The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-10 00:00:00

g'cr the matter continued, until at last it considered that
Prince Leopold would answer the purpose, and make a
very proper Sovereign for Belgium. But it was not a
little astonishing that Prince Leopold should be chosen as
a proper Sovereign for Belgium by those who had pre-
vented him from becoming King of Greece. The pro-
position was obviously unacceptable to France ; but still,
in consequence of some concessions made to them on the
part of England, Prince Talleyrand and the French Go-
vernment yielded to his nomination, and so Prince Leo-
pold was appointed Sovereign of Belgium. But then it
was very difficult to get Belgium and Holland to agree
upon the terms of their separation. An arrangement
was drawn up at the conferences, but the Belgians dis•
sented, and then Lord Ponsonby came over to this country
and was sent back again to Brussels, in order to propose
to the Belgian Congress peremptorily to agree to the ar-
rangement prepared at the conferences. This arrange-
ment, to which Holland had agreed, was represented to
the Belgians as being irrevocable, and then the famous
document which afterwards appeared in the newspapers
was addressed in the name of Lord Ponsonby to the Bel-
gic Congress. With all due respect to his Lordship,
there never was a more extraordinary letter than this. It
was very likely that the Noble Lord had authority to prey
the adoption of the arrangement on the Belgians in the
manner he had done. Now he (Lord Londonderry) did
not go the same length as to non-intervention to which
the Noble Earl opposite went ; but he did say, that it was
a most extraordinary thing to give such a document to the
world on the authority of a British Ambassador—a docu-
ment, to which not one member of the conference chose
to put his name, and which not one of them would
authenticate. At the beginning of the letter there was a
most extraordinary excuse for the nature of its contents.
It was said to have been written in the greatest haste.
What ! a letter on a matter of this importance, written by
an Ambassador in the greatest haste, and that haste made
an excuse for its contents ! It put one in mind of a com-
mon conclusion of a school-girl's letter—" Your's in
haste." Their Lordships were all perfectly familiar with
that letter, otherwise he would point out to them most
extraordinary passages in it. The letter went to the Con-
gress on the authority of the representatives of the Powers
engaged in the conferences, otherwise the Congress might
ask what right bad he to dictate to them iu this manner.
His Lordship was a Commissioner, and he might have
communicated verbally with M. Lebeau, or any other
proper person, in ter ms like these, and then the persons
engaged in the conferences might not be answerable ; but
when this document was published to the world, with the
name of a British Ambassador, the Administration of the
Noble Earl, and the rest who were engaged in the con-
ferences, became responsible for it. The Noble Marquis
then read some passages from Lord Ponsonby's letter, and
asked whether there was not intervention here, and inter-
vention with threats and menaces? But it was needless
to take up time in reading extracts of a letter which had
been long before the public, and with which all their Lord-
ships were probably well acquainted. He could not help
suspecting that the Noble Lord himself was not the com-
poser of the letter. He very much doubted whether it
had not come out of the Reform shop. He had never
read such a public document, and he asked the Noble
Earl and his Administration, whether they adopted it ?
It was evident that this document had produced a
very strong feeling in France, and that the French
Government considered it as a serious intervention
with their interests. He had seen some continents on
it in the French Papers, where it was described as in-
dicative of a fraudulent and jesuitical policy; and the writer
in the paper asked whether the Administration of this
country had so soon forgotten their principle of non-inter-
ference ? He would not, however, dwell longer on that
letter. The Noble Lord in whose name it was written
had been withdrawn from the scene of the Belgic negotia-
tions and sent to Naples—a douceur which he hoped
would satisfy him for the loss of fame which be had sus-
tained in the course of his Belgic diplomacy ; and he
hoped that his brother, the Bishop of Derry, was also
satisfied. This brought him to his second point—namely,
the matter of the protocol which had been laid on the
table of that Ilouse. That protocol related to the demoli-
tion of the fortresses on the French and Belgic frontiers,
and appeared to have been agreed upon at the conferences
on the 17th of April last. Now he should like to know
at whose suggestion that assembly took place. Did the
four Powers, of their own accord, cause their represen-
tatives to meet in order to discuss the subject of the demo-
lition of the fortresses ? Could Belgium have proposed
that a meeting should be held in order to discuss that sub-
ject ? Could Holland have proposed a conference for
such an object? Could England have proposed it, whose
blood anti treasure had been expended for the erection and
maintaining of the fortresses? No; it could have been
neither Belgium, nor Holland, nor England, nor any of
the other Powers, except France. It was Prince Talley-
rand, on the part of Fiance, who must have proposed the
assembling in conference to consider cf the demolition
of these fortresses ; and for the condescension of the
four Powers in agreeing to this proposition, Talley-
rand and the French Government consented that Prince
Leopold should be Sovereign of Belgium. The condition
of the assent of the French Government to Prince Leo-
pold's being King of Belgium was that the fortresses, or
some of them at least, should rosés. It was clear that
this conference took place at the instigation of France.
Russia, Prussia and Austria could certainly have no great
inclination for the demolition of the fortresses, but then
they laboured under considerable difficulties, which pre-
vented them from giving a decided opposition to the pro-
posal. Russia was ravaged by a destructive disease, and
Austria and Prussia could not play so high a card as that
which they bad sometimes played on other occasions, and
on that very account the Noble Earl should have shielded
and protected them. But how had the Noble Earl acted?
Instead of shielding and protecting them, he had yielded to
France, and consented to the demolition of some of the
fortresses. What was the reason that the result of that
conference was not communicated to the French Govern-
ment at once, and why was the communication delayed
till the French Chambers were on the point of meeting ?
The object he supposed to be, to give eclat to the speech
of the King of the French, on the opening of the Cham-
bers. The scene was got up in order to make a display of
the great influence of the French Government in the affairs
of Europe. Accordingly, the matter was introduced in a
very vaunting way in the speech of the French King; but
how did that agree with the terms of the protocol? There
was an essential difference between the words of :he pro-
tocol and the speech. The protocol said, that the four
Powers would enter into a negotiation with the Belgian
Government as soon as it should be settled, for the pur-
pose of selecting such of the fortresses as should be demo-
lished. Then look at the speech of the King of the
French. He never saw anything more like the gasconade
of Napoleon. " The fortresses," said the speech,
which had been erected on the Belgic frontiers—not to
protect Belgium, but to menace France—were to be de-
molished—all the fortresses." If ever there was a gross
misrepresentation, this was one. But, were the four
Powers engaged in the conference, to submit to such a
misrepresentation as this ? But he suspected, that as the
conference had been entered upon at the instigation of the
French Government, Prince Talleyrand managed all the
debates, and that we were entirely in his hands, for any
- political arrangement that might be formed at these con-
ferences. But this arrangement as to the fortresses was
so extraordinary, that it surprised even the conductors of
that paper—he meant the Times newspaper—which was
so much patronised by the Noble Earl and his Govern-
ment. It was characterised as a measure of extraordinary
and doubtful character, even by that bantling which the
Noble Earl and hie colleagues had created. It was said by
that paper, that if the great Powers of Europe had meant
to light a torch in order to kindle a general war in Europe,
they could not have taken a more infallible course to effect
that object than by this proposal to demolish the fortresses.
The French had no right to make this a condition of the
settlement of the affairs of Belgium ; nor ought a mea-
sure to have been mentioned in the French King's speech
as a clap-trip, to gain the applause of the Parisian popu-
lace. A lecture had been reed to the Noble Earl and his
Administration by the conductors of this enlightened and
excellently written paper. The Noble Earl had on a former
occasion, read an extract from a letter of a Noble Friend
of his (Lord John Russell), to show the incompatibility of
an union between Holland and Belgium, and the impossi-
bility that such an union should be lasting. He (Lord
Londonderry) would now read an extract of a letter
of a Noble Friend of his (Lord Clancarty), who could
not attend the House on this evening, but who had
been concerned with his late brother in forming the
arrangements and treaties of ISI4-15. The Noble
Marquis then read an extract of a letter from the Earl of
Clancarty, stating the conduct of the Allied Powers towards
Holland was a total violation of the laws of nations—deny-
ing the right of Belgium to have Luxemburg, Limburg,
and Maestricht--and also denying the right of the Allies to
dismantle the fortresses on the frontiers, without the con-
sent of Holland, by whose money they had been built. The
letter also ridiculed the Downing-street conference. The
° the policy of demolishing these
fortresses.
Noble Marquis, in continuation, begged leave to say one
word
naore
Did
dpectthie conference at London consult any
military man ? Was the Noble Duke—tire illustriousn
warrior who bad sanctioned the erection of these fortresses
—consulted ? Was he sent for, or was his opinion asked ?
Was the whole question of the frontiers determined by the
eentletneti assembled at Downing•oreet, without askinfr