The Sun.
London, England, 1830-10-06 00:00:00

"TO THE EDITOR, OF TIM MORNING CHAONICLR.

" Sra,-1n reference to the statement of the Courier in
reply to your correspondent, that Lord Blantyre was
killed by a random shot whilst in the act of closing a win-
dow,' and the inference that the death of this excellent
Nobleman is not to be attributed to the fury of the Dutch
troops, I beg to inform you, that I have just learned from
an officer of unquestionable character, who was at Brussels
at the time, that Lord Blantyre's house wesfired into by
the ferocious Dutch troops, and that his Lordship re-
ceived the fatal shot on the staircase, as he was descend-
ing to the ground floor. So much for the Courier's
veracity in this particular.
" I am, Sir, your humble servant,
"London, Oct. ti, 1830." " TRUTH."

We insert also the following letter on another
point on which we may have been misinformed.
The writer has not given his name to us, so that
the letter is but anonymous. We can only say that
we had heard from several quarters that there were
jealousies between the English and the people of
E3russels

" TO TOR EDITOR or TUE MaENING CHRONICLE.

Sza,—Having resided for many years in the Nether.
lands, I can positively deny the statement contained in
your respectable Paper of this morning, viz.—' That in
Brussels it was understood if any English family visited in
a Belgian family they:were excluded from English society.'
" On the contrary, many of the most respectable Eng-
lish were on terms of the closest intimacy and friendship
with some of the principal families in Belgium, and re-
ceived the most marked hospitality at their seats in the
country, whereas in Brussels they were not in the habit
of entertaining. So far from the English despising their
acquaintance, they were but too anxious to be permitted
to become members of the ' noble balls,' exclusively Bel-
gian, and were generally admitted with the greatest po-
liteness.

" As a sincere friend to the Belgians, as well as to the
House of Orange, from whom the English experienced
the greatest kindness and favour, I request you Will con-
tradict a paragraph so utterly devoid of truth.
" The conduct of the Belgians during their late struggle
has been most kind and considerate towards foreigners, and
more especially to the English.
" I remain, Sir, your most obedient servant,
"N. 11. W."

After all that can be said for the King of the
Netherland► and Prince Frederick, we confess we
are at a loss to see bow their conduct can be jus-
tified. The pence-maker Ducpetiaux was treache-
rously seized while exerting himself to prevent the
effusion of blood—u circumstance which certainly
wears a most suspicious appearance. Indeed, the
whole conduct of the King and his hopeful sons
seem► to have been base and inhuman. Allowing
even that there might be a diversity of opinion in
Brussels, does that justify the employment of a large
army to spread havoc and destruction throughout u
whole ;city, subjecting all the inhabitants, old and
young, to the misery incident to nn assault ? The
truth we suspect is, that it was supposed the tle-
structior► of Brussels, and the horrors consequent on
it, tt mild strike terror into the rest of Belgium.
This conclusion► forces itself on us when we recol-
lect the insolent speeches of the Dutch Members of
the States-General, and the extent and mode of the
preparations for the attack.—Morning Chronicle.
Montesquieu, in his " Persian Letters," has a
passage which has left, we believe, a disagreeable
impression on many a mind :
" I have beard (says one of his fictitious corresimmlents)
that the sole invention of bombs bad deprived all the na-
tions of Europe of their liberty. The Princes not being
any longer warranted in entrusting the keeping of places
to the citizen., who at the first bomb would have surren-
dered, fam,d a pretext for maintaining large armies of
regular troops, with which in the end they oppressed their
subjects. Thou knowest that since the invention of gun-
powder there are no longer any impregnable places ; that
is to say, Ilsbeck, that there is no longer any asylum on
the earth against injustice and violence."

The recent events on the Continent form a very
curious commentary um this passage. When Kings
and Nobles were the masters of territories, wars
were sufficiently intelligible, because the greater the
territory the greater the King, and the greater his
power to reward his favourites at the expellee of the
human cattle in the territory. But in our days
Kings are deemed merely the first Magistrates of it
people, and not their masters ; and a Government,
whether a hereditary or elective King, or a Presi-
dent for life or it term of years, be at the head of it,•
ought to have the people and the people alone in
view. Whatever Kings may think, the idea of
what belongs to a King is now almost universally
entertained. One consequence is; that the people
cannot see hose they can have any interest in making
war on any other principle, whereas they see that
in almost all cases they may be materially injured by
war. it is of no advantage, for instance, to one of
the people, that the territory of his country should
receive any extension beyond what is necessary for
its security. An Englishman may, in that point of
view, feel the aecession of Scotland a benefit; but
it would have been an injury rather than a benefit to
him, had his Kings retained Normandy, Gillum's.,
end other possessions in France. The people of
any one country, too, have an interest in the pros-
perity of every other country, because one courstry
cannot prosper without adding to the prosperity of
others. The people, therefore, begin to look on
war as uhnost injurious to their interests, and Go.
vernmente will soon find it difficult to peri.nede their
subjects that a war on any of the grounds on which
wars have hitherto been waged in Europe, me
either just or necessary. Sovereigns, as Montes-
(pike observes, obtained armies to make war on
,
neighbouring nations, fuel with these armies they
were enabled to keep down their own subjects. But
here a new light has been thrown On human affairs by
the recent events on the Continent. A regular army '
can form but a small part of the population of any
given country; and where a Government chooses
to employ an army against the people, the latter, in
large towns, without the aid of discipline, can over-
power the former. The Frowth of towns, in con-
sequence of increased civilization, has ,thus added
to the means of resisting oppression. We may
now, therefore, take a more cheerful view time that
opened to us by Montesquieu—there are now num-
berless asylums against Governments which abuse
their trusts, It may be true that no place would he
r oof against a large army which should regularly
invest it, and open more powerful 'metics than
those of the defence. But in any given country
the people are greatly the majority, and before a
Government could assemble a large army round any
one place well provided with the materials of de-
struction, the general indignation would rouse the
inhubitants of every other town to assist the
threatened town. it is only, therefore, when an
invading army has beaten and dispersed the oppos-
ing army, and directs an overwhelming force against
a particular place, that it can be in much danger.
But the people ought to secure themselves still fur-
ther. But before noticing the security to which we
allude, we shall hay a word or two respecting the
great criminals at Lulworth Castle, and in the pri-

sons in France. The King, as well as his Mini-
sterol, are unquestionably violators of the law. But
what is the object of punishment? To deter by
example. We question, however, whether any
man, who has made up his mind to attempt to eb-
rain the absolute mastery of a kingdom, would be
deterred by the consideration of failure involving
loss of life. Neither do we believe that there would
be any want of ambitious men to second him in this
grand game, because failure might be attended with
capital punishment. Ambition is not so easily
turned from its projects. As far, therefore, as
example, the only justifiable end of punishment
is concerned, it is thrown away in the case
of Kings and .Ministers whose lives are taken.
But there is a case in which lives may be taken with
benefit, in the way of example. An Officer execut-
ing the orders of a Minister is but a very inferior
actor, and he cannot, therefore, take so deep an in•
terest in the drama of ambition that capital punish-
, ment should not have its influence on him. It
might, therefore, be not amiss to have it understood
that every officer who acts against his fellow-citizens
should pay with his life the blood that is shed. As
it is, the people have everywhere instinctively the
good sense to pick out the officers, viewing them
very properly as the great criminals. Were this
consequence to follow attacks on the people, Go-
vernments would not so easily find tools for their
criminal designs against the people, and would be
under the necessity of attending more to the wishes
and interests of the people. It is highly gratifying
to know (and we can rely on our authority) that in
the struggle in the Netherlands the Belgian soldiers
refused to fire on their countrymen, and that even
in regiments in which Dutchmen were mixed with
Belgians, the former were awed by the latter, and
also refused to fire. The Dutch regiments alone,
therefore, yielded obedience to the bloodthirsty man-
dates of the Government. Much pains have, we
know, been taken to keep this information out of
the ipers, but it is correct. 'Whenever, therefore,
a Government abuses its trust, and uses the means
committed to it for the protection of the people for
their destruction, there is room to hope that it will
not be seconded by the soldiers. We said, on the
outset of the French disturbances, before the result
was known, that we were sure the soldiers could
easily be gained over. Indeed it is almost impos-
sible that soldiers should not share the feelings
which are common to a whole nation. We foresee
in all this great good to the world. A weak Mi-
nistry is a good Ministry; a weak Government is a
good Government. We would allow of no power
able to controul a nation.—Morning Chronicle.
A public meeting was held yesterday (Mr.
Owen in the chair) on the subject of the Press of
England, and for the purpose of devising the best
means of giving knowledge to the people, which
calls for a few observations from us. Of the cha-
racter given of this Paper at the meeting we have
little cause to complain, and shall merely observe
that however its profits may be destined, it has
always maintained a straight forward and honest
course, and that while, it has never been the ad-
vocate of any party, it has never failed in making
those observations on the conduct of all which a
sense of their merits or demerits prompted. With
regard also to the statement which was made by
Mr. Richard Taylor, that " only one Paper in the
metropolis had advocated the abolition of the News-
paper stamp duty," (we do not know to which Paper
he alluded) we must enter our caveat as to its in-
accuracy. The abolition in question has been ad-
vocated, not by us only, but, we believe, by the
Press generally, and we may mention as a
fact, of which no doubt need be entertained, that
our evening cotemporary " Thc Sun" has exerted
same o hr e
points
ot.
itselfw e however, strenuously
tliese mi tin tdisagrPeeamsseinngt, bleye
cheerfully. give our consent to the proposal, that all
taxes on newspapers, and on printing materials ge-
nerally, should be abolished; and we do it not solely
on the ground that we are not liable to suffer by the
change, but on that of the benefit which would
accrue to the community from the greater diffusion
of knowledge, and of the great increase of employ-
ment and revenue which would result from it ; for
weie the taxes which affect newspapers in all
their departments reduced even one-half, there
can be no doubt that the quantity of them con-
sumed would be doubled—that the revenue would
be benefited instead of being injured—that more
employment would be found in every depart-
ment; and, lastly, what no doubt will appear
selfish consideration, that twice or thrice the num-
ber of papers that are now sold would be demanded
by the public. The taste, in fact, for newspaper
reading is universal, and it is only the pressure of
the taxes imposed on newspapers, and the materials
of which they are composed, which prevent them
from being more generally circulated. Similar ob-
servations apply to the transmission of literary pub-
lications in the shape of pamphlets. It would take
nothing from the revenue to render the passage of
such articles to and fro as free as the air we breathe;
while, from the increased number which would be
published in consequence of the facility, it would
gain indirectly to a great extent, and the commer-
cial end working community he at the same time
greatly benefited.—Morning