The Sun.
London, England, 1832-10-17 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

In our publication of yesterday we gave an
extract from. our Hague correspondence, con-
taining an account of the proceedings of the
Conference on the Ist inst., and we stated that
the tone of the language attributed to Lord Pal-
merston and the French Plenipotentiary was per-
fectly consistent with the resolution which has
been since adopted by the two Governments.—
Since writing the article in question, we have
reason to believe that the following is a correct
version of what was addressed by those Plenipo-
tentiaries to the Conference on the Ist inst.:—

The British Plenipotentiary expresses his regret
at not being able to consent to the proposition
made by the Plenipotentiaries of Austria, of
Prussia, and of Russia. He is thoroughly con-
vinced of the advantages which would result
from unanimity of action on the part of-the five
Powers, were it possible to obtain it ; and he
flatters himself that he has afforded proof of the
importance which he attaches to this unanimity
by the fact of his having suggested, at the
preceding meeting of the Conference, the idea
of having recourse, in the first place, to
pecuniary measures, in preference to measures
of a more vigorous character, an idea which he
hoped would obtain the active concurrence in it of
the Conference. But the British Plenipoten-
tiary is convinced, that in the actual state of the
negotiation it is necessary, for the maintenance
of the peace of Europe, that some decisive
measures should be adopted by the Powers who
have ratified the treaty of November, and who
;have guaranteed the execution of the provisions
of that act, and he regrets that he does not dis-
cover, in the proposition of the Plenipotentiaries
of the three Courts, any measure which responds
to the exigency of the case. The tendency of
that proposition is to renew negotiations, which
the experience of many months, and the confes-
sion of the Conference itself, have proved to be
barren, and to renew them,, too, not with the
united weight of the five Courts represented in
Conference, but by a separate proceeding on the
part of some of those Courts, and this, after the
experience gained by those very Courts them-
selves of the inefficacy of their efforts to carry
with them, by the influence of their counsels,
the determinations of the Cabinet of the Hague.
The British Plenipotentiary is unable, therefore,
to consent to a proposition, of which the only
certain result would appear to be fresh delay ;
and in reserving to the Government of His Bri-
tannic Majesty the decision of the course which
it shall deem advisable in the execution of the
engagements contracted by his Majesty, lie
confines himself for..the_present to the expres-
sion of his regret that the Plenipotentiaries of
Austria, of Prussia, and of Russia, are not
prepared to concur in measures of efficacy for
the purpose of carrying into execution a treaty
which, for so many months, has been ratified
by their respective Courts, and the prolonged
incompletion of which exposes the peace of
Europe to continual and growing dangers.—The
Plenipotentiary of His ajesty the King of the
French, adhering in every point to the declara-
tion which has just been made by the Plenipo-
tentiary of His Britannic Majesty, expresses,
like him, his regret at not being able to accept
the proposition of the Plenipotentiaries of
Austria, of Prussia, and of Russia ; and pet-
sisting as he does in the declaration which he
has himself presented to the Conference, he re-
serves, moreover, to his Government the full
power of acting in execution of the treaty con-
cluded with Belgium, in such a manner as the
right which his Government possesses may au-
thorize, and as the tenour of its engagements, and
the interests of France, may require.—Times.
The Paris paper.; of Sunday, which we re-
ceived yesterday, evince a more violent and de-
cided unanimity of reprobation against the new
Ministers than we had anticipated,—though we
have been long acquainted with the unpopularity
of their names, and with the strong language of
their opponents. The Constitutionnel, whose
circulation is more extensive than that of any
other French journal, has seven or eight
articles against them ; the other liberal journals
are equally hostile ; and the only paper • which
defends them with any zeal or effect is the
Journal des Debats, whose impartiality has been
rendered doubtful at least by the elevation of its
chief proprietor to the Chamber of Peers. As
usually happens when the French are displeased
with their rulers, the opponents of the Cabinet
do not confine themselves to reasoning or dis-
cussion. They resort to rumours for a rein-
forcement of arguments, and if the occasion re-
quires it have recourse to fiction. Thus we
find in the Constitutionnel that the Comman•
der-in-chief of the National Guard at Paris,
Marshal Lobau, was about to resign,—that
many subaltern officers of the same civic militia
were resolved to abandon their standard,—and
that the country would thus be left without pro-
tection. At the same time we were assured
that the ordinances for the creation of Peers
. were illegal,—that the nomination of so many
members at once was against the express declara-
tions and engagements of M.Perier last year,—and
that some sinister design is now entertained of
playing the majority of one Chamber against
the independence of the other. Then, we hear
of persons who have refused the peerage, whose
names were never proposed to be on the list,—
and of others who ought to have been promoted,
but who were never thought of. But the most
successful manoeuvre of all is the constant
comparison of the present Cabinet to that
of Polignac, and the constant real or 'af-
fected anticipation of the same results, Hav-
ing no interest in any factious opposition to the
present, or to any other Ministry among our
neighbours, we call feel amused, without being
offended, at these evident exaggerations. We
can relish the joke of comparing that zeali?us
friend of freedom,—that prop of the constitu-
tional opposition for 17 years,—the Duke de
Broglie, to Polignac, Labourdonnaye, or -Pey-
ronnet, who always professed anti-liberal opinions;
but we are not so sure that the unpopularity of
his associates, from whatever cause it proceeds,
may not be as fatal to public order, or to the
duration of the Ministry, as objections founded
on their established incapacity or arbitrary prin-
ciples. We speak not of the Duke de Broglie
himself, nor of M. Guizot, who, in quiet times,
deserve the honours, and can peform with effect
the duties, of office ; but what do some of the
rest bring to the Cabinet but the reputation of
their favouritism, or the odium of their recent
change ? Would M. niers, for instance, who
is known only for writing some very ordinary po-
litical articles in the public journals,—whose
histoty of the first French revolution could
not get him bread, till the madness of the
Bourbons produced the second,—who is dis-
tinguished only from the heroes of the barricades
by a more rapid desertion of their cause than
some of his fellow journalists, and by a more
intrepid self-confidence at the tribune,—would
we say, this fraction of a Deputy—this most

minute of Ministers—this most tiny of Euro-
pean statesmen—have been now called on to
indite circulars in the Moniteur instead of
paragraps in the National, had he not been the
favourite of Louis Philippe, and had he not
engaged to be the humble instrument of his
will ? We shall say nothing of Mr. Humann,
who is only known in committees on the budget,
but who has never done any thing for the people,
nor of M. Barthe, who, being one of the fifteen-
year conspirators against the Bourbons, has
become the most bitter persecutor of his former
associates. It is quite evident from these allu-
sions (and we shall not enter further into the
subject at present), that the two or three doc-
trinnaires whose party is at present discredited,
and a successful soldier of fortune, whose prin-
ciples are distrusted, compose the only strength
of the Cabinet—that the rest could have no
weight in any combination of circumstances—
that they are ill-assorted to each other in man-
ners, station, and habits—that they are all un-
popular—that they cannot hold long together,
and would not be powerful if they did. The
Chambers will apply a dissolvent to this incongru-
OUSbody,in voting against the address,or contrary
affinities will begin to operate amid its temporary
success.— Times.

The last number of the Edinburgh Review
contains rather a desponding article on the
prospects of the Ministry in the next Session of
Parliament. After referring to the complaint so
generally urged against them in respect to the
small amount of real business transacted within
the last Session, and enumerating, in a tone
quite as important as the measures would justify,
the catalogue of their Parliamentary exploits
during that period, the Reviewer proceeds, as
usual, to lecture the public on the unreasonable-
►►ess of finding fault with the Whigs. We do
not dispute the Reviewer's right to labour in his
vocation and work for his employers, nor do we
question that he is more likely to be acquainted
with their hopes and fears than other people,
who have not the same interest in observing their
fluctuations ; but we think he is much mistaken
if he supposes that, by any ingenuity, he can
reconci'e the people of this country to the slow
progress which they were obliged to put up with
from a House of Commons over which they had

no control. Reform has laid the foundation for
many changes, and, amongst the rest, for an im-
portant change in the quantity of public business
that will be expected at the hands of the Legis-
lature. The men of tremendously active talent,
of whom Sir Robert Peel spoke with so
much alarm, will inoculate even the men who
have no talent, or talent of that Aristocratic order

which prefers retirement to display. If, there-
!bre, the Whig Ministry be not prepared to
keep pace in some measure with the accele-
rated movement of the times, they will hear the
complaint of last Session reiterated with stronger
emphasis, and probably with more decisive re•
sults, against the next. There is another point
connected closely with the one to which we
have just alluded, in which we also expect to
trace the efficacious working of Reform. This
point is the curtailment of Parliamentary
speeches. No one not accustomed to Parlia-
ment can form an idea of the extent to which
the prolixity of our public speakers has inter-
fered with the effective business of the Session.
The very thought of such a thing as a four
hours' speech is enough to make a man yawn
at noon-day. Then what must the infliction of
it be after midnight ? Really and seriously
speaking, this is a great grievance. But we
have reliance enough on the practical good sense
that is likely to characterise the people's House
of Commons, to expect that they will at once
and for ever put down such ostentatious attempts.
Upon the whole we would advise the Whig
Ministers to prepare themselves for a more ac-
tive campaign than they have yet experienced.
They will du well to spend that time in the con-
coction of measures that used to be devoted to
the preparation of speeches and the fabrication
of excuses for delay.—Morning Herald.