Portland Gazette, And Maine Advertiser

From the Hampshire Sentinel.

A politician "undertakes" to assert, that "the allied army on the French frontier is not continued there to guarantee the sway of the Bourbons, but solely for the punishment of France, on the principles of retribution" for her former oppression of other States. The writer appears to ridicule the idea that 24 millions of people would be awed by 120,000 foreign bayonets!

Notwithstanding we have always felt disposed to pay great deference to the opinion of this experienced editor,* we do not believe the allied powers are without their fears of an other revolution; and considering the means of malcontents, even if comprising three fifths of the population, in a country where the government, regularly organized, is in full operation, and actual possession of every fortress and every bayonet, the chance of success would be miserable indeed, with a foreign army of 120,000 men completely disciplined. and under the greatest Captain of the age, which could be marched to the capital within four or five days.—Besides, it has been generally understood that the allied Sovereigns had turned over a new leaf—had leagued together, promising to forsake the silver, and adopt the golden rule, in their intercourse with other nations, as well as with their own subjects. Would the Emperor Alexander be willing to acknowledge, that the unchristian principle of retribution alone actuated him in keeping 50,000 troops at the expense of the French nation, on their frontier? No. The allied powers have just and rational grounds for their fears of commotions, which might again disturb the peace of Europe, should this army be suddenly withdrawn; and with these fears they are justified. upon Christian principles, in insisting upon the fulfilment of the treaty. At the expiration of the three years, the adherents of Bonaparte will probably be so greatly scattered and disheartened, as to render the event of revolution improbable.

* Maj. Russell