Star.
London, England, 1831-05-27 00:00:00

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE.

AUSTRIA AND POLAND,
TEE LONDON TIMES AND THE JOVIUSAL DUI DEBAT..
From She Courier Fraucais.

The Journal des Debate cites some reflections of the
Times upon the odious conduct of Austria towards Poland,
reflections which we should say had emanated from the den
of some despot, rather than from the pen of an English
Journalist. The Times thinks that the Austrians have acted
conformably to the rights of men, not only in disarming the
Poles, but in delivering their arms to their enemies, and to
their former masters—the Russians; for the Muscovite au-
thorities had the right to the arms of the Pelee, considering
the arms as Russian property, viewing in the quality of sub-
jects the insurgent Poles—not being recognized as an inde-
pendent nation ; or alledging, that these arms would become
the property of the Russians, if Dwernicki had not found
an asylum upon the Austrian territory ! Whichever it may
be, the conduct of Austria cannot, according to the Times,
be regarded as a violation of the rights of neutrality. " We
have, unhappily, too many recent examples of the applica-
tion of that rule," adds that Journal, " to doubt of its being
applicable to the fact of which we speak."
The Times, which cannot prevent letting escape a word
of regret—one might say blame—in the midst of its appro-
bation, seems to be conscious of the poverty of its reason-
ing. What are, in fact, all the examples of the world
against principles ? We know very well that powerful
people never fail in means, of trumping up crime against
people of less power ; but in what manner can that vindicate
iniquity ? How dare any one support that it is not a viola-
tion of neutrality between two belligerents, to take arms
from the one to give them to the other ? Whoever speaks
of neutrality, speaks of parallel conduct towards two parties;
or the word neutrality is void of sense ; or, we will repeat a
question which we have already asked : would Austria have
disarmed the Russians, who had violated her territory ;
and would she have delivered their materiel to the Poles ?
No ; without doubt ; she has then, in the great quarrel, two
weights and two measures—preferences and antipathies ;
she is then benevolent for the one, and all ready to be hos-
tile towards the other ; there is nothing assuredly in such
conduct, which resembles neutrality. The case which we
have put, besides, is not an hypothesis. It is nearly proved
that in the circumstance which occurred, it was the Russian
General who first violated the Austrian territory, to force
his enemy from a position, where, counting upon a
veritable neutrality, he remained vulnerable on the
side of Austria. Thus, in this case, not only 4us-
_
it even approved and

recompensed the violation. And if we contrast the fact men-
tioned in the report of Dwernicki—as credible, at least, as
the account of the Russian General—another fact, which

has not been contradicted, and which we have already cited,
is, that the Russian soldiers freely found an asylum upon the
Austrian territory, to escape from the Poles; and that they
afterwards, when the danger was over, quitted their asylum
with arms and baggage !
Let Austria quit, then, this hypocritical character; let her
dare openly avow that she is disposed to aid the Russians,
and crush the Poles; and she will then prove that there is,
in her policy, as much want of foresight as inhumanity.—
With a system of policy loss narrow, less roundabout, with
a shadow of magnanimity, she would better understand,
at once, that which is admirable in the conduct of that
great people, whom she would assist to annihilate ; and
how much her true interests will be found compromised,
by the towering ascendency of the Russians, whom she
favors, blinded by ambitious designs. However, there is no-
thing which can astonish us on the part of Austria ; but,
it must be confessed, that we can explain loss easily, the
bad sentiments and bad logic of the Times. How can an
English writer dare to call the Ru_ skins the masters of the
Poles ? How can he say, that their arms are the property of
that master ? Is it that the Poles had no arms, when they
were ceded to Alexander ? And, besides, does not the Times
know that Poland has not been incorporated with Russia ?
That, even in that scourge of nations, formed at Vienna, in
the name of the kings, who call themselves avengers of injus-
tice,redressors of conquests, they did not dare to condemn Po-
land to the ruthless yoke of a despot ? It was a kingdom,
united to an empire ; but to remain itself, was it not to be
governed by separate laws—to be submitted to a constitu-
tional regime ? What a miserable subterfuge to say, that
Austria must give up the arms, which would have become
the property of the Russians, if the frontier had net been
there to save them; if that principle is true, it must be
equally applicable to the men who would have become pri-
soners, if their arms bad been taken. Austria dared not do
this; she would have incurred universal indignation;
she has confined her: elf to an act which will excite less cla-
mour; but which is not less a flagrant act of violation of
neutrality. Alas ! these are the scandalous doctrines—the
pitiful reasonings —of the Times, which the Journal des
Debats cites with such satisfaction, as having an authority
for its fooleries. The opinion given by the Englishjournal,
is that which we have expressed ourselves—it says, "we
are happy to find in the identity of its doctrines a ju,tification
of the principles which we professed upon that question."
Certainly, this happiness is not great ; and that joy which
the Journal des Debats expresses, in having encountered a
second, proves better than any thing else, how bad the
cause is which it supports. It comprehends, too, all that
which is odious. "We could not console ourselves," it
says, " with having taken part against courage and mis-
fortune, if the rights of man had not made us perform a
rigorous duty." We feel in these words the remorse which
pierces it, or at least the fear of blame. There is a justice
in this world—it will not allow a bad action to pass with
impunity ; and it is a bad action to league with the oppres-
sors of a great nation.

awn"' 13wsult was "vim a Win 1" ualiuli—.luw was sloe OI amine. anus, in inis case,
never be purchased at too high a price is money. Whether tria had not observed its neutrality, but it