The Sun.
London, England, 1832-10-24 00:00:00

and which had not been modified by any subse-
quent communications of the Conference.
" The latter," it is continued, " sought to assure itself
whether the undersigned had received instructions and
sufficient powers to discuss, under the auspices of the C in-
ference and with the Belgian Plenipotentiary, the proposed
arrangements; hut the Cabinet of the Hague has never
given any official answer to these demands."
The undersigned must be allowed to recal to mind
his declarations that he was in possession of full
powers, having the Royal signature, to the effect
of discussing and signing with the Conference of
London a treaty of separation, and of signing it im-
mediately afterwards with the Belgian Plenipoten-
tiary. But discussions between the latter and th.
undersigned appeared so contrary to the principle of
the negotiation and to the dignity of the King, that
they would be of little advantage in the present tem-
per of mind of the parties.
With regard to the written answers of the under-
signed, presented the 26th of September, to the
nine questions which were addressed to him, there
will befound amongst the papers of the 69th protocol
a summary of the explanation communicated by him
verbally in the sitting of that day. So far as ap-
pears, there exists here a double sense, and the un-
dersigned can only refer to his written answers
which he declared in the Conference of the 26th of
September were alone to be considered as authentic.
According to this summary, " the Cabinet of the
Hague would not adopt the territorial arrangements
marked out in the 24 articles, except with the re-
serve of a guarantee with relation to the union to
Holland of the indemnity assigned in Limbourg."
In the observations the Conference gave him to un-
derstand " that this union depends upon the assent
of the Agnates and of the Confederation."
The Government of the Netherlands having ac-
ceded with a slight modification to an additional
article respecting this matter to be inserted in the
treaty with the Five Courts, it was proposed on the
part of the Conference to consider this question as
entirely arranged. It did not demand in this respect
any special guarantee, considering that the question
of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg alone concerned
the Agitates and the Germanic Confederation.
As to the observation in his fourth answer, the
undersigned is ins.ructed to express that as the ne-
gotiation during all the latter months has been in-
variably based on the twenty-four articles, and to be
understood to be considered with reference to the
points of divergence which they present, the Court
of the Hague cannot admit the retraction by one of
the parties of the stipulations of the twenty-four
articles,respecting which there is a failure of agreement,
a faculty opposed to the first principle of all ne-
gotiation, and which, applied to the present, would
render it interminable.

As to the rest of the unexpected and new diffi-
culties now raised against the application to the
Scheldt of the Tariff, and as much as possible of
the arrangement of Mayence, they would disappear
in a moment were they examined with more atten-
tion, and the result would show that Belgium had
given a false view of the subject to a part of the
public, by means of exaggerated and erroneous at,-
rertions. It has thus been maintained that the rights
of pilotage on the Scheldt exceed those on the
Meuse, whilst frequently the latter exceed the
former.

With regard to his sth answer, the objection was
reproduced that the Netherland propositions respect•
ing the use of the interior waters would not lead to
tiny itukt, allll scik, CIIVC htlS 118.4 U
tions of the Riverain States.

The undersigned takes the liberty of calling to
mind that every State has the right not to admit
foreign flags generally; upon its interior waters, or to
render that admission more favourable for certain
flags. If the Belgian flag is agreed to be admitted
on the interior waters, and to be treated as the most
favoured flag, it is altogether illusory, as up to this
day there exists no nation more favoured in this re-
spect than another, nor can such a case be produced
at any epoch more or less distant. Every time
that a State contracts for the first time, in its
treaties of navigation and commerce, the engage-
ment to admit a foreign flag on the footing of the
most favoured nation, such a flag cannot be ad-
mitted with reference to antecedent stipulations of
the same kind ; and, however, a less value would not
be attached, on that account, to such an engagement.
As to a national tariff, which every Government
maintains on its interior waters, that will net pre-
vent it from substituting another tariff by a treaty
of navigation and commerce, according to the prin-
ciple of reciprocity. As to what concerns the ne-
gotiations of the Rivcrain States of the Rhine
amongst themselves, his Mijesty, as King of the
Netherlandg, cannot admit the intervention of non-
rivcrain Powers; and, as Grand Duke of Luxem-
bourg, he must consider an appeal to such an inter-
vention as derogatory to the dignity, and subversive
of the independence, of the Germanic Confederation.
An observation on the 9th question having men-
tioned the compensation which the Court of the
Hague would be disposed to offer for the liquida-
tion of the syndicate, as a measure of order, the
undersigned is authorized to declare that the Go-
vernment of the Netherlands does not attach any
value to that stipulation, except in order to simplify
the future relations between the two countries, and
avoid the unpleasantness of complicated pecuniary
questions, and not from the apprehension of a defi-
ciency of any importance in favour of Belgium, and
that, from the former motives, it consents to a de-
falcation in order to obtain the result of an equitable
sum of arrears due by Belgium.
In the 70th Protocol it is said that the Confe-
rence had declared inadmissible the project of
treaty presented by the Government of the Nether-
lands. It is not disputed, however, that this pro-
ject has continued to be discussed amongst the
members of the Conference, and the undersigned,
up to August, with reference to the greater part of
the basis and the arrangement, and till that epoch
there was no question as to the new exigencies
raised since by Belgium. It is still mentioned that
Belgium would not refuse to negociate respecting
the modifications which were the object of the first
remonstrances of Holland, as well as respecting the
reserves and the wishes of the Courts of Austria,
Prussia, and Russia.

The Court of the Hague, whose present political
system coincides in general with those former re-
monstrances and with those reserves, has never re-
marked a disposition to this effect on the part of
Belgium, which has constantly refused all arrange-
ment, and has not taken the least step to arrive at
an equitable result.
The present Note having no other object than to
clear up certain facts, and not that of going through
all the contents of the Protocols 69 and 70, which
have not yet been officially communicated to the
Cabinet of the Hague, the undersigned has acquitted
himself of the task imposed upon him, reserving to
himself future explanations, such as circumstances
may eventually render necessary, with relation to
other parts of these diplomatic acts and the rights of
his Government, and to set aside the consequences
which might otherwise be drawn from the silence
respecting them which he now preserves.
There remains to him a painful duty to fulfil, that
of expressing the profound grief with which the
King has remarked that in these Protocols, and in
the papers connected with them, the arrangements
have been destined for Belgium alone; that, without
reckoning the numerous concessions made by his
Majesty, it is attributed to the Government of the
Netherlands that it had closed the door to an as
commodation, and receiving, as a natural incident,
the peremptory and recent announcement of Bel•