The Sun.
London, England, 1849-10-10 00:00:00

(Eribetning gult;

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1849.

An impression appears to be gaining ground, even
among some of those who were recently enthusiastic
in the cause of the Hungarians, that the policy of
KOSSUTEI and his compatriots had latterly become in-
jured by its illegality. It is argued that at the outset
of the great movement of the Magyar population, the
" insurgents" were only acting in the most justi-
fiable manner in vindication of their outraged rights
and in defence of their assailed constitution, but that
ultimately the leaders ventured upon political ex-
cesses nothing short of high treason and leze majestt.
For, most traitorous and indefensible, it is declared,
was the solemn decree of the Central Government
deposing the dynasty of Hapsburg, declaring the
crown of St. Stephen to be forfeited by the family of
FERDINAND, and substituting a provisional adminis-
tration in lieu of a German Sovereign. Now, such
a preposterous assertion as this is tantamount to the
declaration that the Houses of Orange and Brunswick,
since 1688, have been guilty of the most flagrant
usurpation. It is equivalent to the denial of the
authority of our present beloved QUEEN to the throne
of the British Empire. If it was illegal
to depose the Hapsburg dynasty in Hun-
gary, it was equally illegal to depose
the Stuart dynasty in England. If the decree of
1848 was a decree criminal to the extent even of
leze majesty, so also was the decision arrived at in
1688, with reference to King JAMES the SECOND. In
both instances the will of an entire nation was ex-
pressed by the voice of its assembled representatives.
In both instances a venerable charter had been vio-
lated. In both instances the constitution of the land
had been attacked by the unfaithful hand which had
been sworn to its conservation. To a con•
siderable extent, however, there was a dif-
ference between' the two cases, we will admit,
but it was a difference entirely in favour of the
course pursued by the Hungarians. To duplicity,
cajolery, and general faithlessness, the nominal suc-
cessor of FERDINAND had united the most dastardly
falsehood, and the most inhuman cruelty. Every
effort to bring about a reconciliation had been tried,
but tried in vain. Concessions on the popular side
had but led to exactions on the part of the Camarilla
at Schoenbrunn. Confidence had only produced
betrayal. Fresh evidences of loyalty—of a
loyalty so profound and earnest as to have
gradually resolved itself into a proverb—had only
been repaid by double-dealing, tyranny the most
grinding, and oppression the most diabolical. Ex-
hausted in their sublime patience, the Hungarians at
last scattered to the winds their idle forbearance, and
in the face of earth and heaven-•.before GOD and
man, proclaimed the resumption of the crown by the
people—exactly as our forefathers did in reference to
the last of the Royal House of the Stuarts. Had the
Great , Louis of France, in support of his
well-beloved cousin, King JAMES the SE-
COND, conducted his armies into England,
and restored him to the throne from which he had
been hurled by the nation, had Louis XIV. acted in
1688 as the Autocrat NacnoLes has acted in 1849,
dragging back the dethroned dynasty, and forcing
the monarch again upon the population, we should
doubtless have heard similar comments to those
now uttered upon the Hungarians. It would have
been said that our forefathers, in pronouncing the fall
of the Stuarts from the sovereign dignity, had
acted illegally, and had been guilty of leze ma-
jeste. And so it is. As NAPOLEON is said
to have remarked in his " Pensees"—success
makes the hero, failure the criminal ; success leads
the hero to the palace, failure =ducts him to the
dungeon; he is glorious in the one instance, in the
other he is regarded as infamous. So it would ap-
pear to be, in the estimation of those who while
Hungary was triumphant sang paeans of homage to
her statesmen, and, now that she has been betrayed by
treason and crushed by brute force, declare those same
statesmen to be little better than outlaws. Our
reason does not the less revolt from this
mode of argument than do our sympathies
and our affections. We feel and think in
this matter upon exactly the same principle—upon a
principle higher than that obsolete humbug the " right
divine" of legitimacy. If kings fell down from
heaven like the immortal King Loa of antiquity, the
case, no doubt, would be different ; but as it is the
deduction is necessarily and essentially simple. If
kings do not drop from the clouds—whence do they
originate? They originate, as every other earthly
power originates, from the selection or the consent of
the community. As in nature, that which creates
can also annihilate, so with the poli.
tical institutions of society, that which
imparts authority can likewise recal it. Philosophy,
reason, common sense, assure us that the right of
kings is dependent upon the due discharge of those
duties for the faithful performance of which they
themselves or their ancestors have been anointed with
the chrism of religion.

It has been magnificently said of Christianity by
Mr. MACAULAY—and the remark has a pathetic
significance at this moment—" 7'hose who thrust tempo-
ral sovereignty upon her, treat her as her proselytes
treated her Author. They bow the knee, and spit upon
her ; they cry !' and smite her upon the cheek f
they put a sceptre in her hand, but it is a fragile reed;
they crown her, but it is with thorns; they cover with
purple the wounds which their own hands have iiJlicted
on her ; and inscribe magnificent titles over the cross
on which they have fixed her to perish in ignominy
and pain." Very different is the homage
paid to the exclusive possessors of temporal sove•
reignty. For them the sceptre is no reed, the diadem
is not a mockery, the imperial robe is not merely a
squalid masquerade of calamities. The bond of gra.
titude for the authority conferred upon them should