The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-19 00:00:00

SFIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS•

FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OY THIS DAY.
(From the Morning Chronicle).
In the Times of yesterday appeared a'contn tion
attributed to a writer of " great respettallilit),° having
" access to the best sources of information," which re-
quires some notice from us. "It is now," says the
writer, " established by the acts, or rather by the inac-
tion of the Government, by the diplomatic note of
Lord Palmerston, and by the positive declarations of the
morning organ of the Foreign office that M. Thiers's

note has roodered it imperative on the Governments tit
the Four Powers to make no conrevions directly to
France, whatever concessions they may advise the Sultan
to make directly to Mehemet Ali.' Itis not easy to de.;

scribe the precise distinction thus drawn betwr_thtonces-
sions directly made to France by the rour Powers, and
concessions directly made v Mehemet Ali by the
Sultan in pursuance :If the advice of the Four Powers,"
And yet we should think the distinction was sufficiently
obvious, Mehemet Ali is a subject of the Porte, and,
except under peculiar circumstances, one State is not
entitled to interfere in the internal affairs of another.

On the requisition of the Sultan, the Four Powers of
Austria, England, Prussia, and Russia, agreed to afford
assistance to that Sovereign to enable him to reduce a
rebellious subject, who had succeeded in obtaining by
force large portions of the empire, by which the secur.ty
of the remainder was materially endangered. The ex-
tent of the interference to be given was carefully regu-
lated by the Treaty of London. The Four Powers
under it renounced all separate advantages, and bound
themselves to the sole object of aiding the Sultan to re-
duce the Pacha of Egypt, in order to secure the lode
pendence and integrity of Turkey, France had pledged
herself with the Four Powers to the independence and in-

tegrity of Turkey, but refused to accede to a Treaty for
giving effect to the pledge by coercive measures.
France having thus agreed with the Four Powers on
principle, though no doubt at liberty to give effect or
nor to the principle, cannot oppose the Allies so long as
they act honestly under the Treaty, and seek no sepa-
rate advantage to themselves. But pledging herself to
the integrity and independence of Turkey, she has re-
nounced all title to claim concessions to any subject
of the Sultan, for such a claim is incompatible with the
independence of the Sultan, and, in fact, is only admissi-
ble on the ground that she posseses a right of protector-
ate over part of Turkey. The distinction, therefore, be-
tween concessions made to France by the Four Powers,
and concessions directly made to Mehemet Ali, is as broad
as the distinction between a joint sorereignty with
the Suitan, and a mere title to see that no one of

the Allies derives advantage from his interference.
But, then, it is said Lord Palmerston " snaps
his fingers at a war in Europe ; and that whatever may
be his hostility to the Riche of Egypt, it falls short of

his determined resistat-ree to M. 'riders, or rather to M.
Thiers's successor, for whom the note of the 2d of
November was written"—that the result in Europe of
the soothing treatment in the East, " if it be adhered
to, amounts to the strongest probability of war ;" that
" M. Guizots accession to power, instead of being- the
signal for a flag of truce, to be sent by the combined di-
plomatists in exchange for that which the French states-
man so gallantly held out to them, has been followed by
a recrudescence of diplomatic insolence." To all these
assertions th@ answer is brief. The note of the 2(.1 of

November is insolent neither in substance nor in terms

It was not uncalled for, as the memorandum of N

Thiers, however gratifying in other respects, involved a
claim on the part of France incompatible with the sove-
reignty of the Sultan, and which it became necessary at
once to meet, to prevent advantage being afterwards taken
by France of the silence of England on the subject.
France, in claiming to prescribe the terms to be given
by the Sultan to his own subject, claimed, in fact, the
protectorate of the Pacha ; and the assent of England
to that claim would have been inferred from Lord Pal-
merston''a silence. The whole of the assumptions of
the writer that war has been rendered more probable
by the note of Lord Palmerston are altogether gratui•
tous. The memorandum of M. Thiers was conceived
in terms which implied the abandonment of whatever
was calculated to involve a❑ interruption of tranquil-

lity. The note of Lord Palmerston interposed no
practicle obstacle to the realization of the views of M.
Thiers. But no one doubts the sincerity of the wishes
expressed by M. Guizot for the preservation of peace.
The note is calculated to strengthen the power of M.
Guizot to give effect to his wishes, and not to
weaken it, because it affords an assurance that
there are no practical differences in the way of a
good understanding between France and the Al-
lies. Indeed, we do not believe that M. Thiers
himself ever sincerely meditated war. He was,
however, by the system of agitation encouraged
by him in the outset, placed under the necessity of
making preparations and adopting measures which
must have rendered war at last almost inevitable. It

is impossible to suppose that the Powers of Europe
would have looked on with folded arms while France
was adding to her means of offence. The difference
between the present Government and that of M.
Thiers is, that the present Government is not only
disposed to peace for the present, but anxious to
avoid whatever has a tendency to lead to war. M.
Guizot cannot possibly take objection to the % indica-
tion in the note of Lord Palmerston, of the right ef the
Sultan to sovereignty within his dominions, with•
out we are to suppose him to share the iews
of M. Thiers, openly advocated by his col: egue
Remusat, of the right to a protectoral,: of
Egypt and Syria. The writer of the communication in
the Times wishes evidently to have it believed thet he
was present at the meetings of the councils which he
has so minutely described. He lays claim to a know-
ledge, not only of the where and the when, but of the
particular views entertained by the different members
of the Cabinet. We are rather surprised that a writer
who knows so much should not have known that his
statements cannot possibly be true. If the Queen, as
be insinuates, and a majority in the Cabinet, as
he affirms, are adverse to the views of Lord Pal-
merston, the majority must of course prevail. We
are utterly at a loss to comprehend how a minority
in a Cabinet can give effect to their views in opposi-
tion to a majority. In every body of men,
great or small, the opinion of the majority
is necessarily the opinion of the whole, and a mi-
nority can only give effect to their views by sepa-
rating from the majority. We can be at no loss, then,
to know what value to attach to the accounts of meet-
ings in South-street and elsewhere. Before the writer
can expect the world to give bias credit for the accu-
racy of his knowledge of the proceedings at Cabinet
Councils, and of the views of the different members, he
must be prepared to show how it happens that all pro-
babilities are violated by him. It is to libel the Cabi-
net, to pretend that a majority adverse in views to
Lord Palmerston suffer him, notwithstanding, to pro-
ceed in a course which they believe must end in a war,
which they at the same time believed to be both unne-
cessary and easily to be avoided. The individuals com-
posing such a majority ought to lose their heads,
though, on the supposition, they cannot lose what they
never could have possessed. We are astonished how
any writer can expect credit for statements which have
not even the appearance of probability.
(From the Times.)
A good deal of blundering turbulence has been dis-
played by one or more of the Paris newspapers in their
eagerness to vilify by every manoeuvre, however knav-
ish, the objects and character of the present quintuple
alliance between the four great European Powers and
the Grand Seignor. For want of more plausible
topics of abuse, they have assimilated the above great
league to the Holy Alliance of 1815. One line will
be sufficient to expose the absurdity of such a parallel.
Tie Holy Alliance was a league against the spread of
democracy throughout Europe—a scheme for crushing
all attempts at insubordination on the part of sub-
jects of any one Crown against their Sovereign, by
bringing the whole power of all Governments to
bear against the efforts of any individual people
to resist the measures, whether good or evil, of
their rulers. It was, in fact, a device, and a very
hypocritical and odious one, for making despotic
government perpetual and universal. It was a de-
claration of war by Cabinets against nations—a war
against the first principles of all representative
.go-
vernment. The revolutionary faction across the water
must he sorely pressed for topics of excitement against
Great Britain and her allies, when they have recourse to
a misrepresentation so palpable as to identify a compact
which treats of territory alone with one which looked
exclusively to principles—a compact which aims at the
restoration of plundered provinces to the State of which
they had for centuries formed a recognised and essential
part, with one which went directly to intermeddle in the
domestic relations between sovereign and subject. It
ought never to be forgotten, and indeed cannot fail to be
borne in mind by the revolutionists of Paris themselves,
that the principle of the existing alliance—viz., the main-
tenance of the integrity of Turkey—has been distinctly
and formally subscribed to by three French Ministries in
succession—namely, the Soult Cabinet, the Thiers Cabi-
net, and the Guizot Cabinet—by no one of which has the
slightest objection, even to an active participation in it,
been suggested, save only that the means proposed were
not adequate to their professed end, and might, with-
out the accomplishment of that end, involve Europe in
risks irrelevant to the intentions of the contracting par-
ties. This is one fair exposition of the frauds by which
the popular mind of France has been inflamed, and the
peace of the world needlessly and flagitiously threatened
with a general disturbance. The Paris illessager,
which has lately announced itself as being an official
aevening
t paper,wo othern° tpai:t't:esl
public with
byh theme appearance
revolutionists
indig-
nation in-
spireg-
oFf French
11Guizot skdiainisration. One is the cir-
stabilitthye distrust,t and to affect the
cir-
culation of a rumour, that Ministers have not courage
to face the great quest:on of the address to his Majesty
and therefore, to escape the necessary discussion, have
decided on proroguing or dissolving the Chambers. A
moment's thought might assure any reasonable per-
son of the folly and extravagance of such a " notion,
with a proved majority of sixty 'sises for the Minister ;
but unhappily, at times when the passions are much
excited, the majority out of doors usually consists of