The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-19 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The occupation of Cracow called fortb, last night, th e
strongest reprobation from every part of the House of Com-
pions. Lord Palmerston, in answer to Sir Stratford Can-
ning, candidly stated that Government had not been fur-
nished officially by the three Powers with any explanation
of the grounds on which they had acted. As England was
an influential party to the treaty by which the independence
of Cracow was secured, it is difficult to understand how
the three Powers can possibly justify conduct which, on the
face of it, appears insulting to this country. By the treaty
of Vienna, it was expressly stipulated that on no pretence
whatever should foreign troops enter the State of Cracow.,
The treaty, observed Lord Palmerston, " also contained a
reciprocal condition that that State should not harbour par-
ticular persons described in the treaty, or should, upon ap-
plication, give them up to either of the three Powers : and
it was under the assigned terms of the treaty that the
three residents at Cracow founded their demand for
the expulsion of the Polish Refugees." Now, it is
obvious, that the treaty does not justify the mea-
sure resorted to by the Powers. " Though (as
his Lordship observed) the three Powers might be justified
in calling upon the Republic to order the persons com-
plained of, as endeavouring to excite sedition in Russian
and Prussian Poland, to depart from its territories, it did
not follow that these Piwers were justified in having re-
course to the violence of military occupation, merely on
account of the short interval between the time when the
demand was made, and its being carried into effect." ft
appears, therefore, that the demand exceeded what was
warranted by the terms of the treaty. Hypocrisy has been
defined the homage which vice pays to virtue, and it is al-
ways, we believe, deemed a very unfavourable symptom of
the moral state of a country, when men do not even at-
tempt to conceal their vices. The three Powers do not, it
appears, think it worth their while even to affect a regard
for treaties. It is due to Lord Palmerston to say that he
spoke with becoming disapprobation of the shameless disre-
gard of the public opinion of Europe, manifested by the
three Powers on this occasion. " There was no question
(he observed) but that every State, however comparatively
powerless and limited in extent, was entitled to have
justice done to it, and to have the independence
guaranteed to it by , treaties maintained equally with
the most considerable States. In truth, it is with States as
with individuals. The efficacy of law is seen not in the
inviolability of the rich and powerful, but in the sense of
security of the poorer citizens. Whenever we see rich
men trample with impunity on the poor, we at once pro-
nounce that the law is powerless. In the utter disregard
of the small republic of Cracow, we see a demonstra-
tion that the public law of Europe has no existence.
It was observed by Sir Stratford Canning that the lan-
guage of the declaration of the three Powers on entering
Cracow, was exactly similar to that which was held on the
three infamous partitions of Poland. It bas often been said
that the conduct of the three Powers with regard to Po-
land, which evinced an utter disregard to all that ought to
be held sacred among men, shook the morality of Europe to
its foundations, and contributed more than all else to the
separation of the nations for their governments during
the storms of the French Revolution. Severely did
the Sovereigns suffer from their disregard of the, prin-
ciples of justice. But the lessons of adversity are now,
it appears, forgotten. They are not afraid, in the face
of Europe, to violate the obligations of treaties,
and to declare, that becatise Cracow is feeble, that
therefore they have no hesitation in trampling on it. The
example of injustice thus afforded will sink deep into the
hearts of the nations. Cracow will not soon be forgotten.
When right and justice are set at defiance by the great,
then authority rests on the most precarious of all founda-
tions. The three Powers allege that the Poles in Cracow
communicated with the Poles in their respective dominions,
and a regard for their own safety compelled them to invade
its territories. Thus one injustice always leads to another.
The man who robs, is often led to commit murder to de-
stroy the evidence of his crime. The three Powers know
that they have no right or title to Poland, and that they
possess it against the will of the inhabitants, and they see
in every Polish exile a conspirator. But, as was observed
by Mr. O'Connell, " a feeling for the sufferings of Po-
land was working in the mind of the public all over
Europe, and the despots, with their armed power,
little knew what might be the. consequences of the
wrongs they were perpetrating." Who knows but that
this last injustice may fill the cup to the brim, and
that the indignation excited in Europe by the open dis-
regard of all public law and obligations of treaties, may
produce effects through which Poland may yet be wrested
from its spoilers. It is no doubt true, as was stated by
Len! John Russell, that the House ought not to pass any
strong resolution on the subject, unless it was prepared for
war. It is one thing for the Members of the House of
Commons. in their individual capacity, to express their
sense of the injustice committed by the three Powers, and
another for the House in its collective capacity to pass a
resolution.
,Should British interests call on us to draw the
sword, Cracow will not be forgotten ; but the guardians
of the interests of the_ nation ought to pause before they
commit the country to the dreadful issue of war. Though
ice arc a great and powerful nation, we are not called on to
pot ourseire's forn-ard as the champions of the' oppressed
throughout the world. War is a resource of so serious a
nature, that it ought to be reserved for the very last extre-
I ty.—Morning Chronicle.

A copy of Dr. Hampden's lecture, delivered on Thurs-
day, has been sent to us from the London publisher. We
suppose, therefore, we may consider the report to be au-
thenticated. We have never interposed in the controversy,
and 'shall not now ; but we regret that the appointment of
Dr. Hampden has engendered so much- theological heat,
for we eerec with our able and upright contemporary, the
Standard, that itis not a mere political quarrel. Man} of
Dr. Hampden's opponents are men of honour, learning,
and religion, but their zeal is greater than their judgment,
and such zeal is always mischievous. A man of acknow-
ledged talent and erudition, and who had already the stamp
of University fame upon bite by his twofold offices of a pro-
fessor and a head of a college, is appointed (possibly—
probably from some political motive) to a higher office, and
a sudden clamour is raised against his orthodoxy. What
must the public think of the previous acquiescence of the
University in the fitness of Dr. Hampden to be a lecturer
in her schools, and the president of one of her collegiate
establishments ? Why, if there were danger, was not the
alarm sooner raised ? Why, if there was disgrace, was not
an earlier attempt, made to remove the cause ? But we
will not he tempted to break our silence : we content our-
selves with publishing the concluding sentences of the in-
augural discourse delivered by the professor on Thursday,
in which he notices in a temperate and Christian spirit the
objections of his opponents.—Times.

We were among the first to censure the appointment of
Dr. Hampden to the office of Regius Professor of Divinity
at Oxford. From the moment when the intention of his
Majesty's Government to make that appointment first tran-
spired we endeavoured by every means in our power to pre-
vent its completion. After the appointment was officially
announced we did not shrink from the duty of stimulating
the members of the University to employ with zeal, energy,
and determination, whatever means remained in their hands
for the purpose of mitigating the evil consequences with
which this appointment appeared to us, and still appears to
us, to be pregnant. Such having been our past course, we
I,el that we only perform a duty which we owe to Dr.
Hampden, to the University of Oxford, to our readers, and,
above all, to the cause of candour and truth, in devoting a
considerable portion of our paper of this day to the inaugural
discourse of the Learned Professor, in which he attempts to
clear himself from the charges that we have assisted to
promulgate. Those of our readers who have consulted
the compositions upon the evidence of which the orthodoxy
of Dr. Hampden's opinions has been impeached will
i now
be enabled to judgefor themselves to what extent this at-
tempt to vindicate it is a successful one. To us t ap-
pears that the inaugural discourse partakes more of the na-
ture of a recantation than of a defence, while it carefully
and laboriously shuns what must always constitute the moral
virtue of a recantation—the frank confession of antecedent
error. This recantation in disguise can scarcely, we think,
have increased the confidence of the University of Oxford
in its
new Theological Professor. The discourse, able and
ingenious as it is, must have greatly disappointed the expec-
tations of Dr. Hampden's friends. What the position of
the. Rev. Professor required was a successful attempt to re-
concile the language of his former writings with the doc-
trines of the Church of England, or an explicit acknow-
ledgment of the fact that his language had failed to
convoy his real meaning, together with an ample ex-
planation of the manner and degree of that failure.
Dr. Hampden found it convenient, however, to substitute
for these a general exposition of the causes which may lead
to the misconstruction of an author's meaning, and a denial,
equally general, that the passages of his writings to which
objection had been taken had been rightly interpreted.
The charge of having promulgated erroneous opinions may
be eluded by this dexterous process, but it cannot be re-
pelled. It must be satisfactory to those members of the
University of Oxford who have taken the most active part
in directing attention to the past writings of Dr. Hamp-
den, to witness in his inaugural discourse the first salu-
tary effect of their labours. It is a very different dis-
course from what any man who has made himself ac-
quainted with those writings, would have expected from
their author, and the difference may fairly be ascribed
to' the consciousness of the lecturer that be was to
address a vigilant and jealous auditory. Such portions of
this discourse as constitute the syllabus of the Learned
Professor's future instructions would be calculated, in a
great degree, to remove the alarm which his appointment
has occasioned to the friends of sound religion, biit for the
natural and unavoidable reflection that, as the syllabus de-
viates very materially from the standard of his past wri-