The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-07 00:00:00

When we desired to assist the Belgians last year,
and to unite Belgium more closely with France,
by giving it a King in the person of the young
Duke de Nemours, our aid was rejected—our
policy was vilified—and our alliance was
despised. Now it suits England to employ our
ships and our troops to preserve a state of things
which she wishes to consolidate for her own ad-
vantage, and to prevent those chances of incorpo-
rating nine of our former departments with our
territory, which might occur in a general strug-
gle. Mean time England cannot cordially
abandon a Dutch for a French alliance,—
and must desert us on the first serious menace
of a European war, in which our very compli-
ance with her present policy may involve us."
" Who can behold," re-echo the latter, " with-
out indignation the union of our Government
with revolutionary France, to oppress an ancient
ally—to increase French power in a country
already nearly a French province ?" Then we
hear a great deal of malignant nonsense about
the disgrace of seeing the tricolour united with
the flag of England in an attack on our old
ally, interspersed with remembrances of the
league of Charles 11. with Louis XIV. to op-
press Holland when no tricolour existed,—and
about other topics of prejudice and excitement,
to which we need not further allude at present.
But the point on which their unanimity is at
once the most conspicuous, and (all circum-
stances considered) the most ridiculous, is their
pretended alarm at the alledged hostile dissent
of the three absolute Powers of the Conference.
" The Conference of London is in a state of
complete dissolution," exclaim the French
mouvement party. " Russia has withdrawn
from it, and expressed her dissent from the con-
vention of October 22. Prussia likewise ob-
jects to the employment of coercive measures,
and is moving forward her troops to assist Hol-
land in opposing France," reply our English
Tories. Thus the Conservative clubs, or
journals, re-echo the Jacobin,—repeat de-
ception for deception, and repay fiction with
fiction. The London Conference is indeed in
" a state of dissolution"—not from intestine
division, as is thus insinuated—but from having
accomplished its labours. Having drawn up
and ratified, by its five Powers, a treaty which
Holland has refused to accept, nothing remained
but to settle the means of its execution. Three
of the Powers, in these circumstances, declined
to pursue their own work further than that of
peaceful mediation and entreaty, which had been
found unavailing, while two of them (France
and England) undertook to be executors for the
whole of the defunct Conference, and to carry
its award into effect. There was every reason
why they should be the active parties on this
occasion, without throwing the slightest suspi-
cion on the designs or motives of the Courts
which have dissented from the employment of
coercive means. They are nearest the refractor \
party. Their forces can be mo,t easily brought
to bear upon the injurious pretensions which he
sets up, or on the territory which he unjustly re-
fuses to surrender. Having opposite interests
in every thing but the preservation of peace,
they can satisfy the must suspicious of their com-
mon moderation, and raise themselves far above
any apprehension that they can employ their
arms to accomplish any ulterior views of ambition
or aggrandizement. Never did a Judge sit on
the bench, or an arbiter take his place between op-
posing parties, with fewer motives to mislead, or
stronger resolutions to effect a righteous decision.
In addition to all these qualifications, they are
quite sufficient for the task which they-have un-
dertaken, and would have found rather embar-
rassment than aid in a more extensive exe-
cutive alliance. The three other Powers, from
these and similar considerations, were not invited
to become parties to the convention formed be-
tween France and England on the 22d ult.
Even Belgium is not admitted as a party, and
(in our opinion) Antwerp will be taken by the
French army alone, without any movement on
the part of Leopold, unless the Prince of Orange
chooses to make an inroad into Belgium,
and thus compel the Belgians to act in self-de-
fence. The circle of war will thus, we hope, he
extremely narrowed, and, as we expressed it a
fortnight ago, the proceeding will have all the cha-
racters of a judicial decision. After the capture of
Antwerp, no subject of dispute can occur between
Belgium and Holland which may not be more easily
settled than at present. It will depend on the manner
in which King William acts, whether lie will
even be required to surrender any of the advan-
tages secured to him by the treaty which he is
now required to sign. At any rate, it gives us
great pleasure to assure the public that there has
not been for the last two years a less chance of a
European war, or less danger that the contest
(should a contest take place) will extend beyond
the Netherlands. The rumoured advance of
Prussian troops to the Rhine, and the reports of
the hostile movements of Russia, are pure fic-
tions, invented by the lively fancies of the French
republicans, in emulation or in co-operation with
our English
convenient
Conservatives. They must both,
however, postpone their hopes and projects to a
more
; and
on
hn
their
rmveeart
time allow
us
to
very
congratulateoppor opportunity iit
them
inoffensive alliance._ Tines.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 6.

AIORGAN V. LEWIS.

This cause, which was partly heard yesterday,
was resumed this morning, and occupied a great
portion of the day.
Mr. KNIGHT (with whom was Mr. 'I'IsEonALD)
appeared for the plaintiffs, who were the represen-
tatives of a gentleman of the name of Morgan, pos-
sessing large estates in the counties of Carmarthen
and Buckingham, on the latter of which he had re-
sided up to the time of his death. The bill had
been tiled against the defendant, who was the widow
and administratrix of a Mr. Lewis, the steward or
agent of Mr. Morgan in the management of the
estate in Carmartheteshire, to surcharge arid falsify
an account settled in 1822, between Mr. Morgan
and Mr. Lewis, both since deceased, on the ground
of omissions. It was alleged these omissions con•
sisted of various sums of money, received by Mr.
Levis in his capacity of steward on behalf of his
principal, but which had never been placed to his
credit. Of these the principal accessions relied upon
were, a sum of 501., a further sum of 892/., the pro•
duce of the sale of timber, and a third amount, not
stated, which had been received for rent. The ac-
count commenced in 1815, and extended from that
time up to 1822, when it was investigated, vouched,
and settled between the pares, whose respective
representatives were now before the Court.
Mr. PEPYs (with whom was Mr. STEWART), for
the defendant, contended that the settlement in
1822 must be presumed to have been satisfactory,
to the late Mr. Morgan, as it was never attempted by
him to dispute it, arid it was not until after his death,
and after a lapse of eight years from the settlement,
that it Vas sought to question its accuracy.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that sufficient
grounds had been laid before him to induce him to
pronounce the usual decree of a reference of the ac-
counts to the Master, with liberty to the plaintiffs
to surcharge and falsify it.