The Sun.
London, England, 1832-08-04 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The discussion of Thursday in the House of
Commons on the attempt of the two great mi-
litary despots of the Germanic Confederation to
enslave the smaller constituttonal States of Ger-
many, and to destroy among them every security
for their separate independence, by the destruc-
tion of the press, though it produced no official
disclosures on past transactions, and led to no
authorized avowals of future intentions, cannot
fail to be read with general interest, or to produce
extensive benefit. It will at least show to the
world, that the Parliament, as well as the press
of England, is alive to the claims of general
freedom—that they are equally prepared to de-
nounce unequivocal oppression or usurpation in
every quarter,—that free States may reckon upon
allies wherever there are British freemen, and
that though the little despots of the Germanic
League may submit to greater despots in parti-
ally suppressing-the complaints of their subjects,
the voice of the latter will find an echo in every
British heart, and, if need be, will command
succour from every British arm. This is no tri-
fling advantage in the present state of the world ;
but from the debate alluded to even more may be
learnt. From it we ascertain that the political
influence of our Government has been added to
the moral influence of our press, in warding off
from the constitutional states of Germany the
inundation of military despotism with which it
is threatened. We have (as we know to our
cost) Ambassadors at the Courts of Vienna and
Berlin; we have Envoys in Bavaria, Wurtem-
berg, and Saxony ; we must, of course, pay
that most respectable Sovereign, the King of
Hanover) the compliment of maintaining a
Minister at the seat of his Government, and are
besides so happy as to have a Minister Plenipo-
tentiary at the Diet of Frankfort. All these
diplomatic agents (we are led to infer) have re-
ceived instructions to protest against the new
version of the arbitrary act, which has been pro-
mulgated to enslave the constitutional States of
Germany. They have all, no doubt, been in-
structed to declare, that our free Government is
essentially the friend of other free Governments—
that we reckon the liberty of the press, and
the uninfluenced vote of supplies, as the best,
if not the only securities of national rights,
in Germany as well as in England—that we
have viewed with alarm the recent enact-
ments of the Germanic Diet on these necessary
guarantees—that if the tyrannical mandates of
the 28th of June, and of the sth and 19th of July,
are not recalled or modified, we must hail with
satisfaction every local attempt to resist their
authority,—and that, if a confederation of the
smaller States, supported by the cordial union of
their gracious subjects, should be formed to pro-
tect their independence against their Leviathan
oppressors, we must range ourselves on the side
of the righteous cause, though supported by the
weaker champions. In using such language, we
by no means become the apostles of rebellion. We
by no means organize or defend a system of po-
litical propagandism against regular govern-
ments, for the purpose of spreading liberty among
their people. We only endeavour to detach the
oppressed members of the Confederation from
their acknowledged oppressors ; and if they can
be supported by their own subjects, we only as-
sure them, that in addition to domestic assistance
they may rely on foreign countenance and aid,
It is plain, that though the signatures of the
Plenipotentiaries representing the thirty-eight So-
vereign States of the Confederacy, are affixed to
the tyrannical decrees which have lately issued from
the Diet of Frankfort, the majority of the Princes
composing the Confederation had no choice in the
matter. Several of them (such as Bavaria, Wur-
temburg, Baden, Saxony, Hesse Cassel, Hano-
ver, and others) have Legislative Assemblies,
the independence of which their Sovereigns
have solemnly engaged to maintain ; and one of
them (Baden) has an unlimited freedom of the
press, by a law which its Sovereign has sanc-
tioned. The late decrees of the Diet violate
all these pledged franchises, and as we cannot
imagine that so many enlightened Princes have
committed voluntary perjury, we are bound to
believe, as the only alternative, that they have
acted on compulsion. The Austrian President
of the Assembly does, indeed, not hesitate to
avow that the suggestion of new restrictions on
German freedom first arose at Vienna, and that
the despotic project, broached by Metternich,
was settled with the Court of Berlin before it
was communicated to the other Princes of the
Confederation. What power had they of resist-
ing resolutions so propounded and so supported,
bound as they are by the basis of their federal
union not to look out for foreign alliances, and
to submit their cause to the Diet alone ? On
this necessary inference of compulsion, ex-
ercised by the strong over the weak, is
founded our right of interference, should we,
in conjunction with France, think active
interference necessary. By the Treaty of
Vienna, to which we are parties, the independ-
ence of the separate states of the Germanic Con-
federation is guaranteed. They form a political
union for the purpose of defence against external
aggression, and for the adoption of a specified
line of internal regulations. But they are all
equally independent of each other at home, and
the strong, or despotic, has no right to interfere
with the domestic economy of the weak and the
free. Constitutions have Aen established in
some of the states, and promised by all in the
very act of their union, to which the Great
Powers of Europe were parties. Those consti-
tutions, where established, cannot be abolished
(as they have virtually been in one of the
late regulations, which denies to the Assembly
of States the right of refusing a tax-bill), with-
out giving to the high contracting parties the
right of interfering for their protection. Thus
the casus feederis arises whenever any notorious
infringement like the present is attempted on the
independence of the smaller kingdoms or princi-
palities composing the league. Let us suppose
that the Legislative Chambers of Baden, Bavaria,
Wurtemberg, or Cassel, were to impeach
the Ministers who signed the late infamous
resolutions, proposed by the two absolute mas-
ters of the Diet,—that they were to refuse the
imposts demanded by their respective Govern.
ments,—that they were to sustain the freedom of
the Press against arbitrary violence,—and that
their Courts of Justice were to refuse to convict
for alleged libels at the dictation of foreign
despots ; the only remedy to which the Confe-
derated Sovereigns could resort would be the
bayonet,—the only resource would be the col-
lection of an army, the invasion and occupation
of the obnoxious territory. In such a case, what
becomes of the independence of the separate
States, and what security can be afforded against
their ultimate annexation to the dominions of the
invader ? It is not at all improbable even, that
such ambitious powers as Austria and Prussia
might promote such disturbances, in order to
have a pretext for a Germanic, as they formerly
had for a Polish, partition. That such dan-
gers are not imaginary or chimerical, may be