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

BRUSSELS.

NATIONAL CONGRESS.—SITTING OF MAY 31.
The debate was opened on the priority of the
questions to be submitted to this Assembly.
M. Pirson wished to put some questions to M.
Lebeau on the letter of Lord Ponsonby ; but the
Assembly decided that no question should be put
to the Minister; and it was decided, after a very
long debate, by a majority of 137 to 48, that the
debate on the immediate election of a Sovereign
should have the priority.
In the course of the debate the Abbe de Haerne
spoke against the choice of the Prince of Saxe
Coburg, because this election would meet with no
sympathy in the nation, either in a political or
religious point of view. The Sovereign, he said,
ought to be of the same religion as the nation, as is
the case in England, France, and Germany.

SITTING OF JUNE 1.

The debate opened on the question which had
obtained the priority—viz., the immediate election
of the Sovereign. The project of the central sec-
tion, on the motion of M. Not bomb, was preferred.
The President read the fir3t article.

" The election of the Head of the State shall be pro.
claimed in the terms fixed by the decree of 29th January,
1831."

M. Beyts proposed an amendment to the following
effect :
" The Congress makes the election of the Head of the
State in the following condition :
" 1. That the Congress by this act by no means intends
to acknowledge the necessity of receiving the protocol of
London, 20th Jan., or the subsequent protocols.

" 2. That if the Head of the State, who shall be
chosen, shall not accept within a month, and take the oath
in a fortnight, in the terms of Article 80 of the Con-
stitution, the election shall be considered as null and void.
" 3. The election of the Head of the State shall he on
the terms fixed by the decrees of the 29th Jan., 1831."

M. Beyts said the chief object of his amendment
was to show to the Congress at London that we do
not accept the protocol of 20th of January, nor that
respecting the debt. He was in favour of Prince
Leopold, but objected to the protocols.
M. Gendebien spoke at some length, and with
great warmth, and thought that war should be re-
sorted to if an inch of tl4e territory belonging to
Belgium was contested. He spoke with much
bitterness of M. Lebeau's conduct in producing, as
the basis of the election of the Prince of Saxe
Coburg, an unsigned letter of General Belliard and
that of Lord Ponsonby, which is an insult to the
nation, which emanated from a man who, for these
six months past, had desired to bring us to a resto-
ration, and which contains a threat of the extinction
of the Belgic name.
M. Lebeau, in reply, though, as Deputy, he did
not approve of Lord Ponsonby's letter, said that if
his Lordship had been in favour of the Prince of
Orange, and now proposed an election of Prince
Leopold, his object had always been the same,—
namely, to have a line of demarcation between
France and Belgium. As for the loss of the Belgic
name, it may happen but in two ways only ; if there
should be a general war, either France will be victo-
rious,
and we shall be reunited to France, or it will
be vanquished, and we shall be reunited to Holland.
Several Members proposed sub-amendments to
that of M. Beyts, all which, as well as the ori-
ginal amendment, were rejected, and Article 1 of
the project of the central section was adopted by
158 to 31.

The Assembly proceeded to the discussion of
Art. 2. " The Government is authorised to open the
negotiations to terminate all questions relative to the
territory, by means of pecuniary sacrifices, and to
make formal offers with that view."
M. d'Elhounge proposed an amendment ; the
discussion on which was interrupted by
M. Robaulx, who, referring to the •23,1 and 24th
protocols of the Congress of London, dated the 10th
and 17th of May, said he would not say they were
authentic, but he supposed nobody would believe
he had forged them. From a cursory perusal it ap•
peared to him that the Congress at London abided
by the basis laid down in the preceding protocols ;
and that, if the Assembly desired it, he would read
them.

31. M. Rogier said that, before reading them, M.
Robaulx should explain from whom he received
them, that it might be know❑ what coiifideace they
merited.

M. Lebeau said he had heard in the Assembly
that protocols were come, but he knew not whence,
nor the motives of those who sent them. He
affirmed, on his honour, that, since he had been in
the Ministry, no notification had been made to him,
and they could not attend to any protocols but such
as were officially communicated to them.
M. C. De Bronckere said, that M. Robaulx
having told him the person from whom he had re-
ceived them, he had gone out of the Assembly, and
Spoken to the person in question, who had told him
he had received them this morning front an English-
man, who had ins'antly set out again for Frankfort.
Some further conversation took place, and the
assembly resumed the debate on Article 2, but at
length the Members, being fatigued by a sitting of
seven hours, adjourned.