The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-02 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULI 2, 1559.

PRINCE METTERNICH AND POLAND.

The Univers of the 26th June has the following
in reference to the conversations between its editor
and Prince Metternich, recently published in its
columns :
" A Polish gentleman, who desires his name to be
withheld, but who is personally known to us, and
whose honourable character is acknowledged by the
world in general, has addressed to us the subjoined
letter, in reply to the assertions of M. de Metter-
nich, relative to the events in Galicia in 1846, and
to the incorporation of Cracow. We publish these
observations, as we published the words of Prince
Metternich, to serve as documentary evidence. The
testimony of one witness is diametrically opposed
to that of the other. We cannot judge between
them, as we have not ourselves studied the factslof
which there is a question. All our sympathies are
for Poland; and should there even be faults on the
side of the Poles, which they deny, we cannot but
think these more excusable than the faults of the
Government; because, on the Poles the existing
state of things imposes suffering, on the Govern-
ment it imposes duties. But that the revolutionary
spirit should have had nothing to do with the
painful events in question, and that the Catholic
Government of Austria should have been as gra-
tuitously perfidious and cruel as it is maintained, we
are loth to admit, in spite of the profound esteem
which we entertain for our honourable correspon-
dent. We thought that Prince Metternich found
too many excuses for Austria, and we think that
our correspondent brings too many accusations
against her. It seems to us that the cause is before
the court : history has not yet put in her plea.
" Louis VEIFILLOT."
" Paris, June 23, 1859.

" Sir,—Like Prince Metternich, I am, as you
are aware, ' one of your oldest readers,' and I have
also read with all the attention which it deserves
the narrative of yo it conversation with the late
Chancellor of Austria, in 1849. The recent demise
of this statesman, who has been so diversely-Judged,
but who undoubtedly merits to be called illustrious,
give to these words—pronounced, as it were, from
his tomb—a character of increased gravity and
solemnity. Notwithstanding the trouble that you
take to recall them to the mind, one almost forgets
the dates to which refer the explanations by which
Prince Metternich, in relation to certain facts, aims
at dissipating, as regards all upright minds, the
errors that spring from ignorance.' It is impossi-
ble not to be painfully struck on hearing from the
lips of a dying man, as it were, words the appa-
rent amiability of which cannot for a moment make
one forget their falseness. We may have no right
to complain of Prince Metternich telling you that
he had been just ;' that at the age which he has
attained,' and in exile, he approves of his own
acts ;' and that he feels that lie would recom-
mence.' But what aro we to say to those passages
which cannot, at all events, be attributed to a
weakened memory ? Is it possible that a states-
man, in the full enjoyment of all his essential
faculties, should have forgotten a treaty that he
has signed, more especially after having, during
thirty years of his life, counteracted the stipula-
lations of this treaty by fraud, and having ended
by destr4ing it by violence ?
" You will understand, sir, that it is to the
Treaty of Cracow, and the incorporation of this
free city with Austria, that I allude.
" Diplomatically—so said Prince Metternich
to you—this was the simplest, most straight-
forward, and most correct proceeding in the
world. The generous and somewhat emphatic
sentiments of the Emperor Alexander had been
taken advantage of to induce him to create, or rather
promise to create, that strange state of Cracow. In
reality, it was a kind of sacred city of Polonism that
was instituted, which would only serve to nourish
the cancer of conspiracy within the bosom of the
three Powers. The Government of Austria put an
end to this detestable state of things. It was not
prohibited by any treaty. There was no treaty, no
ratification, but simply a promise, which might
and ought to be withdrawn, its continuance having
proved dangerous, and its fulfilment impossible.'
"It is no longer for us to judge the words, the
deeds, or the thoughts of him who spoke thus.
They are weighed in another scale, and we hope, in
truth, that his Judge may be merciful. But truth
also demands that we should recall to the recollec-
tion of the public the subjoined facts, which are,
however, already familiar to every mind :
"It is well known that the general Act of the
Treaty of Vienna, signed 9th June, 1815, between
eight of the principal Powers of urope, contains
the substance of all the separate treaties signed
during the same Congress, and that by articles 10
and 118 of this general act, it is further stipulated
that these treaties, to the number of seventeen,
shall be considered as having the same force and
value as if they were inserted word by word in the
general treaty.
"It is further known that among these separate
treaties is the one entered into by Austria, Prussia,
and Russia, which stipulates :
" That the city of Cracow shall be erected into
a free, independent, and strictly neutral city, under
the protection of these three Powers.' (Art. VI.)
" That no armed force shall, under any pretext
whatsoever, be introduced into the city.' (Art. IX.)
" That its university, founded in the year 1400,
shall be maintained ; that the possessions of the
said university shall be secured to it ; that it shall
be permitted to the inhabitants of the conterminous
Polish provinces to prosecute their studies there.'
(Art. X)
" That the city of Cracow shall enjoy the pri-
vileges of a free commercial city, such as those en-
joyed by the city of Brody (in Galicia).' (Art. X.)
This condition acquired an immense importance
• from this further stipulation of the general act
(Art. XIV.), which ensured to all the parts of the
ancient Kingdom of Poland, such as it was previous
Ito 1772, entire reciprocal liberty of commerce and
navigation.

'These stipulations are known, or, at all events,
d p matically,' they ought to be known, since
7
they form part of what has not ceased to be the
obligatory public law of Europe. Thus there was
undeniably a ratification' of the treaty concerning
Cracow, signed by all the Powers assembled at the
Congress ; and when subsequently three of those
Powers entered into an agreement to change the
order of things, the others, and more especially
France and England, entered their protest in the
most formal manner. The incorporation of Cracow
with Austria is therefore nothing more than a fact,
and a fact contrary to public law.
" But that which is less known, and which is the
instructive aspect of the confessions of M. de Met-
ternich, is the determination come to in advance by
Austria not to attach any value to her own signa•
ture, to affirm that ' there was no treaty,' but only
a promise,' and only a promise put forward at a
hazard' (aventurer), which might, and ought, in
the interests of humanity (1) to be withdrawn.'
" The effects of this resolution, admitted by M.
de Metternich to ' withdraw' that which had been
promised,' to annihilate the State which she had
bound herself to protect, were felt at Cracow at
the very outset of the new regime, created for it as
a free city. Numberless attacks were made against
its sovereignty and its independence. Its neutrality
was violated in 1831 and 1836 by the occupation
of Russian and of Austrian troops. The British
Parliament and the French Chambers were moved.
These violations of the treaties of 1815 were de-
nounced in eloquent terms. Both assemblies recom-
mended the establishment of French and English
Consulates at Cracow, in order to save that State,
which was menaced in its very, existence. All was
in vain. The three Northern Powers had resolved
the destruction of the ' sacred city of Polonism.'
Their concerted resistance was such that the
two Western Powers deemed it advisable to cede,
and to rest satisfied with the assurance that the
treaties should be respected those very trea-
ties the existence of which M. de Metternich denied
to you! In spite of the new sanction given to the
arrangements of 1815 by these assurances, the three
Powers, and more especially Austria (but with the
consent of the two others), continued to spread a
network of snares round the freo city of Cracow,
for the manifest purpose of creating disturbances,
of which she promised herself to take advantage.
"But not content with annihilating and incor-
porating the State of Cracow, as was done in 1846,
Austria resolved at the same time and with the
same blow to annihilate the Polonism of the ad-
joining province of Galicia. In the year 1845 the
Austrian police was suddenly found to treat with
extraordinary toleration a number of individuals
who were preaching insurrection in all parts of
• Galicia. At Cracow, where these insurrectionists
also appeared, the police had long been in the hands
of Austria. The Government of the free city,
having no power to act for itself in the matter,
found the Austrian police deaf to all its warnings.
It had become so indulgent and so paternal
that six months previous to the explosion which
took place in February, 1846, the entire country
was filled with alarm. People said to each other ;
It is impossible that the government can be igno-
rant of these proceedings, which are known to every
one else. If therefore it tolerates them, it is be-
cause it wishes an outbreak to take place.' Such

was the language of the landed proprietors—and we
saw many of them arriving in Paris, whither they
came to seek for themselves and their families
a refuge against the catastrophe which they
saw impending. The peasants of Galicia, on their
side, also gave way to the terror propagated by the
agents of the government. They were told that
The nobles, tired of the protection which the
Emperor granted to the peasant farmers, had re-
solved to massacre them, and for that purpose had
sought the assistance of revolutionists coming from
abroad.' In a great many localities the inhabi-
tants of the villages withdrew every night into the
forests. These populations had besides been for a
long time worked upon by Austrian Macchiavellism.
From the very first period of their taking posses-
sion of Galicia, the Austrian administration ap-

plied itself to create a direct and incessant oppo-
sition between the poor and the rich, the landed
proprietors and the peasant farmers. The latter
were declared minors in perpetuity, and the State
constituted itself their legal guardian. If, therefore,
as M. de Metternich maintained, a great number of
landlords had given the peasantry cause for com-
plaint, the blame must be attached to the adminis•
tration, whose action could not in any way have
been impeded, had it really wished to fulfil its
duties as guardian. But what Austria wished in
reality was that the peasantry should feel them-
selves aggrieved, and be proportionately soured
against the proprietors. What she wanted
was an instrument of attack against the latter.
Austria is accustomed to the manoeuvre—it is with
her a tradition of centuries' standing. At all times

of her history she has had recourse to this instru-
mentum regtna. In Bohemia, as early as the 11th
century—since then repeatedly in Hungary, in
Transylvannia, and in Galicia—the Austrian
Administration has always used the same means
and availed itself of the same threat. In regard to
Lombardy, the good will has not either been Avant-
ing. In a despatch of 2d April, 1848, Lord Pon-
sonby, then English Ambassador at Vienna, gives
a-report of ft converntiezr/Pith M, de Fiquelmont,
the Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and
quotes the following words of that Minister:—
Austria will • be able at any time to raise the
peasants of Lombardy against their lords, and can
easily compass the ruin and destruction of the dis-
contented.

"In Galicia, long before the massacre of 1846,
whenever the inhabitants showed the slightest
symptoms of impatience, the same menace was
always held out. Beware,' said the superior
employes of the Administration, ' beware, for by
giving the reins to the peasantry for a few days
only we shall be able to secure our dominion for a
century.' Baron Krieg, civil Governor of Galicia,
was especially fond of holding such language; but,
it is true, this was his manner of joking.
"After such facts, sir, had Prince Metternich
the right to tell you that 'conflagration, that
jacquerie, had taken the Government entirely by
surprise.' It was necessary,' he says, to use
stratagem, and the Government paid so much
per head for each nobleman brought alive
to the prisons. It was the only means by
which they could be saved You will be-
lieve it, sir, that in face of a grave hardly
closed as yet, a dementi would not be given
with levity. But at such an assertion other graves
open, and numberless victims pure before the
Lord,' demand also to remain pure before history !
" The truth is that the employes of the circle of
Tarnon, in which the massacre took place, paid
double for the dead corpses, and half only for the
proprietors brought in alive ; and in order to render
the task more easy, they even gave the same pre-
mium of 10 florins indiscriminately for two disse-
vered hands as for the whole body.
" The Austrian Administration did not limit itself,
as did M. de Metternich in his conversation with
you, sir, to saying that the landed proprietors in
Galicia had given the peasantry but too much
reason for complaint,' it was not content to add,
that the peasants had for a long time been stirred
up by socialist conspirators.' It did not fear to
assert that the principal members of the Polish
emigration, and even Prince Czartoryski, had taken
an active part in the rebellion. It even went so
far as to attribute to them forged proclamations,
which were reproduced as authentic in an official
publication issued shortly after by the Chancellerie

in Vienna.
" This was because the news of the massacre was
received everywhere with a universal sentiment of
horror, and it was in consequence necessary to re-
present it as having saved the monarchy from the
most imminent danger. It was necessary, as a
reply to those who accused the Austrian police of
having favoured some obscure criminals in order to
put tdeath in one single district, and in four days,
1,500 innocent victims.

" Alas, sir, to any one who, like you and I,
detest revolutionists, and feel all the mischief
that they do to the cause they pretend to serve, it
is an overwhelming spectacle to see a Government
thus render itself more culpable than the most
desperate revolutionists, and furnishing the latter
with the most terrible arms against the veryprin-
ciple of authority. This is because, when the Go-
vernment becomes socialist, the power which it has
at its disposal gives to the evil an extent and a
bearing which happily the dreams of the sectarians
could never attain to.

"It is in my quality of a Pole that I have, ven-
tured to address these observations to you. I re-
frain, therefore, from expressing what I feel in
reference to such passages in your narrative as• do
not touch upon Poland. It would be superfluous
also to touch upon all that M. de Metternich said
about a certain Polonism.' There is in all societies
and in all causes room for the ' spirit of disorder,
of impiety, and of iniquity ;' but Poland—l do not
fear to say so, and at all events I hope so—owes
it, perhaps, to her misfortunes, and to those quali-
ties which M. de Metternich was pleased, in com-
mon with you, to recognise in her, that she has
been less visited by this scourge than other coun-
tries. Her patriotism is not madness,' nor is it
pride ;' but it is intimately bound up with the
religious faith that enlightens and purifies; it is
inseparable from her fidelity towards the Church,
for whom it submits to incessant persecutions. It
is characterised by devotion, and the proof of this
is—that it knows how to wait.—l am, sir, yours,
&c., " A POLE."

LAW INTELLIGENCE-July 1.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings at Nisi Prius, in London, before Lord
' Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)

FERGUSON AND ANOTHER Y. BORRETT-LUNACY,

The trial of this case was resumed this morning
by evidence for the plaintiff being given in con-
tinuation, to show that between the 10th Decem-
ber 1834, and the 16th May 1837, Mr. George
Watts was of sound mind.
Mr. Bovill afterwards addressed the jury for the
defendant, and detailed the evidence which he
should lay before them to prove the unsoundness of
Mt. Watts' mind. The investigation into the state
of his mind, which they had heard took place in
1845, was not an ex parte affair, for both sides were
fully heard, and most voluminous affidavits were
made when the Court of Chancery was applied to
to order the inquiry. The jury, after hearing the
whole matter, came to the conclusion that Mr.
Watts had been insane since 1822, and ever since
1845 he had been under the care of the Lord
Chancellor and the Masters in Lunacy, Mrs.
Watts, his wife, being the custodee of his person,
and the defendant, Mr. Borrett, filling a similar
office in reference to his property. The plaintiff's
counsel had said that Mr. Watts was now sane,but
the jury would have an opportunity of seeing him
either in court or in his lordship's private room,
and they could form their own opinion.
The .Lord Chief Justice said such an investiga-
tion would be irrelevant, for the question to be de-
cided was, whether Mr. Watts was sano between
1834 and 1837.

'Mr. Bovill said Mr. Watts had for years been
afflicted with softening of the brain, and was now
in a state of quiet imbecility, which was one of
the last stages of the disease. He would stand up,
lie down, take off his hat, and do other things just
as he was told. The disease commenced in 1821,
io cal.ein off
he being then affected by delusions that persons
were conspiring against• him, and that the
devil was constantly present with him. This
last impression so operated on him that it
led to -frequent acts of violence. They had
heard it stated that in 1836 Mr. Watts was taken
ill on his way to Guildford to execute one of the
deeds, and was obliged to stay in Farnham all night,
and that on that occasion he broke a window by
accident; but it would be proved to them that the
reason why he broke the window was that he be-
lieved the devil was looking in at it. He should
prove, by Dr. Lyford, that whilst Mr. Watts was
ill beading gaol this disease was apparent, and the
doctor's sdg
cut
opinion was confirmed by Mr. Watts' state
n N. In 18`21 or 1822, they had heard that Mr.
W . t
his left hand fore finger, because his
wife had said something to him about his having on
I
done so because he thought the nail represented the
it a deer's-foot nail ; but the truth was that he had

cloven foot of the devil, and he was determind to
have nothing satanic alma; him. He, therefore,
took a bill-hook, placed the finger upon a block,
and chopped it off. He afterwards hid the finger
in the thatch, and when asked why he had. cut it
off, he said it was commanded, " If thy right hand
offend thee, cut it off," and why should not the same
command apply to the left P On another occasion
be put his finger and thumb into his right eye and
pulled it out, because the eye had seen the devil,
and he again quoted Scripture in his justification,
"If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out." At
the Spread Eagle, in Gracechurch-street, he pulled
a wardrobe down and smashed it, because he was
under the impression that the devil was in it. On
other occasions he attempted to jump into the
sea from the quay at Southampton. Whilst at
Southampton, for years he had a constant attendant
to take care of him. He was continually mumbling
to himself, ejaculating short sentences, such as
" God forbid," apparently in great terror. Some
years later, another of his fingers offended him
because it was not quite straight ; and he at one
time bit a piece of it off, and afterwards cut off some
more of it. The learned counsel commented upon
the evidence which had been given by the plaintiffs,
and submitted that there could be no reasonable
doubt that Mr. Watts was not of sound mind when
he executed the deeds.

Some evidence was given to show that at inter-
vals Mr. Watts had. been insane, but it appeared
that at other intervals he was sane.

The Lord Chief Justice said this testimony could
hardly have much effect against the positive state-
ments that Mr. Watts was sane when he signed
the deeds. If the jury thought he was sane at those
times, it would be useless going further with
the case.

The jury said that was their opinion.
Mr. Bovill intimated that he had other evidence
to show insanity at intervals.

The jury said they were quite aware of that.
Verdict for the plaintiffs.

COURT FOR PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
'Before Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Wight-
man, and the Judge Ordinary.)
MURE V. MURE AND CHICHESTER.

This was a petition presented by the husband
against his wife for a divorce, by reason of her
adultery with the co-respondent.
Mr. Wilde, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks appeared for
the husband.

It appeared that Mr. Mure, who was the British
Consul at New Orleans, was in this country in the
year 1856, and married the respondent in Scotland
in November in that year. After making one trip
to America, the parties came to England in 1857,
but the petitioner left again in October to resume
his duties at New Orleans. Mrs. Mure, however,
being near her confinement, remained in England
until her confinement should take place. Before
leaving he made arrangements that Mrs. Mure
should stay at her aunt's in Devonshire until
she rejoined him. She was not delivered of the
child until December, 1857, but she then delayed
her departure, and at the end of May, 1858, came
to London on a visit to a friend of her hus-
band's, named Hynan. Upon her arrival at that
gentleman's, he noticed what he thought very ex
traordinary conduct on her part. Several persons
called to see her ; one whom she said was her cousin,
Captain Bevan, and, among others, the co-respon-
dent. She was also in the habit of going out with
gentlemen, and returning home sometimes at three
or four o'clock in the morning. This led to several
remonstrances on the part of Mr. Hynan, but they
were of no avail, and he at last requested her to
leave his house. She then went to reside at Cam-
bridge-terrace, where her mother used to lodge,
and upon Mr. Mure returning to England in July,
Mr. Hynan had an interview with him, and re-
lated all the circumstances respecting his wife's
conduct. The petitioner at once went to his
solicitor, and a watch was placed upon Mrs. Mure's
actions. She was traced to a house in Lincoln's
Inn-fields, on the sth of August, with Mr. Chiches-
ter, when they let themselves in with a key, and
remained locked up in a room for about two or
three hours. Upon further inquiries, it turned out
that while she was staying at Mr. Ilynan's, on one
occasion she went in a hired brougham to a house
in Portland-street of the lowest possible character,
and met Mr. Chichester there. On the 17th of
August Mrs. Mure proceeded to Dieppe, where she
was joined by the co-respondent, and then they
went to Paris together. Mr. Hynan deposed that
when Captain Bevan called upon Mrs. Mure, the
lady said he was her cousin, and that they had been
brought up together. It turned out, however, that
he was a perfect stranger. She several times went
out with him in a cab, and returned late at night,
and on one occasion he was seen to kiss her. The
co-respondent also called upon her, and they went
about to different places together. When the
witness charged Mrs. Mure with irregularities, she
did not deny it, and merely said that appearances
were certainly against her.
Further evidence having been given in support
of the allegations in the petition,

Mr. Justice Wightman said the Court was of
opinion the petitioner had fully established his case
by the evidence adduced before it. It was impos-
sible to doubt but that adultery had been committed
between Mr. Chichester and Mrs. Mure, more
especially when they were traced to Lincoln's Inn.
It would decree the dissolution of the marriage,
and condemn the co-respondent in costs.

HALL V. HALL AND WALKER.

This was a suit for a divorce on the ground of
adultery, instituted by Mr. Spencer Hall, against
his wife, Elizabeth Hall. The parties were mar-
ried at Radford, in the county of Nottingham, in
1835. The husband was a lecturer upon scientific
subjects, and occasionally travelled about the
couatr7. They generally lived at Sheffield, and in
1845 circumstances of a suspicious nature having
arisen against Mrs. Hall, there was a dispute,
which resulted in a separation. The wife then
went to reside with her friends at Nottingham, but
she returned to Sheffield in 1848, and opened a
small stationer's shop, being assisted in the busi-
ness by her brother-in-law until 1852, when he
went to Australia. She then became connected
with the co-respondent, and they had lived to-
gether ever since as man and wife. An allowance
of 12s. a-week had been made by Mr. Hall to his
wife on the separation, and she had received it up
to the time she left Nottingham, when he paid her
a sum of money down on condition that she gave
up any further allowance. The adultery was fully
proved.
The Court thought that, from the evidence, the
petitioner was clearly entitled to a dissolution of
the marriage, and it therefore granted the divorce.
Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks appeared
for the petitioner.