RIVERA, and now when
Brazil has a controversy in hand with the Bar.da
Oriental, it equally denies the right of England to
interfere. Here then is a consensus of testimony
against our right to be perpetually meddling, making,
and marring in the affairs of the Plate. What has
the Foreign-office to oppose to it?
To defend British subjects, when oppressed, in-
jured, and insulted, be it in Greece or in Venezuela,
to Buenos Ayres or in Brazil, is the duty of British
diplomacy ; a duty from which it will never, it is to
be hoped, shrink when the necessity arises; never,
we well know, so long as Lord PALMERSTON
directs our foreign relations. But it is neither
our duty nor our right to be restraining this
country from war, putting pressure on that
state to yield its just pretensions, rather than let it
interrupt, by its hostilities, our commerce. Young
states must grow; must learn from experience their
own true policy; must, in the contest of nations,
make their own way to greatness and power; and
the more they are left to themselves, to their own
free agency, the better for them, the safer for the
rest of tho world. Let us, therefore, if only in the
selfishness of our own interests, leave the Plato and
its neighbours to pacify themselves.

Taouon the Society for the Propaation of the
Gospel is not a body that courts publicity, or that
recognises public responsibility, it is nevertheless
very natural and very proper that once in fifty years
at least it should give some account of itself and of
its doings. And, though we, of course, can't swell
the chorus of those adulatory strains raised by
royalty, episcopacy, and aristocracy at its jubilee on
Tuesday, we are 6.r from denying that the society
may in the century and a half have performed
many excellent services to the British colonies which
are the especial field of its exertions; more, however,
it is the opinion of close observers, to the church
i than to the gospel.
The society is, from its very constitution, from its
traditions, from the rivalry which in the time of its
apathy and slothfulness it excited in a more popu-
larly formed and governed association, from the
hands into which its real management has now
fallen, from the pretensions they have adopted, and
from the whole tenour of its proceedings, the high-
est of all the high church bodies. Its affairs are,
substantially, managed by the high church
bishops and by churchmen higher in views than
even they are ; as Mr. ERNEST HAWKINS, Mr.
Justice COLERIDGE, Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. HUB-
BARD, and Archdeacon HALE—men of high charac-
ter, pure lives, great ability, and much social influ-
ence ; but notoriously attached to, and actively en
gsged in promoting those claims for the Church of
England which, in the estimation of, as we believe,
a majority of its members, interfere between it and
the gospel it was instituted to propagate.
This being the case, it may well create surprise,
that at its jubilee, the principal speakers were not
merely men who do not take an active share in the
administration of the society, but were show per-
sonages, who, in point of fact, generally differ in
principles from those who do direct its operations,
who dissent from high church pretensions, and who
really know little or next to nothing of what the
society is about. To read, indeed, the orations of
the chief lay speakers, it might almost be supposed
that the jubilee had been celebrated in Exeter-hall,
where evangelicalism and dissent delight to enjoy
their triumphs, rather than in St. Martin's Hall, the
spot where, twelve months ago, some 1,800 clergy of
the church of England denounced the royal supre-
macy of the crown in affairs ecclesiastical.
The skilful arrangement of the jubilee, adopted, it
may have been, to cloak and conceal the true cha-
racter of the society in its existing developments,
reduced, however, some curious results. There was
rsince ALBERT, in that pleasant state of generalisa-
tion which characterises all his Royal Highness's
agreeable and suggestive speeches, landing and
praising (and not more than his memory and services
to England and Europe merit) the presbyterian
WiLwat 111. as the greatest of all our monarchs,
to a society which sees only through the eyes and
hears but by the cars of episcopacy. There, too, was
Lord JOHN Russets. launching out into ecstasies as
to the miraculous effects of circulating the Bible, to
an association which only recognises the holy scrip-
tures as interpreted by the Prayer-book. Next, was
Earl OBEY, at whose door, as Colonial Secretary,
our bigots lay the encouragement given to papal
aggresston at home by his recognition of Roman
catholic epiaoopacy abroad, delivering himself of a
homily on the policy of converting every emigrant
into a church of England missionary. Then came
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT, a gentleman who, though he
refuses to defend the church when assailed in the
realm, insisted on the necessity of its being 'ye
in the colonies. In short, save for the es of a
couple of bishops, who knew what they were about,
the whole proceedings of this High Church Jubilee
were served up on the occasion of the Royal Presi-
dency in very Low Church sauce; and many of the
speeches might as appropriately have been delivered
at a Bible meeting, or the Church Missionary Anniver-
sary, as at the semi-centenary rejoicing of the Society
for Me Propagation of the Gospel. The whole affair
wore very much the air and aspect of a sham. It
was a sort of speech day for the Prince to praise the
church, the bishops to praise the Exhibition, and the
whig ministers to praise everything and everybody.
Like the lady in the play, the orators one and all
eldi:dOnnrttetittnsogusuggett7tFevoeci",
ehtoywhaseve,ra,aithde Dhisukegramof NEWan-
inome of " 83,0001. a year, besides 20,000/. for special
objects." This enormous revenue it principslly
spends in the colonies ; in planting what Lord
HARROWBT, with more grandiloquence than accu-
racy, called independent episcopal communities,"
and in sending out bishops to superintend them.
Well, then, is the church of England spreading and
extending itself in the colonies? Does that church,
thus largely and liberally assisted, make commensal-
rate progress in our tranamarine possessions? Does
it, with this &5,0001. a-year, and with this society
and its episcopal and aristocratic supporters at its
back, far outstrip all other religions sects in the colo-
nies in sums, in numbers, in influence, end in hold

of popular feelings and affections? This, we take it,
is the test by which to try the society and the oolo-
nial churches it supports.
Now,it is notorious that in our colonies the church
of England has had little success—has made small
way; that in importance, in usefulness, and in po-
pularity, various of what it would call dissenting
sects have, even in their poverty, important ad-
vantages over the church; that it is the form of
divine worship adopted in every colony by a small
minority ; and that, were we to lose British North
America and the Australian, as we did the United
States, we should then have episcopacy at a great
discount—a sickly infant in swaddling clothes.
No doubt, it is true, as was so loudly boasted on
Tuesday, that great efforts and exertions have of late
years been made by the society ; excited by the
rivalry of the Church Missionary Society, it has
risen from its former apathy, and has sent forth its
bishops by tens and its clergy by hundreds. But,
what then? It does not follow that the church
of England is making any real progress in the
Cape of Good Hope, for instance, because Dr. GnaT
is Bishop of Cape Town, because he has dubbed an
episcopal chapel a cathedral church, and because,
under his superintendence, the number of the clergy
has been doubled or trebled. These and other such
agencies for church extension in the colonies are
means only, not ends; they may fail by their misdi-
rection in practical operation by reason of the prin-
ciples on which they are applied, because they are
accompanied by pretensions on belief that are
repulsive of church membership. And this, we arc
afraid, is generally
.characteristic of the society's opc- I
rations and clergy in the colonies. Colonial society is
essentially democratic, almost republican, in its tenden-
cies; the uses of adversity in the colonies everywhere
develop self-reliance, ant throw men on the exercise
of their own faculties and judgment. Of all things,
then, ecclesiastical pretensions are most unsuited to
gain converts and supporters in the colonies. Yet
everywhere this society's adherents—its clergy, mis-
sionaries, and bishops—put forth those pretensions in
their most offensive shape; in every colony they
claim to constitute the church ; treat the ministers of
other churches as Mr. Riciitaus does MERLE D'Ai.7-
SIGNE at home—" mere laymen ;" refuse co-opera-
tion, fellowship, and intercourse with other orthodox
Christians; and affect social superiority quite as re-
pulsive as their ecclesiastical pride. Non hie
nosier sermo. Professor JOUNSTONL'S " Notes
on North America" are perhaps the latest
work (certainly of value) on any colony; and
such is very much the account he gives of the Church
of England in New Brunswick; there it has the
active support of the See
,fiir the Propagation of the
Gospel, and to that support it is that he chiefly attri-
butes its want of power and influence. The Bishops of
1.05005 and ()swim ought, therefore, to be careful
not to blow the trumpet of this society too loud ; for
such noise may attract serious attention to it; and
may dirniiii,h its " income of 6.3,0001. a-year besides
a special fund of 20,0001."
Good it has, we repeat, done—much good. But
none comparable with what its means, its position,
its power, and its authority ought to have achieved.
It has thought too much of the church, too little of the
Gospel; and in the hands of ERNI:if HAWKINS has
become a society for the propagation of tractarianism
abroad; possibly in the hope, that, like young
chickens, it will come home to roost, in the shape of
synods, convocations, church courts, and church

FRANCE.

wEDNESDAY EYVNIXO.

.....
The President will review the three divisions of
the garrison of Paris respectively on the 21st, 24th,
and 26th inst. On the 28th he will review the gar-
risons of Versailles and St. Germains.

M. Lemulier presented himself yesterday in court
before the Procureur of the Republic, who informed
him that a juge d'inetruction was employed upon his
ease, and that several witnesses would be examined
to-day. The public continue to be occupied with
this affair. The awkwardness of the case lies in
the imposibility of bringing the law to bear either
upon the libeller or libellee. The notes of Carlier
being strictly private screen him from all prosecu-
tion ; and no name having been published, or even
indicated by M. Forcade, that editor of the Messwjcr
is equally safe. On the other hand, there is no ar-
ticle in any code by which M. Lemulier can be sub-
jected to any penalty. Hence, whatever the upshot
of the legal investigation may be, as far as verifying
the charge goes, the real end of justice, condign
punishment, must remain foiled. The affair is there-
fore one which touches the parliament and society
rather than the tribunals.
In the committee on revision yesterday—

M. HE CORCELLES addressed himself to answer General
Cavaignac and M. de Tocqueville. Although a moderate
republican, he repudiated General Cavaignoe's right divine
of the republic. Ho thought an acknowledment of the
republic might be introduced into the report; but a solemn
and collective assertion in its favour would have the air of
prescribing to the country, when it was called on to pro-
nounce itself. It would, moreover, divide the majority
and compromise the question. He confessed himself in
favour of altering the law of May, but was for keeping that
question clear of revision. He was in favour of a strictly
legal revision, and finally deplored the recourse to petitions.
which he regarded as a dangerous instrument for exercising
a pressure upon the legislature.
General Cavaignac, H. Charamaule, and Colonel Charms
maintained the right of the legislature to deterznino the
points which wanted revision.
The cause of revision was defended by M. Hurons, one
of the three members of the committee who had signed the
motion of H. de Broglie. He drew attention to the hopes
which extreme parties placed in the crisis of 1&52 for the
realisation of schemes which, carried out, would plunge the
country into anarchy. The revision of the constnuion was
a legal remedy against that crisis, and the only one. There-
fore it was the duty of the Assembly to adopt it without
hesitation. Nor could this course be declined without
braving the opinions of the country, which only endured
sufferings to which it was condemned during this period of
transition with patience, because it looked to the alteration
of the constitution as the terns of its distress and commercial
stagnation. The objections alleged on account of the danger
of opening an arena for party struggles were puerile. Par-
ties are not mastered by sparing and flattering their illu-
sions. They are fostered and inspirited by the notion
that the republic is not the government suited to the
country, and by the hope that it will be set aside by
the nation on the first appeal to it. To decline revision
would have the semblance of fearing an appeal to the coun-
try in the presence of extreme parties, which was the very
way to make these more bold and dangerous. The diver
gencics of opinion made it hard to believe that by opening
the question of revision they could arrive at any result but
the maintenance of the republic. That point settled, how
many defects remained in present institutions which called
for reform. The existence of • single Assembly, its perma-
nence, the rivalry of powers, the double responsibility of the
head of the executive and of his miuisters fur all acts of the
government, all these were admitted evils, which required
to be remedied. Why not, therefore, set about the task
immediately ? Were the interests in whose name such re-
forms were demanded subordinate to the necessity of pre-
venting before all else the re-election of the President ? The
only possibility of avoiding that re-election will be by the
intervention of a constituent assembly. If, on the other
hand, it be not possible to avoid the re-election, the worst
thing that could befall would be to leave it unconstitutional.
The achievements of the party of order had derived their
strength and success from resting on a base of legality. To
dispense with this principle would be full of danger. Hence
theniajority of the Assembly ought to desire legal and total
revision. It ought to call parties to explain themselves be-
fore the country, and to leave the country to answer them.
M. MOULIN held that the doubtful wording of the 111th
article ought tabs interpreted in the manner most favourable
to the free sovereignty of the nation. It was absurd for •
legislative assembly to impose a restricted mandate upon
• constituent assembly chosen under circumstances of
greater solemnity, more numerous, embracing its every way
• larger scope, and invested with a fuller authority. If
such restrictions were imposed, they would be disregarded
as idle, futile, null and void. As to the question whether
the constitution was defective as a whole, or only in parts,
not only the partisans of constitutional monarchy, but those
who desired the consolidation of the republic agreed that it
was defective as a whole. M. Odilon Barret, fur instance,
said that the present government was no government at W.
The country, by a series of acts, had manifested the same
opinion. Some feared that socialism would rise out of revi-
sion. If that fear were well founded socialism would have an
equal chance of triumphing in the elections of a legislative
as a constituent assembly. gut it would triumph in neither.
Would the constituent bring back the constitutional mo-
narch) ? There was no probability, not even a pusibility
of such a result if the present divisions of the monarchic
parties continued. Hence there was an opening for true
republicans to amend the republic and make it a serious
government, to give repose and prosperity to the country.
If they succeeded in doing this the union of the royalist
parties would come a day too late. But the republic would
have much to do before it effaced the recollection and regret
of the constitutional monarchy. A wise organisation of the
executive power in a centralised country like France was
the most essential reform. As to the moment for revision,
what better moment could be chosen than the present,
where in the upper regions all was conflict, and the lower
al distress and discontent. Such a situation was not tenable
for a great nation. If they refuse to recur to the only re-
medy, the refusal would become anew and serious grievance,
which, added to so many others, would find an issue in the
unconstitutional re-eleetion of the President.
Bnanena said that the danger of the crisis of 1852

could only bo averted by convoking a constituent, charged
to make an entire revision of the constitution. if the re-
' publican form were maintained he was in favour of keeping
Art. 46. Tho 111th article said well, that the constituent
should not overstep the questions submitted to its examina-
tion. In his opinion the range of a constituent reached not
beyond the limitation of the powers in the sphere of legi la_
tire action. A legislative assembly had not the right to
regulate and limit the exercise of the powers of the consti-
tuent which it convoked; nor could the legislative deter-
mine whether the country was to have monarchy or the
republic.
• •

-
The committee on revision did not meet to-day.
Yesterday the Assembly adopted with urgency
the new commercial convention with the Sardinian
States. The remainder of the bitting was taken up with
the discussion on the second reading of the proposition
of M. B. Delessert, tending to modify the regulations
now in force in the savings banks. Three projects
were brought before the Assembly: M. B. Delessert
proposed to limit the amount of deposits to 1,2501`r.;
the committee reduced that amount to 1,000 fr.;
whilst M. Lanjuinais, by an amendment, proposed to
make the amount 1,500 ft. After some discussion,
the sums proposed by MM. Delessert and Lanjuinais
were rejected, and the article of the committee
adopted.
The remaining articles of the bill were passed
to-day.
The Assembly to-day proceeded to discuss the Lyons
Police Bill. The urgency, opposed by M. Sain, was
voted. M. Pelletier then made a long speech upon
the tyranny of the police, and wound up with a vio-
lent attack against the majority, stigmatising the
laws which it had passed. He found great faults
with the present organisation of society; and finally
turned round upon the party of the Elysec, whom
he called the accomplices of gtrasbourg and Boulogne.
Upon returning to his place, M. I'cllctier received
the congratulations of the Left.
M. Leon Faucher raised a great stir by styling the
speech of M. Pelletier abominable, an expression
which was repeatedly cheered by the whole majority,
whose members came down nearer to the tribune to
applaud. The Left appealed to the president to call
the speaker to order. M. Dupin replied that there
was no occasion for such a reprimand. M. Leon
Faucher continued to stigmatise such speeches as the
preceding, which, he said, compromised the repre-
sentative system, spread alarm throughout the
country, and disturbed work. Ile then proceeded
to show the necessity of passing the bill. M. Jules
Favre demanded to speak.
Notwithstanding the outcry of the Left the As-
sembly refused to adjourn the debate ; and decided
on passing to the discussion of the articles. M. Chanet
spoke, without being able to make himself heard for
the noise, on the Ist article, which contains the
principle of the bill, and which combines
in the hands of the prefect of the Rhone the police
of Lyons and tho suburban towns. The article was
carried by 449 against 217.
M. de Laboulie has presented a motion for pre-
venting all prorogation of the Assembly until the
expiration of its powers. Nevertheless leaves of
absence for six weeks may be granted to not more
than 100 representatives at the same time.
Messrs. Bourzat, Dupont (de Bussaq, and seven
other members of the Mountain, have laid before the
Assembly a proposition for a negociatiom to be opened
with the Holy See, for the ;oppression of eighteen
of the thirty diocesan or metropolitan sees esta-
blished in execution of the law of July 1, 1821.
M. Ducos has been appointed to-day by the Elec-
toral Union to present the batch of petitions for revi-
sion signed by 15,000 Parisians.
The President has promised a deputation front
Beauvais to visit that city for the inauguration of the
statue of Jeanne Hachette on the 6th of July.
M. Mouchy presented a report, in the name of the
committee of the budget, approving the supplementary
credits demanded for the railways of 'fours and Bor-
deaux and Paris and Strasburg. The report recom-
mended the adoption of the bill of the Minister of
Public Works for the entire completion of the rail-
waY to Hormatting and the Rheims branch.
'the committee on the Avignon Railway has re-
jected the proposition of M. Frew for appointing a
sub-committee to draw up a (-whirr des rhotwes, and has
decided upon examining to-morrow the motion of M.
Dufaure, who proposes the provisional execution by
the state until some company make an acceptable
offer.