The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-16 00:00:00

nitoi PPI,II/1.

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1848.

We directed the public attention some time since
to the meagre and unsatisfactory character of the
Report of the Secret Committee of the House of
Commons on the Bank Charter Act, and the causes
of the commercial distress—a report which sinks into
utter insignificance when compared with the able and
convincing document which subsequently emanated
from the Committee of the House of Lords on the
same subject, and nearly on the same data; for with
few exceptions the same witnesses were ex-
amined in each instance. The report of the
Lords was given with dignity and impartiality.
There was a close and accurate analysis of the
more important parts of the evidence adduced before
them, the statements relating to the subject under
consideration made by the various witnesses, not
only of those who were favourable to the views of the
majority of the Committee, but also of those who
were most strongly opposed thereto, were given in
detail, and a decided and unequivocal conclusion ar-
rived at and distinctly and positively set forth. No
portion of the subject-matter referred to them was
evaded or shirked. The public were informed what
they, the Committee, believed to be the causes of the
commercial distress, and the nature and extentthereof,
and the grounds on which they had formed their opinions
were also set forth clearly and explicitly, so that every
person was enabled to judge for himself hew far their
deductions were warranted by the premises. They
also showed how far that distress had been affected by
the laws for regulating the issue of bank notes, pay-
able on demand, in the very terms of the reference,
thus satisfying the object for which the inquiry had
been instituted. In fact, the report bore the character
of the clear judgment of a judicial tribunal, which
had no object but the attainment of truth, and which
was wholly unbiassed by any former prejudices.

How different, however, was that of the Committee
of the House of Commons ? If the Lords acted
as dignified and unprejudiced judges, whose
opinions, although they might possibly be er-
roneous, must still command respect and atten-
tion, the others acted the part rather of keen and
wily lawyers who had been retained to advocate cer-
tain principles which they should support per faa
aut neat, or, perhaps we should say, to defend a
mighty criminal (the Bank Charter Act) from the
grievous offences laid to his charge. Without ven-
turing distinctly to state that the commercial distress
was not seriously aggravated by its operation, they
attempt to acquit it by implication. They could not
venture to exonerate it directly of having increased
the panic, and greatly contributed to the general
failure of credit, more especially as they were obliged
also to justify its virtual suspension, and compelled to
declare that " the feeling of alarm which prevailed
appeared to have been almost immediately removed
by the issue of the letter addressed to the Bank of
England on the 25th October by the First Lord of
the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer."
They could not, however, make up their minds to con-
demn it upon these points—they therefore tell us of
various grounds assigned by different witnesses as
causes of the distress, and declare that they see no
reason to doubt " that these causes had in different
degrees, and in different parts of the country, pro-
laced the effect thus ascribed to them ;" but they
most disingenuously omit all mention of "the reatrie-
tions affecting the issue of bank notes" as among
these causes, although an examination of the evi-
dence will show that it
wasti diisdhinscertleydiatallbuldeemd
atnonbeyr
several of the witnesses. In this
they evade the decision of h
e alteration anion to
be
in
the Bank Charter Act"
their
referred to
them, and although they declare
" that it is not expedient to 'flake any
exceed
any
and t
are
uttarlthe duty
imposed upon them, they
silent as to
how far the commercial distress had been affected hr
the operation of that Act.
A very valuable document has recently been pub_
li,Thed, by direction of the House of Commons, which
`throws considerable light upon the working of that
Committee, setting forth the various proceedings day
by day, as they oceurred, with the several proposi-
tions that were made, and the different. divisions that
took place. There was some informat:ion previously
on. these points, but it was not of an authentic cha-
racter, or such as could have been it nplicitly relied
on ; all doubt, however, is now renrovi.Kl, and we can

tell how far each individual member of the Committee
is responsible for the report that emanated from the
general body, and how far he endeavoured to dis-
charge the important duties confided to his charge.
We had never any fa ourable anticipations from
the result of that investigation. We clearly saw
that it was instituted for the sole purpose of shelving
a question on which the public mind was seriously
excited at that period, and, under the pretext of an
inquiry, avoiding all legislation on the subject.
The constitution of the Committee, the well-known
views and previously recorded opinions of its several
members, the fact that a fair working majority
consisted of persons pledged as strongly as men could
be to the vicious principles of the Act of 1844,
fully prepared us for a report exonerating as
far as practicable the law itself and its iniquitous
enactments from any considerable share in producing,
or even materially increasing, the commercial distress
We, however, supposed that the question would have
been fairly met, and not avoided in so palpable a man-
ner as to seal the condemnation of the code which it
was intended to protect. Nor did we suppose that
the minority would have displayed such energy
and determination, and contested every point so vi-
gorously and efficiently. Above all, we could not
have imagined that in a Committee consisting of so
many of the present and of the ex-Ministry, all
bound down as to their decisions, there would be a
majority of two only in favour of the report, and
those two the putative parent and the fosterer
of the Bill, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Sir
CIIARLES Woon. Let then our banking, trading, mer-
cantile, and manufacturing interests know that the
report of the House of Commons is virtually that of
those interested parties, and let them compare the
opinions of the independent and unprejudiced men
who composed the minority with those which were
reported to the House ; and, taking into account also
the opinion of the Lords Committee, they will see
that the Bank Charter Act has been most unequivo-
cally condemned, and that it cannot be maintained in
its present condition, notwithstanding the unflinching
support of the present and of the late Ministry.
We shall again refer to these proceedings, pointing
out what occurred, and the character of the different
divisions, and the other draft reports submitted to
the Committee by Messrs. CAPLET and SPOONER on
an early occasion.

In part-fulfilment of our promise of yesterday, we
proceed to make a few introductory observations upon
the noble work just published from the manuscripts
of Count: 'VALERIAN KRASINSKI—the friend 4 of our
illustrious historian Mr. HALLAM. The work*
would be a noble one if for nothing else than fur the
patriotism which it breathes in every sentence, and
which has formed its principal inspiration.
The dispute between the Germanic and Slavonic

races in Europe is as old as the period oftilei;
first settlement in juxta-position. CHARLEMAGNE
waged war with indifferent success against the Mora-
vian leader who was then the head of the Slavic fede-
ration to the west of the Carpathians. With the
introduction of Christianity a division arose between
the western and eastern Sclaves; the latter of whom
became attached to the Greek Church, while the
fumes acknowledged the supremacy of the POPE.
After centuries of struggles for political independence
and power, the leading characteristic that can now
be traced amongst the Slavonic inhabitants of
Europe is formed by this religious separation.
Bohemia failed in its attempt at the epoch
of JOHN Huss to conquer religious liberty, and,
deprived of political independence by the results df
the war of thirty years, and the peace of Westphalia
in 1648, was subjected to Austrian rule with as little
power of self-government as the partitioning powers
afterwards allowed to Poland. The Magyars of
Hungary rule the Slavonic and Ruthene inhabitants
of that country. The Turks are absolute as amongst
the Bulgarians and Bosnians. The Servians are
partially emancipated, but are too weak to stand
alone. A year back it would seem, with
the exception of Russia, that the other Sla-
vonic nationalities had become politically ex-
tinct. But the observer who had access to
those countries soon discovered that this exterior,
which was preserved because it answered the purpose
of blunting the edge of curiosity in Western Europe,
was but a hollow pretext, and that all the Slavonians
incorporated into Prussia, Austria, and Turkey, not
only formed distinct portions of those empires, but
that their nationality possessed vitality and vigour,
and would soon manifest its power. The storms of
1848 having shaken the political horizon, displayed
at once the inequalities concealed beneath its arti-
ficial surface. The national movement in the Slavic
populations became a striking feature of the whole.
The Bohemians, counting their numbers, when united
with the Moravians and Hungarian Sclaves, found
that they amounted to more than 7,250,000. The
Ruthenes, Croats, and other Sclaves of Eastern and
Southern Hungary count 5,000,000. The Poles
under Austria are 5,000,000, and under Russia there
are 800,000. Russian Poland without the Ukraine
has 5,000,000 of Polish inhabitants. All these,
in number 23,000,000, profess, with few ex-
ceptions, the Roman Catholic faith, and therefore
have no religious sympathies with the Sclaves of
Russia, who, for the most part, are of the Greek
Church. Their position towards the Germane, who
do not greatly outnumber them, is such, that by con-
ferring political liberty upon them, they would be
easily made firm allies, and would form an impene-
trable boundary for Germany towards Russia. But
the Germans have shown a disposition to do nothing
of the kind. After calling upon the Sclaves, like the
other divisions of the countries recognised in Euro-
pean international law, to aid in the overthrow of the
despotic system, the first move made in that direction
was viewed with jealousy, and further progress was
stopped by the assault on the assembled inhabitants of
Posen, and by the attack at the barricades of Prague.
On the subject of the blunder committed in both in-
stances, Marshal RAD/3'l'4Kr is very likely to open
the eyes both of the Austrians and the Prussians.
The question is for the moment in abeyance, await-
ing the re-organization of those empires which a des-
potic course of policy has overturned.

At this moment of pause, and we think it is most
opportunely selected, Count KRASINSKI presents the
British reader with a short and intelligible retrospect
of the relations that have ever subsisted between Sla-
vonians and Germans, with the numerical weight and
leading bias of the nation of Slavic race. The whole
of the Slavic inhabitants of Europe are estimated at
78,000,000. Of these 53,000,000 are under the
Russian sceptre ; 6,000,000, including the Servians,
recognise Turkish supremacy ; the remainder, form-
ing a mass of 29,000,000, are incorporated into
Austria and Prussia, and in religious and political
sympathies harmonize with the Poles under Russia ;
thus presenting a mass of 25,000,000 prepared to
enter into the European confederacy as one or more
independent states.

Since with such numbers it is impossible to deal as
with small fractions of races that happen to be in-
cluded amongst large majorities, the questions natu-
rally arise, which Count Kitismaxi puts simply and
forcibly.

Is it to the interest of the Germans to seek to per-
petuate a despotic dominion over such multitudes, and
what must be the inevitable result of such a course ?
Can thirty millions of Germans, unaided by Scandi-
navians, English, French, and Italians, exterminate
twenty millions of Slavonians, even if they desired to
accomplish such a feat ? And what prospect does
the anticipation of such a contest hold out to Europe?
At what price is the pre•eminence of Germanism over
Slaviscn to be maintained ?

But suppose the Slavonians, seeing the imminence
of such an internecine contest, choose to anticipate it,
and waiving distinctions of creeds and tendencies, to
submit to the dominion of Russia, how is the conflict
to be maintained by thirty millions against seventy
millions? This latter alternative is the project of
Panslaylim. The little that is to be gained by either
of these sources for the advance of civilisation is
well pointed out. The danger that would be incurred
is forcibly elucidated, and the true and safe middle
path is recommended by Count KRASINSLI, whose
volume is a most useful contribution to the history of
the present stirring and eventful epoch.
_ _

"Panslavism and Germanism." By Count Valerian
Krasinski. One Vol. Svo. Newby, London, 1848.

CALsis
Rimway.—Yesterday this branch of the
North of France Railway was opened for public traffic.
The short sea passage, via Dover, brings Paris, by this
route, within ten hours of the metropolis, end Brussels
within eight.