The Sun.
London, England, 1832-08-08 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We are glad to see, that in the midst of the
more agitating questions which have distracted
the Governments of Europe for the last two
years, the affairs of Greece have not been neg-
lected, and may now be regarded as finally set-
tled. Since Prince Leopold declined the Sove-
reignty of that principality in May, 1830, a
" new era" has dawned on the world, and im-
portant changes have taken place in the situation
of nearly all the parties originally interested in
the Greek negotiations. France has undergone
a revolution, which has driven from his throne
the Sovereign who, by the proxy of Russia, had
the Crown of Greece at his disposal : Russia,
which had gained some credit for the conquest
of Turkey and the liberation of Greece, has

incurred more general odium for the oppression
ra of Poland : and England, then subject to a
Tory Government, and opposed even to the
small inroads on Turkish barbarism which were
aimed at by the creation of a free state in the
Archipelago, has acquired that political reform
which, without making her the Don Quixote of
oppressed nations, must henceforward enable her to
express more energetically her sympathies for
freedom both at home and abroad. The subject
of their negotiations has likewise changed ; and,
from exhibiting the elements of order on the
prospect of a settled Government, has suffered
all the calamities, and perpetrated all the crimes,
which generally result from a provisional autho-
rity and an unsettled state of society. Amid
these circumstances, it is to the credit of the
three Powers united in the London Conference,
and to the honour of European civilization in
general, that the settlement of Greece has not
been forgotten, and that a Turkish Bashaw of
two or three tails has not again been permitted to
pass the Straits of Thermopylw. With the ma-
jority of the former negotiators, who accepted of
the Greek legacy of Mr. Canning with reluct-
ance, and without any desire to execute his tes-
tamentary intentions, the new incorporation
of Greece with the dominions of our " an-
cient ally " would have been reckoned no
" untoward " event, but the spirit of the age
was against it, and what was more, the in-
terests of ambition were concerned where there
was a crown to give away. it happened, too,
fortunately for Greece, that the two persons most
earnest for a liberal settlement of a Greek state,
and best acquainted with the details of the Greek
question, in the legislative assemblies of England
and France,—namely, Lord Palmerston and
General Sebastiani—happened in the recent
chhnges to be promoted to the office of Foreign
Ministers. To this circumstance must be
ascribed the indulgence shown to the late Greek
disturbances, and the benefits conferred on the
new state by enlarging its territory, and giving
it a more•defined and secure frontier. By the
new treaty, the boundary to the north, of which
we long advocated the policy and necessity—
namely, that between Arta and Volo—has been
adopted. The following paragraph, in a despatch
agreed to be jointly transmitted to Constanti-
nople by the Conference of September 26, 1831,
will sufficiently explain and justify this change
in the treaty to which Prince Leopold was to be
a party :

" After carefully weighing these considerations in their
bearings upon the permanent interests of the two parties,
and taking into account the necessity of establishing be-
tween the parties those relations of good neighbourhood,
which are so much the more important, as they form one
of the principal objects of the intervention of the three
Cow ts, the Conference has determined that their Am-
bassadors and Ministers at Constantinople should endea-
vour to induce the Porte to return to the line of Vol° and
Arta, proposed by the protocol of the22d of March, 1829.
" The Porte cannot have forgotten that it had given its
entire assent to that line ; and that, although the line was
afterwards modified in the protocol of February 3, 1830,
the alteration was made solely with the view of indemni-
fying Turkey for the suzerainty and tribute which had
been assured to her by the protocol of the 22d of March,
1829; but which the protocol of February 3, 1830, by
declaring the political independence of Greece, excluded
from its provisions.
" The territory situated between these two lines 'ravine
been thus taken away from Greece, and given to Turkey as
an equivalent for the difference between the suzerainty of
which Turkey was deprived, and the independence which
Greece has gained, the Ambassadors and Ministers of the
three Courts will have to ascertain whether it may not be
possible to find some other equivalent which Turkey might
be disposed to accept, on the condition of returning to the
frontier of the 22,1 of March, 1829."

In the negotiations of the three years which
intervened between the death of Mr. Canning
and the formation of the present Ministry, every
exertion was made to narrow the limits of the
Greek State, and to prevent as much as possible
any reduction of Turkish barbarism in the
country of Pericles and Epaminondas. At first it
was proposed to make the Isthmus of Corinth
the northern boundary of the liberated Princi-
pality,---to confine it to the Peloponnesus,---
and, in fact, to leave Greece entirely out. of the
Greek State. When this project was exploded
as too ridiculous, it was then agreed that
Athens might be included in the Greek Com-
monwealth, but that a great portion of western
and northern Greece should still be left subject
to Turkey. It was even with some difficulty
that the no very liberal or classical Prince
Polignac, could get our Government to detach
the island of Eubcea from the Sultan, and give
the Greeks their own immortal pass of Ther-
mopylx. The present arrangement, which was
demanded by Prince Leopld, anti by all the
friends of Greek independence, must give uni-
versal satisfaction. .0n the other details of the
territorial limits, we have not room to enter,
though we cannot refrain from giving our tribute
of applause to the following extract from the
protocol of November 16, 1831:7

" That the Conference of London, consistently with the
solicitude which the three Courts have invariably mani-
fested in favour of the island of Samos, will desire their
residents at Constantinople to neglect no means of inducing
the Turkish Government to consent that the annual tri-
bute of the Samians shall be transmitted yearly to the Otto-
man Porte by deputies from Samos, instead of being levied
by the Capitan Pacha."
We remember, that during the course of the
Greek negotiations,• which preceded the late
French revolution, we recommended that the new
state rescued from Turkish despotism should be
erected into a kingdom, instead of being called
a principality. The title of a King appeared to
us always worth something, and it could be con-
ferred at no expense. The Greeks are a vain
people, and would conceive themselves more
honoured by being the subjects of a King than
of a Prince sovereign, while it would be no de-
gradation of the title to be worn by a ruler oc-
cupying the territory of so many Homeric
Princes. The Conference of that period de-
cided otherwise, and Prince Leopold was re-
served for another kingdom. We are glad to see
that the three Powers have now consented to make
a Greek King. The point is abstractedly a tri-
vial one ; but the Greeks are a frivolous as well as
restless people, and may be allowed their rattle.
On the wisdom of their selection of a sove-
eign to fill the new throne, there must of course
•
be a greater- \diversity of opinion, and nobody
can •mainttrinAhat the choice which has been
made ia alvapq one. A dynasty may end in
a minority,:- but it should not begin in one;

).10,1,oz;

and least of all, should a minor be sent to rule a
turbulent and distracted country like that of
Greece. In the multitude of candidates who
at one time preferred their pretensions, there
might have been one of snore mature age, of
greater experience, and of better abilities, than
the Bavarian youth who is now about to pro-
ceed on his travels to Greece, to become the
avr4" xv3p.:v of the Kleptic capitani and the
knavish primates. It was perhaps necessary,
however, to obtain a prince whose connexion
with a reigning European family might give him
the command of a small army, and such a neces-
sity narrowed the circle of choice. For the
money part of the transaction, the three Courts
have become, to a certain extent, responsible ;
and this liability forms the chief objection to
the arrangement in certain quarters, and among a
certain class of our economical politicians. How
those who professed their zeal for the treaty of
1830, can oppose that of 1832 on the score of
pecuniary responsibility, we are at a loss to con-
ceive. The sum to be guaranteed is exactly the
same,—it is advanced to the same people, for the
same objects ; and the security for its ultimate re-
payment is increased rather than diminished. A
renowned financier and strict economist, who
cannot say, like the meddling philosopher in
Horace, "aliena negotia curo, excussus pro-
priis," for he attends equally to the public
accounts and his own, should not have been
so decided against the new Greek Loan. His
patriotic suspicion has thus outrun his personal
discretion ; for, on a memorable occasion, he
himself lent money to the Greeks, and nobody
ever accused bins of wishing to part with his
property without an object or an equivalent.
On that occasion he not only recovered the
principal, but obtained the utmost farthing
of interest from the Greek Deputies—and as
Greece will most likely have a free constitution,
and as honest Deputies as those whom we saw
in London, why may not the future parties to
the new loan be equally fortunate, though we
trust that they will take a different method to
recover their funds ? Is !Vlr. Hume the only
Philhellene who has any chance of entering
into a Greek contract with safety, or without
a loss ?—Times.

When we have at different times called upon
the trustees of the Decan prize-money to make
their award, and to divide the funds placed at
their disposal among the claimants, our remarks
were intended rather to chicle delay in the dis-
tribution of the fund, than to express any sus-
picion of its impartiality or justice. At last
the award is made, and we find the parties
complaining, not without reason, that the prin-
ciple on which it has proceeded is erroneous,
and requires further examination. The state-
ment made in the House of Commons on Mon-
day night, on the petitions of two Gallant Ge-
nerals, chiefly interested, was so clear in its re-
cital of undeniable facts, and so satisfactory in
its legal or military distinction of the rights of
parties, that it would be idle to abridge or re-
peat it. It appears quite evident, according to
the best evidence that can be adduced on such
a subject, that the grand army under the Mar-
quis of Hastings, and the Deccan army under
Sir T. Hislop, never acted together in such a
manner as to be considered one army, executing a
combined operation, under the same commander.
They took the field ate different season. They were
dissolved or broken up at a different season ;
and when the booty was acquired, they were
more than 300 miles from each other. The
noble Marquis himself never used the phrase of
combined army till he saw that he could gain
something by being considered the chief of both
armies rather than the leader of one, and the
Duke of York might as well have claimed prize
money as Commander-in-Chief of the whole
military forces of the country, as his Lordship as
Commander of the troops of the Deccan. That
part of the question, therefore, so far as the
booty taken in actual warfare is concerned, ad-
mitted of little doubt. The petitions, there-
fore, referred to a subsequent capture, to which
it was contended a new principle was to he
applied. Booty obtained after the dissolution
of the armies, or the termination of the cam-
paign, was alleged on military principles to
belong, not to any individual corps, but to the
whole forces engaged, and the question turned
on whether the booty taken in Poonah came
under that description. If it was in Poo-
nah at the time when that place was occupied
by the troops of General Smith, commanding
a corps of Sir Thomas Hislop's army, it was to
be considered as exclusively the property of that
army. In that case the grand army could not
share in it, nor would Lord Hastings be entitled
to his eighth part. If, on the other hand, it was not
in Poonah at the time specified, then the whole
forces engaged in the campaign were entitled to
share as much as the army of the Deccan. The
whole question is thus made to depend upon the
evidence of a single fact, and that evidence was
considered by the trustees as insufficient to nar-
row the distribution. It strikes us as almost
certain that the money was in Poonah ; and we
therefore, though enemies to delay, cannot but
approve of the re-hearing which the claims of
the parties are still to undergo. But we agree
with two Honourable Members, well acquainted
with India, in thinking that the rights of a third
party are forgotten, and that if the secretary of
the Peishwah had his due, the trustees might be
saved the trouble of the distribution, and the
poor common soldiers who may still survive, the
danger of getting drunk with their small share
of 13s. 4d.— Times. •

The conservatives fight hard for the Chan-
cery sinecures. Is this all anxiety to prevent any
diminution of Lord Brougham's income ? Oh
no ! But they know that.
He that is in battle slain,
Never more will tight again."
Once abolished, the chance of their being filled
up by the Tories, should they regain power, is
at an end. The Earl of Eldon offered a curious
argument against the abolition. He had filled
(he said) the office of Lord Chancellor for seven-
and-twenty years, with only a short interval, and
he had been practising at the bar of the Court
for many years ; could it then be possible for
that which was called Chancery Reform to have
escaped his attention, and that of his many
Noble and Learned predecessors :'" If his
Lordship had been twice twenty-seven years
Lord Chancellor, we suspect it would never
once have occurred to him that sinecures pro.
fitable to himself ought to be abolished. Neither
is his Lordship singular in this respect. Some
how or other the necessity of abolishing sinecures
has always escaped those who profit by them, and
our memory does not furnish us with the name of
any sinecurist who ever distinguished himself by
his zeal in urging measures for the abolition of si-
necures. The test proposed by Lord Eldon for de-
termining the necessity of the abolition is, however,
an instance of naiveté, which it would be difficult
to match. When the Bill was passed, the Lord
Chancellor alluded to the notice which had been
taken in the House of Commons of what fell
from him when repelling the iosinuatiqn, that in

spite of all his declarations he had filled up the
Chancery sinecures. He begged to say, " that
he never alluded to any individual in an unpar-
liamentary or offensive way, and he regretted to
learn that his observations had given pain, for
it was at all times, and under all circumstances,
most deeply painful to himself to occasion pain
to any other human being." " I cannot (added
his Lordship) say that the observations made
by me were uttered under the influence of irri-
tation or of anger ; I confess I have not that
excuse ; but I did feel contempt and scorn for
the charge that was made—a charge in which
the accuser stooped to insinuate at the very mo-
ment of my life—at the very moment in the life
of any public man—when such an insinua-
tion could be least merited—stooped] to
insinuate at the very moment when I was
doing an act of some imprudence, it might
be called folly—an act certainly, which, in the
ordinary course of prudential conduct, I had no
right to commit—that at that very moment I, under
the influence of sordid motives, was departing
from those principles to which I was then
making a great and substantial sacrifice." As
far as we can understand his Lordship, he here
sa)s, that he used the expressions which gave
pain to Sir E. Sugden ; but that, as he merely
wished to express contempt and scorn for the
charge made by Sir Edward, and the expression
of contempt and scorn is not unparliamentary,
Sir Edward ought not to have felt pain. How-
ever, as pain had been felt, he regretted, not that
he had expressed the contempt and scorn, but
that the expression of contempt and scorn had
caused the pain. Whether these observations
are calculated to diminish the pain felt by so
touchy and consequential an individual as Sir
Edward Sugden, seems to us somewhat doubt-
ful. Nay, it is doubtful whether they will not

even add. to the disgust felt by that delicate
gentleman, Sir George Rose, whose delicacy,
indeed, seems to be greater than his gratitude.
It would seem, then, that the analogy indicated
in the report of a contemporary between the ope-
rations of Sir Edward and those of a certain rep-
tile is not challenged by the Lord Chancellor.
—Morning Chronicle.
We see exemplified in the case of Russia what
is too often exemplified in private life. By a
series of transactions, akin to that in which
Ikey Solomons was unsuccessul, a fortune is ac-
cumulated, which elevates the descendant of
the respectable acquirer to the Peerage. When
the fortune is secure, and Botany Bay no longer
appears in the perspective, the possessor becomes
patron of the Bible Society, and a builder of
Chapel. Russia has, ever since she first
figured in the politics of Europe, been a thief
and a spoiler. From the conquests which it
made from Sweden, and ceded by the treaty of
Nydstadt, in 1721, down to our own times, it
has constantly been drawing countries within its
clutches. From Sweden it seized Livonia, with
a population of 580,000 ; Esthonia, with a po-
pulation of 220,000 ; Carelia, `'Viborg, Kex-
holm, with a population of 210,000 ; Ingria,
with a population of 607,810, by the treaty of
Nydstadt in 1721, and Abo in 1713 ; Swedish
Finland, with a population 0f897,966, by the treaty
of Frederickshain, 17th September, 1809. From
Poland it took on the first partition in 1772, a
population of 1,300,000 ; on the second parti-
tion, in 1793, a population of 3,011,688 ; on
the third partition, in 1795, a population of
1,176,590. By the Act of Submission, 28th
March, 1795, the Duchies of Courland and Se-
megalia, with a population of 407,000. From
PrusqK it wrested, by the treaty of Tilsit, a part of
what Prussia had stolen, the Circle of Byalis-
tock, with a population of 439,780. From Austria

it wrung, by tile Treaty of Vienna, 14th Octo-
ber, 1809, Districts of Old Galicia, with a
population of 400,000. From Turkey it took,
by the Treaty of Kaynardgi, in 1774, Azoff, and
on the 28th June, 1783, the Crimea, &c., with
a population of 250,000 ; in 1792, the Plain of
Oczakow, &c., with a population of 150,000 ;
and in 1785, 1800, and 1810 and 1811, Min-
i grelia, &c., with a population of 600,000. It
subjugated the Cossacks of the Don and the Black
Sea, in number about 260,000. From Persia
it took in 1787, and in 1810 and 1811, various
provinces, with a population of 260,000. We
are unable to state the particulars of the exten-
sive acquisitions since made from Persia and
Turkey in Asia. The Emperor Alexander,
at one time, exhibited something like symptoms
of grace, and people were, at one time, dis-
posed to believe, when he established the
Holy Alliance, encouraged the Bible Society,
and was frequently closeted with Saints and
Missionaries, that Russia had become satisfied
with her acquisitions, and wished now to ob-
tain a character for piety. Notwithstanding what
has been going on in Poland, there does seem
a strong disposition in Parliament to extend to
Russia the same sort of forgiveness for the past
which is so readily bestowed on successful rogues
in private life. The Catholic Church makes
restitution a preliminary condition to absolution ;
but in the liberalism of modern politicians,
it is deemed sufficient that nations, ag-
grandised by a series of unprincipled aggressions,
abstain for a time from further aggressions. It
is imputed as a crime to the Poles, that, goaded
by a series of most insupportable oppressions,
they endeavoured to withdraw themselves from
the greatest of their spoilers. " With respect to
Poland (observed Lord Palmerston), he could
say, without at all touching on the question of
Russia having broken her faith to the Poles on
the subject of a Constitution, that in the late
war the Poles, not Russia, were the aggres-
sors, for they commenced the contest." But
the breaking the faith on the subject of a Con-
stitution is everything. Is it not notorious that
the Poles were placed under a savage, who was
excluded from the throne of Russia, because he
was unfit to reign ? Is it not notorious that all
the pledges given to them were violated ?—that
they were oppressed beyond bearing ? and is it
to be deemed an offence in them sufficient to
justify the destruction of the Polish name, and
complete amalgamation with Russia, that they
rose to do themselves justice ? Aggressors !
(says Lord Palmerston !) What an abuse of
terms ; the Spaniards were aggressors when
they endeavoured to expel King Joseph and his
French armies. One would suppose, from the
speech of Lord Palmerston, that the Russian
was the most moral of all Governments. " He
could not (he said, in answer to Colonel Evans)
sit down without making one or two observa-
tions on the conduct which the Hon. Member
attributed to Russia in her negotiations and in her
contests with her neighbours, or the other powers
of Europe. The Hon. Member had particularly
charged Russia with pursuing a continued sys-
tem of aggression throughout the whole of her
transactions with Persia and Turkey." Of
course there is no foundation for any such
charge. But let us hear his Lordship—,, He
happened to know that Russia had, in neither
of the cases mentioned by the Hon. Member,
b en in the slightest degree the aggressor.

Persia had provoked a contest by a series of
aggressions, and Turkey had, in spite of all re-
monstrances, seized Russian subjects and Rus-
sian property, and evaded all demands for re-
dress. If it had not been so, the Government
of the Duke of Wellington would not have
permitted either Persia or Turkey to fall
before the power of Russia; and although
Turkey persisted, there was an understanding
between Russia and her allies, that she was not
to take any accession of territory in Europe in
the event of a successful issue of the contest."
Not in Europe, but Asia, will do this time—
the next time, we suppose, recourse will be had
to Europe. The time, however, will be chosen
when, as in the case of the successive partitions
of Poland, it will not be in the power of the
Government of this country to prevent the
robbery. Lord Palmerston insinuated that
Colonel Evans was even wrong in surmising
that Russia was to blame in the case of the
invasion of Naples, and invasion of Spain by
France. The Hon. Member could have nothing
but surmises What ! nothing but surmises for
what took place at Verona and Laybach ? This is
being charitable with a vengeance ! We contend
that the conduct of Russia, Austria, and Prussia,
in what regards Poland and Italy, ought never to
be spoken of except in terms of strong reprobation.
We cannot assist the Poles or the Italians, and
we ought not to mislead them, as the French
have certainly done ; but it is due to our own
reputation to show that we entertain abhorrence

for the robber Governments. Austria, Prussia,
and Russia are infamous Governments. They
have prospered by rapine. We agree with Lord
John Russell, that, " however highly the liber-
ties of Europe were to be prized, the blood of
Englishmen was to be prized also—(Cheers)--
and it was not, above all, to be lavished in a
cause in which the liberties of Europe might
not prosper, but the interests of England were
sure to suffer." But though we cannot subscribe
to the doctrine of Sir Francis Burdett, that
England is to be the grand redresser of all poli-
tical wrongs, we deprecate at the same time the
fashion of speaking lightly of the unprincipled
conduct of the three robber Governments. We
should treat them as prudent men do men of
bad character in private life, have no other com-
munion with them than what is inevitable. 'We
are not bound to waste our resources on wars
for the independence of Poland, Germany, and
Italy, but we are bound, in speaking of the
conduct of the oppressors of these countries,
not to compromise our own principles, or to
speak in a manner which might leave it to be
inferred that we think lightly of the oppression.
Let us not add to the sufferings of the oppressed
by speaking of their exertions, when not crowned
with success, as crimes.—Morning Chronicle,
The evils of our monetary like those of our
representative system, appear to have reached a
height surpassing endurance ; and the one, like
the other, must, ere long, undergo some sweep.
ing measure of reform. Even the band of theo-
' rists, to whom the singular task has fallen of en-
deavouring to convince the world that the surest
way to promote the prosperity of a country is to
impoverish its inhabitants, are fast falling back
into the state of obscurity from which they ought
never to have been allowed to emerge ; and
though, like most persons who adopt erroneous
notions, they are obstinate in proportion as they
are wrong, however a few may still cling to gone-
by delusions, the majority both of teachers and
of hearers appear to be quietly gliding into the
path of truth. We have been misrepresented
upon this subject, and are, therefore, the more
anxious not to be misunderstood. We are no ad-
vocates for a return to that species of paper cur-
rency which left every man, whether of property
or of straw, to become the coiner of what a cele-
brated writer on this subject aptly enough calls
" filthy rags." What we conceive of paper
money is, that it should be the representative of
actual property, and convertible into that which
it professes to represent, at the will of the holder.
Under these restraints a great and important
addition might and ought to be made to our
circulating medium, which would at once have
the effect of restoring the value of money to
something like a parallel with that in which most
of our public and private engagements were
made, and of giving an impetus to the employ-
ment of that large proportion of labour which,
for want of a money capital, now lies still.—
The restoration of a wholesome paper currency,
under these limitations, is all that we have ever
required on this head ; and, accompanied, as it
ought to be, by an extension and improvement
of our present partial and defective banking
system, would, we have no doubt, restore
" Health to the rich, and solace to the swain."

As for the idea of this reform being postponed
for a year or two, till the public have had time
to digest the evidence taken before the Bank
Committee, the very idea is preposterous. In
the first place, like a body dying of starvation,
the country at large can no longer wait for food ;
and, secondly, the period between the present
time and the next Session of Parliament, even if
it take place in November (which, for the sake of
this subject, we hope it will), will be amply suf-
ficient for all the additional consideration which
the subject can require from practical men. We
are very far from meaning that the question of
the Bank Charter is not intimately connected
with that of the general currency of the country,
and we are not without hope that many of
the facts and opinions elicited by the Com-
mittee will turn out to be of great practical
value ; but, at the same time, their utmost value
will be worse than neutralized if they are to
add to that miserable system of procrastinating
every thing, which of late years has become a
species of disease among public men. Instead
of further delay, we say that no time—no, not a
moment—should be lost in paving the way to
the adjustment of a subject in which so many
vital interests are concerned. At present the
whole community are in the situation of persons
starving with ample wholesome food within their
reach, which they are only kept from partaking
of by a few snarling dogs in the manger. This
state of things cannot, must not, last. The
statesman who is deterred from approaching it
by its apparent difficulty is unfit for his station ;
how much more unfit is he when every day's ex-
perience ought to convince him that the d►fl'icul-
ties surrounding it are only apparent, not real;
while the ruin his timidity is bringing upon the
country is such as is fast coming home to the
inelancholly experience of every one ?—Morn-
ing Herald.
It is not without reason that, in the debate on
the Convention respecting Greece, Mr. Hume
spoke with severe freedom of the foreign policy
of Ministers, and divided the House against
them. This, to be sure, was rather inconsistent
with his conduct, in voting " black was white,"
on the Russo-Dutch Loan job. Still, as far as
it goes, it was creditable to him, and proves that
he has not altogether sacrificed his independence
or surrendered the interests of the country
merely to keep a party in office. Well might he

F express " great surprise that the Members of an
. Administration that had taken office on the de-
. Glared condition of non-interference with Fo-
. reign States should outdo their prede-
cessors in a course of the most ill-ad-
> vised interference." We recollect when the
cry of the Whigs, at the time of Lord
'Aberdeen's direction of the Department for Fo-
• reign Affairs, was " non-intervention ;" and
though Lord Palmerston has just discovered
that it is not an English word, yet we can assure
' his Lordship it was, at one time, an
approved word of the Whig vocabulary—
and frequently used by the leaders of the party,
when on the Opposition benches of the House
of Commons—more especially after the Belgic
revolution, when the present Secretary of War
gave notice of a motion to engage the House to
oppose the intervention of the Duke of Wel-
lington's Government in the affairs of Belgium
and Holland, by intermeddliug in which affairs
our present Government have rendered their
greatest effort of diplomacy so ridiculously me-
morable. We thought that nothing could sur-
pass in elaborate folly the protocol labours of
Lord Aberdeen regarding Greece; but we were
mistaken. Lord Palmerston has left him far
behind in the exhibition of those talents whose
results are familiarly illustrated by the "mountain
in labour," and its " muscipular abortions?' Lord
Aberdeen negotiated to place a person connected
with our Royal Family on the throne of Greece
—the services of Lord Palmerston are given to
one to whose merits this country is altogether a
stranger—one who, if he have any talents from
nature, has never had any opportunity of showing
them, being a mere boy, and wholly without the
experience requisite to govern a country so torn
by faction and discord as Greece. We protested
against the Duke of Wellington's Government
binding this country in new pecuniary obliga-
tions, by guaranteeing a loan for the service of
the Government of Leopold. We had hoped
that when Leopold declined the proffered honour
there would have been an end of it. Little could
we suspect that a Whig Government, professing
economy, retrenchment, and non-intervention,
would revive this foolish and extravagant project
of raising money on the guarantee of England
for the advantage of a mere stranger and a beard-
less boy, whom Russian influence has withdrawn
from school, half educated and wholly inexpe-
rienced, to raise him to the dignified office of
playing the part of crowned puppet to the subtle
and circumventing Cabinet of St. Petersburg. To
have the honour of assisting in this notable
project of Russia—a project which is said to have
emanated from the late Capo d'lstrias, the minion
of Russia—England is to give her security for
800,0001. of the funds necessary for keeping up
the melo-dramatic farce of " independent"kingship
in Greece, and supporting the Royal Grildrig
in the pomp and circumstances of sovereignty.
But then it is said Greece is in favour of a
monarchy. Of that we have no proof whatever;
for we cannot, like Lord Palmerston, call the
packed assemblies under Capo d'lstrias and the
Russian faction the genuine representatives of the
mind and interests of Greece; but, if the Greeks
were in favour of a monarchy, it is not the so-
vereignty of a stranger that they wish—much
less a stranger not recommended, but forced
upon them by the Holy Alliance, and who, as
lie has not been chosen by the free will of the
nation, can only support himself by military
power, and by the aid of the foreign influence
which has placed him there. And then, what a
school of Government he comes from ! Can
the Greeks place confidence in him who comes
fresh from the lessons of arbitrary power, which
his father, after pretending to be a Liberal, is
this moment endeavouring to enforce against the
rights and liberties of his people ? Wretched
Bavaria! unhappy Greece !—Morning Herald.
Lord Althorp brought forward last night his
promised motion for extending the time allowed
for payment of rates and taxes due April sth to
the 20th of this month. Conscious, however,
how directly opposed such a proceeding was to
the law of Parliament, he attempted to justify
it by the plea (very inadequate, even if founded
in truth) that there were numerous instances in
which payment of the rates had been tendered,
but had -been refused by the overseers. Mr.
Herries, in a brief but able speech, forcibly con-
tended that such a proposition could not be en-
tertained with any regard to the law and practice
of the House ; that it would be highly incon-
sistent, impolitic, and of bad precedent to open
again the question of the Reform Bill, finally
settled as it had been after the most anxi-
ous deliberation and prolonged discussion ;
and that if the House once sanctioned
an alteration in so important a clause, no
valid objection could be urged against remo-
delling any or every other clause in the Bill. Sir
E. Sugden dwelt on the great improbability of
rates tendered having been refused by the over-
seers ; he said he had never known of any in-
stance of the sort, nor had ever even heard of such
a case during his professional experience, and
asked the Noble Lord whether he could say of
his own knowledge that any such cases had oc-
curred on this occasion ? Lord Althorp ac-
knowledged he could not ; he spoke only from
statements he had heard. He then with much
good sense agreed to withdraw his motion ; for
which he must have seen, on reflection, there
was no ground whatever. There is not an elec-
tor throughout the kingdom who was not fully
cognizant of the clause requiring him to pay up
his rates before the 20th of last month ; those,
therefore, who were unable to pay are rightly
disfranchised, and those who, being able, have
neglected to pay, have shown themselves to
be altogether indifferent to the privilege offered
to them. In either case the extension to the
20th instant would have been attended with no
effect. As to those whose tenders have been
refused (if any, which we doubt) they form a dis-
tinct class, and their case might be provided for
by a Bill in no way interfering with the provi-
sions of the Reform Act. As the matter now
stands we find, by Parliamentary Returns for the
metropolitan districts, that a very large propor-
tion of the new constituency have, for one of
the reasons sated above, omitted to qualify
themselves. The whole number of rate-payers
in IVlarylebone is 10,088, of whom only
2,954 (little more than a fourth) have corn-
pliedJohn's,
Westminster, the number is
1 791 of whom
, ,
with the provisions of the Act, and are,
therefore, qualified to vote. In St.
only 298 out of 549
St. Paul's, Covent-garden,
have qualified ; and in St.
liise ve
the Anne s Westminster,
1 403 In Lambeth, we be-
only 554 (less than a third) are qualified. In
only 535 out of , .
disproportion is still greater. Such
thevalue set by the people on the great
political privileges for which they were repre-
sented as so universally and impatiently anxious. ,
—Morning Post.

taxes, before the tOth of
I
It appears, of the whole number, 3,032,
qualified as i 0 rated inhabitants" in the parish of St.
Jam
a t month,e4nWde :
a ns6 i7ru e 9
equ t eri're onlyd 891 have paid their poors'
theirrates,
assessed
b y the Reform Bill,