The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1839

Emperor of Austria, his Majesty the King of the French, her Majesty
the Queen of Great Britain, his Majesty the King of Prussia, and his
Majesty the Emperor of Russia, having taken into consideration their
treaty concluded on the 13th of October, 1638, with his Majesty the
King of the Belgians and his Majesty the King of the Netherlands,
being induced to conclude a final arrangement on the basis of the 94
Articles agreed to by the Plenipotentiaries of Austria, France, Great Bri-
tain, Prussia, and Russia on the 19th of October, 1531, have named foe
their Plenipotentiaries, Fec., who having exchanged their full power, &c.
have agreed and issued— -

" Art. 1. His Maj.?st y the King of the Netherlands engages imme-
diately to convert into a treaty with the King of the Belgians the
articles annexed to the present article and resolved on by a joint agree-
ment under the protection of the Courts of Austria, France, Great 13ri-
lain, Prussia, and Russia.
" Art. 2. Their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the Klng of the
French, the Queen of Great Britain, the King of Prussia, and the
Emperor of Russia declare that by the preceding article the articles
in question are considered as being of the same force and value as ii
they were inserted word for word in the present article, and, conse-
quently, that they are placed undor the guarantee of their Majesties.
" Art. 3. The union which, by virtue of the treaty of Vienna of the
3lst of May, 1831, has existed between Holland and Belgium is ac.
knowledged by his Majesty the King of the Netherlands to be dissolved.
" Art. 4. The present treaty shall be ratified at London. The rati.
fication shall be exchanged there in six weeks, or sooner, if possible.
The exchange of these ratifications shall be made at the same time as
those of the ratifications of the treaty between Holland and Belgium."

NOTE (e) ♦NNEXED TO Tie PROTOCOL OP DEC. a, 1838.
'' In the name of the holy and indivisable Trinity his Majesty tho
King •f the Netherlands and his Majesty the King of the Belgians,
taking into consideration their treaties concluded with their Majesties
the, Emperor of Austria. the King of the French, the Queen of
Great Britain, the King of Prussia, and the Emperor of Russia, and
by his Majesty the King of the Belgians on the 15th of November,
1831, and his Majesty the King of the Netherlands, this day have
named for their Plenipotentiaries, &c., &e., who, &c., have agreed and
signed.

" Art. Ito 9.4 (annexed 13.)
" Art. 25. In consequence of the stipulations of this treaty there
shall be peace and amity between the King of the Belgians on the one
part and the King of the Netherlands on the ether, their respective
heirs and successors, States, and subjects.

" Ar'. 26. The present treaty shall be ratified at London, and the
ratification exchanged in six weeks, or sooner, if possible. This ex-
change shall be made the same time as that of the ratification of the
treaty concluded on this day between his Majesty the King of the Ne.
therlands and their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of the
French, the Queen of Great Britain, the King of Prussia, and the Em.
reror cf Russia."

NOTE (o) ANNEXED TO THE PROTOCOL OF DEC. 6, 1836.
Treaty between the Five Powers and his Majesty the King of the

Belgians."
This treaty merely declares, that in consequence of the new treaties,
that of the lbth of November, 1831, is no longer binding.
Protocol of the Conference of 23d January, 1539, states that the
Plenipotentiary of France has declared himself authorised to agree to the
Protocol of 6th December.

Protocol of the Conference of 23d January, 1839, states that it has
received the note of the Belgian Plenipotentiary delivered on the 14th
instant, and of three memorials presented at the same time.
The note proposing to pay 60 millions of francs for the territory which
Belgium is to restore to Holland is declared to be contrary to their in-
structions, &c.; the decision of the German Confederation does not allow
of its being taken into consideration. The three memoranda relate
to particulars which cannot be discussed in the present state of the
negociation.
A note to M. Van de Weyer, dated 23d January, 1839, gives the
answer to his note and three memoranda, in substance as above.

NOTE OF THE BELGIAN PLENIPOTENTIARY, M. VAN
DE WEYER, JAN. 14, 1839, ADDRESSED TO THE CON.
FERENCE.
The undersigned Plenipotentiary of his Majesty, the King of the
Belgians, having heard that the Plenipotentiaries of Austria, France,
Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, intend notifying to the Courts of
Brussels, and the Hague, their adoption of a treaty, which will ter.
urinate their disputes at present existing between these two Courts,
feels compelled to call the most anxious attention of the Plenipotentia-
ries to the intended division of Limeourg and Luxembourg, which will
be extremely prejudicial to these provinces, and to Belgium.
The Belgian Government is ready to make the greatest peeuuiary
sacrifices for the peaceable settlement of this question ; but it is necessary
to call to the mind of the Plenipotentiaries the former negotiations on
this subject.
The protocol of the 26th of June, 1831, and Article 3 of the
Eighteen Articles proposed for the acceptation of the Belgian Congress,
by a letter of the Plenipotentiaries of the same date, did not give Bel.
gium the slightest reason to fear for the preservation of Luxembourg.
The National Congress, therefore, accepted these articles, and his
Royal Highness Prince Leopold, chosen King of the Belgians, accepted
the Crown of Befgium on the faith of these assurances.
This aforesaid third article reserved to the Diet all useful (utiles)
rights of the fortress of Luxembourg. It is evident that if the Pleni-
potentiaries of the five Courts, together with those of Austria and
Prussia, had not been convinced that the proposition would have been
satisfactory to the Diet, they would not have presented this Act for the
acceptation of the Belgian Congress. The Diet would the more readily
have acceded to this arrangement, as Luxembourg was constantly and
exclusively under the fundamental law, and the laws of the Lew Coun.
tries, together with the Belgian provinces, with which it had been for
ages so closely united.
If Belgium, surprised by an attack, the more unforeseen as she had
accepted the offer of peace made to her by the five Powers represented
in Conference; and as she felt secure in the armistice, which she
thought could not be broken but by their consent; if Belgium has
taken the chance of war, one of the five Courts, pre-occupied with an
event which seemed to threaten the peace of Europe, have not been
able to enforce the third article of the 18th article; if, on the contrary,
by their declared motives, they did not choose those questions to remain
unsett ed ; the immediate settlement of which was become necessary to
Europe—questions which they were compelled to arrange, in order to
avoid the incalculable evils of a general war—they have thought fit to
adopt a new project of the 24 Articles, with their declaration, that
the Articles contain the final and irrevocable decisions of the Five
Powers, who are unanimously resolved to enforce the acceptation of these
aforesaid 24 Articles (Protocol No. 49, annexed 11 and C)—it, in a word,
the Conference be on account of more important reasons, than they
have set forth in their acts, have deviated from the propositions of the
18 Articles, it does not seem doubtful that Belgium can now with justice
insist on an arrangement in conformity with the third paragraph of the
18 Articles.
This pretension is grounded on the non acceptation of the 24 Articles
by the Court of the Hague, on the reservations in the ratification of
these Articles—on the guarantees of security which Belgium has given
to Europe during the troubled times which have accompanied and fol-
lowed her constitution of cur independent State—on the Convention of
the 21st of May, 1835, which, consecrating in the most absolute terms
the complete cessation of hostilities, permitted the negotiation of a final
arrangement; which should guarantee in tho most efficacious manner
the mission accorded to Belgium as a neutral State, and which would
offer to the Government of the Netherlands more solid advantages than
the possession of two half provinces at a distance from the sources of
their prosperity, and deprived of their natural relations.
The undersigned ought also to remark to their Excellencies the Ple-
nipotentiaries that it results from the addresses voted in the mouths of
May and November, 1838, by the Belgium Chamber, that the Chambers
suppose the necessity of ulterior communications on the part of Govern-
ment for providing them with constitutional power to sign a treaty,
because even if it was in a situation to sign at an earlier period the
Treaty of the Twenty-four Articles, and on account of th immediate
execution announced in the annexed (B) and (C) of the 49th protocol,
and under consideration declaredt in these acts, the acceptation of the
Netherlands' Government remains no longer the same, not having had
place or time, and being under the dominion of circumstances which
had determined the acceptation of Belgium, which has not obtained
what she expected from an immediate peace.
It is also necessary to observe that a separation such as generally fol-
lows a course of disastrous events, although unfortunate. is still sus.
ceptible of immediate execution; but such a measure acquires addi.
tional importance when the people have continued to live for a long
course of years under the same laws and enjoi ing the same privileges.
These are the causes of the general opposition which has been mani-
fested in this country at the idea of a separation. These national, legi-
timate, and unanimous sentiments ought to be looked upon with 'plea-
sure by the Plenipotentiar_es of the Five Powers. It should be to their
Excellencies an undeniable evidence that they were not deceived when
they recognised Belgium as an independent and neutral State.
The undersigned Plenipotentiaries will now make known to their Ex.
cellencies the pecuniary sacrifices which Belgium is disposed to make
for obtaining the cessation of all pretensions to the territories of Lim-
burg and Luxemburg.
It would appear that their Excellencies the Plenipotentiaries of the
five Courts were disposed to inflict a sum annually and perpetual), of
five millions of florins by the following grants :
Law of the 9th Feb., 1818, Carital 14,130,836
31st Dec., 1819, 23,083,000
.7; 24th Dec., 1820,
211 Aug. 1822, ...... 56,902,000
27th Dec. 1822,
id March 1825,
From the chief of these different laws there would be imposed on
Belgium, in rectifying the error which was made in 1331, to the pre-
judice of Holland; in the defalcation of the Sinking Fund, an annual
rent of ... 1,690,000
To which will be added the Old Belgian Debt, constituted
as a part of the Anstro-Belgian Debt

5'25,000

2,215,000

It would not be unreasonakle to pretend that these 2,216,000 florins
constitute the only perpetual debt which Belgium is strictly bound to
liquidate.
In reviving a debt which no longer existed, of which the kingdom
of the Low Countries did not bear an item on its budgets, Belgium
would again be charged with an annuity of
he commercial advantages for the navigation in the in-
terior parts of Holland were valued, in 1831, at 600,000
florins; they would form a perpetual tribute of
It is to be remarked that Belgium would be unable to with-
draw this tribute, should Holland render illusory the advan-
tages to be given in return for it.
On the other hand, to fulfil the wishes of the Court of the
Hague, and although it was not stated, if, instead of a pas-
sive, this operation should not offer to Belgium a considerable
bonus, the liquidation of the Sinking Fund would not be ad-
mitted—this should be placed at the charge of the Belgian
I Government

1,165,000

Total
It ought also to be remembered that no account is kept by Belgium
of the manner in which she coald make returns, namely, in materiel for
military marine, in colonies, it enormous sums supplied for the last 15
years for tho sinking fund of a debt entirely Dutch, and lastly, of several
other sums, of which henceforth Holland alone will profit, although the
charges have been divided.
The undersigned, in conclusion, declares that Belgium would not sub-
mit to the tax of five millions of florins if it were looked for as a right ; but
he is anxious to add, that in adding that question to that of the territory,
the Government of the King, if its actual possession is acknowledged,
would not hesitate to accept the debt fixed at this limit; and that it
even would be disposed, with the view of peace and conciliation, to con-
sent to an increase, it would add, to the sum of five millions of florins,
a somme capitate of fifty millions of francs, to be paid immediately.

The undersigned has the honour, dm

BELL'S LIFE IN LONDON.—The pugilistic con-
test between Burke and Bendigo is fixed for Tuesday, Feb. 12.
The full particulars will appear in Bal's Life in London of
the following Sunday,
London commences at The publication .of Bees Life in
12 o'clock on Saturday noon, at the
Office, No. 170, Strand by which early publication the
Papers can be sent off by the Two o'Clock Saturday After-
noon Birmingham Railway train. The price of Bell's Life in
Low:on is Fivepence only. To avoid diswpoint.nent Papers
should be previously ordered through the newspaper agents.
One of the contemplated regulations under the new
Police Bill is, that the Magistrates of the different police
offices slmuld S r on Sul;tlay morr.ilgA from ten till the time
appointed for the commencement of divine service, in cir-
cler to examine ail persons taken into custody on Saturday
nights on charges of drunkenness, disorderly conduct, &c.
Sunday Times.

CORN-LAWS.

(Abridged from the Monthly Chranic/s.)
All other questions in political economy are at this moment
absorbed in that of the Corn-laws : yet, great as is the agita-
tion, the fi st step for many persons towards forming any opi-
nion is to know what the Corn-laws are. With numerous
individuals, the subject still ranks among "questions of tht ir
law;" implying, as the words did to the Roman governor, a
mixture of the mysterious, the remote, and the uninteresting.
The Corn-laws then are simply this—laws, or more correctly
a law, prohibiting, totally or partially, the exchange of British
productions against foreign food. The readiest idea of an ab-
stract Corn-law would be, that it was a law which enacted that
no food should, under any circumstances, be admitted from
abroad in exchange for home produce. But the British law is
not of this simple or primary form; it takes the secondary or
modified one, of prohibiting the introduction of food under
certain pecuniary penalties or duties, rising in amount with
the cheapness of corn at home, and falling with the advance of
Pikes, in such a manner as to admit foreign corn when home
prices are accidentally exaggerated, but with the effect in the
main of keeping the price of corn—in other words, the quan-
tity of labour given by all classes of the community in ex-
am-ice for a given quantity of food. greatly increased above
whst would otherwise be the fact. The opposition is not ab-
solute and direct, like that of a stone wall to the efforts of the
included prisoner ; on the contrary, it i 3 indirect, variable, but
accumulative, more resembling the resistance of an elastic
fishing. rod or spiral spring ;—s sort of India-rubber bandage,
where the confinement, though absolute as to the great result,
is always ready to give and take in the detail. The opposi-
tion to a limited degree of movement is in some states indc-
fiuitely small; but the resistance increases rapidly, in pro-
portion to the departure from the state where the operation is
null.

This legislative provision is moreover not defended on the
ground of being for the advantage of a particular portion of
the community ; but is advanced unhesitatingly by its sup-
porter=, as a thing essential to the general good. The great-
est evils are predicted from its removal; and losses incal-
culable to all classes of society, are threatened as the
inevitable result. The proposition therefore takes this form :
—That it is for the advantage of a community at large to cut
off by law some portion of the commerce or exchange of
wares, in which citizens if left to themselves would find it their
interest to indulge ;—that the prohibition produces in the end
a greater good ;—that though it may be an evil in the indi-
vidual case for a greater quantity of labour to be given for the
same quantity of food, or less food be procured in return fur the
same quantity of labour, yet nature has provided compensative
processes, by which the apparent evil is turned into a good ;
that the general enjoyment is increased by the cutting off;—
that the artificial state is better than the natural ;and that it
is in the power of human science to establish these as truths.
One of the first observations that will suggest itself on this
theory of the men who boast most of their hatred of theories is,
that it bears a suspicious resemblance to some of the projects
for a perpetual motion by which so many have been led astray.
There is the same absence of a visible substantial force, to
produce the effects contemplated; there is a mass of actions
and re-actions, out of which the desired consequence is pro-
mised ; but there is an evident dependence on a vortex, and
the cautious philosopher is prompted by a sort of instinctive
apprehension that he shall find an illustration of the adage that
ex nihilo nihilft.
Every man familiar with the processes of philosophical in-
vestigation in general, is aware of the virtue t hich resides in
taking what may be called the exaggerated case.
Let, then, the celebrated proposition of the Corn-laws be
tried in the same manner. Instead of a kingdom or an island
—whose concerns are apt to mislead, through the difficulty
some people find in believing that the rules of arithmetic which
are true in respect of tens and of hundreds, are also true of
millions and billions—assume the case of a single town pos-
sessing within itself the capabilities for manufacturing and
exchanging the produce for food. Suppose, for instance,
Manchester or Birmingham, surrounded by a wall ; and the
proposition is, that if the inhabitants will close their gates, and
confine themselves for food to such portions of ground within
their walls as may be capable of growing corn, an accession to
their general prosperity will be the result.
The proposition is certainly prima fade not inviting; but
the way to proceed is, to try on (as a tailor might say) the
different theories by which the result is professed to be esta-
blished. And, first, try the general allegation—that increased
wealth will he the result to the owners of the soil, and the ex-
penditure of this wealth on the manufacturing interests be a
benefit to them in turn. . _

Vv
And here, less acuteness than is produced by the habits of
the manufacturing classes in general, appears to be required to
perceive that the increased income to the owners of the soil
will be true enough, as resolving itself into the necessity the
manufacturing classes are under of bidding against each other
for the limited quantity of corn produced. But precisely be-
cause this is riches to one side, it is poverty to the other; and
the result to the'manufacturing classes resolves itself into the
permission to give an increased quantity of their labour in ex-
change for a given quantity of corn, or receive a less quantity
of corn in exchange for a given quantity of labour. All this
is clear enough in the exaggerated case ; and the question
why it is not equally true in the other ? The landlords put
their statement unreservedly enough ; they say, 4' It is good
for the manufacturers that we should have eighty shillings in-
stead of forty for a quarter of corn, because then we shall have
e ighty shillings instead of forty to expend upon the manu-
facturers." In other words, "We shall take from the manu
factoring classes eighty shillings' worth of goods instead of
forty for a quarter of corn, and this will be a good to the
manufacturing classes." In the exaggerated case, it is plain
that this reasoning would not be listened to for a moment;
and it is for the interested to indicate at what point and in
what manner, the conclusion which is so clear in the one
instance, fails upon application to another.
A second cheval de hataille of the supporters of the actual
Corn-laws—and in fact that by which they at this moment hold
the major part of any influence they may possess over the ope-
rative manufacturers—is the representation that whatever mny
have been the merits or demerits of the Corn-laws when ori-
ginally imposed, to removo them now would throw a multitude
of agricultural labourers out of employment, and consequently
into the ranks of this manufacturers as competitors for wages ;
which must he attended with grieve evil to the manufac-
turers. In fact, the weavers of Spi ds are at this mo-
ment standing upon this point, and making it the basis of a
resistance to alteration. Fit this, then, to the normal case ;

_where it is clear, that for one labourer thrown out of employ
meet by the cessation of the cultivation of nooks and corners
within the walls, and therefore by possibility thrown upon the
manufacturers as a new competitor, ten would be brought into
demand by the opening made fur the exchange of manufacturing
products fur food beyond the walls. And it lies on the art-
versary to show in what manner the same inference shall fail in
:he more extended case.
The next great stumbling-block of the working classes is
the assertion which has been boldly laid before them, that if
the price of food rises, wages must rise ; from which they are
invited to infer—as if it were at all a necessary consequence—
that wages must rise in as great a proportion as corn ; which
is required to make the state of the working classes the same
as before. Now, on fitting the case to the normal instance, it is
plain enough that wages must rise ; but that they should rise in
as great a proportion as corn, is a thing that evidently cannot
exist in rerum natura. For it is tantamount to saying, that
wages shall rise till they give everybody the same share out of
a smaller quantity of corn than they had out of a greater. The
axiom of the schoolmen, that it is impossible for the same
thing to be and not to be, is not of more evident voracity : the
only reason why the price of corn is to be higher is, that there
is to be less of it. Were it possible, for argument's sake, to
suppose that the corn-growers, under some delusive promise
or otherwise, had so increased their exertions and outlay as to
effect the same quantity of production as before—which in the
case of a very limited diminution of the sources from whence
corn is drawn might be within the range of possibility—they
' would be disappointed of their expected reward, because the
same total stock of corn would only sell at the same price ;
and inasmuch as it is impossible the growers should act under
any such delusion, no more corn will ke grown than will be
sold at a price remunerating for the increased exertions and
outlay. The naked possibility therefore of such a rise in wages
is altogether in nubibus, and incompatible with all connection
between causes and effects on earth. Wages, therefore, though
they will rise, cannot by possibility rise in as great a propor-
tion as corn : and by the converse of the argument, if the quan-
tity of corn for consumption is increased, wages will fall, but
not in as great a proportion as corn ; for otherwise, no more
corn would be consumed than before, and part would be left
uneaten. This is an instance how easily persons unused to the
observation and calculation of natural phenomena, or partially
informed of the causes which are operating on them, may be
deceived. It resembles the deception of the Arctic travellers,
who, after walking ten miles to the north upon the ice, found
themselves, to their astonishment, by observation, fire miles to
the
beensouth
movingotheirf originaltoo.
having
But a further inevitable consequence of prohibition appears
to be, that the agricultural labourers (if that term can be ap-
plied to those who rex and turn the plots of ground within the
walls) must find themselves quickly brought to the same de-
gree of suffering as the labourers engaged iu manufactures.
Nohodyiwill conceive the possibility that one set should be
going on in wealth and high wages, while the other are in
misery and low; the common tendency of men to multiply
must cause the agricultural labourers to breed against the
limits of their means of support, as well as the manufacturers ;
and as there is no chance for their increasing numbers finding
m ml
i moat
ot
nu r ion
fg
rthanekirs, food, they mitemustan be
already lid d
the
brought to the same state of mutual competition, and conse-
quently of low wages, in the end. When the shutting of the
gates was first invented, a fillip may have been given to the
demand for labourers to work the plots of ground ; the result
of which may have been, that these labourers became four
when they would have otherwise been three. But when this
&fleet of the fillip has been produced, the only after result is,
that the four are worse off than the three—that is, are worse
off under the state of general restriction upon food, than the
three would have been under a state of freedom. And the
same or a similar inference may be extended to the owners of
the plots of ground themselves, who in this case represent the
landed interest. It may be conceded that their rents shall
have been increased in any proportion within the bounds ef
reason to expect ; as, for instance, that they shall have been
dcublcd; but now long will it be before this advantage in
point of rents is neutralised or overbalanced by the impossibi-
lity of finding provision or profitable employment for children,
or in fact suppor'-ng them at all, except by subdivision of the
estate? If the tendency of these owners to multiplication is
the same as is always Lund in corresponding cases, there Cali
clearly be no long interval before they or their succsssors are
found struggling, either with the actual want of the means of
comfortable existence, or with the necessity of enforced celi-
bacy to avoid it—things which go under the common epithet