The Sun.
London, England, 1818-04-04 00:00:00

PRIVATE AND AUTHENTIC CORRESPONDENCE.

Nitta, MARCH 30.-.—lhere is but one sound
system of policy, and that is to adapt laws to
manners, habits, and circumstances; what would
be extremely proper for one nation would he baleful'
for another, and what would be right under• certain
circumstances would be entirely wrong Under
sthers ; nations are like horses, some require the
spur and others the rein, hence to follow the saute
system with nations of such opposite dispositions
would be worse than folly, it would be to call into
exercise the bed of Procrustes. Yet this is what
the principal part of the English Journalists do,
they lay down the British Constitution as a
standard, and judge all whets by it, consequently
their reasonings, when applied to France, are fre-
quently ridiculous and absurd. I have already
pointed out some examples of this truth, and shewo
the French manner •of seeing and judging.
strongly prepossessed in favour of our own Con-
stitution and principles of Legislation, it was not
until I had maturely examined the subject under
various points'o' view, and studying the French
character with unwearied attention, that I could
give a real and conscientious approbation to modes
of Legislation %villa) were so different, and ap-
peared'so infeilor to our own. Il.tving ar4.•o at
that conviction, I now hazard my opiiiietz on
measures which I conceive of vital importance to
France. In the first place I would premise that a
Constitution once adopted, it is the duty of all
parties to adhere to it until 'a solemn act of the
three branches of the Legislature, modifies or
abrogates any particular article. Now the Charter
being the Constitution of the Fiench, the conduct
of the two houses of Legislature should always
he within the pale of that Constitution, i. e. the
Charter.

Article 16 of the Charter states, " the King
proposes the Law ;" and Article 46. " no amend-
ment can be made to a Law if it have not been
proposed or consented to by the King, and it it
have not been referred to and discussed in the
Committees." Such, therefore, is the Royal
Prerogative as fixed by the Cortstitution. We'
will now examine bow far the conduct of the
Chamber of Deputies is in unison with these
fundamental principles.
In 1814, the King's Ministers presented a law
on the finances (which in England you would call
merely a Bill), it was adopted.

Another law was submitted to the Chamber in
1815, which adopted scarcely any Of the donne:.
it Vgibstitoted for it. a new law, created a new
;pull), 'anti, wowid not tven pet.e.94,!he
---
to'withdraw the proposition, which served as a
pretext for all these changes, viz. that of increas-
ing the quantity of wood allowed by the law of
the 23d September
_lBl4, for payment of the ar-

rears.
The Session of 1816 did not go ato far, how-
ever: in comparing the Pi ojet that was presented
to it a'itl► the law of the 25th March 1817, it is
easy to discover that the Chamber changed a great
part of the Ministerial Projet.
The Ministry cannot be ignorant, that the Ses•
sion of 1817 had In uch greater• pretensions than
that of 1616, .ind that - al bough a part of them
has been abandoned, the Ministerial l'rojet has
nevertheless been almost entirely changed, and
that Ministry ough' therefore to tear what may
happen in 1818, in which the Ministerial majority
will be more than doubtful, if wise and prudent
measures are not taken previous to the elections.
It is, therefore, more than ti►ame seriously to op-
pose the encroachments of the Chamber and its
Committees in financial matters,
_and compel it to
keep within the limits of the Charter and its re-
gulations. If reforms, if retrenchments are ne-
cessary, if circumstances require the repeal of any
taxes, the merit of these ought to be reserved for
the Government, which ought not to suffer its po-
pularity to be usurped by the Chamber of Depu-
ties, which increases by even the constitutional
opposition of the Ministry to propositions decidedly
contrary to the Royal Prerogative, but presented
under the specious pretest of diminishing the
burthens of the people.
According to Articles,l 7, 47, and 49, the im-
posts ought to be presented to, the Chamber of
Depaties. That on landed property can only
be annual ; other taxes may be fixed for several

years.
Article 45 says, the Chamber shall divide itseL
into Committees, to discuss the Projets whict
shall be presented by the Kiog.
• Article 46 we have already cited.
These dispositions are clear and precise—Whav
were the motives fur enacting them ?

PARIS, Aram I.—One of my friends, moving
in the first circles of society, and every way worthy
of credit, intorm3 me, that he has seen a letter trout
M. le Comte de FERRONN AY E, the French Ambas-
sador at the Court of Sweden, in which he wiites
that " the French Ministry is Tegarded very dif-

fere:lay in foreign countries to what it Is in some
of, the Cqieries of Paris ; that its abilities and its
tiftnness are the objects of general admiration I
and that for his own part be has found the disorder
catching."' The Count de FERRONNAYE is a man
of high honour and rectitude, frank and loyal,
but,hstitAt Paris thrown into anti-ministerial
circleS; and though he did not partake of all their
sentiments and -thtir exaggeration, yet he found
himself too for engaged not to adopt the political
principles which were professed by those around

him. As a member of the Chamber of Peers, he
voted with the cote droit. At present, removed
from the intrieues of the capital, he judges poli-
tical measures more soundly that, is done in the
refracted medium of the Clubs of Paris : he has, in
fact; returned to the natural amenity and modera-
tion of his character, and praises, without par-

tiality, what merits praise.
It May not be misplaced here to denounce to
Europe the existence of a vast Conspiracy against
the present order of things in France. I have it
on the faith and honour of one of the parties. I
asked en Ultra why, he opposed Miniiters in
measecrt obviouhly salutary ? His reply was,
" What can I do—we have all bound ourselves by
oath to oppose every measure of the Ministry,
right or' wrong ; we are determined on its over-
throw, and we have all individually sworn to leave
no stone unturned to effect our purpose ; hence,
I cannot retract, for I should be perjured. I re-
gret bitterly having taken the oath, which I feel
to be rineonstitutional, and perhaps treasonable,
but I have done so, and am bound by it." This
Conspiracy against the Throne you will no doubt
think is by the Jacobins;--no, Sir, it is by those
who profess themselves its warmest defenders. It
is by those who call themselves pure Royalists! !