The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-04 00:00:00

E SUN, LONDON, THURSDA Y, FE BR UARY 4, F.‘4l

LONDON:
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1841.

The Lords did not meet yesterday.
In the Ctrnmons a new writ v, as moved for St.
,ilbans i I the room of the Hon. Mr. GRIMSTON)
who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and
who is goiaz, rei-ort says, into the Church. He
i tired of being a Legislator.

A few petitions were presented, but the only
buslncss done was the passing a resolution:
moved by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and con-
curi•cd in by all parties, of praise for the
•: distinguished and exemplary manner in which
.JOHN Theicans, the late Clerk Assistant to the
liotve, had performed hii duties during a long
attendance at the table." It is alike honourable
to the Commons and Mr. RICKAIAN that they
hay paid this well-deserved tribute to merit,
tvliich, though in a compa-atively humble sta-
tion, was of the most exalted character.
The Report of the Committee of Supply was
brought up, and the House adjourned.

It is a common thing for timid friends and
alarmed foes to complain of the heat and violence
of the total and immediate repeal party. Even
Mr. ALcocx, we see, who Las otherwise em-
btaced on, cause with so much good sense, re-
proaches the Anti-Corn-law party with extreme
and violent opinions. We must take leave,
therefore, to remind that gentleman, and to re-
mind our timid friend 4 and our alarmed oppo-
nent;, that the Corn-law faction refuses, and has
long refused, in the most insulting manner, to
make the smallest concession to the unemployed
anl half-starved people. Session after session,
before the present agitation began, did the
bread-taxers, and tl ey do still, resist the attempts
to allow foreign corn to be ground in bond. For
a oons.derable lie Al they resisted the efforts of
the shippin; interest to allow our shipping to be
supplied with foreign produce; and even last
session, after f-ey had in the wantonness of
power treated t 'e Anti-Corn-law men with the
greatest contumely, they united to throw out the
Bill for allowin; foreign flour to be imported into
Ireland, though their conduct on that occasion
was justly characterised by Mr. WAILEY as
inflicting the us- of unwhojesoine food and
typhus fever on the pcople• Now, con-
siderins the determined manner in which the
bread-taxers have maintained their monopoly,
repelling with unflinching severity every attempt
to break through it in. the slightest degree; con-
sidering, too, how the law to levy the tax was
originally passed, almost at the point of the bay-
onet, and certainly in open defiance of the in-
sulted masses ; and, above all, considering the
nature (if the tex, nothing caa be expected from

those who oppose it but the most sweeping, un-
sparing, and vehement condemnation.
What is the tax? A law to take aw,:y the
property of the industrious classes, and give it to
the idle ownsrs of rent, a law to pare d •wn the
loaves_ of the poor, and transmute the bread
filched, by the honoured and revered means of a
law, into gewgaws, jewels, and luxuries for the
rich. It was well observed a few days ago by the
Morning Post, that production is not every thing,
the distribution of wealth is of importance.
It is all important. The Legislature cannot
by its parchment decrees make a blade of grass
or an ear of wheat grow ; it has no influence, ex-
cept indirectly, over production, which it impedes;
all that it does, all that it can do, is to distribute
the wealth which is produced differently from
the distribution made by nature and justice.
The Corn-law directly alters the distribution of
wealth, and indirectly, by depriving industry of
its reward, impedes production. It alters the dis-
tribution in the most scandalous and unjust man-
ner. It is a swindling violation of the industri-
ous man's right of property. To be tender to
such an Act is to do that which the law punishes,
to compound a felony. Those who entertain a
solemn conviction that the law is as we have de-
scribed it—unjust—would be false to themselves
and their own opinions, if they spoke of the bread-
tax and the bread taxers in any other language
than that of the severest moral reprobation.
For them to compromise the matter—to be ac-
cessory to half a felony—would be to sharelW
guilt they denounce. They would be worse than.,
their opponents, for they would sin against con-
viction. They have not done the cause of un-d
taxedbread any injury; its compromising friends
who have deprived the contest of the sanctity of
moral feeling, and degraded it into a huckstering
bargain have inflicted on it many severe injuries.:
They have given arms into the hands of 'our,
opponents, and they are to blame that the brea'd-
tax is not before now triumphantly repealed.'
They have made it a question of more or less, of
what it costs to raise wheat here and elsewhere,
and have killed the enthusiasm which lived in
the hearts of the people.
If it could be shown that the people had made
the law, and thereby created the legal rights
which have grown from it, if it could be proved
that they had been ever passive under it, that
might be some reason for saying that they had
been particeps criminis, and were not justified in
throwing all the loss of undoing their own act on
their coadjutors in guilt. But the original law was
passed by a borough-mongering Parliament, -in
which the people were not represented, and over
which they could exercise no influence. It was
altogether the work of the landlords, and the
effect of undoing the wrong should fall only on
them. The people remonstrated loudly against
it in 1815, and have never neglected to remon-
strate against it since, at every fittingopportunity.
It is too much, therefore, now to ask them to
be moderate in their efforts to throw off this in-
cubus, and to tell them they must continue to
bear part of it for the sake -of good-fellowship
with the landlords. It is too much to tell them
they ought to speak kindly and lady-like to
those who fleece them; that it is their duty to
hear oppression meekly, and turn, spaniel-like,
a beseeching eye to those who kick and spurn
them. Nothing was ever yet won from unprin-
cipled avarice by supplication; but it is essentially
timid, and much may be gained from its fears.
We hold those Corn-law repeaters who tell us
to moderate in our demands and respectful in
our language, however well intentioned, to be
ignorant of the nature of the contest and *the
means of victory. Our best friends are those who
speak the boldest, and who, in reply to the " No
Surrender" of the bread taxers, incessantly and
uncompromisingly demand the total and imme-
diate repeal.

The administration of justice, the settling of
disputes, and preventing quarrels between indi-
viduals, the substitution of a calm decision by a
third party for the feuds of passion, or the wild
j9atice of revenge, is undoubtedly the chief busi-
ness of every Government in relation to its own
sukeets, if not its sole business. We remember
in fact, that Lord BROUGHAM, in that celebrated
speech of his on law reform, pronounced some-
where about IS2B, affirmed, quoting same writer
even still more celebrated than himself, that the
whole end and aim of all our institutions was to
get twelve honest men and true into a jury-box.
and get from them fair and honest decisions.
We may from this statement come to a short and
eompendi :us conclusion, that the Government
which neglects to provide means for the adminis-
tration of justice, which allows them to be per-
verted or corrupted, whatever else may be its
merits, is really worthless. It does not answer
tile object for which all Governments are formed
and submitted to, for which taxation is borne;
and by which restraints are justified—namely,
the upright administration of justice between
man and man. The end of its existence is not
attained, it must be called barren, like a childless
woman, whatever her accomplishments.
For many years the Reformers and Radicals,
the BROUGHAMS, HA nvEvs, and HumEs, have
declared that such was the constitution of our
Courts, and :inch the neglect of cur Legislature,
that justice was not, and could not be, done be-
tween man and man. Nay, Lord BROUGHAM went
so far in the celebrated speech we have referred
to, as to assert that the law, instead of being
staff and a shield to innocence, was a two-edged
sword, which frequently smote those it should
protect. Nor does it seem, after twelve years of
all kinds of reform, to be improved in its charac-
ter. The night before last the ATTORNEY-GENE-
RAL—who has of late been distinguished by his
zeal against Chartists, who do not reverence the
law, and publishers of books which are not agree-
able to the parsons, and which ignorant Jury-
men condemn as blasphemous—described our
Courts of Equity as denying redress and denying
justice in all cases which come within their juris-
diction of a less value than 1001. In these remarks
lie was borne out by every other person who
spoke on the subject, and such cases were men-
tioned
as differences or disputes between partners,
1 in which there was no means of obtaining re-
dress. Nay, it was expressly said by .the Learned
Gentleman, that unless the sum in dispute were
large, above 1001., no one but a madman would
think of applying to the Court for redress. It is
impossible to pronounce a more severe censure on
the Legislature than to prove, while it has been
busy year after year devising restrictions on
our industry, and inventing means of enriching
its members,-that it has neglected to provide for
the due administration of justice.
All these, however, may be supposed to be the
complaints of ignorant Radicals or cf dema-
goguesaiming at power by promoting public dis-
content. Conservative writers and speakers who
profess to adore all our institutions, and who
are ready to shoot, hang, or drown all those
who question their unparalleled excellence, may
eider the
justice is, like every
say that the representation is not true, that there
is nothing wrong,
0
and
dintlimatthe
else, administrationpeeet under
hest of landlordocracies. In particular, if they
are true to their creed, and to the traditionary
praise of our institutions, they will assert that
the House of Lords, the last Court of Appeal,
in all cases is the fittest, as it is the noblest, tri-
bunal.theat ever was invented, worthy to control
and correct the fallible judgment of all weaker
men, and to put on Radicals and Reformers the
curb of law and reason. Now let the reader, then,
note the following description of that perfect
tribunal, not spoken by HENRY BROUGHAM, 01'
DANIEL W. HARVEY, or Mr. O'CONNELL, or any
politician of principles verging towards demo-
cracy, but spoken by that sound Conservative
lawyer and statesman, the past Tory Lord Chan-
cellor of Ireland, perhaps the future Tory Lord
Chancellor c England, Sir
O.
SHAW SUGDEN. Speakin,,7 of the House of Lords
he said, and his observations are equally severe
- " - -
on the Court of Privy Council—
The composition of the House of Lords as a

Court of Appeal was a great anomaly. It owed
its . establishment to a train of unforeseen circum-
stances ; its jurisdiction was denied in late times by that
House, in the strongest terms, and to the extent of
committing persons who sought its protection ; and
though it was ultimately established, they were content
to leave their authority in the state they found it. What_
could be more absurd than that the decrees of a Judge,
who was competent to the performance of his task,
should be reversed by a body of Peers, who were en-
tirely ignorant of every matter relating to the adminis-
tration of the law ? Had this .-practically been the
case, the glaring absurdity of the practice would have
rendered it intolerable ; but the great body of the
Peers acquiesced in the decision of the Lord
Chancellor ; and he was, in fact, the sole
Judge of Appeals in the House of Lords. It was
right, therefore, to consider the qualifications neees-
eery for the performance of the functions of Lord
Chancellor. It sometimes happened that circumstances
might render it expedient that that office should be filled
by a person not possessed of the greatest share of equity
law, who might have to learn the law which he was
called on to administer, on whose judgments no de-
pendence could be placed, pot en account of any fault
of the individual so filling the office, but because, pre-
vious to his appointment, his attention had been en-
tirely engrossed by matters foreign to the study of that
law which he was called on to administer ; and it
might happen, as it
.sometimes had happened, that he
might decide on a case without calling in the assistance
of the other Judges. .All appeals from the
Court of Chancery must be appeals to him-
self. This, of itseif, was a most alarming fact. If a
Judge in the; Court Lelow was called on to re-hear a
cause, as that cause would not be carried to another
tribunal, he might change his opinion without any im-
..pugeisig of his judgment, as other circumstances might
~have been: brought to his knowledge ; but in a case of
appealfreat his judgment to a Superior Court, unless it
was to ea of some obvious slip, it would be contrary to
:hamati nature to expect that be should reverse his
owe{ decision. His authority being impugned before
his, Peers, he had every motive and every feeling to
:affirm:lda own decision. He was, in fact, to all in-
tents 'and'purposes, a party in the cause. If a Judge
haiii.,dpeenniary interest in a cause he was not per-
: anittod jci-sit in judgment on it ; and whilst character
and: high station were of any value—whilst self-loVe
.. was; an aetuating motive in the human breast, the Lord
Chancellor;:sitting as the Judge of Appeals in the House
•of Lords; would have a much stronger motive than
any pecuniary one • could possibly be to [Arm
his own decision. The ancient Grecian had ap-
pealed from Phi ip drunk to Philip sober; but
appeals from the Court of Chancery to the House
of Lords were appeals from Philip sober to Philip drunk
—appeals from a Judge uninfluenced by any motive, with
all his passions slumbering, to the same Judge actuated
by the strongest possible motives, the passion of self-
love, to support his own previous judgment.
That, reader, is a Conservative's opinion of the
highest Court of Appeal, and • yet that same
Conservative would prosecute any man, if
he had the power, and his fellow Conser-
vatives around him would yell with delight
at his malicious achievement, who should speak
of thal Court out of Parliament in that honest
language of indignation which such a miserable
imposition, anclesuch a sad piece of humbug de-
serves. And what is the remedy which this
Conservative lawyer proposes? Positively a
greater humbug still. He would appoint two
Judges, called Assistants, to help the • LORD
CIIANCELLOR, which assistants, unless they hap-
pen to be Peers, are net to have votes, but only to
give their opinions, which may be expected, when
there is no motive or interest to counteract
it, to have some influence over the " body
of Peers, entirely • ignorant of law, who
now eett aside the decision of learned Judges."
The LORD CI-fANOELLOR, a judge of great weight,
• necessarily a Peer, and surrounded:with all the
circumstances which give a man influence with
. the. Peers, presiding, too, over their legislatiVe
deliberations, can perhaps guide the votes of the
tmlearned Peers ; but his authority cannot be
possessed by any assistant Judges. They will
lessen' his power, and excite doubts of his -deci-
sions, but they will not procure respect for their
own. The number of Law Lords of late intro-
duced into the House .of Lords, who have
taken part in judicial cases, has neither added
to the weight of its decisions, nor the respect of the
suitors. Little bickerhage and wranglings have
taken place which partake of the legislative
rather than the judicial character of the assembly.
Such - evils will be increased by Sir EDWARD SUG-
DEN'S two journeymen Judges, and his plan is a
greater humbug than he has shown the existing
scheme to be, because it will lessen none of
its evils, and saddle the country with consider-
able expense. - .

It is high time that our Legislature should
look into this subject. At present, its most im-
portant duties ire neglected, and will be till the
administration of justice be rendered cheap and
sure. From what the lawyers have already done
for the community on this point, it is plain that
the reform of the Courts must not be left to
them. If laymen do not take up the question,
all the alterations made by the lawyers will most
certainly tend to increase their business, autho-
rity, and emoluments.

There is no more important right than that of
property. "We have Mr. LOCKE'S authority,',
it has been remarked, for saying—others, as
CICERO, having said the same thing before—" That
the great and chief end of men's uniting into
commonwealths, and putting themselves under
Government, is the preservation of their property,
to which, in the state of nature, there are many
things wanting." We might expect, therefore,
that the Legislature should be particularly clear,
precise, and definite in its enactments about pro-
perty, and so it undoubtedly would be if it had
any clear notion of that right-and its own duties.
But the long predominance of Toryism. which is
.tt once ignorant and arbitrary, has made the Le-
gislature disregard all kind of principles, and be

atisied with declaring as law the self and the
.401 fish will of a majority. Of this kind of Tory-
ism we have an example in apaper on Tuesday.
Mr. WARBURTON having asserted the foolish
and ultra-Tory opinion, in the House of Com-
mons on Friday evening, that there are no na-
tural tights, which places all mankind at the
mercy of legislators, as ignorant and wicked
as our landlords, the Post tells us, in some com-
ments on the subject, that, "for Parliamen-
tary purposes, BLACKSTONE'S brief account of
the right of property may serve." What his
brief account is, we put at present out of the
question ; .we quote the phrase to show ho*, in
the opinion of the Tories, the Legislature may
content itself with any sort of definition of
this most important right, which may answer
its present purpose, and save it from the trouble
of thinking. It is not to consider what is true
and what is good, not to concern itself with ab-
stract truths—another phrase for vast masses of
experience expressed by a single sentence—but
is to rest satisfied with any and every miserable
subterfuge which the hour may bring forth.
The brief account of the right of property
given by BLACKSTONE ought not to suffice for
Parliamentary purposes, for till Parliament is
fully and thoroughly aware of the exact, bounds
of that right—till it has attained precise and clear
ideas on the subject, it will very likely go on
making laws to violate it, like the Corn-law, and
t') plunder the industrious poor for the behoof of
the idle rich. As BLACKSTONE says, though he
himself had no very clear idea of the source and
limits of the right of property, for_he opines "it
is probably founded in nature," "men are so
Ipoloekasbedackw ittohtipl
eosmseesasniosnbytlNlvahtictillie
ity waarse
aacfgruaiirdedto,
as if fearful of some defect in their title; or at
least they rest satisfied with the decision of the
laws in their favour,hupa to
tiNl•
lievt hhoicuht
Legislature examining
dhoat
ehysee.
breeasenobnuourt. a„urrthhoisriistyw-
Considering that amongst those who rest satisfied
remarkable
- oi
n n o
as s s e s
it
are the law-makers themselves, considering too,
that thtehyisaip•easosnaegeanicsl all,a
of necessity,
shows that they acquiesce in their own decrees
for their own advantage, without ever inquiring-
whether those decrees are conformable to right
and justice., and without therefore having formed
any clear opinion that it is the duty of other
men to obey them, though to compel their
obedience they are always ready to use the
halter and the bayonet.
While we agree with the Post in repudiating
Mr. WARBURTON'S philosophy, we feel grateful

to him for calling attention to the subject, by
blurting out in the House of Commons, and so
making known to,the whole world, the abomi-
nable principle on which law-makers act, though
few or none of them have the honesty to give
their thoughts and their deeds a tongue.
They proceed on the supposition that man -has
no natural rights, and no correlative natural
duties, and so they make laws to create rights,
and impose duties. That is the great object and
sum of legislation. A reasonable public writer
adopting the opinion of the Post,- that Mr:
WARBURTON was in error, would have readily
taken the opportunity to place a correct view
of the subject before the public ; but our
Contemporary flippantly contents himself with
performing the easier task of sneering at Mr.
WARBURTON, and advising him " to carry his
learning to University College, in the parish of
St. Pancras." Mr. WARBURTON'S erroneous
opinions on the subject will be of no use any-
where, but it is clear that the Post is unable
to rectify them.
Mr. WARBURTON'S opinion is the reproduction
of the opinion of HOBBES, BENTHAM, and MILL.
We quote from a writer who has examined the
subject :

With an extraordinary species of quaker-like humility,
these reasoners assume, as tho basis of their system the
principle which all spirited men, and even other philoso-
phers, contemptuously reject—not merely " questioning,"
as Mr. Burke says, marking it with his detestation—
'. whether man has any rights by nature," but broadly and
boldly asserting that he has none ; and " that all the pro-
perty he enjoys is the alms of Government, and life itself
derived from its favour and indulgence."* 46 La loi,"
says M. Dumont, in the true spirit of these -doctrines,
"me defend-elle de vous titer? Elle m' impose tobl gation
de ne pas vous tucr ; elle vous accords le aroit de n'etre
pas tue par moi."t Men, therefore, according to the.
system which affirms ' that there are no natural laws
and natural rights, had.no right even to lite—that blessed
gift of a bounteous Creator I—and no ono was under an
obligation not to kill another till the legislator created this
right, and imposed this dwy. Mothers, according to the
same dogma, might devour their offspring, and children, if
their parents would allow them to grow to maturity, might
fat up their parents—if he should, unhappily, forget to
prohibit so unhallowed a feast I Suck deductions would be.
shocking, if they were not eminently absurd ; and yet, Sir,
you, who know on what principles Mr. Bentham reasons,
must admit that they are the legitimate results of a system
denominated, from the seat and centro of civilisation, the
Philosophy of Westminster.
Mr. WARBURTON'S doctrines are, then, identical
with those of Mr. BENTHAM and Mr. MlLL—with
what is called the philosophy of Westminster,
and which is briefly refuted in the passage we
have quoted. No; it is not true that men have
no natural rights; it is not true that property is
not a natural right; especially it is not true,
though Mr. W.A RBURTON, like the Post, sneers
at WAT TYLER doctrines,—it is not true, except
in a state of slavery, that a man's own body and
his limbs, and what he produces by his own ex-
ertions, are not his own, and are another per-
son's. He may make over that produce for a
consideration, but it is utterly impossible to di-
vest him of the right to possess it, without
_committing one of those crimes against his per-
son or against his property which we have al-
ways supposed Mr. WARBURTON to regard with
great abhorrence. Among the natural rights of
man, there is a natural right of property, a na-
' tural right also to the free use of his limbs and
his intelligence, or to the free exercise of honest
industry ; and it is the wanton or the selfish in-
fringement of these. and other rights by the Le-
gislature which causes most of the misery of
the people, and most of the discontent with the
Government.

* Letter on the Affairs of America.
Traites de Legislation—pr. edit.

We have not, till now, found an opportunity
to express our deep regret that Mr. lIETIT
TON, for the offence of selling a book in the way
of his trade, ofthe contents of which he was igno-
rant, shlould have been sentenced, on Saturday
last, to four months' imprisonment. The Jurors
who pronounced a book to be blasphemy which
criticized another book, and even, we admit,
derided its contents, have now the satisfaction of
knowing that their verdict has consigned an
honest and industriOus tradesmen to prison for
four months. They have torn him from_ his
family, and shut him up in gaol—a Most praise-
worthy deed in the Jurors, is it not?
It must be satisfactory, too, we presume, to the
Judges—who have a stern and BnuTus-like
pleasure in performing a painful duty—to have
sacrificed their kindly feelings on the altar of
the country, in doOrninga fellow-creature to four
months' incarceration for selling a book. They
must see a delightful adaptation of punishment
to crime in this lengthened period of imprison-
ment for such an action, or they would not have
done violence to themselves by pronouncing it>.
For selling a book which displeases persons by its
remarks, the just and appropriate punishment is
four months' imprisonment—to knock a man
down may be atoned for by paying a fine of a few
shillings, especially if the assailant be wealthy
and money no object.
If the discrepancies we every day witness do
not teach men blasphemy, they will at least make
them discontented subjects, and we are afraid
that such punishment as that inflicted on Mr.
HETHERINGTON, however gratifying to Judges or
Jurors, will not tend to convince the people of the
wisdom of our laws. They will not he made more
religious by this'mode of vindicating the Bible,
nor more contented by seeing an honest man
dragged to a gaol for an offence for which a shil-
ling fine would have been an adequate penalty.

settlemente
xotf
.cot
11.1 he
persisting E lsptcatrlti
Thev es
t proposedi n absurdrbey-
m o
and ruinous plan of fortifying
M., THIERS, and supported by the present French
Government. It forms a complete and t • trium-
phant answer to the gasconade of the ex-Premier
about the secret designs of the Allies who
signed the Treaty of July. It clearly and un-
answerably demonstrates that England had no
selfish views—that she was actuated by no feel-
ings or motives hostile to the glory and, peace of
France. This demonstration is made in time to
spire misguided and inflamed France the enor-
mous expenses to, which the erection of those
bastiles of liberty; detached forts, must cost her.
And incurably blind must be the French
people indeed, if, after learning how easily the
Eastern question has been settled, they do not
open their eyes to the horrors of the precipice
over which M. THIERS and the Government is
now driving them. But fortify Paris, and the
enslavement of France is complete. Under the
suns of the fortresses will expire that liberty
to obtain which France passed thuough the bloody
ordeal of two revolutions. Commerce, which
reserves her richest treasures for the land in
which- she enjoys the greatest freedom, will soon
desert a capital environed with the frowning
strongholds of military and regal despotism.
Sciences, fine arts, and letters will follow in the
wake of freedom and commerce. The men now so
clamorous for walls and fortresses will be the first
to feel that, instead of raising a rampart against
the approach of an allied hostile army, they have
been putting chains upon their own limbs, and
gags in their own'mouths. The censorship of
the press will be performed by an expert gunner,
and even freedom of thought will be regulated
by the distance of the thinker's domicile
from the nearest fortress. But M. THIERS wants
the walls to justify to the Chambers his im-
mense armaments carried on without a legisla-
tive sanction, and likewise to dispose the KING
to admit him once more to his councils and to
these personal objects the liberty, and the moral
and physical improvement of France, are basely
and treacherously sacrificed.

The Paris Journals of Tuesday announce that
the Fortifications Bill passed the Chamber of
Deputies article by article on
Monday; and on
the whole Bill being put to the vote, it was car-
ried by a majority of seventy-five-237 votes
being given for the Bill, and 175 against it. The
doom of Paris appears sealed. The walls will
perfect the system of centralization established
by NAPOLEON, and France will be made to feel
under the ORLEANS dynasty a despotism more

oppressive and more powerful than she ever ex-
perienced under the galling yoke of the BOUR-
BONS, even in the palmy days of Louis XIV.
and his successor. Under the old regime, the
despotism of the SOVEREIGN was tempered
and • ameliorated by a system of local Go- I
vernment, which has now disappeared in
France. The Commune formed on the model
of a well-regulated family—the Province with
its federal rights and privileges—the Provincial
Parliaments, with their powers of refusing to
register the Royal decrees, and thus rendering
them inoperative—were all so many bulwarks of
liberty no longer existing in France. And what
has France obtained in lieu of them? A parch-
ment acknowledgment of the popular Sove-
reignty. A charter or constitution, two Cham-
bers, in which, so long as placemen, pensioners,
prefects, and other officers, arc admissible, the
Crown can easily command a majority; and, to
crown all, fourteen forts round Paris, a strong
wall of circumvallation, eighty bastions, and
'2,600 pieces of cannon! With the charter
and the Chambers France might have
been content, the corporate rights which
she enjoyed under the Bourbons, but the
fortresses, the bastions, and the wall, of cir-
cumvallation, virtually abolish the Charter, by
placing all power in the hands of the KING,
and reduce the Chambers to mere Courts for
the registration of the Acts of the Cabinet.

It is stated in the best informed political cir-
cles in Paris, that the energy displayed by
M. TRIERS in getting the Bill passed, has
entirely reinstated him in the good graces of
the KING, and that a time is actually fixed
for his return to office. M. TRIERS set a trap
for GUIZOT and SOULT, and both have been now
caught in it. By supporting the Fortifications'
Bill they have admitted that all the expenses
to which he put France in warlike preparations
against the Allies, were justified under the
then existing circumstances. They have even
done more. They have, by now supporting the
Bill, assumed as a fact that France is still me-
naced by the Four Powers, and requires to guard
against a sudden invasion of her territory. It is
not enough, in the opinion of the KING and
courtiers to have fortresses—it is requisite that
they should be so placed and constructed as to
command every faubourg of the capital. With
so pliant a tool as TRIERS at the head of the Mi-
nistry, this could be easily accomplished. But
after the exposures that have been made of the
duplicity of M. TRIERS, as Foreign Minister,
it is impossible to conceive how he could have
the audacity to accept, or the KING so much dis-
regard of the feelings of his Allies as to offer
him, that office. If to his smattering knowledge
of so many things, M. TRIERS had added a smat-
tering of strategy, and the details of the Com-
missariat, the Ministry of War would be now the
grand object of his ambition. There he could
build fortresses after the KING'S own heart—
such as would have delighted the founders of
the Bastile, had they appeared in their day.
But M. TRIERS at present would be well content
with the Ministry of the Interior; but if he have
a seat in in the Cabinet during the life-time of
Louis PHILIPPE, then will the KING forfeit
the confidence and respect of every honest
patriot in Europe. The KING and the Minister
will be then on a level in all that regards aban-
donment of principle and reckless disregard of
personal character.
The much talked-of Treaty of Commerce be-
tween England and France is again on the tapir.
The following article upon it appears in the
C'ourrier Francais of Tuesday :

A kurnal stated on Sunday that the British Govern-
ment wanted to know M. Guizot's intentions on the sub-
ject. of the Treaty of Commerce, the conclusion of which
Lad been swpended by the late events. It appears, in
het, that Lard Palmerston, has represented to the French
Cabinet, in a very urgent note, that the time had arrived
for signirg that convention, in case the Ministry of the
29th October adopted the basis laid down by the Ist March.
• As the Treaty in question is limited to stipulating recipro-
cal reductions in the customs' duties, and as those reforms
are for the interest of both countries, there is no impedi.
mint to take it into consideration. We shall not advise
concessions to be made at this moment to England. But
if the British Government admits our wines, our brandies,
and cur silks, at moderate duties, we have no reasonable.
tno!ive for rejecting the stuffs or merchandise which it may
scud us in exchange for our produce.
The Treaty of Commerce concluded between
France, and Holland, of which a summary has
appeared in The Sun, was laid before the Cham-
ber of Deputies on Tuesday. During the same
sitting DUCIIATEL, Minister of the. Interior,
brought fo.rward his Bill for secret service
money, the debates upon which usually test the
stability .of the Cabinet—as a vote in support of
that Bill is a vote of confidence in Ministers'.
The sum demanded is a million of francs (40,0001.
sterling).
• The passing of the Fortifications Bill had no
observable effect on the Funds, which through-
out the day were very languid,

M. Humann, the Minister cf Finance, has refused to be
present at the Sitting of the Chamber, because he consi-
ders the law for fortifying Paris is likely to prove the ruin
of France.

It was reported yesterday evening that the passng of
the law would cause M. Testc to resign.
M. Humann says that fortifying of Paris would oblige
the Government next year to impose again the duty cf
forty millions on spirituous liquors, from which they were
relieved immediately after the revo!ution.—Quutidienne.
BREST, JAN. 30.—The corvette of burden, Ailicr, Cap-
tain Herbert, is now fitting out here; it i 5 to go to Nc v,-
Zniand.—Le Commerce.

BOURSE —Pan's, TUFSPI-Y, FEu. 2

OPFNING PRICY, —Fire per Ceriti, 112 f 65c ; Four•
arcs a-Ilalf 1021 50 • ; Three per Cents., 761 `is; Bank
of France 3,245; Neapolitan, 102`.; Roinan, 1001 ; S;.)a-
nish Active, 254; atf..!red, 13 Passive, 61 ; Belgian
Five per Cents., 98a ; B •lgian Bank, 875. Clc4ing
Prices—Five per Cents., 112 f 60.;; Three per Cents.,
701 80c ; Bank of France, 3,250 ; Neapolitan, 1021,

Madrid Papers of the 215th ult. have reached
us. The Castellano of that date gives the fol-
lowing list of Candidates as likely to be returned
to the next Cortes by the Capital:—
Don Augustin Arguelles, Don Juan Batista Alons6,
Dan Juan Francisco Morate, Don Manuel Gil Santi.
bone; Don Vincent Collantes, U.in Carlos Martin del
Romerral, Don Francisco Javierferu Montaos, Don Juar.
Alvarez y Mendizabal, Don Raman 11adrio Bavila, ane
Don Pedro Mendez Pizo.

There were some reports of a reduction of the
army, which we trust are well founded. Then
was no political gossip afloat of the slightest ir..
terest. The Madrid Fives, 201 for cash, and 29'4'
for sixty days. Bargains were transacted to the
amount of 31,800,000 reals. Debt with intest
for cash.

Belgian and German Journals of the latest
dates have arrived this morning. It was re-
ported in Brussels, on Sunday, that the Govern-
ment was preparing a general measure for repair-
ing all individual losses sustained during the Re-
volution, and also the losses sustained by the late
dreadful inundations.

The King of PRUSSIA has fixed the 28th o:
February for the opening of the Provincial As.
semblies of Brandenburg, Pomerania, Prussia,
Posen, Silesia, Saxony, and Westphalia. Th(
Assembly of the province of the Rhine will meet
in May next, according to established usage.
A letter which we have received from St. Petersburgb
says that a. great sensation has been caused by the new
that the young Prince Gallitzen and Count Von Stackel
berg, both of them belonging to the Russian Legation al
Rome, have embraced the Roman Catholic religion. I
is said that, besides being deprived of their titles of no
bility, they arc both threatened with the confiscation o
their property. Prince Gallitzen has great estates
Russia.—Allgemeine Zeitung, Jan. 29

Major-General Sir Henry Wheatley, G.C.H.
Privy purse to the Queen, has forwarded, through Si(
Mitthew Tierney, Bart., Her Majesty's gracious annua,
bounty of 1001. to the Sussex County Hospital, and 201
to the Brighten Dispensary. This severe winter has 5,
increased the demands on these charities for relief to th(
sick poor, that we earnestly entreat the benevolent to en
able the Governors to answer the calls. —Brightoi,
Gazette.

The Earl of Cardigan returned to the barracks
last Thursday, for the purpose of mustering his troops a'
the end of the month, according to his usual practice. O,
Saturday morning the regiment passed through the tow,
in marching order. His Lordship took bis departure o:
Monday for London, having resided at the barracks during
his stay in Brighton.—Brighton Gazette.
It is stated that during the late severe frost,
gentleman at Whitcombe, Gloucestershire, had a rick o'
barley attacked and plundered by a large number of rooks,
and such was the boldness of the depredators, that nearl)
one-third of the contents 'was carried off before they coulc
be forced to relinquish the attack.