The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-10 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

According to an article in the Constitutionnel,
it is reported that a Diet will speedily be held at
Presburg or Pesth, for the management of
several important differences between the Aris-
tocracy of Hungary and • the Emperor. How
far the report is to be credited we know not ; but
it is well known that the Hungarians have long
been greatly discontented. It is exceedingly
difficult for Englishmen to form a correct judg-
ment respecting the affairs of a country differing
co materially in almost every respect from their
own, as Hungary does. We are not without
our suspicions, however, that the triumph of the
Hungarian aristocracy would not redound to
the happiness of the people. We know that
the aristocracy always resisted the endeavours of
'Nlaria Theresa and Joseph to improve the con-
dition of the peasantry ; and that the Austrian
Government owes most of its unpopularity to its
good intentions. We may be mistaken, but we
have also our suspicions that the sympathy of
the Hungarians with the Poles is somewhat of
a kin with the sympathy of our own aristocracy
with the nobility of France at the breaking out
of the revolution. The nobility of all these
countries are necessarily jealous of the progress
of absolute power ; and the Hungarian aristo-
cracy cannot be supposed to look with unconcern
on the destruction of the powerful aristocracy of
a neighbouring State. Be the motives for dis-
content, however, what they may, it is impossible
for the nobility of Plungary to enter on a contest
with the powerful Government of Austria without
having the people on their side ; and the people,
feeling their consequence, will hardly fail to profit
by events. One hundred and thirty Deputies
have signed a protest against the use of the
double expression of " King of France" and
" subjects of the King" in the Sittings of the
4th and sth of January. It is to be borne in
mind, as is well observed by our Correspondent
" 0. P. Q.," that M. de Montalivet's speech
had not the excuse readily extended to extem-
porary debate—that it was written, every word
writt n, and, as written and delivered, was handed
over to the ?iloniteur for publication. After
the importance attached to the conversion of
King of France into King of the French, and
the exclusion of the word subjects from the new
Chaster, M. de Montalivet could hardly use
these expressions inadvertently. And what was
the occasion on which he used them ? When
insisting on expensive establishments for the
King, and defending the necessity of such esta-
blishments, on the ground " that luxury was ne-
cessary to the Palace of the King of France !
and that if luxury should be banished from the
Palace of the King, it would soon be unknown
in the houses of his subjects." This is a new
version of Mr. Vansittart s doctrine of the taxes
extracted from the pockets of the people descend-
ing on them again in refreshing showers of gold.
The proposition in itself is extremely absurd ;
but, when we consider the occasion, it was ,
worse—it was wicked. Taxes are a necessary
price for our security ; but it is obvious that, the
more we pay, the less we have for luxury in any
thing else. 'The King of the French ought to be
suitably maintained ; but after a revolution, effected
by the people, and which received its character
from the establishment of the principle that all
offices, that of the King not excepted, were to
be considered solely with reference to the people,
we do not exactly see the necessity of lavishing
on a King, chosen by the people an extravagant
Civil List, that he may vie in the number of his
palaces and the expence of his establishments
with those absolute Monarchs who view the
people merely as property, and value thrones as
private individuals view estates, in proportion to
the money they yield to them. If Louis Philip
had been King of France in possession of all the
estates and palaces of his predecessors, and the
rights of which the French were in possession
had emanated from such a sense of justice as that
which distinguishes our own venerable Sove-
reign, he might complain, with some show of
justice, of the disposition to strip him, as a poor
requital for his readiness to meet their wishes.
But Louis Philip owes every thing to the choice
of the people, and it is for the people themselves
to determine the mode in which they think the
dignity of their King may be most suitably main-
tained. Would it not, then, occur to any
people, under such circumstances, that the na-
tional dignity would be more consulted by a dig-
nified simplicity in the establishments of the
King, than by a gorgeous luxury resembling that
of the Monarchs who view their subjects as pro-
perty ? But, independently of the principle of
national dignity involved in the distinction be-
tween popular and absolute thrones, there is ano-
ther most important consideration ; and that is, the
effect of expensive regal establishments in cor-
rupting public functionaries. The scale of the
Court becomes a sort of national scale. A num-
ber of individuals have the places at Court con-
stantly in their eye ; and, as long as Louis
Philip has a multitude of such places to dis-
pose of, he will never want for men like M. Mon-
talivet, who will endeavour to introduce the small
end of the wedge, by familiarising the people to
language subversive of the relations between
themselves and their King. Louis Philip will
always find abundance of persons ready to ap-
prove of the principle of maintaining the dignity
of the throne by splendour and expence—their
meaning being, that that expence should redound
to their own advantage. An evening contem-
porary (the Globe) observes :—" The Minister
of Public Instruction, M. Moiltalivet, casually
let fall the word subjects in his discourse,
which, in the fancies of the more heated
partisans of the movement, intimated all
sorts of covert feudal designs and intentions:—
We agree with our powerful Morning Contem-
porary, the Times, that this over-sensibility on
the part of the French Opposition, to words and
significations, tends to indicate the juvenility,
more than the solidity of their liberty. Mere
words go a very little way in our Parliament, as
witness the march of extravagant theories which
from day to day are openly advocated there.—
Time has been when a friend to Government—
a Bishop—asserted openly in the House of
Lords that the people had nothing to do with
the laws but to obey them.' The insolence was
duly noticed, but the country did not go into a
fever on the occasion. M. Montalivet, as we
have observed, did not casually let fall the word
subjects, because he read a written speech, and
that made a material difference ; and then there
is a material difference between a piece of inso
lence in the mouth of an irresponsible Bishop,
and in the mouth of a responsible Minister. But
was the sensibility over ? Our contemporary
says the sensibility indicates the juvenility more
than the solidity of their liberty ; but if liberty
be young and not solid, does it not form a justi-
fication for a degree of sensibility which would
be misplaced in the case of old stagers ? But
the cases are not parallel. The French have
hardly cooled from a revolution effected by much
bloodshed. They are surrounded by nations