The Sun.
London, England, 1831-03-11 00:00:00

PROTOCOL OF LONDON.

(From Galignani's Messenger.)
The falowing is a copy of the Protocol of London of the 19th
of February
Present:—The Plenipotentiaries of Austria, France, Great
Britain, Prussia, and Russia.
The Plenipotentiaries of the Courts of Austria, France, Great
Britain, Prussia, and Russia, ha ving assembled, directed their whole
attention to the divers interpretations given to the protocol of the
conference of London, of Dec. 20, 1830 ; and to the principal acts
that have followed it. The deliberations of the Plenipotentiaries
led them to admit unanimously that they owe it to the position of
the five Courts, as well as to the cause of general peace, which is
their own cause, and that of European civilization, to repeat
here the grand principle of right, of which the acts of the confe-
rence of London have only presented a salutary and constant ap-
plication.
According to this principle of a superior order, treaties do not
lose their force, whatever changes may take place in the internal
organization of nations. To judge of the application which the
five Courts have made of this same principle, and appreciate the
determinations they have formed with regard to Belgium, it suf-
fices to go back to the year 1814.
At that period the Belgian provinces were occupied by the mi-
litary forces of Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia; and
the rights which these Powers exercised over them were com-
pleted' by France's renunciation of the possession of the same
provinces. But France's renunciation was not made in favour of
the occupying Powers. It proceeded from an idea of a more ele-
vated order. The Powers, and France herself, equally disinte-
rested then as at present, in their views upon Belgium, kept the
disposal, but not the sovereignty of it, with the sole intention of
making the Belgian provinces contribute to the establishment of.
a just balance of power in Europe, and the maintenance of the
general peace. It was this intention that guided their ulterior
stipulations, and united Belgium to Holland ; it was this that led
the Powers to secure from that moment to the Belgians the two-
fold blessing of free institutions, and a commerce, to them
abounding in wealth, and the developement of industry.
The union of Belgium with Holland was broken. Official com-
munications ere long convinced the five Courts that the means
primarily destined to maintain it could neither restore it for the
present, nor Maintain it subsequently, and that henceforth, in-
stead of confounding the affections and happiness of two nations,
it only brought in contact passions and hatred, and from their
shock nothing proceeded but war, with all its disasters. It did
not belong to the Powers to judge of the causes which had just
severed the ties which they had farmed. But when they beheld
these ties broken, it belonged to -them again to accomplish the
object which they proposed to themselves in forming them. It
belonged to them to secure, by means of new combinations, that
tranquillity of Europe, of which the union of Belgium with Hol-
land had constituted one of the bases. To this the Powers were
imperiously called. They had the right, and events rendered it
their duty, to prevent the Belgian provinces, becoming indepen-
dent, and disturbing the general security and the balance of
power in Europe.
Such a duty rendered all foreign concurrence useless. To act
together, the Powers had only to consult their treaties, and mea-
sure the extent of the dangers to which their inaction or their
want of accord might give rise. The steps taken by the five
Courts with a view to bring about a cessation of the struggle be-
tween Belgium and Holland, and their firm resolution to put an
end to every measure which, on the one side or the other, might
have had a hostile character, were the first consequences of the
identity of their opinions upon the value and principles of the
solemn transactions which bind them. •
The effusion of blood was stopped. Holland, Belgium, and
even the neighbouring States, are equally indebted to them for
this benefit.
The second application of the same principles took place in the
protocol of Dec. 20, 1830.
To this exposition of the motives which determined the five
Courts, this act associated the reserve of the duties with which
Belgium remained charged towards Europe, upon seeing her
wishes for separation and independence accomplished.
ach nation has its particular rights • but Europe has also her
right ; it is social order that has given it to her.
Belgium, upon becoming independent, found the treaties
which governed Europe made and in vigour. She was bound
then to respect them and could not infringe them. By respect-
ing them, she conformed to the interest and repose of the great
community of European States; by infringing them she would
have brought on confusion and war. The Powers alone could
prevent this, and as they could do it, it was their duty to do so;
it was their duty to give ascendancy to the salutary maxim that
the events which give birth to a new State in Europe, give it no
more right to alter the general system into which it enters, than
the changes that may have arisen in the condition of an ancient
State authorise it to believe itself absolved from its anterior en-
gagements—a maxim of all civilized nations—a maxim which is
connected with the very principle by which States survive their
Governments, and the imprescriptible obligations of treaties upon
those who contract them—a maxim, in short, which is never
overlooked without making civilization retrograde, of which
morality and public faith are happily the first consequences and
the first guarantees.

The protocol of December 20th fully expressed these truths.
It stated distinctly " that the Conference would occupy itself in
discussing and concerting such new arrangements as were best
calculated to reconcile the future independence of Belgium with
the stipulations of treaties, with the interests and safety of other
States, and with the preservation of the balance of power in
Europe." Thus did the Powers point out the objects they wished
to attain. They proceeded towards them strong in the purity of
their intentions and in their impartiality. While, on the one
hand, by their protocol-of January 18, they repelled the preten-
sions that never could be admissible, on the other hand, they
weighed with the most scrupulous care all the opinions that had
been uttered by both parties, and all the claims that each had set
up. From a profound and mature consideration of the various
communications made by the Plenipotentiaries of the King of
the Netherlands, and by the Commissioners from Belgium, re-
sulted the definitive protocol of Jan. 20, 1831.
It is to be foreseen that the first ardour of a nascent and grow-
ing independence would tend to transgress the bounds of those
obligations from which it was derived. The five Courts, how.
ever, could not admit a right in Beigium to make conquests
from Holland, or from other states. But, compelled to settle
questions of territory essentially connected with their own con.
ventions and their own interests, the five Powers did not insist
with regard to Belgium upon any maxims that they did not hold
as rigorous laws for their own conduct. They most assuredly
did not pass the limits of justice and equity, nor the rules of
sound policy, when, by adopting impartially the limits which
separated Belgium from Holland before their union, they re
fused to the Belgians the right of invading that Power they had
rejected, because they considered it as subversive of peace and
social order.

The Powers had also to deliberate upon other questions which
were connected with their treaties, and which, consequently,
could not be subjected to new decisions without their direct con-
currence. According to the Protocol of December 20, the in-
structions and full powers required to be granted to the Belgian
Commissioners that were to be sent to London were, that they
should embrace all the objects of the negotiation. Nevertheless,
these Commissioners arrived without sufficient powers, and, on
many important points, without information—and yet circum-
stances admitted of no delay. The Powers, notwithstanding, by
the Protocol of January 27, confined themselves on the one hand
to enumerating the charges inherent either in the Belgian or in
the Dutch territory, and, on the other, limited themselves to
proposing arrangements founded upon a reciprocity of conces.
sions, preserving to the Belgians those markets which had most
contributed to their wealth, and founded upon the notoriety of
the public budgets of the kingdom of the Netherlands. In thesear_
rangements the five Powers must necessarily act as mediators, for,
without that, the interested parties could not come to an un-
derstanding, nor could the stipulations in which these Powers took
an immediate part in the year 1814 and 1315 be modified. The
assent of the King of the Netherlands to the protocol ofJarinary
20 and 27, 1831, answered the cares of the parties to the confe-
rence at London. The new mode of existence attained by Be'.
glum, and its neutrality, thus received a sanction which c ,uld
not be dispensed with. It remained only for the Conference to
come to resolutions upon the protest made by Belgium against
the first of these procotols, a subject the more important as it is
fundamental. This protest claimed a right of post-limits, which
belongs to independent States, and which cannot, consequently
' belong to Belgium, since she' has never been reckoned among
those Stdes. '1 his protest mentions also cessions inai.e to a third
Power, and not to Belgium' who never has been in possession of
them, and therefore cannot insist upon them. The nullity of
such pretensions is evident. Far from snaking any attack upon
the ancient provinces of Belgium, the Powers have only declared
and maintained the integrity of neighbouring States. Instead,
indeed, of compressing the limits of these provinces, they have
comprised in them the principality of Liege, Which had at no
former prim" made part of them. Moreover, all that fielgilim
could require she has obtained--separation from Holland—inde-
pendence—external safety—guarantees of her territory and neu_
trality—the free navigation of the rivers that serve as the chan-
nels of her commerce—and peaceable enjoyment of her national
liberties. Such are the arrangements opposed by the protest in
question, publicly avowing to respect neither the possessions nor
the rights of adjoining states.
The Plenipotentiaries of the five Courts, considotv,it tit,at such
views are views of Conquest, incompatihip existing trea-
ties, with the peace of Europe, ao444.ll;einient,y with the in-
dependence and neutrality ifelgitqu—declare :
I. That it remains irnderstOtd, as it has been from the begin.
ning, that the arrangements resolved on by the protocl of Jan.
2.), 1831, are fundamental and irrevocable arrangements.
2. Thattlielndependence of Belgium shall only bo, ri‘iseijsed
by the five Powers, upon the conditions and in the limits Which
result from the said arraiweinents of Jan, 20, MI,
3. That the principle of neutrality stud the inviolability of
the Belgian territory In the abovementioned limits remains in
the security of till, ot.er States, ac-
vig,oor and niVigatoty upon the five Powers.
4. That the five Powers, thithful to their engagements, dm%
gesiutrmiCtisont,isfays his M:liegt3' tkelung of the Nether.
the full right of declaring that the Sovereign of Belgiiirt.
answer by his personal situation to the principle eiyevi;.flite ex-
lass s has done for
he pr0t0.,,1 ‘2l,' 1814, all the funds-
-mental arrangemen in • the protbeol of January
setpetn,c,e,i
without
.Bterl
1831, and bye it kti his lifter to secure to -the Be:gitiliS
peaceable einojineht thereof. • rite
5,- wit these fir t conditions being 'fulfilled, five Powers
will continue to employ their care and ecitl offices to lead
to the
menu re tiesal adoption anAl. exp.rattio of the other arrange.
Holland d notiessarf fly the 'separation' of. Belgium from
fl: the five Powers admit the right in virtue of Whiksit the
oth'er'States may-take such measures as' they sl,ge. news-
vary to enforce respect to, or to re-estaAish 'tN;ir legitimate au.
thority in all the countries belonging 'sio them,.to which the pro-
test mentioned above ieif 4.',PPTetensidnA,o3 which are situated
out of the serritery declared neutral.
7. Thom his 'Majesty the King of the Netherlands having acs
ceded without restriction, by the protocol of Feb. 18, 181, to the
arrangements relative td the separatiOn of 13elgintu from hol-
land, -every enterprise of the Belgian anil•jorities upon the ter-
ritory which the prottcol of Nlantiabr-it has declared Dutch, will
have r
be re aided
tO vi't end,
as a renewal ef .
tlmstruggle to which the five Powers
(Signed) .eSTERHAZY, PALMERSTON.
WESSENBERG, BULOW,
TALLEYRAND, LIUVEN,
. ,
• ' • MA'PIJSCHEWITZ.
• .

SAVINGS' BANKS,—ACCOrding to a Parliamentary Return lust
minted, the gross amount of sums received on account of Savings'
13snks is, since their establishment in . ~.. •
.C".10,760,2e8 Ainuunt of sums paid. ...............

b
.11't.171::loatantee'estthh(Itelbtaglrs'o's7a"m"Ot.;;; ' Orin. t. c—,;; ' Wr;:d. '''''''''''''''
to Savings, Banks by the Commissioners for the reduction of the
national debt is 5,141,4101. es, iti.