The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-16 00:00:00

subject, from one of the principal parties, could not have
failed to engage the general attention of Europe ; but
when one of them, in a solemn address to the representa-
tives of his people, employs a language which, if it have
any meaning whatever, must be understood to intimate his
.determination to withstand the decision of the great powers
of Europe who have undertaken to arbitrate in the affair,
unless the decision be made entirely conformable to the
ideas which prevail in Belgium of the rights and interests
of that country, the attention which any -declaration from
such a quarter must have excited is immeasurably in-
creased. King Leopold has, no doubt, a perfect know-
ledge of the state of the negotiations in the London
Conference, and of the opinions which predominate in this
assembly of acknowledged arbitrators so decidedly, that but
for a slight variance, or hesitation rather, in the judgment
of a single Power, they might be pronounced unanimous.
And what is the language which his Belgic Majesty, in full

. .
possession of this information, addresses to the representa-
tives of his people, and through them to the nation at
large ? He says—" Our differences with Holland are not
yet arranged ; the rights and interests of the country are
the sole rule of my policy ; these have been treated with
the care which their importance requires, and will be de-
fended with perseyerance and courage." We cannot hesitate
as to the construction which, in the known circumstances
__.

of the case, must be given to this passage in King Leo-
pold's speech. When his Majesty says that the right's
and interests of the country will be defended, what can he
mean if not that those rights and interests are about
to be attacked ; that the all but unanimous judgment
of the London Conference, if carried into effect, will be a
violation of these rights and an invasion of these interests ?
When he talks of perseverance and courage in the defence
of those threatened rights and interests, what can he mean
but that the anticipated decision of the Conference will be
eluded by every expedient of procrastination, and that when
procrastination is no longer permitted, the effect of that de-
cision will be resisted in arms ? To believe that this is the

meaning of King Leopold's words, and that it is the only
sense in which they can possibly be understood, is fortu-
nately, however, a very different thing from believing that
these words would be 'followed by corresponding action in
the event of the Mediating Powers adhering stedfastly to
the decision which all but one of their number have de-
clared to be just, and which that one also has declared to
be just, with some inconsiderable modifications. It ap-
pears to us that the speech of the King of the Belgians

has been framed in a confident reliance—a reliance, per-
haps, somewhat too confident—upon the good offices of
the representative of France in the Conference, to prevent
that emergency in which alone the isolated perseverance,
or the independent courage, of the Belgian Government
and people can be exposed to any trial. His Belgic
Majesty and his Belgic Majesty's subjects are not the only
people in the world who are prone to give themselves cre-
dit for the high qualities which they would display in a con-
tingency not expected to arise. We cherish the hope, how-
ever, that King Leopold, in so far as he relies upon the
efforts of France to retard the decision of the Conference,
or materially to vary that judgment which its members are
already understood to have pronounced, is destined to sus-
tain an early and an entire disappointment. It scarcely
consists with the honour and dignity of the King of the
French, after assuming, in conjunction with the other great
Powers of Europe the character of an arbitrator of the
disagreements of two secondary States, to shift from opinion
to opinion in compliance with the wishes or in deference to
the pretensions of one of the two, although that one be the
special object of his protection and regard. A less degree
of foresight and sagacity than Louis Philippe is generally
believed to possess, might suggest all the present and future
danger to the peace and welfare of nations with which so
high an example of the prostitution of a Royal arbitrator's
authority would be pregnant. The direct tendency of such
an example would be to prevent in all future time, or to render
at once hopeless and dangerous, the united and amicable in-
tervention of powerful Governments with a view to com-
pose any differences that may spring up among inferior
States. If the Powers that meet in Conference, for the
purpose of adjusting differences, are severally to take
opposite sides—to adopt respectively one or other of the
parties to the original dispute, as a client or protege—
and to identify themselves completely with his interests,
feelings, and claims, what can be the effect of such in-
tervention but to impart to contention a more acrimonious
spirit, and to provide for it a more extended as well as a
more elevated stage ? Should Louis Philippe pursue the
course, in the future deliberations of the Conference, which
the King of the Belgians evidently expects, the acute
observers of European politics will perceive in his
conduct much more, and much that is even more important,
than a mere disposition on the part of the Government of
France to gratify the wishes and promote the interests of
Belgium. It will be noticed that now for the first time
since the five powers undertook this tedious arbitration, the
Governments of France and Great Britain are of opposite
opinions—that now, for the first time, the British Govern-
ment is in perfect unison with those of Austria, Russia, and
Prussia—that now, for the first time, the Government of
France stands deserted and alone. Should this position be
assumed by France, the dangerous question it is obvious,
must soon arise, whether absolute unanimity among the
mediating powers be indispensably necessary to a valid
decision upon the Dutch and Belgian differences.—Morn-
ing Post.

Among the recommendations contained in the report o
the Metropolitan Police Committee, that which is num,
bored the eighth is particularly deserving of notice. It is
in the following words :
That, to secure a just and uniform administration of the
duties to be executed by police justices, provision should be
made for the formation of a board, or court, to revise the pro-
ceedings and practice of the police-offices, with a view to the
greater uniformity, and to receive also and digest such a
systematic record of the proceedings in each police-office a 3
shall bring them under the review of the court and the
Home-office."
To draw to the Home-office the controul of the new
police summary jurisdictions for the trial of felonies by a
single stipendiary Magistrate, without the intervention of a
jury, seems to be the object of this recommendation, though
it is expressed in so vague and clumsy a manner that the
precise intention of the framers of the report is rather mat-
ter of conjecture than certainty. Indeed, the Home-office
seems to be everything in the eyes of Mr. Benjamin Hawes
and his Liberal " reformers" of our constitutional system of
justice. The Home-office is the beginning and end of all
their plans for the " improvement" of our Gothic structure
of justice, order, and liberty, into something so novel and
outlandish as may lead those Englishmen who are tired of
the constitution for which their forefathers fought and
bled to hope that their country may yet be raised to a level,
in its institutions, with centralised France ! Happy con-
summation ! How will our philosophic Liberals rejoice
over their own work when the day arrives in which the
British Constitution shall be so " improved" that it will
bear a striking resemblance to the image reflected in the
polished mirror of Gallican despotism, embellished with
forms of law ! Let us now see what it is Sergeant Adams
says in his letter to Mr. Hawes upon this extraordinary re-
commendation, before " we make the bright idea" of the
Committee the subject of some further obser,ations of our
own. " The recommendation," he remarks, "is so loosely
worded, that it eludes all efforts to comprehend its import.
What is the meaning of the formation of a board or court ?
The terms are familiar and synonymous as applicable to a
public company. But what is a board ofjustice ?" Aye, in-
deed, well may the Learned Serjeant ask what is a board of
justice. The French used to have their "bedsofjustice," and if
Englishmen have their " boards ofjustice," it may be said by
those who are fonder of playing upon words than we are that
" justice" has had both " bed and board." This, how-
ever, is a serious subject, although we admit the blun-
dering of the sages of the Committee has connected it
with something of the ludicrous. What can be more ri-
diculous than that the grave and Learned Sergeant Adams
should be sent about to inquire what is the meaning of a
Board of' Justice 7 Why is there not a glossary for the
instruction of her Majesty's unenlightened subjects at the
end of the Report ? "Is it proposed," continues the Ser-
geant, " to erect a Board or Court of Justice analogous to
the Court of Review in Bankruptcy ? If so, what are to
be its powers ? Are they to be original or appellant ?
and over whom are they to extend ? Are they to include
Police Magistrates only, or all other Magistrates acting
within the district ? or are they to extend to Police Officers ?
or is a Bow d or Court of Directors to regulate and control
the Police Justices in contemplation ? f so, from what
class in life are the Directors to be taken ? Are they to be
superior or inferior to the Police Jastices, or a selection
ftArhioeami
Magistrate
thems
inANtkorhtbahteaate,roellootrlocdeibdn
stg
hbheoeroi rldpo somew ers
Majesty's?
tdreo ct decrees to
coHm omwicontumaciousCommission,
heisacatbsleeotootrraergyultao their orders regulate his own practice
tobe void
vanid orproceedingsarete
h?
Are
Board or Court to have a power of suspension or dismissal,
iounrn
under
er
word,er
tt
hli
ee y
immediate
nto
tnt
ereneddpi
eaodtr
et
itnhdei
surveillancer ce ocnt lyt u mt
oa
ocfy placetthoe htebre
Home-ofNaj
Policei
fie Majesty? Is
ua
sntdi
citet,
to
destroy the independence of the Magisterial character ?
Again, what is the meaning of receiving
.and digesting a
systematic record 7 Surely the record, systematic, does
not require digestion ; and under the review of what Court
is the record of the
tproceedingsord o
to be brought when di-
gbeesetesdta?blilsthecdan, nfoort
tbbeatth
has alreadyae_ brC4a employe;urtrecommieonddiegdestto.
digest-
ing the record," The string of questions put by Sergeant,
Adams as above are all
very proper questions to put,
but the report furnishes no
may
ywedro to,io anydi one of them.
will find itlyvoe r:dy:n4dgi'ffi.gcnueaft
ot'fot
Whatever the Committee
nonsense
sdeouuil:
that
eeayhe
syste-
matic report, we think they
di-
gest the Learne4 Sergeant's. questions. But, to speak se-
riously, this reco!nmenetati.o;34slomu.gnh
the mystic mind of philosophic libe.
s plemopi
too retoasn to,
csoloaommseet t
yen
preciousngl'er ? f