The Sun.
London, England, 1836-01-13 00:00:00

FRENCH PAPERS.

CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES, JAN. 11.
At half-past one o'clock M. Durz,.. the President, took
the Chair. Count JAUBERT, one of tho Secretaries, read
the proces-verbal of the preceding meeting, but, owing to
the small number of deputies in attendance (aotwith-
standing the interesting matter to be discussed), the Sit
ting was of necessity suspended for half an hour. Messrs.
Guizott, Persil, and Humann were at their post at an early
hour. The House having resumed, the discussion of the
project of address in answer to the Speech from the
Throne being the order of the day, M. Chapuis Mont-
laville, the first Member inscribed as desiring to speak
against it, was called to the tribune.
M. MONTLAVILLE said that it was not his intention to
to analise " the speech of Warsaw," nor comment on every
one of the sentences by which a Monarch' " by Divine
right" had menaced an entire nation with ruin, and a great
city of his empire with destruction by fire and sword. He
knew that every Member of the Chamber had heard
those words of violence with the same horror and indig-.
nation. What fate, in fact, was reserved to unfortunate
Poland! Her towns threatened with fire—her citizens
struck with the 7cnout and sword—her children torn from
the arms of their mothers, and transported to the ex-
tremity of the empire—her name erased from the map—
her language proscribed—her temples overturned—the
Poles no longer had either family, religion, country .. . .
After blaming France, first for signing the treaty of 1815,
and then for not insisting on its accomplishment, the
orator stated that if she could not prevent the recurrence
of those savage acts, she should at least protest highly
of the horror they inspired her. He then contended that
in virtue of those treaties Poland had been ensured an
independent existence, to serve as a barrier for Western
Europe against the barbarians of the East. The struggle,
he maintained, was not between Russia and Poland—it
was between two opposite principles, the right of the
sword, on the one hand, and liberty, proclaimed by the
French revolution, on the other. The Holy Alliance, he
said, was biding its time, and never would form any sin-
cere union with the Constitutional States. Why trust in

its promises since it had no confidence in those of its ad-
versaries. France had a remarkable instance of the want
of sincerity of Kings of the old stock. Napoleon had mar-
ried a daughter of Imperial blood, and his father-in-law,
when an opportunity offered, had abandoned him and helped'
in overturning the throne of his own child. The intimacy
between France and England was the closer, as it rested
on the same interests. Lord Durham, he understood, had
instructions to check the Czar in his career of depopula-
tion. He trusted France would join England in that praise-
worthy object, and concluded by saying that he would vote
for the Address, if the Ministry acceded to those wishes,
and restored to France the liberties conquered by the Re-
volution of July, which the crime of July had been made a
pretext to curtail.
M. Muret de Bord, as a Member of the majority of
the Chamber, approved of the course followed by the Cabi-
net. He saw with pleasure that a miserable question of
amour proprc would not engage in a deplorable collision
two nations, whose sympathies and interests required their
remaining ever at peace with one another. He then con-
tended that the restriction of the liberty of the Press,
enacted during the last Session, had been attended with the
most beneficial results, without impairing in the least that
precious conquest of the Revolution. M. de Bord then
read, amidst the noise of private conversations, a long series
of observations against unlimited liberty of trade, the re-
duction of import duties on certain articles, the adoption of
absurd theories, and wished the Government to be guided
by time in the improvements which it would be necessary
to introduce in the customs' legislation. He declared he
had an entire confidence in the system of the Ministers.
France, he said, had dramatic and brilliant pages enough
'to offer portraits for admiration ; her internal welfare ought
to be at present the sole object of their solicitude.
M. de Sade opposed the address. He blamed the burn-
ing of Mascara as a means of civilization and conciliation
of the affections of the people of Algiers. He would
not, however, qualify that act, until he received ex-
planations on the subject from the distinguished Chief
who commanded the expedition, and who must have
acted in consequence of instructions to that effect. He
approved of the Government accepting with gratitude the me-
diation offered by England to settle a most absurd and un-
justifiable quarrel. France's honour could not suffer from
such an acceptance—she had given too many, proofs of her
power and courage to induce the supposition that fear was
for any thing in that resolution. France and America had
the same sympathies and interests. America was her na-
tural ally. That mediation he was glad to find from the
President's Message would now prove useless, but it indi-
cated that the ties of friendship between the two first na-
tions in the world were drawing closer every day. The stupid
national prejudices which had long divided France and
England wdre fast disappearing, and, he was sorry to say,
they were nearer expiring in the latter than in France. The
lon enmity between both countries had been a permanent
scandal and calamity for the world. M. de Sade then
blamed the Ministers for putting into the King's mouth
words of praise in favour of the restrictive laws of the liberty
of individuals and of the Press, and contended that the
boasted prosperity of France, the calmness and tranquillity
it enjoyed, were not their doing, hut the work of France
herself.
M. Duvergier de Hausanne was supporting the Address
when our Reporter left the House.—(Left speaking.)

GREECE.
(From the Journal des Debuts.)
ATHENS.—Nov. 23.—The Government has just ad-
dressed to the conference of London and the three pro-
tecting Powers a memorial upon the state of our finances,
in order to support the demand of the third instalment of
the loan of sixty millions. I have procured this docu-
ment, which will doubtless also be published in the German
journals, and I shalt oceordingly proceed to communicate

.
I to you the princiwa ,terns, adding such explanatory obser-
vaipns as, may be called 1...-I.'
The two first instalments oi

" the loan,

DRACHMS.
44,672,000-00

amounting to 40 millions offratiCs, or
This sum is far from entering- entire int./ the
coffers of the Greek Government. N, re
must deduct therefrom the loss on the ne-
gotiafion of the loan, which was done at 9
per cent., with bank expenses, loss upon
exchanges, &c., &c 4,07,761-60
Sums reserved for interest and for the sink-
ing fund, from the Ist of July, 1833, to the
31st of September, 1835 6,053,949-51
Payment to Turkey............
Paid to France and England, in reimburse-
ment of former advances made by them
Paid to Mest-s. Eynard and Thiersch
Total to be deducted from the two
first instalments
Leaving at the disposal of the Go-
vernment a balance of
It is with this sum that the Government has had to
Supply the deficit in the revenues, ordinary and extraordi-
nary, of the years 1833, 1834, 1835.
There are two observations which I wish to make on this
first document. One is, that the loss occasioned for ex-
penses of negotiation, &c., was stated to amount to the sum
of 4,6o2,4l:drachms, in the account for the years 1833 and
1834, which was transmitted to the Conference at the com-
n:encement of this year (1835), and from which you may
fitn,,,.seen extracts in the Augsburg Gazette. In the above
statemcct it amounts to 4,947,761-60. Now there is no-
thing whate:,er to explain by what means these expenses
could have bees: increased since that time, by the difference
between the two it;n3s, 'amounting, as you will perceive, to
the sum 0f45,000 drothrns. The second observation which
I have to make is, that a sum of 1,200,000 drachms, to pro-
vide for the payment of the interest, and for the Sinking
Fund for the current half-year, and which ought to be corn-
prised in the 6,053,949 drachms in the above account, has
not yet been paid. •
The memoir also contains the following general statement
of the budget for 1836.

735,467-.72
162,038-.28

DRACHMS.

The expenses, comprising a sum of 4,020,480
drachms for the interest and for the sinking
fund of the third im:talment of 20 millions, are
calculated at
The net receipts it is calculated will amount to 11,312,445

Leaving a deficit for the year 1830 of 4,471,818
Such a result, if it could be looked upon as undoubted,
would have nothing either very surpr.'sing or very'alarming
for a country such as Greece. Unhappily, the Govern-
ment, in its memorial, has neglected to ..4.ornish the most
important document in its estimates for the ys9ar 1836, and
has not given any account, not even a summary' for 1835
however it is possible to supply in some degreo the void
left by the silence of the Government. According to the
account for 18:33 and 1834, which was transmitted to the
Conference at the commencement of this year, the sums in
hand disposable out of the two first instalments of the loan
amounted on the
31st of Dec. 1834, to
The total amount of recents for the year could
not have been less than those presumed for
11,312,445
1836, viz
It is know* that Bavaria has already advamed to
meet the expenses of that year (183.5) a slim of 1,000,000

Total receipts for 1835 ............ 22,186,414
This amount is at the same time the minioum of the
expenses. The treasury is absolutely empty ; and it is
asserted very generally that a great deal yet remains to
be paid. The year 1835 called for no expenses whatever
that TrOY be set down as extraordinary. The amount for
interest 'az;(l the Sinking Fund being only applied to the
first two instaknents of the loan, require a sum of 1,346,000
drachms less than that carried in the budget for 1836,
which is calculated on the supposition of the payment of
the third instalment. Thus the excess of the expenses over
the receipts, calculated at four and a half millions of
drachms in the budget for 1836, ought to be valued at
near eleven millions, if we take for basis the result of the
year 1835, and even at more than twelve millions if the in-
terest of the whole sixty millions had to be paid. Or if
the first evaluation be really the correct one, how were the
extra six millions and a half for the year 1835 expended ?
This question would not be so embarrassing, if the Go-
vernment had thought fit to communicate to the Confe-
rence of London the account for the year 1835 with the
estimate for 1836.