19 MARCH 1842, Page 2

In the case of Sr. AULAIRE versus ABERDEEN, about the

disputed " objection " or " observation " which Lord ABERDEEN has not to make to the occupation of Algiers, M. Gomor has put in a rejoinder. He admits Lord ABERDEEN'S explanation as a matter of course, not worth a second consideration. But he goes beyond, and, re- moving the question from one of mere verbal uncertainty, places it upon the broad basis of practical common sense. Lord ABER- DEEN, he says, has no observation to make, because he has no ob- jection which it is any longer proper to put forth. Courteously describing what the English Secretary must think and must have meant, he very likely hits the mark of Lord ABERDEEN'S opinions, at the same time that he rebukes him for troubling his stateman's head about small verbal distinctions. Our statesmen, of the bet- ter order, are able practical men enough ; but they are so worn to the routines of office, that they acquire a mere journeyman's habit of looking no further than the job of the moment ; executing that with "punctuality and despatch "—when they can. They are no historians, (always excepting Lord JOHN RUSSELL, which one is apt to forget,) and they seldom regard their actions as ma- terials for history so much as the set performance of a duty. France possesses an official personage of an opposite kind, M. TRIERS—a clever historian—who is so far to seek as a statesman, that he degrades the office into such a combination as might be ex- pected from the blending of a newspaper tactician, a demagogue agitator, and a diplomatic pettifogger. M. Guizor is both states- man and historian ; he has studied to act, and he acts what he feels will be written : the event of the day is a page in history, which be does not merely read, like Lord ABERDEEN, to correct the press, but to master the problem of political existence.