The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-03 00:00:00

Then ‘i:e sav; that the language of tho.se who
wish well to Ministers, and the policy of Mi-
nisters themselves, must be changed. They can-
not let the delusion spread, without risking their
own destruction and that of the public tranquil-

lity. Instead of waiting, and deliberating further,
" Forward" must be their cry. How do they

know what tricks and intrigues may be in opera-
tion ? How do they know that the Royal au-
thority, although given, may not be withdrawn
upon artful representations made to an illustrious
personage, that his servants are afraid to act upon
his gracious permission ? And does Lord Grey
not suspect that such suggestions have been pre-
sented to a Royal mind ? We, individually,
are quite convinced that Lord Grey, with his
high sense of reputation, must be as eagerly
anxious as the most zealous of the people to
adorn the close of his political life with the
" crowning glory" of a grand Parliamentary Re-
form ; but though we want no sign, the people
do. Let him at once demonstrate his boldness

as well as his zeal, and faction will immediately

hide its head.— Times.

We publish this day the treaty between the
Five Great Powers and Belgium, communicated
to both Houses of Parliament last night. Al-
though this important and very extraordinary
State paper has already been made known to the
world through the medium of the tbreign journals,
we should have much to say upon the contents
of it, as well as upon the singular and fearful
circumstances under which it is now promul-

gated by the British Government, if the late
hour at which we have received it did not pre-

elude us from doing so. We shall hereafter
have full opportunity of amply discussing it.
In the mean time we call the attention of our
readers to the strange and we believe unprece-
dented fact of a document being published
in the name of the King, purporting to
he a treaty between his Majesty and Five
other Powers, when it has been declared by
one of the King's Ministers in Parliament that
three of those Powers had not ratified it. We
have always understood that the mere signing of
a treaty by Plenipotentiaries was not sufficient
to give to it validity as such, and that it could
only become an effective and binding compact
when ratified by the Sovereigns who were parties
to it. This is is therefore no treaty, in the pro-
per sense of the word, on the part of Russia,
Austria, or Prussia, and yet it is published as
such. Again, let us ask, if it be no treaty with
respect to those three Powers, is it a treaty of any
validity with respect to the other Powers ? For
it is of the very essence of this treaty that its pro-
visions are agreed upon and guaranteed by the
six (supposed) contracting parties ; but three of
them are not at present contracting parties ! our
excellent Government, however, publishes the

treaty as if they were. But let our readers look
at the 6th article. It is there declared that " each
of the two parties renounces, reciprocally and
for ever, all pretension to the territories, towns,

fortresses, Scc." Each of the two parties here
means Holland and Belgium ; while Holland
not only agrees to no such thing, but posi-
tively refuses to agree to it ! We doubt if the
power of arbitrary interference could be carried
farther, even by a non-interfering Government.
The article not only describes what each party
shall renounce, but it undertakes to declare that
each party does renounce, reciprocally and for
ever, the territories which are to be taken from
it ! And this, be it observed, with the declara-

tion in its possession that the Dutch Government
does not and will not make any such renuncia-
tion. There is bungling in this scarcely less
than injustice. This despotic intervention is as
absurd iu its form and execution as it is impolitic
and unjust in its conception. We have no hesi-
tation in declaring that this unratified treaty is
the forerunner of disunion between the Great
Powers of Europe. It is the dissolution of
that harmonious combination by which alone the

peace of the world has been maintained since
the year 1815.—Morning Post.
While we cordially sympathise with Colonel
Davies and those other Members who supported
his motion, in lamenting the distressed state of
the glove-manufacturers, we can by no means
agree with them in thinking that a concession
to the prayer of the petitioners would have been
a remedy for the evil, or that any good would
result from the proposed inquiry into the condi-
tion of their trade. It is quite evident from offi-
cialti accounts—which, notwithstanding Mr.
Attwood's suspicions, we cannot imagine that
any official agent would forge or falsity—thatie
quantity of skins imported, and the quantity
of gloves manufactured in this country, since the
prohibition of receiving French gloves was
removed, has increased much beyond the ratio of
some previous years. It is evident, likewise, that
the proportion of foreign gloves now paying duty,
on being introduced for British consumption, is
extremely small, as compared with our own ma-
nufacture of this article, and that in an otherwise
flourishing period of business the competition
would not be felt. But, say the advocates for
inquiry, 44 Government can give us returns of
the quantities entered at the Custom-house, but
where can we find an account of those smug-
gled ?" Smuggling to any great extent is de-
nied by the advocates of the existing system :
but suppose we were to admit it, what is the
remedy ? Higher duties, of course, or ab-
solute prohibition, say the friends of the glove.
manufacturers. But were high duties or prohi-
bitions ever found in any other trade a remedy
for contraband transactions ? Or rather, do they
not form the very temptation to their commission ?
If then, the old prohibition were reimposed,
or the present duties raised to a prohibitory
character, the Government would lose the small
revenue which it now derives from the article,
-a new temptation to fraud and robbery would
be held out,—the smuggler would step in to
supply the market shut against the lawful trader,
—and the Worcester manufacturer would not sell
one dozen pair of gloves more than he does at
present ; while he would be obliged to run a
race of competition with foreigners on as bad
terms as before. The glove-manufacturers,
whose situation we commisserate, are led to be-
lieve that they suffer from foreign competition,
not because they have any official assurance or
any certain information that the quantity of
French gloves imported is sufficient to forestall
the sale of their own, but because they find that
the price has fallen, and that they can with dif-
ficulty find a market. Now, ought it not to
have struck them that the competition of their
own countrymen would lead to the same result,
—that the trade may be overstocked with the
domestic article as well as with a foreign, and
that their greatest enemies may not be on the
other side of the Channel ? The affirmative is
quite demonstrable from the statements of the
Vice-President of the Board of Trade, who
mentioned that in the five years before the re-
moval of the prohibition in 1826, the number
• of skins imported annually for the glove-
, manufacture was 2,632,000 ; and in the five