The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-03 00:00:00

FRANCE.

THE BELGIAN REVOLUTION—THE
LETTER OF LORD PONSONBY AND
THE DUTY OF THE BELGIANS I
TO TILE EDITOR. or Tim MORNING: coanNl CIA?.

Par;s, May 31, 1831.

- -
Sirs,—So then France is to pay taxes to make a
war upon Belgium ! What is our authority for this
s•a ement ? A letter from Lord Ponsonby, addressed
to M. Lebeatt, the Minister of Foreign Affairs at
Brussels. What does it say ?
" Belgium is desirous cf possessing Maestricht,
the left bank of the Scheldt, and other Dutch terri-
tories ; but these she can never obtain (' Why she
has obtained them.' 0.P.Q.) without first con-
quering the armies of France, England, Austria,
Prussia, and Russia." _

But had Lord Ponsonby the right to say this ?
Undoubtedly—for he had just arrived from London
—had just received his instructions from the Con-
gress—that non-intervening Congress whose pro-
ceedings have been so much praised, and so little
understood, by some of the London papers. Oh,
yes, Lord Ponsonby had seen Prince Talleyrand,
had doubtless heard his old joke, which has reached
me from half a dozen quarters, of " The Belgians
choose a King—ah ! they may choose a hundred,
so long as no one chooses them," and been
thoroughly initiated into the secrets of this diplo-
matic association, and was chosen as the master-piece
of the new Holy Alliance to the Belgian Deputies.
I take it, then,-to be a matter of fact—a fact which
is undeniable and indisputable—that Lord Pon-
sonby has done no more at Brussels than M. Casi-
mir Perrier would himself have done if he had been
there ; and 'tis therefore I say, " So, then, France
is to pay taxes to make a war upon Belgium !"
This is the scheme ! Will it be carried into exe-
cution ? Never ! I dare M. Sebastiani, and I dare
M. Perrier, and I dare Marshal Soult, to declare
war against Belgium ! The taxes of the war would
not be paid! The budget would be refused ! The
Ministers would be impeached and overthrown !
The Crown would be put in jeopardy ! and even
should the hero of Valmy lead on his troops to
battle, they would refuse to fire on their brethren in
Belgium, and would exclaim, " are they not our
brethren ?" The Independent is right when it says,
" War, then ! War ! Since the Great Powers will
• have it so. The Belgians will march against their
adversaries, and so soon as the first round of cannon
shall be fired, we shall see if these intimate enemies,
who make their protocols at London, are so per-
fectly agreed as they pretend to be."
What, France! who is united to Belgium in all
but by name! France, whose revolution led the way
to the popular and just insurrection at Brussels in
September! France, who desires the re-union of
the Belgian provinces, and who is already cosinected
with them by former identity, by history, by geo-
graphy, bytnhee:ecords of military glory, by same-
ness of mul rs habits, language, religion, end
feelings. What, France pay taxes to make war
upon Belgium ? No, no; believe me when I tell
you, that if ten thousand Lord Ponsonbys had
written ten thousand such letters, all to the same
effect, and all in the same terms, they would not in-
fluence in the slightest degree the determination and
sentiments of the French nation. The Courier
Francais is right when it says—
" Cette pensee parricide ne s'accomplirait pas."
To convey an idea of the feeling of indignation
and horror which this letter of Lord Ponsonby's
has excited in France, would to me be a task not
only difficult but impossible. The other day we
thought the Adjoint of Toulon was somewhat
severe and unmeasured in his language, when he
thus addressed the President of the Council of
Ministers (Casimir Perrier) ; but now France sub-
scribes by the millions to his statement, which as it
is piquant arid forcible, I will here transcribe—
" Vous avez un portefeuille, Monsieur, gardez-le
taut que vous aurez le triste courage de braver
l'animadversion publique ! Mais u'esperez pas que
rimposture et la ealomnie vous 'Lidera a triumpher
des repugnances de la France. Recourir trop souvent
a de pareilles arms, c'est risquer de faire tomber le
Gouvernement dans le mepris ; et le mepris est mortel
en France."

The letter of Lord Ponsonby is an honest deve-
lopment of the most dishonest and deplorable system
of policy ever yet known under any name and by
any form in Europe I It is worse than the system
of the Holy Alliance. It is as cruel, tyrannical, and
unjust, as anything ever invented by the Houses of
Austria or Prussia—by the Spanish Inquisition, or
by the Congress of Vienna ; and at the same time
it is fraudulent, jesuitical, insincere, and destructive
of the rights of man, and the liberties of nations. If
this system shall be acted upon in Europe, we have
made no progress ; the French Revolution has been
an idle delusion ; and British Reform will terminate
in abortion ! What have the five Powers so
soon forgotten the principles of their first
conferences, and the basis of their whole sys-
tem of protocols ? Has it not been stated a
thousand, and yet ten thousand times, by these diplo-
matists, and by their representatives and Journals—
has it not been stated by French Ministers, and by
the French King; in fact, is not the very founda-
tion of all these counsels and recommendations that
the five Powers merely acted as friends, and not as
opposing nations, and that both parties (Holland
and Belgium) were to have the right of rejecting
this advice, and having recourse to arms ? Has not
this been sounded in our ears over and over again,
until, by dint of hearing, we began at last to be-
lieve ? And yet is Belgium now to be told that
Maestricht is to be forced from her, Venloo torn
from her, the left bank of the Scheldt given to
Holland, and Luxemburg made the subject of a
debtor and creditor arrangement, in which men are
to be sold like sheep, or retained like West India
slaves? This is too bad. This disgusts one with
human nature, makes one loathe one's species,
makes one ashamed of one's existence, makes one
regret that one was born, and, of course, makes one
ask, " Was the July Revolution a farce, a dream,
a drunken wake, or an Irish gambol ?"
This system of the London diplomatists is
said to be based upon treaties—and treaties, for-
sooth, are the law of nations. The allegation is
false, scandalously false, and the inference is un-
philosophical and incorrect. It is false that Maas-
tricht does not belong to Belgium ! It is false
that Venloo belongs to Holland ! It is false
that treaties secure to Holland the left bank of the
Scheldt ! If treaties secure anything, they secure the
integrity of "The Kingdom of the Pays 13as !" Then
why do not these valiant diplomatists maintain that
integrity ? Because Belgium has proclaimed itself
independent, and the diplomatists acknowledge that
the Treaty of Vienna is at end. But, what, Bel-
gium has proclaimed itself independent ? Belgium
without Maestricht ? No ; Belgium without Li:n-
burg ? No; Belgium without Luxemburg ? No 1
Belgium without the left bank of the Scheldt ? No;
Then, in the name of common sense, what does my
Lord Ponsonby mean, when he says—
., La Belgique veut conquerir Maestricht, la rive
gauche de l'Ecaut, et arracher a la Hollande quel-
ques autres partiest- de ses anciennes possessions ?"
" Conquer indeed! what does his Lordship
mean ? It is not Belgium which would conquer—
but the King of Holland who would enslave.
why the Treaty of the 16th of May, 1795, se-
cured to Belgium, Maestricht, Venloo, and even
Zealand Flanders. This Treaty was respected un-
til 1814, when a new kingdom, composed of Holland
and Belgium, was erected by the " people allot-
ters" of that precious period of Holy Alliance usurpa-
tion. Now, that Treaty of 1814 is at an end, and
Belgium would have even the right to demand Zea-
land Flanders. But no—Zealand has not demanded
its union with Belgium, but Maestricht and Venloo
have done so; and if we come to treaties, indeed,
I can beat my Lord Ponsonby upon his own ground.
But I disdain such an untenable position. Treaties
are not the law of nations, and no one better than
my Lord Ponsonby should know this. If treaties
are the law of nations, then how comes it, that after
thirty years' war to place the Bourbons on the throne
of France, France has driven them away in defiance

of all treaties, and the Republican Monarch of
France is recognized by the Absolute Monarchies of
Vienna and St. Petersburgh ? Force, war, but,
above all, the will of the people, of the millions, are
the laws of the nations, and the treaties of Vienna
are valueless as waste paper when the people rise to
destroy them.

But away with such idle stuff as this. My Lord
Ponsonby can write better philosophy and history
than this when he is not the representative of Lon-
don protocolists.
Not merely, however, has Belgium the right to
Nlnestricht, Venloo, and Luxemburg, as well as
the left bank of the Scheldt, by virtue even of
treaties ; but she has the right by the will of the
people—by the decision of the Congress—by the
acts of the districts in question, by the conduct of the
procotolists themselves, and by the very communi-
cations now made by my Lord Ponsonby to M.
Lebeau. The will of the people was decided. Is
it pretended that the inhabitants of the Grand
Duchy of Luxemburg desire to be subjects of the
Dutch King ? Is it pretended, that if the Bel-
gian Government had refused to listen to the
advice of these London diplomatists, and had
marched the army against the Dutch troops,
at Pilaestricht and Venloo, that the inha•
bitants would have joined the cause of King
William of Holland, and fought against the army
of Belgium? Is it not a fact known to Lord Pon•
sonby, that the inhabitants of Maestricht and Ven-
loo are only prevented from rising by the presence
of overpowering Dutch forces—and does he not
know that all the districts of Belgium occupied by
Dutch troops are ruined ? Would he dare to con-
sent to take the votes of the proprietors of the soil,
or of the peasants, or of the labourers, or of all the
population in these districts, whether they would
remain Belgians, or become the subjects of a Dutch
King ? No—no—he would not dare to consent to
such a proposition ; and yer, if f mistake not, his
Lordship and his family were the most determined
opponents of the parcelling out system of the Holy
Alliance. But, more than this—the people have
risen; the people in the districts were enthusiastic
in shaking off the yoke of the House of Nassau ;
the people hailed the revolution of September with
rapture, and adopted it with enthusiasm. The de-
cision of the Congress has also put the question
to rest. The very basis of the Government in
Belgium is the Constitution adopted by the Con-
gress; and the very first article of that Constitu-
tion is, that which re-unites the districts which com-
pose Belgium. To this Constitution the Regent
has sworn—the Congress has sworn—the civil and
miltary officers have sworn—thousands in the very
districts in dispute have sworn—and from no parr,
from no town, city, or village, has a protest pro-
ceeded against being included in Belgium, and pray-
ing to form part of Holland. Not only, therefore,
did the people—the millions of these districts—
make the revolution, adopt the revolution, and ap-
prove the revolution, but they approve and consent to
swear to the Constitution of the country which was
founded by that revolution ; and, even more than
this, these districts have returned deputies to the
Congress—they have acted as deputies, have taken
a part in the discussions—have assisted in forming
the Constitution—are still Members of this national
assembly—and have so acted at the request and by
the appointment of the people. Nor ras the con-
duct of the protocolists themselves gone to cppo,e
this right, but most unintentionally to confirm
it. What did they do in the first place ?
Why they recognized the Belgian revolution,
even the revolution of Maestricht, Venloo,
Luxemburg, and the left bank of the Scheldt ?
What did they do in the second place ? 'Why by
such recognition they admitted that there was an
end to the treaties of Vienna, &c., and that a na-
tional declaration of a national will was more power-
ful arid obligatory than treaties signed by every
Power in Europe. 'What did they do in the third
place? Why they recognised the Congress, though
composed of persons elected by the inhabitants
of the very districts which it is now wished to
detach from Belgium. W hat did they do in the
fourth place ? Why they recognised the Regent of
Belgium, who was appointed to carry into
effect the Constitution, which declared that the
whole duchy of Luxemburg and the whole province
of Limburg belonged to Belgium. And what have
they now done in the fifth place? Why they have
sent Lord Ponsonby to Brussels to treat with the
Ministers of the Regent so appointed, and who has
sworn to maintain the integrity of the kingdom of
Belgium. They are too late now to get back again
to their system of treaties. They have advanced too
far. They should not have recognised either the
French or the Belgian Revolutions; and there they
would have stood on at least some fixed and under-
stood principles, But now they have admitted the
doctrine of the Sovereignty of the People, and they
cannot qualify it. My Lord Ponsonby says that
Belgium has no right to dictate to other nations.—
Nor does she do so. She simply says, we will have
the Belgium of olden times! We do not ask for an
inch of Prussian, or Russian, or French, or Austrian,
or 13ritish territory ; but we claim all Belgium. It
is a question between us and Holland of what Bel-
gium consists; but the people have decided, if Hol-
land be not content, we will go to war, and war will
soon decide. No, say the protocolists, you shall
not go
which is'o war, s andr
Holland.
T
we will decide
deßecidlge
and which is Belgium
ians will not allow
this; and the London protocolists will soon be at
loggerheads.
But finally, even the very communication now
made by my Lord Ponsonby to the Minister of the
Regent, goes in principle to admit the right of the
Belgians to the district in question. For, first,
whom does he address ? The Minister of the
Regent, chosen by the Congress composed of De-
puties from the districts in question ; and second,
what does he say of the Government ? Why, not
that it is an usurpation— not that he cannot treat
with it—but that he " has confidence in the wisdom
of the Belgian Government, that it will listen to
and adopt his counsels ;" and what, in the third
place, does he say about Luxemburg? Why, that
he hopes to obtain for Belgium by treaty, what Bel-
gium could riot obtain by war. And what does he
say about a King ? Why, that the Congress or the
nation has a right to choose its own Monarch. Even
this Congress so composed of Deputies returned by
the very districts under discussion. Why really,
my Lord Ponsonby, you have yourself overthrown
this system of a " New Holy Alliance."
There is one passage in the communication of my
Lord Ponsonby to which I must advert, before I
terminate this part of my letter, and which is as
follows :

" Are there any persons who think that the
people of Europe can be excited to a resistance
against their respective Governments, for the pur-
pose of putting Belgium into a position to destroy
the authority of treaties—the only principle which
can preserve nations from perpetual war ? No one
can believe a more grave or dangerous error than
that embodied in such an opinion ! !"
To this question I will answer categorically, but
I will explain my answer. I answer, then, " Yes,
there are persons, and millions of persons, who not
only think, but know, that the people of Europe
can be excited to a resistance against their respective
Governments, if those Governments shall venture
to declare war against Belgium, because she will
not adopt the Protocol of Jan. 20,18.31.
Of Britain I will not speak. I think and believe,
and hope that British policy is liberal and peaceable;
and I think that if any Minister in Great Britain
should dare to make war against Belgium for such a
motive, that the supplies would be refused, and the
Nlinister degraded and impeached.
tt o timid,
io
over-
throwing
th
But of France I will speak. I will do so to aid
seu Br
ee tighioasnes'wthoo mg iavy doob
e
tconfidenceand o
e
g nt ehde
Prince the Protocol
fella
i l
l a o
thiss . I say,tsdetestabe then,polic of the Lon-
doni
that
although
the
e 2 20th
French
Prince Talleyrand, who is n his dotage, arid who
p r o to c ol
was sent to London -to compliment the English
aristocracy,
althoughh as si
Ja-
nuary;m nd

and all the English who visit hint that France will
carry that Protocol into effect—and although Casimir
Perrier means to do so; and M. Sebastian' hopes to
do so for the sake of preserving France from war—
and although Louis Philip is prepared to make any
sacrifices for the sake of making the popular sove-
reignty of July, 1830, the legimate monarchy of
.July, 1831 ; yet that France will never make war
against Belgium to carry into effect the protocol of
the 20th of January. The Ministers who made it
would be impeached. The taxes imposed would be
refused, and, if necessary, the Chambers supporting
it would be overthrown. lam just as sure of this
as lam of my own existence. But I go further than
this, and say, that if Prussia or the Germanic Con-
federation should assist Holland in a war against
Belgium, or in enforcing this most scandalous pro-
tocol, France would go to war against Prussia, and
against the Confederation, and against all Europe,
if necessary, to defend that principle of " the sove-
reignty of the people ;" which being the basis of
our own revolution, we will not consent to see at-
! ,acked in Belgium ; and France would do this in
spire of Louis Philip, and in spite of his Ministers,
and in spite of treaties, and protocols, and confer-
ences, without end. You may think otherwise.
Prince Talleyrand, and M. Perrier and his son, and
even Lord Granville (though he is a man of sense),
may declare otherwise, and you may for the while be-
lieve them—but you will see that O.P. Q. is again
right; and I repeat, that I dare the Government of
Louis Philip to go to war with Belgium, or to per-
mit any other power to go to war with her, to en-
force the Protocol of the 20th January. Let, then,
the Belgians take courage. Let them imitate the
Poles, and be firm. Let them be prepared to make
the same sacrifices of blood and treasure as the Poles
have done; and then Luxemburg, Maestricht, Ven-
lon, all Limburg, and the left bank of the Scheldt,
must and will form portions of the new and inde-
pendent kingdom of Belgium.
Before I close this long letter, allow me to offer
one word of advice to the Belgium Congress and to
the Belgian Government. It is this: publish and
circulate all over Europe " a statement of facts,
showing how by treaties, by the national will, and by
the acts of the Congress, Maestricht, Venloo, Lux-
emburg, and the left bank of the Scheldt belong
not to Holland, but to Belgium." Let the state-
ment be historical—complete—full of facts and dates
—and names—written with temperance—without
phrases—arid without any appeal, except to the rea-
son and common sense of mankind; and then we
shall see, not whether " the people in Europe are
prepared to rise against their respective Govern-
ments ;" but whether the Governments of Europe
will dare to make a war against the sovereignty of
the people.

This Belgian question is most important. Watch
it narrowly. Let not the readers of the Morning
Chronicle be deceived. The battle now fighting in
Belgium as in Poland, is the same battle as was
fought in France in July last; and if the Great
Powers, or at least "Austria, Russia, and Prussia"
should succeed in overthrowing the principle of the
Governments of the people at Brussels and Warsaw,
they would soon attack the French Revolution, and
the British Reform of Parliament.
I am, Sir, your anxious and obedient servant,
0. P. Q.