The Sun.
London, England, 1832-10-16 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC-JOURNALS.

Our readers are already apprized by' our Sa-
turday's paper of the final settlement of the new
French Cabinet, and of the explosion of distrust
and dissatisfaction with which its creation has
been hailed by a great portion of the Paris press.
Neither in France nor in this country is it sup-
posed to contain the principles of cohesion or
the elements of stability. Having at its head a
Marshal of France, distinguished for personal
activity and military success, it might, if threat-
ened with war, have promised the nation glory,
if not liberty ; but, as if to neutralize such a dan-
gerous source of popularity, it has received into
its composition a great infusion of the doc-
trinnaire or resistance school, who are opposed
to the pursuit of military renown, without being
supposed favourable to the extension of civil
freedom. The four new associates in the Ca-

binet, namely, the Duke de Broglie, M. Guizot,
M. Thiers, and M. Humann, are likely to pull
together on most points of foreign and domestic
policy, and with the assistance of Admiral de
Rigny, are always sure to command a majo-
rity. On all general questions or incidental dis-
cussions the three first must be the only mouth-
pieces of the Administration, as the President of
the Council does not speak well, as Admiral De
Rigny, the Minister of Marine, addresses the
Chambers with great difficulty, and as M.
Barthe, the Keeper of the Seals, chiefly confines
his oratory to topics connected with his own de-
partment. Parliamentary tact and talent, of which
they have thus a considerable share, will not be
sufficient to support an unpopular Cabinet—
and, unfortunately, that is their chief qualifica-
tion. The three oratorical champions of office
may even be foiled at theirown weapons by more
than half a dozen members on the opposition
benches—by, for instance, M. Dupin, M. Odil-
lon Barrot, and M. Mauguin. In such a case
they cannot retreat upon their political character
or national estimation, for that is a source of
weakness rather than of strength. Though fore-
most in the ranks of opposition to the policy of
the late dynasty, and though the most popular
men in France at the time,—though the leader
of their party, M. Royer Collard, was sent to
the Chamber by seven different electoral col-
leges,—they are now considered as drags on the
wheel of improvement, and have been left so far
behind by those with whorl.; they began the revo-
lutionary race, that they appear in the distance
like the bending slaves of the restoration. It is
plain, indeed, that they are at issue with the
chief actors in the late revolution on the very
principle of its origin and the essentials of
its character. It is acknowledged that they
would have been satisfied with a change of
dynasty, without change of institutions,—
that they would have continued, with slight
variations, the system of the restoration,—
that they looked to the Bourbon charter as
a security for every desirable national right, and
only wished to render that charter itself secure
by intrusting i!s protection or execution to a
national Sovereign,—that they considered the
barricades as erected, not between two sets of
political privileges or two schemes of social
order, but between two sets of Princes, or modes
of administration,—that they justify the success-
ful insurrection of July, 1830, on the ground
of a resistance to the unlawful acts of the Mo-
narch, and not on that of a struggle for more
extended freedom,—and that, in short, they de-
sire a repetition of the English revolution of
1688, with its " Bill of Rights," which claimed
nothing new, and not a continuaticn of their
own revolution of 1789, which changed the
condition of the Monarchy. Hence they de-
clared for the charter, to the cry of which even

the movement party had risen, and which was
written with blood on every wall of Paris. Hence
they announced in the first proclamation of Louis
Philippe, as lieutenant of the kingdom, la charte
sera desormais une verite,—hence one of them
applied the words quasi legitimacy to the ac-
cession of the Orleans family,—hence all of them
were opposed to the abolition of the hereditary
dignity of the peerage,—and hence they all sup-
ported a large civil list, and voted for severe
laws against popular movements. It is not for
us, who are foreigners, to pronounce that many
of these principles may not be the best that could
have been adopted for the restoration of order,
and even the maintenance of freedom, in France.
All that we contend for is, that the present Mi-
nisters, in having adopted them, have placed
themselves in opposition with the active portion
of their own fellow-countrymen who effected the
revolution, and with a powerful body of the
elective Chamber. The political creed of the
latter is totally at variance with that of their
rulers. They maintain that the revolution of
July placed the nation in circumstances to re-
model all its institutions. They contend that
the doctrine of popular sovereignty ought to
have been developed to its full extent, and to
have yielded all the fruits which it produces in
the United States of North America. They
bring forward old Lafayette, with his pro-
gramme of the Hotel de Ville, against the
Charter voted by the Peers and Deputies of the
kingdom. They boast that they conspired
against the Bourbons before the promulgation
of the illegal ordinances of July, and therefore
that the revolution was not undertaken only as a
lawful resistance to this illegal stretch of power,
but for the purpose of regenerating society, or
building on the foundation of the first revolu-
tion, after having swept away the rubbish of the
Directory, the Consulate, the Empire, the Re-
storation, and the Charter. Whether this theory
of the movement party be right or wrong—or
whatever may be said of the antagonist principles
of their opponents in power—it cannot be denied
that the conduct of the latter has in some recent
instances been strangely inconsistent with every
scheme of regulated freedom, and has exhibited
a despotic tendency, which the Ministers of the
restoration would have shrunk from defending.
On this subject all mankind are entitled to be
judges—foreigners as well as natives—and we
have no hesitation in saying that a Cabinet
which could place the metropolis of the king-
dom in a state of siege 24 hours after the insur-
rection
of June was quelled,—which could try
to convert a charge of libel against a journalist
into an accusation of high treason,—and which
could persecute the periodical press with fanati-
cal malignity, till juries became fatigued with
passing verdicts of acquittal, or exposed the
laws to execration by filling the prisons with
martyrs of free discursion, has committed great
offences against freedom, and ought not to be
tolerated in a constitutional state. The first
duty which the new Ministers will therefore have
to perform will be to defend themselves and their
colleagues before the Chambers for having ad-
vised these tyrannical measures, or for having ac-
cepted the legacy of dice under the liabilities of
their predecessors. In order that they may ob-
tain a more favourable tribunal in the Upper
Chamber, they have sent into it a batch of not less
than 59 of their sworn partisans. This assembly
probably required an accession of new members.

It has-not yet recovered the amount which it lost
by the expulsion of the creations of Charles X.,
and the exclusion of thuse who-refused to take

the oaths to the new dynasty. Even after the
addition made to it last year by IVI. Perrier, to
carry the bill for abolishing its hereditary privi-
leges, its meetings were often so scantily at-
tended as to prevent due deliberation. Its spirit
was even more dangerous than its deficiency of
members. Hence the majority of the bills sent
tip from the deputies were either rejected or
mutilated by a house that did not dare to vote
in support of its own hereditary constitution.
The number of new Peers is not probably,
therefore, too great, nor are many of the indi-
viduals unworthy of the honour; but why per-
form a defensible, a useful, and perhaps a neces-
sary act, with such a theatrical air, and with such
a manifest design to overawe popular feeling ?
We very much question whether the Govern-
ment of our neighbours, under whatever dy-
nasty, Has yet been freed from the mania of
striking coups d'etat, and we are not relieved '
from our apprehensions by observing the convul-
sive effort at unnecessary energy and decision
which appears in the proclamation or circular of
the old military President of the Council to the
functionaries of the departments. A Field-
Marshal in our Cabinet would not have thought
it so indispensable to exhibit his baton imme-
diately on his promotion to office.—Times.
It was to be expected that in the details of
the Reform Bill,—under which various novel
rights were granted,—in some cases fresh re-
strictions were established,—and in all, unex-
ampled modes of proceeding were enjoined,—
certain difficulties and embarrassments would
discover themselves. The friction of new ma-
chinery seldom fails to be a drag upon its
powers ; and here and there we are taught to
believe that inconveniences, some of which are
perhaps inevitable, others as unquestionably
needless, have been experienced in the working
clauses of the Reform Bill. The manner in
which the registration of voters has been deter-
mined is already known to have been the cause
in most parts of England of extreme inconve-
nience and vexation. This arises from the right
conferred upon enemies or strangers to inter-
meddle between the public officer and the voter,
with objections of the most futile description,
which yet require to he set aside by a trouble-
some and irksome process. In numberless in-
stances the electors thus objected to have found
it impracticable to leave their present habitation,
and traverse the whole kingdom for the purpose
of appearing before the revising barrister in
the several counties or districts wherein they
claim to vote. Might it not be better to autho-
rize either the King's Courts at Westminster,
or the Quarter Sessions throughout the country,
to tender a series of definite interrogatories
upon oath to parties resident within such
respective jurisdictions who may claim the
elective franchise for any place in England,
the interrogatories being so framed as to com-
prehend the heads of whatever species of quali-
fication the applicant may range himself under,
and each court in which the oath is adminis-
tered being bound to transmit an official account
of the proceeding to the proper officer in the
county, city, &c. for which the qualification is
asserted, where it will, of course, be published,
and the person who has falsely sworn be made
liable to the risks of perjury ? We can imagine
a large number of English electors beng deterred
from any effort to establish their votes, and,
therefore, being in effect disfranchised, by the ex-
pense and difficulty of a long journey to the pre-
sence of the district Barrister, at possibly 200
miles' distance from their actual abode at the
time of closing the registry. The most unprinci-
pled candidate is he, therefore, who will gain
most by this provision of the Bill, because it is
he who will put forth the greatest number of un-
sound objections; whilst the poorer class of
voters will be the greatest individual sufferers,
from their inability to defray the charge of a suc-
cessful defence of their franchise. Might it not
be an equitable regulation to make the defeated
objector pay the whole costs of the pro-
ceeding, and a fine to the King ? We
have received from more than one remote
quarter of the country complaints against the
revising barristers, and requests that the public
would everywhere attend to their proceedings.
The agents of candidates are, under the existing
Bill, the natural watchmen over the possible
aberrations of the barristers, and it would be well
if that class of interested parties would cotninu-
nicate facts or well-grounded suspicions to the
public press. Authority or power ought always
to be distrusted-in a free country, if she means
to preserve her liberty. We have received a
letter signed " Homo," illustrative of the truth
of some remarks which have often already been
laid before the readers of this journal. It relates
to the flagrant mismanagement of the Reform
interest in the city of London, as compared
with the sagacious tactics and steady ma-
no3uvres of the Tories. London is in this
respect like many other parts of England, and
has, in consequence, much to be ashamed of.

Can it be possible that anything so impudent as
a coalition of high Tories and low Radicals is
projecting against the metropolis itself, and that
conservative Lyall, and all-destroying Scales,
are to come in upon the same rotten bottom ?
If so, Lord help all honest friends of Reform.—
Times.

The Ballot ! the Ballot ! is, as we predicted,
the universal exclamation, and gaining opinion
from the farthest part of Scotland to the Land's-
end. No political right, in our recollection, has
been more rapidly appreciated, or overcome
more national prejudice, than the Ballot. Un-
der the old corrupt system, it was in vain to

discuss or claim a new mode of voting, when the
Boroughrnongers set at defiance the popular de-
mand for the general Reform of the Represen-
tation. Moreover, the middle classes in the
large unrepresented towns, not being tortured
with the possession of the elective franchise, took
little interest in . the discussion. But during
the ever-memorable and pregnant excitation of
the public mind, in the conflict for the Reform
Bills, the lagt.two years, this all-important ques-
tion has been variously and successfully placed
before the electors. The publicity of acts of
terror, intimidation, and corruption was for-
merly rigidly suppressed, and penal laws were
enacted, to gag and imprison those who dared
,‘ to bring Parliament into contempt," But
the curtain is at last drawn up, and the British
people see behind the scenes the by-play of
the Aristocracy, their puppets and managing
players. We confidently anticipate that the
forthcoming Parliament will contain an un-
expected number of Members elected expressly to
promote this essential measure, and numbers who
are voluntarily converted to its necessity. The
country press every week teems with indications.
We will select the midland county of Warwick.
A requisition is presented to an excellent Whig
Reformer, Mr. Henry C. Adams, of Anstey
Hall, to allow himself to be put in nomination

for the northern division of Warwickshire. He
refuses the honourable invitation, and expressly
states in reply, that till the ballot is obtained,
and the gangs of lawyers and hired agents—the
essential retinue of a county candidate—are sup-
pressed, he will not impair a moderate fortune
or waste the patrimony of his family in local po-
litical contests. Thus the court try is deprived
of desired representatives, and a practical mono-
poly given to the excessively rich and aristocra-
tic. The Coventry Herald of Friday, in a
report of the speech of Mr. Wratislaw, an jute'.
ligent and influential solicitor of Rugby, records
that gentleman's conversion to the ballot. At a
meeting of Mr. Dempster Heming's friends in
Rugby, on the preceding Saturday, Mr.
Wratislaw says, "Gentlemen, on many accounts,
till lately, I have been a decided enemy to the
ballot, but, from what has taken place around
us, and more especially from what I know to
have occurred during the recent canvasses, I am
of opinion that we must necessarily come to
the ballot, for the people to avoid the conse-
quences of undue and illegal influence, although
I must still regret the necessity of it." Mr.
Bolton King, the present independent Mem-
ber for the borough of Warwick, and in whose
return again to Parliament for that town the
county will feel deeply interested, in his recent
canvass is reported to have stated his reluctant
opinion in favour of the ballot. The agricul-
tural press, formerly cautious, and arrayed
against secret voting, now displays significantly
the popular feelings. The Warwick Adverti-
ser of Saturday, in some excellent remarks, ad-
vocates the ballot :
" We have already, more than once, expressed our sen-
timents, most decidedly in favour of the vote by ballot,
and the spirit that is now moving in every part of the em-
pire convinces us that, until such a system is adopted,
for the protection of votets, who would he conscientious,
the people of England may wish—and wish in vain, for a
fair representation of their interests in Parliament. The
cuckoo cry of ' Purity of Election' is becoming more and
more a mockery of common sense. What can be more
notorious than the fact, that bribery and corruption, in
every shape, have prevailed for many years, and still ex-
tensively prevail in every county, borough, and university
in the United Kingdom ? Every one knows that the most
despicable manoeuvres are at this very time in full prac-
tice, preparatory to the approaching elections; and we
ask if it be possible, under such circumstances, to secure
a free and unbiassed return of Members? We have no
hesitation in saying that more desperate intimidation has
never been attempted. The adoption of the ballot, there-
fore, must be the result of such a barefaced insult to the
feelings of an enlightened people. Talk of the march of
intellect, indeed ! The march of political dishonesty is
making far more rapid strides in this reforming age! We
repeat again and again, that until some effectual means be
found for the correction of the glaring evils of our present
system of election—until the poor dependent voter is
safely protected against the narrow-minded landlord and
imperious master, on whose despotic will the bread of his
children may depend, there will be no chance, with all the
powers of the Reform Act, of our country being blessed
with a free and independent election of Parliamentary
Representatives. We undisguisedly avow our conviction
that no truly just man—no fair and honourable candidate,
whatever may be his professed political principles or views
—can conscientiously object to the ballot system as the
only means of preventing unfair influence and cowardly
intimidation. Such an objection would imply an attach-
ment to the old corruptive practices by which the country
has been disgraced and brought to the very verge of ruin."
This is no party paper. No local allusion is
made in the article to the merits of the several
candidates for the borough ; but we know that
the most scandalous and corrupt influences are
at work to prevent an honest election in War-
wick—never more so than at the present mo-
ment. Persons not familiar with town elec-
tions, in a limited constituency, cannot imagine
all the serpent and infernal arts resorted to, and
brought to bear against the consciences of the
middle and lower classes of electors. It is often
supposed that the Noble Boroughmonger of " a
pocket borough" is the only devil in the plot ;
but if he be a Tory Lord Lieutenant, he has
his swarm of creatures actively employed. If a
close Corporation is among the number of his
miserable tools, he has that battery to direct
against freedom of election. Charities are ad-
visedly administered in his " interest." The
opulent sub-aristocrats of the town, the neigh-
bouring county families of Tory principles—
" mark !" the unfortunate tradesman, who will
not sell his vote with his drapery or his tailoring.
The spigots of the ale casks are drawn at night
in the public-houses, to drown the independence
of the thirsty elector. " Notices to quit," and
" discharges of servants," are profusely and un-
sparingly given or threatened. Lastly, the Par-
sons excommunicate the obstinate and perverse.
We may truly say that great is the moral nature
of a people who can withstand such conspiracies
against their virtue and spirit ! The people
have no right to be thus tempted and perse-
cuted, even though they could withstand such
infamous devices. They must, they will rid
themselves of the curse of open voting. It is
not to be endured that a few haughty and inso-
lent moneyed or titled Aristocrats should thus
insult, terrify, and degrade the British consti-
tuency. Again we observe that Tory Peers,
in the northern division of the county of War-
wick, are suspected of directing their " serfs"
not to vote for Sir George Chetwynd, who
had been an earnest local advocate of the
Reform Bills. The Steward of Lord Dud-
ley (Mr. Downing) is Chairman of the
Election Committee of Sir Horace St. Paul,
against the reforming and popular candidate for
the new borough of Dudley, Mr. John Camp-
bell. The Town Clerk of the Warwick Cor-
poration, the servant of the returning-officer (the
Mayor), the attorney of Lord Warwick, signs all
the objections to the independent votes of that
borough ! So much for the Midland district of
the kingdom. A hundred other similar instances
of glaring mal-influence might be named, and
we could, if proof were wanting, cite innumer-
able extracts from the country weekly newspapers,
exposing these shameless practices. But enough
has been said to illustrate the absolute necessity
of the ballot. We were always persuaded that
the Ministerial (or any other) measures of Par-
liamentary Reform would increase the cry for
the ballot, and further demonstrate its essential
use. We are confident that the ensuing elec-
tions in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Glas-
gow, and other large, newly enfranchised towns,
will demonstrate not only the necessity of secret
voting, but the almost utter impossibility of hold-
ing elections. We predict that the Tories will
be soon among the foremost bawlers against open
voting, and that they will sensibly experience the
overpowering influence of the Non Electors. We
advocate the ballot to protect all. We say that
a sincere Tory constituency—if such a majo-
rity there be in any place—ought to be enabled
freely to choose a representative of their own
principles. There are those " Liberals," so
called, who eulogise the influence of " mobs ;"
who esteem election riots an essential part of our
ancient representative system ; who consider as-
saults and rent garments indigenous in our soil,
and as natural and defensible as a row at an
Irish statute. We differ from these comical
politicians, and if common sense will not con-
vect them from such absurd prejudices, we hope
that a little practical experience of black eyes
and discoloured noses—something short of

broken bones—may at the next mob elections
change their sentiments. The various and con-
tradictory views entertained by different classes
and parties on the subject and effect of the bal-
lot are not a little curious. In some towns we
hear of the Tories advocating secret voting, to
rid themselves of the terror and influence of
Political Unions. In other districts, in Lanca-
shire particularly, we understand that the Ultra-
Radicals claim open voting that they may unduly
influence electors. We have before us " A
Declaration of the Committee appointed by the
Non-Electors of Birmingham to watch over
and protect their interests." Enumerating their
" rights," these non-electors, whom the ten-
pound standard excludes from participation in
the franchise, state the following items :—" 1.
Universal suffrage, or universal exemption from
taxation.-2. Vote by ballot, but only in con-
junction with the preceding right." That is

to say, the shrewd non-electors wish indirectly,
through the medium of open voting, to secure a
due share of influence ; and we know that the
extreme Reformers greatly apprehend the appli-
cation of the ballot to small constituencies. We
repeat, that we desire the ballot in all places,
for all parties, and as the only protection for
all. We are well aware that the ballot is less
necessary to protect purity of election among
numerous bodies of electors ; but the Ballot is
equally, if not more necessary, to destroy the
evils incident in large communities—to extirpate
intimidation and bribery, present and future—to
give full effect to the real opinions of the con-
stituency—and by its superior effect in facili-
tating the mechanical operation of polling, to
render practicable more frequent elections. In
short, we wish to exclude mobs and Peers, and
the influence of non-electors, so long as the law
does not invest them with a share of the elec-
toral power. The Ballot is the only specific, the
only complete cure for our election sores.
There is no specious argument against secret
voting, except " its destruction of the influence
of property ; ' it will destroy no legitimate in-
fluence of property, but only its nuisances. We
strongly impress upon our contemporaries to
record all local instances of the demand and ne-
cessity of the Ballot, and we call upon the op-
pressed electors of the kingdom to renew their
sacrifices and risks to return candidates who

will support this all-important measure. The
Tories are working wonders for us ; they are
determined, thanks to the Marquess of Chandos,
to the Duke of Newcastle, the Marquis of Ex-
eter, and the Earl of Warwick, that we shall

have the Ballot speedily.--Morning Chronicle.
The French Ministry being at length consti-
tuted, the labour of the process seem ridiculously
in contrast with the insignificance of the produc-
tion ; for a Ministry less important, in point of
political character, talent, and influence, has not
been seen in France since the " restoration," if
we except the Ministry of the ordinances, which,
without any talent to govern, had all the requi-
site ability for subversion. The ill-constructed
political fabric which had been raised in France
by the Bourbons under the protection of foreign

bayonets might have subsisted some years longer
if Charles X. had not taken to his council men
who considered the whole science of Govern-
ment to consist in the adventurous and immoral
cliarlatanerie of coups d'etat. But as such ex-
periments often recoil upon the projectors, like
overcharged guns, the ordinances destroyed
those who placed them in battery, and thus a

sudden blow, which was intended to make the
Government of France as absolute as that of
Prussia, overturned the system which it was in-
tended to perfect, and raised the throne of the

barricades upon the ruins of the restoration. A
revolution being a very extreme remedy for the
evils of a State, no nation ought to have recourse
to it but in the most urgent crisis, and when
it is clear that it is the only means left of na-
tional salvation. No Englishman who knows
the history of his country can be an enemy
to the revolutionary remedy in the abstract, for
the more attached he is to the reigning dynasty,
the more disposed must he be to defend that
revolution to which it owes its existence. Yet,
imperative as the unconstitutional acts of James
11. made a revolution in England, the ordi-

trances of Charles X. rendered a similar recurrence
to the national will—the only source of all genu-
ine sovereignty—no less necessary in France.
In fact, the French revolution of 1830 was far
more extensively popular than that of England
in 1688. It approached much nearer the cha-
racter of unanimity than ours, though a certain
class of political writers, who profess to be pro-
foundly sensible of the many advantages con-
ferred on the nation by the violent proceeding
which broke the hereditary succession, and led
to the election of the house of Hanover, de-
claim against the French revolution as an act of
peculiar political depravity. This position can
only be maintained on the ground that a revolu-
toi
roa
have
eh,
that
u nrEdi
righter
stanycircumstances,homceanscashier
red tel delinquent
q only
le! indefensible,peoplei(ng s
,nh od
elect a new line of Sovereigns in their place.
But though the French Revolution was
more popular than the English, the latter
was far more prosperous in the result ; and
why ? The reason is that William 111., like most
of the Princes of the house of Orange, was a de-
termined, intrepid, and straightforward man.
He was not addicted to promise much ; but
what he did promise was not miserably qualified
by mental reservation. He did not promise " a
Monarchy with republican institutions," meaning
at the same time that the word " republican
should be translated into practice as if it were
synonymous with the term " despotic." He did
not make a compact with the people of England,
as receiving the crown by virtue of their free
choice, and then set up the doctrine of quasi-
legitinzacy. He did not contrive plots and
eineutes for the purpose of proclaiming martial
law, and making the people familiar with the loss
of those liberties which it was his glory to have vin-
dicated against the usurpations of his successor.
In fact, William 111. marched with the revolu-
tion by which his power was created as far as the
spirit of the age and the comparatively limited
political knowledge of the time required. France
then espoused the cause of the Stuarts more
openly, though not more sincerely, than the
Holy Alliance now favour the cause of the
Bourbons. But William 111. did not truckle to
France. He encountered dangers with a hero's
energy, and won great glory in defending, at
the hazard of life and fortune, the principles
which had placed him on the throne. With all
his faults he preferred rational liberty to the jus
divinunz, and it was to his credit that his
bitterest enemy was the greatest and most
powerful despot in Europe. Very different
indeed has been the conduct of the " King of
the Barricades." In the honey-moon of his
royalty, descending to low tricks of popularity
that William would have despised,
he has, in the
course of a two years' Sovereignty, learned to ape
the sullen dignity of the despots who rule by
" right divine." He has tasted the empoisoned

sweets of arbitrary power ; he has persecuted the
Press beyond all previous example, and now he
has chosen a Ministry whose only recommenda-
tion is their known aversion to all political im-
provement—their total want of the public con-
fidence, and their supposed facility to be the
ready tools to reconstruct the shattered system of
legitimacy, and rechain the liberties of the French
people to the system of the confederated despots,
for whose deceitful and betraying favour be has
forfeited the generous affections of France. In-
stead of endeavouring to retrace his steps before
it be too late—instead of getting out of the track
of a treacherous and arbitrary policy which has
led the nation into so many evils, he seems de-
termined to proceed in the course which his
enemies, and the enemies of the political and
social improvement of France, rejoice to see
him pursuing. He has yoked in the harness
of his ambition men whose " movement" will
be towards a precipice. It is fearful to con-
template the scenes that may eventually arise
in Europe, from an infatuated perseverance in
a system which places the policy of the Govern-
ment in continued hostile collision with the sen-
timents and intellect of the nation. It is im-
possible that men so politically contemptible as
the doctrinnaires can bring any thing but an
accession of weakness to the feeble Government
which incumbers itself with their support. The
inventors of the silly doctrine of quasi-legiti-
macy, the advisers of " the state of siege," the
architects of a despotic fabric, raised upon the
foundation of the barricades, can have no real

influence in France. They must rely for pre-
serving themselves in power by a succession of
those miserable tricks and expedients which have
ever since the revolution filled the nation with
emeutes and misery, rendering France weak and
and distracted at home, and exposing her to
contempt and insult in her foreign relations. It
is very likely a " clap-trap" with regard to Bel-
gium will be got up for the present occasion—
such a thing once before averted the downfall of
Casimir Perier ; but it will have a short-lived
effect, like the flags of Ulm, or the expedition
to Ancona. France needs the repose which con-
fidence in a good and wise Government brings ;
but the doctrinnaires are not the persons to pro
duce any thing but confusion.—Morn. Herald.
The advocates of the Dutch war attempt to
prove two things—that it is enjoined upon Eng-
land by her duty, and that it is recommended
to her by her interest. How is a war in al-
liance with France against Holland enjoined
upon England by her duty ? " A combined
fleet," we are told, "is to be despatched to
the Scheldt for the effectual removal of an ob-
stacle to the maintenance of peace, which in a
short time might be found insurmountable,
namely, the stubborn aggression of the Dutch
King upon the recognised territory and stipulat-
ed rights of Belgium, which so long as it shall
be endured in fact by those Powers which have
so repeatedly and unanimously condemned it in
principle, will never leave the peace of Europe
worth a week's purchase." The recognised ter-
ritory and stipulated rights of Belgium ! By
whom recognised ? by whom stipulated ? If by
Holland, we admit the argument, and marvel at
the tardiness of Lord Palmerston's decision.
If by France and by England, against the desire
and in despite of the remonstrance of Hol-
land, we will not join issue upon this plea ; we
go back to ask where was the right to recognise,
and where was the justice of the stipulation.
But how is a war in alliance with France

against Holland recommended to England by
her interest ? Is it to be endured, we are angrily

asked, that Holland should assert the right of
shutting out our ships and manufactures from
the waters of the Scheldt ? Holland asserts, has
asserted, no such right. Before the commence-
ment of these troubles all vessels were free to
navigate the waters of the Scheldt, subject to a
moderate tariff. The Treaty of November pro-

poses the continuance of that tariff. The King
of Holland consents to, is desirous of, its con-
tinuance. He imposes no new duties, he attempts
no further restrictions. But the reduction of the
duties to little more than a nominal amount is

now insisted upon ; and it is claimed for thefirst
lime after the meeting at Compeigne of Louis
Philippe and Leopold. Let every impartial
spectator judge what ground there may be for a
demand so long lost sight of, and what parties

are likely to benefit by a demand enforced. at so

suspicious a time. But Belgium demands
something more ; something with which the inte-
rest of this country is not so directly concerned.
Belgium demands a passage for her productions
through the Dutch territory from Antwerp to
the Rhine, subject to such duties as shall be
permanently fixed by the Conference. Hol-
land is willing to concede such a passage,
so long as the two countries shall be upon
friendly terms, and subject to such duties as shall
be from time to time imposed by her own States-
General. Belgium demands, moreover, some
powers of overland communication through
Dutch territory, which Holland upon the same
conditions is not unwilling to concede. Let
us consider the nature of the privileges now
claimed by Belgium ; the manner in which their
enjoyment was heretofore obtained; the reasons
for which the continued possession of them is
naturally contended for. By the Treaty of Vi-
enna, in consideration of certain territory given
up by Holland, Belgium was made subject to
the Dutch Crown. It was to Holland a desi-
rable thing to encourage the manufacturing in-
dustry of Belgium. Holland did this by faci-
litating every means of internal conveyance
through her territory, and by
Belgium in their
ad-
vantages to the productions of
transitß elaffording great
contented to admit the preference thus given to
political
benefit
is Touhrast
nounlioonngeirs.
giantnrmouangluifatlicteuDreustacillidwpartoerdsu.ce,Eonnglaanccdowuanst
of the political benefit she derived from the union
of Belgium with
dissolved ; that pos
But Belgium, disjointed from Holland, struggles
to retain these privileges, which never, but for
her junction with Holland, would have been
given to her. It is not wonderful that Belgium
should struggle to retain, or that France, the
future mistress of Belgium, should be ready to
bestow them ; but it is indeed wonderful that
England should be striving for the same end,
enriching on the one hand her commercial rival,
and aggrandizing on the other her political foe. Let
our merchants and traders look well to it. We can
tell them that the mineowners of Charleroi and
the artisans of Namur are not the only parties
who are alive to the importance of this dispute.
The opening of a free passage through the
Belgian and Dutch territory to the Rhine, and
thence to the rich markets of Germany, is con-
templated with a silent but joyous anticipation
obeurtrmueertchhaatntwsaarndistraabdoeurst lotookbteo
at Washington and New York, Once more let
it.
claAreV, if
fioitt
Orange, n o t againstand
the H o l
Hol-
land, againstb utth the
rather houseagainst
wealthtrhae
pros-
perity of Great Britain, let the Ministry be
stopped in their mad career, not by the opposi-

tion of party men, Tory, Whig, or Radical, but
by the complaints of our industry and our corn'
merce, by the indignation of the dockyard, and
the resistance of the Exchange.— Morning Posh•