The Sun.
London, England, 1815-05-19 00:00:00

fled, agreeably to its spirit. All hopes of dis-
union among 'the Allies, with which the parti-
zans of the Rebels in France, and their factious
friends in England, 'have 'buoyed themselves up,
must now vanish before the light of truth, and we
may expect to see the Party, if possible, more
chop-fallen than they have lately been; Mr.Virntr-
BRAD without a 'speech. or even a query, the
'Chronicle without a slander or even a falsehood—
the whole clan of Traitors and Jacobins dumb,
disordered, and despairing.

Sir H. PARNELL produced his Roman Catholick
Resoltitions in the House of Commons last night.
The Claims of the Catholick Body are to be
taken into consideration on the 30th:

Lord -OASTLEREAGEI obtained leave to h.ring in
a Bill to empowtr the Executive to 'draw out and
embody the evidence that War is on
•
the point of being commenced.

The Morning Chronicle contains a Declara!ion
of the Dulce_of WELLINGTON to the French peo-
ple, which it says " throws. off the mask." It
seems to us to bear marks of fabrication so strong
and convincing, that we have no hesitation in
pronouncing it

" A weak invention of the inemy."

• Upon inquiry, indeed,- since writing the above,
we have received perfect conviction that the " De-
claration of Lord•WELLit.G•rots;" is an impudent,
bare-faced French forgery, too grOss and absurd,
both in sentiment and phraseology, to deceive any
one except the innocent Editor of the Morning
Orronicic. This driveller has also found out an-
other mare's nest—" The Lords of •the Admiralty
have issued an order that no ships should pro •
ceed without convoy to Ostend !"—with a note of
admiration at the end of it : the. poor cre-ature is
perfectly ignorant that the Convoy Act has long
ceased, and that the Lords of the Admjralty have
consequently no authority to order *ships to take
convoy.

[4** It is very necessary to notice a typographical error in our
Paper of yesterday, in the translation of the Note from the
11'roniteur on Lords CAsrtEnE.ton's Speech.—ln the sen-
- tence---" We are authorised to declare, that there will be
shown to all Englishmen of- distinction, who are at Nopics,
and who will ask to see them"—the place should be Paris
instead of Naples.]
The pressure of matter yesterday obliged us to
exclude the few hasty observations which we had
prepared to expose the shuffling statement, in the
shape of a note, by which the Monitear of the
14th sought to inculcate belief that the. Letters
relating to MuRAT from BLIONAPARTE, produced
by Lord C”TLEREAGH, were mere forgeries. We
now, therefore, revert to the examination of this
laboured article :
'• •

:First, As to the proof of the pretended forgery,
and then one or two remarks on the drift of this
-Note, and the conclusions to whiCh it leads.
The proof of the forgery adduced is all ground-
ed on the existence of 'Minutes of Letters, written
by BUONAPARTE tO MURAT, in 1813 and 1811, con-,
Galling (as it is said) some of the identical worths
and expressions-used in those Letters in the pos-
session of Lord CASTLEREAGH, Vrittell ill 1814.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is
possible that the same expressions may have bceu
used in speaking of the same person in 1814, that
were used a year before ; all that can be inferred
front these Minutes (assuming too for the sake of
the argument, that they are genuine) is, that
BUONAPARTE had the same opinion, of MURAT in
1814, which he had in-1813, and that-he expressed
it in the same words. If it be resolved that this
coincidence in opinion and in language is impos-
sible—why, then, either Lord CASTLEREAGH'S do-
cuments, or the " Minutes" of the Illoniteur, are
falsified ; •and it will shortly be seen- on which
side the forgery lies.
The other proof that the letters produced by the
Noble Lord were counterfeited rests,on this asser-
tion—that they were fabricated by Abbe Fleuriel,
and that minutes of the forgeries, 'in the hand-
writing of the Abbe are lodged with the Editor of
the Moniteur. There is-no other proof, then, of
the forgery by the Abbe, except the existence of
these minutes in his. hand-writing. This is very
convincing, truly ! It may just as well be said that
the minutes of letters dated in 1811 and 1813, are
also forgeries, because they too exist in the auto-
graph of some one who might have a stronger
motive_to fabricate them: than the Abbe FLEURIEL
to
,falsify the Others..— Such conclusions- , are
mockery.

Let us, however, suppose. that the offensive.
documents are forgeries, and try how they will
bear an examination under this supposition. Iq
the first place, one of them wants a date; this
does not look much like a forgery. Can it really.
he believed that a letter, deliberately forged fury
an especial purpose, would be defective in so ma-
terial a point ? As well say it would have wanted
a signature, or the name of a place..
If the Abbe FLEURIEL set himself down to forge,
it was a strange way of doing such work to take