Star.
London, England, 1831-04-07 00:00:00

BRUSSELS, Aram 4.

NATIONAL Coxontss, Aram 2.—The order of the day was, the
debate on the decree for calling out the first division (ban) of the civic
guard. Some of the Members said they ought first to learn from the
Ministers, whether this measure was really so urgently necessary.
M. Lebeau, Minister for Foreign Affairs, said be was ready to give
the Assembly all the information in his power.
M. de Robaulx—lt is indispeneible, and at the same time impossible,
for the assembly to appreciate our situation, with respect to foreign
powers, and the necessity of adopting the measures proposed to us; be.
cau-e the ministry has communicated nothing respecting our si.
tuation. Yet events have taken place ; couriers have ar.
rived, and their despatches must have announced something.
I therefore ask-1. What has passed between the Belgic Government
and the Congress, since the last communications ? 2. What is dc.
mended, and what is the state of affairs, respecting the boundaries of
the territory, and the debt ? 3. Which are the powers that pretend to
subject us to the protocols ? 4. Ilas M. d'Aerschott been officially re•
ceived at London? and is an English fleet preparing to blockade the
Scheldt ? 5. Has the Belgic Government sent an ultimatum to Hol.
land? and has Ring William answered?
M. Forgeur.—l will put a sixth questior : Is there a new plan
for the choice of the head of the state ? It seems that what is passing
on this subject, is no longer a secret to any body.
M. Lebeau said, the report of his predecessor stopped at the nomina.
tion of the Regent ; and there was therefore a break from Feb. 24, to March
28, which he could not fill up ; he was called upon on the 291 March,
but be had but just entered on the office, and could not give the in.
formation required. It is important to rectify a general error. It has
been supposed, that the violation of the principle of non-Inter.
_ _ _

vention, dated only from the protocol of 20th December. lam 1
sorry that this protocol was not returned ; and, therefore, it seems
that the principle of intervention was recognised by us, for the reserves
in this Protocol, by which the Congress assumes the right of consti.
toting Belgium, on the bases of the treaties of 1814 and 1815, and re.
fuses to recognise Luxembourg as part of Belgium, are manifestly an
intervention. But this principle of intervention is, in fact, contained in
the Protocol of 17th November, which, after laying down the time of the
armistice accepted by us says, that when we engage ourselves with
respect to Holland, to observe the conditions of the armistice, we
also make this arrangement with the Five Powers This protocol
likewise was not returned, and you know, that in diplomacy, to re-
' turn is to refuse. A protest is not so strong a measure, as sending
back. A declaration should have been made, stating that the
National honour would not permit us to accept this protocol,
unless this clause were struck out. This was not done, and you
all see how it was turned against us. Not only were the protocols of
the 17th of November and the 20th of December not sent back, but
even the note of the Bth of January was received. Now, it seems to me
that the necessity of sending back this note was evident. The facts thus
laid down we must submit to their consequences. Germs of usurpation
being thus introduced into our first diplomatic acts, will bear their
fruit. The course of the future negotiations must be impeded
by them, for we cannot possibly leave out of the question facts
which have actually taken place. The protocol of the 9th of
January, ordering the opening of the Scheldt, on condition of our raising
of the blockade of Illaestricht on our part, on pain of being compelled
by force, received an answer worthy of the honour of the country; but
an answer is nothing the protocol should have been sent back ;it soon
produced new fruits. However, the protest of the Congress, against the
protocol of the 20th Jan. leaves us the right to make was ; and opens a
new diplomatic career. The protocol of 20th Jan. relative to the hounds.
ries, was followed by that of 27th Jan. concerning the debt. This was sent
back ; you know the consequences of this step. A later protocol, which has
not even been communicated to us, acknowledges that of Jan. 27,
(which besides was disapproved by the French government) contained
only proposals. That of Feb. 7, excluding the Duke of Nemours and
the Duke of Leuchtenburg, was returned. We have seen
none since. Witb respect to the question put to him, M.• Lebesu

replied, that M. d'Aerschott has had several extra official conferences
with Lord Paltnenten ; but I e does not know whether he has yet
been received officially. The envoy to Paris has been received officially.
The Government has received nothing from the Congress at London
since the last communication. All the Powen, except France, think we
ought to be ruled by the protocols. Our Government has co notice
of a threat to blockade the Scheldt. He has found no trace of an
tatinaatute, sent to Holland; the choice of the Head of the State is
under serious consideration : the Minister believes peace still possible:
war, when not inevitable, is madness. We shall do our utmost to pee.
serve peace; but if se see, that it is intended to impose on us, we know
that we have our army, out civic guard, our fortresses well armed, and
provisioned, and then the Ministry will not hesitate topeopose war.
M. Van do Weyer rose to correct some mistake of the preceding
speaker. The break in the report of which he spoke, does not exist ;
and, with respect to the ultimatum put to Holland, it was not thought
advisable, to send a Chargé d'Affaires to the Hague, lest he should
be:treated as a rebel. They had, therefore, treated with Holland,
through France and England. M. Van de Weyer denied the
assertion, that by not sending back the protocols, the system of inter.
vention was sanctioned.

Some farther conversation took place, in which M. Lebeau said, that
as the new plan respecting the choice of a Sovereign was a secret to no•
body, he need not name him.

WEYMOUTH AND MELCOMBE REGIS.

TO THE EDITOR.
Sin—l have seen with astonishment, in The Times of yesterday, my
name as connected with a transaction between Colonel Gordon and Inn.
thee person, respecting the borough of Weymouth.
I have to request that you will be pleased to state in the most un-
equivocal tenns.that I never knew any thing of the transaction in ques-
tion; that although I have known Colonel Gordon for many years, he
never did, either directly or indirectly, express to me any wish with
respect to a peerage, or solicit my assistance towards procuring the
same.
The whole thing was perfectly unknown to me, until I read it in The
Tines of yesterday.
I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
Wrest-park, Snug, Bedfordshire, GRANTHAM.
April 5.