The Sun.
London, England, 1836-09-03 00:00:00

Difr.oll7ll.
14,..70Q7rrLy
r,s: N - t jGZI.
SPIRIT OF THE PUtt'L
i•.;•
When Mr. Canning was urg4;lo-nslst_:...nriiite
withdrawal of the French troopsliCinii-Vafter the
disastrous expedition of 1823, his reply wad, "" They
know little of the feclins of the French Government,
and of the spirit of the French nation, who do not
know that, v.-ot thless or burdensome as that occupation
may he, the way to rivet her in it would be, by angry
or intemperate representations, to make the continuance
of that occupation a point of honour." In recurring to
the subject of the ill-advised dismissal of M. Tillers
from office, we have no desire to provoke a display of
this national characteristic, and, by " angry or intem-
perate reprer;entations," to make perseverance in error
" a point of honour" with the King of the French.
We said that Louis Philippe had dismissed his late
Minister because he would not consent to become the
instrument of the violation or the evasion—the differ-
ence is •immaterial—of the Quadruple Treaty. This
statement can only be refuted by the policy of the new
Administration. Should M. Mole nominally, Louis
Phillippe in reality, consider it a "point of honour" to
persevere in trampling on the stipulations of the Quadru-
ple treaty instead of taking advantage of the locus Pe-
netentice still open, can either Minister or King shut
his eyes to the immediate or more remote consP quences
of this political infidelity ? Passing over the stain
thus cast upon the national honour of France, for the
protection of which its Sovereign seems to invite a
most unconstitutional responsibility, a complete divorce
from his Western alliance must be the next step in
the career of the French King. The confederation
of free Governments formed as a counterbalance to the
Holy Alliance, if it exist at all, must exist for prac-
tical purposes. To maintain the liberal institutions
already already established was a principal object of
al-
liance ; and to no Power that was a party to
it could its operation have been more beneficial
than to Louis Philippe. It would now, perhaps,
be but a questionable recommendation of that 'ulna.
ance to the people of France, to tell them that its
first effect has been to consolidate the dy-
nasty of their present Sovereign. Yet sti.ch is
the unquestioned fact. When the new-born rionarchy
of France stood alone among the other nations of Eu-
rope, an object of suspicion to those wb'o looked with
jealousy and apprehension upon its dr_;mocratic origin,
England became its first, its firmest ,
and most disinte-
rested ally. In the kindred lih.e'zality of our Govern-
ment, and the warm sympathi
r.s of our people, the new
institutions of France four-,d that support of which, it
is no disparagement to them to say, they stood in
need—without which, when least able to withstand
them, they must have been exposed to the undiguised
assaults cf the despotic sovereigns by whom they were
menaced. The alliance with England, Spain, and
Portugal was, however, to France less a present secu-
rity than it was calculated to be a source of future ad-
vantage. France cannot stand an isolated, unallied
country. Her very geographical position forbids it.
Between the powers of the North and of the West
she must make her election. By none is the great
talent, the shrewdness, a.-od, in general, the cear-
sighted policy of Louis Philippe more fully or
more freely recorsolzed than by ourselves. But
even he inistr.ees the spirit of his people, if he
suppose tha% they would look unmoved upon such a
spectacle of national degradation as would be exhibited
in tiv unnatural connection between France and the
despotisms of the North. Louis Philippe would most
probably purchase his admission into the family of the
Holy Alliance at the costly price of his crown. France
requires from her King an abandonment of, not a per-
severance in, the policy of resistance, and a Northern.
alliance involves—the French people know that it ine-
vitably involves—a considerable sacrifice of whatever
freedom they at present enjoy. This is literally the
fact—that the King of the French does not hesitate
to offer the liberties of his people as a marriage portion
with his son. Both the King that makes, and he that
would accept the proposal, may be well assured that
such a dowry never will be paid. It is clear, then,
that even if forgetful of the past, his interest,
and an expediency almost amounting to necessity,
point out to Louis Philippe the policy of cementing
the alliance of which the Quadruple Treaty may
be regarded as the basis. This can alone be done by
giving effect to its stipuhtions in the manner proposed
by Mr. Theirs. We observe that a portion of the
French Press reitzrate the assertion—for argument
they offer none---which we refuted a few days since,
that the proposal of M. niers would amount to in-
tervention. We have but to repeat that it does not.
All that M. Theirs asked, all that the Spanish Go-
vernment or the British G overmnent ask, is that
France should give the co-operation guaranteed by the
treaty. It is utterly untenable to say that the al-
tered aspect of affairs in Spain justifies an aban-
donment of their obligation by her allies. Louis
Philippe does not—we know he does not—approve
of the Constitution of 1812. As little did the English
Government, when it sent 12,000 of its soldiers to repel
a foreign aggression in Portugal, approve of the Con-
stitution established in that country. It was, how-
ever, the duty of England then, as it is the duty of
France now, to give to an ally the support guaranteed
by treaty. A French force would go into Spain—not
to interfere in the internal affairs of the country—not
to support or oppose the Constitution of 1812—but to
assist in establishing the Government of the Queen.
We feel well assured that the longer this event is post-
poned, the more difficult it becomes to effect it upon
such terms as may prevent Spain from becoming a
terror to the limited monarchy of France—a still
greater terror to Austrian despotism in Italy.
_____ Jam proximus ardet
Ucalegon.
—Morning Chronicle.
We are yet without an answer to the exposure we
have made of the villainy and the absurd'Atyofwh
the
what is
called " Peerage Reform." Yesterday, indeed,
only Morning Ministerial print" ventured to insert
` contributed") on the
i
a few observations (obviously `
subject ; but their tendency is n the main favourable
to the view we have taken of tb e conspiracy of the Whigs
and Whia-Radicals to styersede our free Gover-
ment, and establish a tyi.a.rmy of their own in its stead,
for the advancement of their own sordid and selfish
ends. Thus " the only MorninghardiypossMiblineitsoteeroianleepirvienta"
admits to us, that
body worse adapted for legislation than the House of
Coranons ;" and we are told by this print, that " be-
fore the union with Ireland, the House of Commons
was far too numerous, and that a hundred additional
Members could not improve it ;" that the " Reform
in the representation has filled the House of Commons
with .speakers, and that there is, in consequence, such
an excess of discussion, that there is no time for any
thing else ;" that " the House of Commons, besides,
arrogates too much to itself—bills are considered in de-
tail, in committees of the whole House, that is in a ,nob,
and for the sake of fees to clerks and other dicers.
What a description of the House of Commons, and fronx
what a quarter ! Yet it is gravely proposed that a gam
majority of such a vain,foolish, inefficient, and unwieldy
body shall dictate to the King, and to the House of
Lords, and be allowed to visit the unhappy people
with the full infliction of their uncorrected senselessness
!thaNt eif"rlefovyr.em gboe
and
further,of eeei rd uncontrolled isc itoou ssoheos:
wanted, it is in the House of Commons, not in the
House of Lords ? We are told, indeed, by this same
print, that " we confound a House of Lords with
the House of Lords as now constituted." We have
done no such thing. On the contrary we have sup-
posed that instead of the present House of Lords, any
House of Lords were suffered to exist. We have, for
the sake of the argument, given unlimited license to
the Peerage Reformers, and upon the supposition Coat
they have availed themselves of that license, and upon.
no other supposition, have we argued the question.
Would they create new Peers—or would they make
the Lords an elective body ? In either case it must
be obvious to every one, that the majority of
the Lords would be as the minority of the Com-
mons arc now—composed of the same sort of men,
and adhering, inflexibly, to the same opinions ?
What would the Commons gain by this, in the ad-
vancement of the unconstitutional usurpation which
they are attempting—which the Ministres encour age
them in, and which the Ministerial organs back 'them
in, even to " the whole hog ?'' Nothing, clearly Tio..
thing. There must, therefore, as we said at first be
another reform, and another, and another, if •tilese