the attack upon the accused as Unionists, the advocate proceeds to convict them of plotting to secure a majority in the second Chamber of the States: for with this view, he quotes an infinity of passages from the correspondence shewing, simply, that the accused were anxious that their friends who were deputies should vote in the right direction.

"It results very clearly" says the advocate-general, “from these letters that de Potter and Tielemans used every effort in their power to win a majority in the second chamber of the states. What majority? A majority which would paralize the proceedings of government; a majority which would dictate the conditions of peace, as Tielemans himself has openly said: in one word, a majority which would reduce the royal prerogative to a shadow of royalty, utterly destroy the equilibrium of the powers established by the fundamental law, and then overturn the monarchy of the Pays Bas as established by treaty.'

Were this charge of the advocate-general of such importance, or the affair itself sufficiently interesting to the world in general (and it really is interesting, for it has turned the movements of the population of a very considerable empire) we might take it passage by passage, and classify it under the heads of Mr. Bentham's Book of Fallacies.

In the next instance, the correspondence is turned to account; first to prove that Tielemans and de Potter were the real directors and guides of the newspapers, and that frequently the letters of Tielemans to de Potter were frequently published, entire or in part, in the Belge: and what if they were? we should ask in England. How does this prove a complot to destroy the government. The advocate then enters into a legal argument to shew the illegality of the association proposed by de Potter. The illegality is denied in various consultations of the lawyers of different parts of the Pays Bas, but supposing it were illegal, as our Irish association might be illegal, the project might have been stopped in the act of projection: the enunciation of the project could not be treasonable, whatever the society itself might have been. Upon this project, however, which was the mere pretext of the trial, the advocate insists little: it is with extracts from the correspondence that he loves to deal; first, because the open publication of well-culled passages from the secret and confidential letters between two heads of a party, expressing their ideas on passing events, on the characters they had to deal with, and the measures they had to take, was likely to throw dismay and dissension among the party opposed to government. It is very possible, had not the causes of dissatisfaction been too deep-rooted to be so shaken, and had the agents of government been more able in their use of the various

materials of ridicule in the letters, that such an effect might have been produced. The fellow-labourers of de Potter and Tielemans are, as was natural, very truly discussed; and moreover, as one of the parties employed confidentially by the government was afraid of being committed, various terms of disguise, nick names and absurd designations are used both in the mention of friends and enemies. Doubtless, the disclosure of these playful or fitful phrases did create a considerable sensation among the persons designated, as had been foreseen by the government, but this temporary feeling subsided quickly before higher ones excited by the flagrant injustice done to men whom they looked up to for ability and learning, and more especially the far higher emotions created by witnessing the calamities afflicting their native country.

The advocate-general, relying chiefly upon these letters, concludes his address by a sort of florilegium from the correspondence. He has had the good taste to select the passages which he considered the best adapted to prove the crimes of sedition, privy conspiracy, and rebellion; or, as he says, "thus threw a horrible light on the two accused;" but which, in our opinion, and we are sure in the opinion of Englishmen generally, who write such letters every day when agitated by any political affair of importance, are simply striking by their vigour and truth. Subsequent events have shewn who was in the right: a government who, under the idea of preserving order and protecting their own interests, have ended by very nearly bringing about their own destruction. We shall extract some of these passages: it will be remembered they are quoted to prove the Charge of a conspiracy against the Government. The comments upon them will at least amuse.

The law of the five hundred florins is revived, de Potter writes to Tielemans: on the demand of M. d'Agault, the bookseller, Grignon has just been called before the Procureur du Roi, for having published the songs of M. Roussel, I believe, or Rougel; amongst which, the song entitled the Sceptre and the Sword offends the majesty of Charles X Grignon promised me the song, which I will send you. Are there kicks enough at the toe of an honest man's boot for the posteriors of these animals?'-29 Aug. 1826, No. 13.

Here's respect for kings and royalty! cries the advocateas if either kings or royalty were respectable in themselves, or worth any more than the good they brought how much good Charles X. purveyed for his kingdom has been seen.

It is truly provoking, says de Potter, that a philosophical frockcoat which covers even royal shoulders, should hinder people from amusing themselves with their little entertainments.'

These little entertainments, of which the writer thus jocosely treats, are but expressions of opinion. That the modern frock does not altogether hang in the way of a decent handling of the musket, the bourgeoisie of Brussels have proved. They have found leisure for one of the entertainments alluded to; and who can blame them are not the lightest suggestions of those men now listened to with attention, whose humble petitions have long failed to gain even a hearing?

My dear friend, say to M. V. B. and make him read it on this paper, that there is more confidence to be placed in my honour, than in that of all the kings together, joined to all their knaves

I see, in them,

the born enemies of all human dignity, of all which offers the slightest opposition or resistance to their will, however just it may be, or of whatever quality; in short, they detest all show of a manly character, whilst their favours, their prodigalities, and that which they call their honours, are heaped upon the vilest slaves who prostitute themselves to their caprices.-Let us not stir up the hideous dunghill of the court, the pestiferous effluvia from which taint all who approach it.'-19 Oct. 1829, No. 45.

.This, it must be remembered, is privately written to an intimate friend; and if it is not of a nature to see the light, the blame is in them who drew it from its secrecy. It is an angry sentence: but they who know the corrupting nature of irre sponsible power, know how far it is from the truth.

'You know, says de Potter to Tielemans, that I have to do with the most stupid, the most obstinate of tutors (kings) 22nd Oct. 1829. He is alluding to the king of the Netherlands.

'I have told you, I repeat it, I do not fear my guardian (the king) I shall be delighted to vex him, embarrass him. Since it is he who has put me in the state I am, it is right he should bear the pain. I shall be let off after all, by my accouchement in July (he speaks figuratively of his delivery from prison), but the child I shall produce, will make him see all colours.'-10th Nov. 1829, No. 54.

This is, perhaps, somewhat spiteful, but it must be remembered, that these passages are culled out of volumes of letters, written by a man who conceived himself greatly injured. The character which the king of the Netherlands bears in his own. country, is that of a well-disposed, respectable man, but who in other respects, perhaps, deserves the epithets de Potter bestows upon him.

The next extract is a considerable portion of a letter from Tielemans to de Potter, dated 1st Jan. 1830, No. 26. It is interesting at this moment, now that we understand pretty well the course events will take, as the speculations of an able individual a few months back. There is no prophesying in

politics. The subject chiefly turns upon a question of great moment to the Belgians: whether, in case of the people expressing openly and loudly their wishes, the government would call in the aid of foreign powers.

'Dare they call in the foreigner? Yes, they dare; and, I believe, moreover that the Prussians on account of their Rhine provinces; England on account of Ireland; Russia, because of its political troubles; Austria, on account of its Italian provinces; and France, from fear of its liberal party, would consent to agree with our king in occupying Belgium, for a certain space of time, by Prussian troops. Observe, my friend, the motive of the intervention. A small state, the happiest in Europe, rebels against its prince, turns upon him the very liberties it was enjoying, and proves that the people only want liberty to abuse it. This is the reasoning of Charles X. when he replaced the Martignac administration by that of Polignac. England maintains similar ideas, because of the troubles in Ireland, which continue in spite of the emancipation of the Catholics. Prussia and Austria, which have as yet done nothing for the liberties of the people, take the same view of the future. The intervention cannot, therefore, disturb the general peace, and it will serve as a warning to all discontented countries. But it may be asked, will the French people suffer it? Do not deceive yourself: if the French government wills it, and engages itself not to yield a step, as its interest would command it; in one word if the four, or perhaps, the five great powers decide, in common accord, that Belgium shall be occupied by Prussian troops, the French people will not stir. It is impossible for a people to march unless the government pleases. France could only do it after overturning its government. Now, that is not done, or so near being done as is thought. The occupation of Belgium may precede the dethronement of the Bourbons, and if it precedes it, it is favourable to them, since they in their turn may have to apply for foreign intervention, and call the Prussians to their frontier.'

It is curious to observe the familiarity with which the dethronement of the Bourbons was talked about on their borders six months ago. It is upon their continuance in France that the whole of M. Tielemans letter turns, and their exodus has utterly changed the aspect of affairs. The French now would not permit the Prussians to enter, and the king of the Netherlands is compelled to settle his own affairs. It is melancholy to find England, along with Austria and Prussia, held up as the enemy of public liberty: but who can say that it is without good cause? They who speculate on the causes of events, have said, that the existing insurrection of Belgium has arisen out of an imitation of France: some have called it a moral contagion. The fact is, that had not the power of the Bourbons destroyed all hope of assistance thence-had not, previous to their departure, the certainty of foreign intervention existed in the minds of the people

of Belgium-this rising for a redress of grievances would have taken place long ago.

It is very needless for us to declare how the advocates of the accused demonstrated the utter absence of all crime or illegality in the proceedings, or how nobly they defended the high character of M. de Potter from the charges and insinuations of his adversaries. Suffice it to say, that M. Gendebien shewed, that no proof had been given of an attempt to excite persons to change or destroy the government, and that the articles incriminated were strictly confined within the limits of legality. M. Van der Weyer most triumphantly attacked the inferences drawn by the advocate-general from the fragments of correspondence he had quoted, and by other longer and more luminous quotations, amply proved that the opposition of M. de Potter was of the most constitutional, though of the most energetic character. The impression made upon our minds, and we approached the consideration of the trial with perfect impartiality, (for had it been proved that M. de Potter had really wished to change the government, and had really attempted to persuade his countrymen of the plan, we should not have thought the worse of him) is that, believing that a limited monarchy under the house of Nassau, and according to the charter given by it, was the most advantageous government for the country, or at least the best thing to be had, he had set himself seriously to work, in order to induce the government, directly or through the people, to fulfil the promises of the charter, and redress the grievances of his countrymen.

In a piece M. de Potter himself wrote a year ago, which his advocate quoted on his trial, he has so well expressed his own views, and that of the Belgians in general, that we cannot do better than quote it. It contains an enumeration of the griefs of which the Belgians have long and loudly complained, and which they have now presented to the king in a manner likely to be listened to; viz. under arms. It is almost the only way the people ever get anything: aide toi, le ciel t'aidera. When they come as petitioners they are called gueux, as in the time of Marguerite of Parma; or their conduct is said to be infame, as it was called by the present king of the Netherlands. Now they are bons bourgeois, the guardians of public tranquillity, and so on, and all their wrongs are to be redressed.

We are Belgians, and Belgians we wish to remain, constituted in an independent nation as we are at present, i. e. to say Hollander, Flemish, and Walloons, North and South, with liberty, civil and religious, for all, equality of rights for all, under a government constitutional, representa tive, such as is established by our charter.