The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-28 00:00:00

WB3 the victim more than two years ago, and of which.

„ .
foreigners have every day to complain in the streets of
Canton; it was to obtain the entry into the town pro-
mised by the treaty of Nankin, but still interdicted de
facto ; it was to force the Mandarins to grant the ground
necessary for building of churches, for a cemetery, and
for the lodging of foreigners; and, finally, to constrain
the Chinese Government to the execution cf the treaties
hitherto eluded, that Sir John Davis, whose patience
was exhausted, and who was urged on by the opinion of
his fellow-subjects, and without doubt also by the in-
structions of his Government, resolved to employ the

only argument which has any influence over Asiatics,
viz., the force of arms."

On the subject of the French attack on the Cochin-
Chinese the Constitutionnel says—
" The Debuts does not say what was the origin of this
sanguinary affair, and why Captain Lapierre went into
one of the ports in Cochin-China where, as is well
known, access is interdicted to European vessels. 'We
know, however, from a private letter, that the motive
of the visit of Captain Lapierre was the deliverance of
the French missionaries, who, already once exp•~tlr-d
from the kingdom of Annam, found means to penetrak,s
into it again. It is, no doubt, well to protect our mis-
sionaries in these barbarous countries ; it is not, how-
ever, right to let one's-self' be carried away in the exer-
cise of that protection farther than the interests of our
commerce and our political views require. That the
apostles of the faith be rescued out of the hands of the
Government of Cochin-China from. a cruel martyrdom,
is an act commanded by humanity and by the sympathy
which we owe to our countrymen ; but, on the other
hand, missionaries, once snatched from the hands
of the barbarians, ought not to have tempted fortune
a second time, to again claim the protection of our ves-
sels. This continual intervention of our navy cannot be
.justified but by a decided intention on the part of the
French Government to establish its protectorate over all
Cochin-China. Is that what the Government wants? If
not, we may ask why these reiterated visits of Admiral
Laplace, and Cecile, of Captain Favin-Leveque, and at
present of Captain Lapierre, visits which are each time
the occasion of some dispute which ends in negotiations
almost always unavailing, and of which the only result
has hitherto been the liberation of the missionaries, who
return there to undergo fresh tortures. It would be ad-
visable, however, that the missionaries should manifest
some prudence in what they do, at least for our country,
and that it should be known clearly what is really a-
tended, in order not to expose the Cochin-Chinese to be
killed by thousands when not converted by hundreds."
The affair of M. EMILE DE GIRARDIN still con-
tinues to engross public attention. The Opposition
journals consider his acquittal by the Court of Peers
as a condemnation of the Ministry, and consider that
for the sake of their own characters MM. GuizoT
and DIJCIIATEL should demand a full investigation.

" It is not as Ministers," says the National, " but as
men, that MM. GUIZOT and DUCHATEL are hence-
forth interested in removing the suspicion which en-
velope them. They both enjoy a reputation for per-
sonal probity which, for our part, we have ever re-
spected. But is a man honest when it can be as-
serted of him that he does not rob, but that he suffers
another to rob ? He suffers his name to be used in
base swindling. He had servants whom he knew to be
guilty of unworthy manoeuvres—he was aware of
these manoeuvres, and he retained those lacqueys in
his service, and he has made use of them to tarnish
the reputation of the most honourable men amongst
the Opposition. Is that honourable ? Ah ! no
doubt there would have been a greater degree of
criminality if a certain Minister sold for his own
account a patent for a new theatre and put the money
into his pocket. Such a man is sent to the galleys.
But if a Minister be aware that 100,000 f. was paid
for such a patent—if he did not grant the patent until
after the mony was paid—if he was perfectly ac-
quainted with the persons who received the money—
if one of those who paid the money declared the fact
in a letter signed with his name—if the latter was
not prosecuted, will anybody dare to maintain that
such a Minister had conducted himself like an honest
man ? It is not possible that the majority of the
Chamber can consent to suffer such a situation to
continue, and if it be a rigorous duty for the Opposi-
tion to propose a Parliamentary inquiry, does not the
honour of the majority of the Chamber command it
to consent to such a proposition ?
The Constitutionnel says of the Ministers, that
" the more they are pressed the more they are silent;
the more abundant the proofs against them are, the
more they shun the discussion. They may, there-
fore, be considered as justly condemned, since they
appeal from the verdict of popular opinion neither to
a judicial nor a Parliamentary inquiry."
The Journal des Dibats, on the other hand, declares
that the Ministry are completely absolved. It says—
" It is for the Opposition to consider whether it should
or should not recur to the political question. We shall
not attempt to prevent it; but until it be done we have
a right to say that the political question is at an end.
In the sitting of Thursday last the accuser of the Mi-
nistry was at full liberty to produce his proofs;
his own interest urgently pressed him to conceal no-
thing; the Opposition required only the shadow of a
proof to declare in his favour; on all sides lie was ad-
jured to explain himself, to tear aside the veil, to tell all
he knew. If M. Emile de Girardin had the least thing to
say, his success must have been certain and complete.
Instead of a prosecution by the Chamber of Peers, he
would have had a triumph, and the Ministry, perhaps,
would have been the accused party. To produce a just
estimate of M. Emile de Girardin's proofs one word
will be sufficient. After the speech of M. de Girardin,
the Opposition, which was so animated at the beginning
of the sitting, remained mute and confounded on its
benches. M. de Girardin himself could not find a word
to say in answer to the speeches of M. Duchatel and M.
Guizot. The authorisation of the Chamber for the pro-
secution was given with an immense majority and in so-
lemn silence. No expressions can describe the astonish-
ment of the crowd, and the surprise of those even who had
never believed that M. E. de Girardin could have any
very great relations to make. So much parade, such
formal allegations against the Ministry, his demand of a
secret committee, the anxiety of the public and of the
Chamber excited—to end, when the time for explanation
came, in—nothing ! This is what no one could compre-
hend—or ralher there was a conviction that M. de Gi-
rardin had unfortunately failed in finding his proofs.
In saying that the proofs of M. de Girardin were re-
duced to nothing, we were certain that we were render-
ing the universal opinion, both of the Opposition and
our own. Accused of an offence against the Peers, M.
E. de Girardin was acquitted on Tuesday—as accuser
of the Ministry, M. E. de Girardin was condemned on
Thursday last."
In the division on the GIRARDIN affair in the
Chamber of Peers, M. DE MONTALIVET, M. ATIIALIN,
and all the members of the Palace clique voted
against the Ministers.
It is said that other individuals high in rank are
implicated in the Cubieres' affair, and that M. TEsTE
and General CUBIERES are not the only functionaries
who will be prosecuted.
In the Chamber of Deputies on Wednesday M.
DURAND DE RommtauTlN asked if it was true that
Austria intended to intervene in the affairs of
Switzerland, and if France was to act as her auxiliary.
M. GUIZOT replied, that the Helvetic Diet being about
to meet in a few days he would say nothing calcu-
lated to influence its deliberations. Nobody took a more
real and deeper interest in the affairs of Switzerland
than he did ; nobody respected more her independence,
nor was more anxious that order and prosperity
should prevail in that country. Switzerland was per-
fectly free to reform her institutions, but Switzerland
was not placed in a situation similar to that of other
states of Europe. Her independence was guaranteed
by Europe, such as it existed at the time the treaty,
insuring that independence, was signed. Should that
federal state introduce any radical change in its
organization, the treaty on which its independence
rested would cease to exist. M. LEDitu ROLLIN then
reminded the Chamber that if the principles of the
doctrines just put forward by the Honourable Minis-
ter had been carried out in 1830, the family of
Orleans would not now be sitting on the throne.
The discussion relative to Switzerland ended with-
out any definite result.
It was said that on Friday M. LEON DE MALLE-
vILLL was to move for a Parliamentary inquiry into
the accusations of corruption brought by the Presse
against the Ministry, and that the motion would be
supported by every Member of the Opposition of
every party.
The Presse states that the Committee on the New
Customs Bill has determined to recommend that
the duty on colonial and native sugars shall be re-
duced 20f. per 100 kilogrammes, that the surtax on
foreign sugars shall be lowered in the same propor-
tion, and that the duty on coffee shall be reduced
two thirds. It adds, that the Government has ac-
cepted these modifications.
The Courrier Francais says—
" Great surprise is everywhere expressed that the
public prosecutor has not yet thought right to intervene
in the Thibaudeau Girardin affair. We know from a
certain source that the Procureur-General, M. Delangle,
will be questioned in the Chamber in the course of the
debate which is to take place on the accusations of which
the Cabinet is the object, unless in tho,,meantime M. De-
langle shall determine to do his duty.
We read in the Constitutionnel :
" Prince Pierre-Napoleon Bonaparte, who has in-
habited Belgium for many years,. had offered his ser-
vices to Mehemet-Ali through Stillman Pacha and M. 0.
Barrot. The Viceroy of Egypt received this offer favour-
ably and promised to place the Prince in the staff of his
army •
The French Government, on its side, declared offi-
cially through M. F. Barrot, Consul-General' of France
At Alexandria, that it ahould offer no opposition to the