The Sun.
London, England, 1836-01-16 00:00:00

erter from the Irish har has his Majesty's Ministers in
leading-strings, and agitates the land that gave him
birth with incessant tumults, the consequences of which
are rebell►on and murder.—Times.

In the latter part of the sitting of the French Cham-
ber of Duties on 'Tuesday, a very animated and in-
teresting debate arose on an amendment proposed by
M. de Mornay, by which the Chamber should express
a hope that the first visible fruits of the ititimaes
bushed between the Governments of France and Eng-
Itind would be the " preservation of the nationality of
Poland." This direct allusion to Poland, which was
avoided in the project of the address from motives
which the independent members of the Chamber taxed
as timidity, brought tip the T)nke de Broglie, who en-
tered into a long statement of the reasons which made
it appear desirable to him that the original paragraph
should not _be altered. M. de St. Mare Girardin,
however, and several other Ministerial members, to-
gether with some of the leaders of the Opposition,
spoke strongly in favour of the amendment, which
was ultimately carried by a large majority. The
excess of caution implied by the objections of the
Duke de Broglie to the amendment savours, it
must be confessed, not a little of that timidity with
which the proinpters and framers of the original pa-
ragraph had been charged. Several other paragraphs
of the address were then adopted without discus-
sion, and the Chamber adjourned till Wednesday.
We perceive that the desperate condition of the in-
terests of " legitimacy" in France has not yet wholly
discouraged the few remaining adherents of the party.
They have now set every means to work by which
they think it likely to propitiate the Emperor Nicholas.
They do not, indeed, call on him openly to take up the
cudgels on behalf of the exiled race ; but they want
his aid through the roundabout way of a war with
England, and such a war as should for ever put it out
of her power to meddle again with the concerns of the
Continent. Their tactics have been for a long time
combined accordingly. Latterly one of their organs,
the Gazette de France, has been publishing a series of
articles, in the form of letters from Constantinople
(where that paper has a correspondent just as much
as we have one in the moon), in which the entire con-
quest of Turkey by the Russians is held up as a most
desirable event. The consequences of such an event,
the writer of the letters thinks, would speedily become
manifest in the loss by England of all her possessions
in India, and therefore of her strength. He does not
question the right of Russia to become mistress of
Constantinople, and he takes it for Eranted that
every man on the Continent of Europe besides himself
views the. matter in the same light. His argument
certainly cuts the matter short. " Inasmuch," he says,
"as Russia is mistress of the Black Sea, she ought to be
mistress of Constantinople also." He might just as well
have said—" Whereas the Turks are unquestionably
masters of a very considerable portion of the Black
Sea coast, the Russians ought never to show them-
selves on that sea." The most amusing parts of these
productions, which bear the date of " Constantinople,"
are the blunders as to localities, and the proofs of ig-
norance as to the true interests of the country now
possessed by the Turks, which are therein exhibited in
abundance: These would, indeed, have afforded quite
sufficient evidence as to the origin of the letters ; but
in the remarks which fell from the Legitimatist deputy,
M. de la Martine, in the tribune on Tuesday, the
connexion may be still more easily traced. M. de la
Martine, who piques himself on a personal knowledge-
of men and things in 'Turkey, whither he once upon a
time undertook a " sentimental journey," expressed
opinions which were strikingly in harmony with those
of the " Constantinople Correspondent" of the Russo-
Carlist Gazette, and he endeavoured to make it ap-
pear that 'the interests of civilization would be vastly
promoted by the possession of Constantinople by the
Russians. We suppose he meant the interests of
Russian eivilization..—Times.

esta-

A Correspondent has expressed some anxiety lest
an attempt should be made in the ensuing Session to
introduce a Government police into country towns and
rural districts. We should strongly deprecate and
strenuously oppose such a proceeding, from whatever
party it may emanate. 'We prefer the local and popu-
lar government of our Anglo-Saxon Constitution to
the centralising French system of the liberty-hating
Bourbons. We have no respect for the heads or hearts
of those leaders of new fashions who would Gallicize
'is in taste, morals, or government. It is far from being
an improvement to the substantial and comfortable broad
cloth of England to tag it with the copper lace and glitter-
ing frippery of France. Nor less does the genius of the
English Constitution abhor the fantastic inventions of
our Gallic neighbours, which take from despotism its
dignity, without giving any security to freedom. The
ancient and true principle of the English Constitution
that which, from early ages, has habituated the inha-
bitants of this country to combine a national love of
freedom with a national attachment to order and the
laws, is, that the Government should do nothing for the
people except. what the people cannot do for themselves.
The centralising system of France is founded on ex-
actly the opposite maxim, that the Government should
substitute itself for the popular will in every
thing. Hence, in France, the people are always in
slatu pupillari as to the science of government, and
the Schoolmaster at the Tuilleries acompanies his
lessons with many applications of the rod. Real li-
berty, such as we enjoy in England, is not only un-
known, but not even imagined. The Peers have but
the mockery of privileges, the people but the shadow
of freedom, and the state in which the Citizen-despot
grasps the reins of absolute power, under forms -of
law, oscillates continually between- the violence of un-
disguised tyranny and the anarchy of revolution. All
reformers do-not distinguish between the abuses of our
institutions which ought to be removed, and those pri-
mary and essential principles of our Constitution which
ought to he religiously preserved. Our desire is,
that the abuses of our Constitution may be as perish-
able as possible, but that its principles may be immor-
tal. We opposed the Duke of Wellington and Sir
R. Peel as firmly when they modelled the police of the
metropolis upon the centralizing principle, as we have
since opposed the Whigs when they introduced the
same principle of centralization into the poor laws, and
as we now resist the Irish demagogue and his follow-
ers, in attempting to pull down the House of
Lords, to give us, in its place the " democratic aris-
tocracy "of O'Connell, Wakley, and Roebuck. Let
our mixed Government be once 'centralized after the
French fashion, or reduced to .a pure democracy as in
America, and from that moment history will mourn
over the fall of the noblest temple that a wise and ge-
nerous patriotism ever consecrated to the worship of
enlightened liberty. When we opposed the introduc-
tion of the police system of France into this country,
it was not because we did not acknowledge the abuses,
or desire the reform of the old and indigenous system
of watch and ward. So far from that being the case,
we took a very prominent part in representing the
abuses and inefficiency into which that system had
fallen. We insisted upon the necessity of reforming its
practice, but we did not advocate the abolition of its
principle. We would have made it imperative upon
the parishes to employ an efficient police force, at
adequate wages, for the protection of property and the
public peace, but we would have left the control, as
well as the payment of that body, in the hands of the
citizen rate-payers themselves. We would as soon
think of taking the command of the army from the
Crown, as the command of the civil force from the
people. Whenever the civil force is wielded by the
Ministers of the Crown, it is in danger of being
employed rather for political purposes than in the
discharge of its proper duties. It is an easy
transition from a Home Office police to a gens-
darmerie. The people pay too dear a price for the
preservation of their silver spoons and pocket handker-
chiefs, when, to save themselves the trouble of pre-
venting petty depredations, they put their political
liberties in danger. When we recollect that both the
Duke of Wellington and Lord Melbourne have thrown
out hints in their places in Parliament of the necessity
of organising a police - system for the provinces, we
cannot regard the apprehension expressed by our Cor-
respondent as arising from imaginary
danger. As to
Lord Melbourne, his Spring-gun
instrumental in demolishing, satisfied us that he is
just as competent to conduct the domest.c policy of
the country as Lord Palmerston is to manage its
foreign r the Noble Premier nor our

1 relqol,77;;NOther
. ',,--"------"'" \...z.:. --,..„..41)
~...._7........-.
g 4i,-„,-'. , t.,
.i.- to
0z:..,-, -. -.2
c
,5 ~.„*„....,$ ; ;
..,,.....:/. A,,,,4,..:., „
.f.,..1 . ().-, - -
,‘..- .;.., ~ 4.--s ~.,iii-
11!,, 1 ',7,_,,-; •:,!1 Pp
"iiie .''.-;-.."'.4.,..