The Express. — London, England, 1847-03-17 00:00:00

It suer istisertant that inquiry should be made berme them weeas =atom of public assay which might tam eat to be feed Mr. COWPER said that upon a most careful examination of the harbour, it was found that it would give BB semi of good anchorage ground. EXPORT OF CORN FROM PORTUGAL. • Lord J. MANNERS having renewed his question as ga whether the Portuguese government had probihlteil rhe "non nd r r to l. RUSSELL said that, on looking over the despatches on the subject, he found tly.t there was a decree of the Portuguese government at Usbon prohibiting the ex portation of eonn until it should he the pleasure of the government to revoke that decree. There was also a decree admitting • certain quantity of corn to be imported into Portugal. PROTECTION OF FEMALES. Mr. SPOONER roes to move for leave to bring in a bill for the more effectual suppression of trading in seduc tion end prostitution, and for the better protection of females —a bill which, he aid, was called for by the petitions of 10,000 persona. After a few remarks from Sir G. GREY and Mr. C. BEILIZLIIT, Mr. Srooxisa said he would defer his motion to a future day. . SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. On the motion of Mr. M. GIBSON. the following select committee we' appointed to consider the circumstances under which • certain document was printed by order of this house, purporting es be the report of the select committee of last semen, appointed to inquire whether, without discouraging legitimate enterprise, conditions may net be embodied in railway acts better 'fitted than those hitherto inserted in them, to promote mid secure the interests of the public Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Goulbarn, Lord John Roma Mr. Morrison, Mr. Hodson, Sir George Grey, Sir George Clerk, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. George Hamilton, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hums, Mr. Chaise Russell, Sir John lialthope, and Mr. Baring. FACTORY BILL. Mr. DENNISTOUN claimed the indulgence of the house for a few moments on the subject of the Factory bill, which stood for a third reading to-morrow (this day). The mann. funning interest had been overwhelmed with surprise at the majority of votes in favour of the bill, and had taken no steps whatever in the matter. Yesterday he r.ceived a communi cation from an influential bid,' of his constitnenta in Glas gow, which he believed was likely to meet the Mews of all parties. He had submitted that proposal to the loble lord at the heal of the government; but, it was ImpleMie to ob tain the minima epee le et the meeedeareelle et Merakester and other places in time kr te-meereele isaaalee e be had to ask the noble lord wheMer be dead that emegeeal of mitficteet importance *dole be seemiltege - die has. member fur Oldham he peeigeee the hi% se et to glee time for obtaining the urbane fifths meaalbelerera Lord J. It IjS.S.r..LL said that MAE& tlesnan had sub mitted to him a peopled which he asetefisad likely to meet the Meow of these whir mere in lamer of a Ten Hones 1101 on the one side, while In the other it maid prove lea Me Minable in the epee: lbe enema ireanwheterers. He (Lod J. Ewan) mold Wray thee dr peepesal appeared to him to be feasible ; but Mm epleien apes Or &gest was vat entitled to much weight without emembilmg the meendee turas as to the effect of the proposal egrasikele merbilsay and ether operations. (Hear.) He soul we elk the Ina oteerker for Oldham to pietism the meatus, these.' he del ' Net Imre if such a comes wield rasa with the append of the house • lea he eertaindy dereld wish earl peeled la • form calehMi he ark* her parties- (Hear.) Hr. AGLIONBY Odom sum te ea the bill) had se Memo dale lies.assibee oiam, "motet la the er edam et lib bee. elm mom to Olegier s sleben& le left eseeeered I. the lobe et Ale I noble bed, that there ehoeht be as harraonleee of thalgeartion. He only regretted that the ebb km Wad, and whisk *end& lord considered net brew= no& Mr. =NZ weeks &lig time for the consideration el the pemeesl, after ilhe adds 'e declaration of its *pew twee. Mr. HINDLEY described the difficulty *private member bad to sueounter in carrying a bill through that house, and thou it most unreasonable to expect the hon. member for Oldham to give way when that difficulty wu on the point of being surmounted. Mr. BORTH WICK protested against the form and sub• stance of this proceeding on the part of the member for Glasgow. Dr. BOWRTNG defended the course pursued by that hon. gentleman, who had done ever" thing that could have been expeded of him. Mr. ERRANDF said that the only way to get rid of the difficulty was by passing the bill as it now stood. If the house refined to do so, an' extensive agitation would be the consequence. The operative classes had observed that the Anti-corn-law Lingo* had, by agitating, carried their point, and were determined to exercise a similar right, and obtain a ten hours bill. The subject here HEAD TA e tPON EMIGRANTS. Lord G. BENTINCK inked if there were any truth in the report that it was in the cor.templatioa of the government of the United States, or of the state of New York, to impose an import-duty of 51. a head upon all 'mignon' from this country ? Viscount PALMERSTON said, with regard to the question put to him b his noble friend, be could only state that the government had no information that any such duty as he had mentioned was about to be imposed. There had been some dissuasion in Congress on the subject, but nothing had been done so faro they were aware of. CRACOW.--ADJOURNED DEBATE. Sir J. WALSH wished to consider, first, whether we bad the legal right to discontinue the payment to Roans, alluded to in the motion before the house ; and secondly, whether it would be, according to the law of nations, consistent with our national dignity, or politic, to do so. According to the terms of the motion, it would appear that the payment of a certain sum was the condition of the adherence of Russia to the treaty of Vienna; whereas the conveation of 1831 was net necessarily a part of the arrangement between Russia and England but only ex planatory and supplementary , n and it created no new obliga tion. What was the o• • treaty of May, 1815, and what were the obligations of England with reference to Holland, for she took on herself the obligations of Holland? What were the obligations Holland owed to Russia ? The Donn deratiou for which Holland agreed te pay this sum was the restoration of her independents. The right hon. baronet the member for Tanya,* red a think that M. Guinot in a despatch of his had amerted the doctrine that the viola tion of a treaty by ems power was an absolution of all the other partial to it; bet be (Piz. J. Walsh) thought that from the terms of Ihe dispatch, M. Oulu" meant no mare time that Peruse might have taken such a course. If they weeds tie the audio et the hon. member for Montrose they wadi be peeetieelly adopting that tours, end be that benly le plena. The next point to whisk he vWi le advirtorna ens on which he must expo* te en ewarilar an wham floolkos both in that house awl out of deem. The right kam. baronet, the member for Temmorth, expressed a Oren egisien se to the necessity of a Meta like Kees 'd affording pielegien to the weaker ewes dferope. !=id with the right lien. gentleman, and wadi add, wr est it wines eutfall states to eet cm tiraliey it wee lite espenielitlimmt et le de so. Mit be admitted dila pried* to the extent, be Todd ray that thine wren the pert either weehmrshites a reciprocity et dung. "Ed they ware bound to possum a strict neutrality and net le give mesh premendet to stronger stake as would moire an Mimi ssidiniten. It w clear that Cracow was the sent M • erena, • Needy, and at the IMMO time • herdies inefir On the whole, he thought the Um. formboir for Illasemo (Mr. Hume) had wholly failed marks ewe hie mew and bean this, he was not dupcwed, madman the eiremiemses attending the matter, to rest a creme spun her =7;: d government. He should there. Owe weft with the at the head of the government Inttur of his enaememist—the previous question .- Lord R. TANK thought the ispanenti which had MO addremSl to the home by his Roble friend the usseelm the the My of Lem* (Lead J. Russell), on the ftstalght et the deb* cot the greettlem sow before the hew, waft emelosive se to the basnaltheaftwitit the dignity andwidom of piths** whisk *di MN *OM the adoption of the.. remolutiont, sakes it was irissied to follow them bi t ot ii r active ..era= than the t of this sum to Hr. WORTLEY MR, is Mt a considerable ES *thy with regard to tame osesistioos. He hated the =titthe previews smellea wadi be zeismiseteed He was **cod, of ea:silting *0 best antherities, that this cowatzy was In a position to left Mem togs, if it *we to do ea, of the act of the time potram in osier to refute the payee* of the Roam-Duleh km. I* if this set were aot a visit* of the Seel, orllbmea, ft was sash a departure do. the ossmation e.. *Me the Suety was tressital. se to am** to as bildapftsft of the spirit of that treaty. Re deist that by the ementlem hated to, the paymeat at *a IftromDmeli lose bed Woo oderteken as as equivalent ere bar of the Dutch mho* haw coiled to us, as bad bets represented by the boa. as for Southwark Mir W. lishoworth )) . So !sr hem ' that, this **try was in pomeelts of all tbom;ftisolse right of eeagart ; but the whole of them, eft* 101 ha restored Hafted, aft of friendship to the Homo of Onage. The omponstion to Russia had, iacir= ft the waiver by ho died powers of **is, and login*, of their deist up. Holland, be ism. of Reis, which bed salved meet snerely by the straps of En*. The bommellie gad teamed rs.th read am* articles frees* semeations, in prate mil being 1 the fousidation of the elligatioa. Were it othendes, and wets the, view tabus by the boa. member for lftethwark wrest, the obligation meld aft have been voided, area if Russia had braes the sooty of Timm the nezteel oarand had *shed bet Wafts lima IX Potersburg to Pula . , hem) It* tam the ,MAW * of the four by Wood wee as *ft* ft the obligation ; but it was no ISO a essilain *Who this of Warms as then settled, *ell am be ilhitabei. Whoa the meats of 1831 led to the eepralka of Deighwe Irma Relhad, a fresh tics W hem setseed sal Wm* thiri country and ReZa a ., in Midi Yens spegOg ellguiesedl by the htter power that the elitelbs Everma - *.• in payment of the Moss Meth his *soft es**, es tendigen erßusia k mis u matiftig to bill her pet te the treaty. (Heer, hem) If my imbtaimid not la this bare • condition of Lito eammile, this ebilydloo, ti bed been set at rem by*. emompeadefte het kid ea the table of the beam by tho gromomsat Ice proof of this, the hoe. and heel *I ease antra* from this ecormgendenea, It sate tie tthe ha* deer by Russia to this army** that Wooed thmt ft aster into the stipule** bp tibia COasew was MAIM* as a has Note. England hod them Ave so debt to dap* hem bee pecuniary obligelims, be am ft me to emayßrßm of their p mess* of them a** that they W miertthen them. Thum was a Iftea of th e iwim by the smithery occupation of eflioOW big Owl Wa s tto it edvantege of how Rote* had flo the aria eftlotestial adhere* to the maim ref Me conthellint. It era hilgemible te my that 1 The inferno ';atra w e, obvious. Ha w ou ld venture to Implore the linty of Vision hod eltet_h•P.llealted- ha If ' , tithing ' the noble 'wed th e member TOI Tiverica to Mew %swat:vas 'teen thelodont to Poole that se mei keen , had only to eordialt foe the sake nth' interests of civilisation, of timer tie them he the isendent at the poetise themeelyee. Theee tinier, of public order, and of European peen ; not only in rem bb maim fee inglierffing the Mail resolution, but in pr natio* of acts ouch as that in queselinn, but also in 'gem th e In. genthman the Member for Montrose r sensation of that reaction which was now smouldering them nee nothing to be gained b y On to a division Irtterever there had been, or wherever there was, raisgovern the geth MA concluded by my th , that he would un• meat , which fleshed forth the other day from Genoa to the aspen Mass to call on them to see lend the payment of Apennines, and which, either Owe or elsewhere, would W RaseceDateb loan. blaze out into more serious demonetrations. The fact of the Mr. CHRISTIE said that with great deferent ',o the two great constitutional powers really and efficiently right hors. gentleman who had just sat down, he meat Ray acting together would be a better protest than the that he could not think that his historical 'Weren't had refusal to pay the debt ; and if the three power" materially altered the case before them. Th • question had, with their mimetic morality, attempted to seemed to be, whether RAJIV& having •.iolated the justify the course which the had pursued, England should treaty of Vienna absolved us floe. a payment still be able to say, " Though you have broken the moat of the money? There would be no'.ning " Mabby " important treaty that universal Europe ever settled, we in adopting the affirmative—the "aft abbinem " would will respect a conetructive understanding upon the merits rather be m holding our hand Wren we were enabled and obligations of which even publicists differ." (Cheers.) to inflict a punishment, however mall, on a great nation for Mr, DISR.tELI said that it was of some important*, in a great violation of the rights of tree a im er ( ear, hoar.) If discussing this matter, that they should agree what was not we were net absolved from the ' 4 sayment of the money, it the subject before them at this moment. The subject which would be reprehensible not to pay it, rather than " shabby." was not before them was the policy or impoliey of the parti (Hear, hear.) But he thournt that if the house passed tion of Poland—(hear)—because he had listeued to many such a resolution as that proposed by the honour- arguments and some bunts of eloquence which, uttered in able member for Itlontrore., they would be trenching 1772, would have been resounded to the credit of the ro house, on the province of the executive . He hoped the and have produced an effect. He lamented, as he believed honourable member for Montrose would feel satisfied they must all lament, that the independence of Poland with the strong expression of feeling which his resolution had had ceased. He reopened the downfall of Poland called forth, aiti: . = his motion to a division in which as an independent state, and chiefly' because he cen se many who s • with him would be compelled to sidered that it was to the interest of England that she vote against it.T ear i , beer.) should have continued to exist as an independent power. Mr. W. S. O'BRIt-.N belonged to a country which had (Hear, hear.) At the same time, he could well understand been deprived of its nationality by means scarcely less nefa- why, as the hon. member for Pomfret had said, and as his *ions thaw these wnich had been employed with reference to hon. friend the member for Canterbury had intimated, that Poland. When the noble lord the member for London there was a more ardent feeling in favour of the independ (Lord J. Russell) said that England had violated no tr. sty. ern of Poland in Refit than in this country ; for though it ancient or modern, he would recall to the noble was en English interest that Poland should remain an inde lord's memory the treaty of Limerick, and the pendent power, it was much more a French interest. But if violation of the compact of 1782. He was surprised, how- there was any assembly in Europe which should be the last ever, to find that any man could say, as the noble lord the to criticise the partition of Poland by the three partitioning member for Lynn had done, that the treaty of Vienna had not powers, it was the English parliament. Before that part been violated by the transactions which were the subject of timing took place, the then English Secretary of State for debate. Nothing was so clear as the declaration of the in- Foreign Affairs was aware of what was in contemplation. dependence and nationality et Cracow in the treaty of He was in communication with the court of France on the Vienna. He trusted the time would come when Great subject, and the court of France offered to unite with Eng- Britain, united with France, would be able to indict land to prevent the proposed partitioning. The minister who re a just tribution upon the head of every oppreasor, and then presided in our Foreign-office was second to none re-echo the sentiment expressed by a great French states- who had succeeded him in his knowledge of continental man, that " the nationality of Poland is imperishable."— affairs. But what did the Parliament of England do ? On (Hear, hear.) the very eye of the partition they turned that minister Mr. B. &SCOTT rose to support the resolutions of the out of office. The consequence was that Poland was pasti hon. member for Montrose. It appeared to him that there tioned, and France, who had offered to unite with us to [ were two questions before the house. The first was whether prevent it, became our most inveterate foe in the affair of r the home ought or ought not, by affirming the resolutions, the North• American Colonies—and the very vote which to add its condemnation to the condemnation already pro- prevented the partitioning of Poland resulted also in the loss flounced by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and in the of our American colonies. It was argued that in the ab stretch front the throne, of the flagrant v iolation of the treaty sorption of Cracow by Austria an important treaty had been of Vienna by the three powers; and the second question was violated. But how stood the history of the case ? At the whether, after the violation of the treaty, they ought to con- commencement of the struggle, which resulted in the treaty tinue to pay a Inge sum of money to one of these powers, in question, the city of Cracow was an Austrian town— which, in the opinion of many, was only to be contingent on during the progress of that struggle it became • Saxon town, the observance of the treaty. He was content, with respect subsequently it became once more • Polish town, bat at the to the first question, to rest the vindicatiun of the honour of same time • protected town—(gar, bear)—and from the country on the honest, clear, and vigorous MUMt of the th e momen t i t became a protected town it had been noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. (Hear, hear) occupied at various periods by the military forces With respect to the other, they were not only bound to es- of the protecting powers—its constitution had been modified press en opinion, but they were obliged in his judgment to and changed—the original privileges of those protecting express that opinion the more strongly after the speeches of powers had been extended, and even so far as (under certain his right boo. friend the member for Bute and the hen. condition') to an interposition with its police, had been corn member foe Weymouth. His right hon. friend the member pletely, or rather amply exercised. The result was, that for Bute had shown in a man clear and convincing speech, after a period of more than half • century, Cracow had be that the money was not due, that the conditions on which come again an Austrian town. This was really the historic it was to be paid had been violated, and yet he came to the statement to which the treaty as to Cracow referred. It bad weak conclusion that he would vote for its payment. nothing to do with partitioning of Poland. (Hear, hear.) (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the member for Lynn, of all It was easy to talk as the hon. member for Bolto n h.;d done those who supported the payment of this money, was the of the injured rights of 20,000,000 of human beings—but only one who did so on clear and intelligible grounds, did t h ey live in Cracow or in suburbs ? (Hear, hear) Did for his argument was, that the three powers were forced to the hon. member appeal to the rights of those 20,000,000 as act as they had done under an imperious necessity. He could not understand how those, who admitted that the being defended and secured by the treaty of Vienna ? Was that the only ground of their right to political independence treaty had been violated without any necessity, and that the and social freedom ? (Hear.) Yet this was the tone in payment of the money depended on its observance; could which gentlemen indulged in that house and in other plasm vote for its payment. (Hear, hear.) Then there was a in speaking of this important subject. Deprive it of their grave constitutional question whether the House of Com- sympathies and associations, and the question would ammo mons was competent to discuss the question. The noble lord, • very different aspect. It was needy 80 years Moos Pohlad the member for London, said they had no right to debate it. was partitioned—that was more than a quarter of the period and after that he argued that they ought to pay the money which historians considered the epoch of modern history— to Rusna. On rending the noble lord's speech, he and during that time England had lost her colonies; France found that the first part of it was a decisive answer to the had been revolutUnised ; the Continent had been conquered ; last part of it. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord said that the Ireland had been united to England; and important events question of pounds, shillings, and pence was a mean one. had taken place subsequently to these great affairs, which The only honest way of looking at the question was were still fresh in the minds of all present, and to which as one of pounds, shngs, and pence. The question of some of them owed their seats in that assembly which now honour depended upon that. He did not think that tad to itself the right to deal wit h the acts 7,000,0001. should be scandalously thrown away—or, worse t in nations. The partition of Poland had than that—given as hush-money, and paid through a servile ceased to be a political catastrophe; it must now be regarded fear. (Hear, hear.) The plea of honour was nonsense, as an historical fact. (Hear, hear.) It appeared, however, ' (Hen bear.) The plea of - honour depended on the justice that two great powers had protested that there had been a ,of the debt. And until the minister preyed the justice of violation of • treaty, to which they were signatories, in re -1 the debt, the pl ea . of honour could not be maintained. speet to this town. England and France, by the months of (Hear, hear.) ne next argument was that they should pay two most able minister', had protested that there had been this money on account of the colonies. Even if that such • violation, by the three continental powers, of that were so, were they bound to pay it to Russia ? This was a great question of coortientionol policy. The late treaty as would shake the title-deeds of all Europe ; and a member of the English parliament now celled upon the house Prime Minister quitted office not on account of any to re-echo and respond to that protest, and, by taking advan of the liberal 'themes which he propounded, but because tage of certain other treaties in existence, to punish one of in an evil hour he laid his hand on the constitutional fiber- those three powers for the alleged violation. This he thought ties of one portion of the United Kingdom. The noble lord was then at the head of the government might find by experience a fair and true statement of the case. (Hear.) The hon member for the University of Oxford had said the other that a man's foes were in his own household, and that his bast friends were not to be found amongst his servile fol- evening that every hon. gentleman was pledged by the address, in answer to the speech from the throne at the open lowers. (Hear, hear.) ing of the session, to the opinion that there had been a Mr. SMYTHE (who spoke in so low • tone that his mean- manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna. He denied that, ing was often doubtful in the gallery), said it was scarcely because the reference in the speech to this matter had been possible for any man hi hold that as a mere matter of Mel , allowed to pass almoat without comment, that therefore they candle and commercial fairings, this country was net re- were pledged to the opinion that the treaty of Vienna had sponsible for the debt in question. But though he enter- been violated. It was a principle of public law which he tamed an opinion different from that of the hon. member believed no one could refute, that the violation of a particular for Montrose, he had not formed it without some treaty inserted In • general treaty was not a violation of that misgivings. The noble lord (Lord J. Russell) had laid general treaty. (Hear.) He put forward this principle as it down with all the gravity which belonged to a great con- br oa dly as words would permit him, for he was not aware of atitutional question, that discumions on matters of foreign any exceptions to a principle which he believed to be of the policy were seldom of any practical advantage; and this he greatest importance. He asked the house to look well at had illustrated by reference to thou annual protects in favour the case of the peace of Westphalia, which they had been of Polish nationality in the French chambers, which, to use told by the noble lord the member for Hertford they ought a Preach proverb, were " hke mere sword-thrusta in the to look to as a model in this matter In that case the sup water." It was impossible not to feel the value of the plemental treaty bad been inserted in the general treaty, counsel and the warning; it was impossible not to remember and that called up one of the most remarkable and etriagent how little had been done in favour of Poland by all the de- guarantees in diplomatic records. The parties to the sup clarations of sympathy which had been made; it was im- plemental treaty had submquently ' a plied to the signotaries partible for some of them not to recall that truth which was of the general treaty, and alter full • a, and reference wrung from the dying agonies of Poland after the Maumee- to the highest authorities in Europe, it was decided that the I tion of 1831, and had since grown into • proverb, "God is violation of the subsidiary treaty was not a violation of the too high, and France is too ter, " But if Frame were too general treaty. The case was precisely 'inlay to the pre-1 far, England, morally and political l,y, as well as Phi- sent. The free cities of Germany had been guaranteed poll catty, was farther still ,• and, like Prince, they not been tical rights by the treaty of Ornabruck, which was guaran connected with Poland by that long confraternity, now of teed by the treaty of Munster. The free cities, being deprived triumph and now of misfortune, which had knit the noun- of those rights, called upon the sienotaries of the general trier together from theidays of the Valois, down to the days of treaty to do them justice and to fulfil their guarantee. After Napoleon. (Hear, hear.) If ever there was one country the most weighty arguments it was decided by authorities, bound to another, it was France to Poland ; if ever there second to none, that a violation of a treaty which had been was one country which had suffered for another, it was Poland inserted in the treaty in chief of Westphalia was not a viola for Fenn : if ever there was one conntri which was shoo- tion of the general treaty. The authorities were the Great ' doned by another, it was Poland by France. (Hear, hear.) Chancellor of Sweden, Ozenstiern , and Cardinal Mazarin. In • ...Wiper of contemporaneous history, it smiths old story He put this case as one of public law so clear, that over Wit of Athens and Platen. But although England he defied any man to controvert it. The congress which ' had net the same interest es Frame in this Cracow question, followed that of Westphalia was that of Nimeguen ; and he yet ha= d rs idas eethed flat It WY no unfit question the question of the efficacy of an inserted treaty in a general 1 the st of this those. (Hear, hear.) treaty was again opened in that cue, and decided by an (Hear, their.) If he understood the 'pint of the lion mem- authority not inferior to either of the two he had already be. for Montrose's resolutions, he maght not to interfere mentioned. The then King of Sweden, an ally of France , with or =harms the executive, batt to corroborate end oon- but a German prince, had attacked the dominions of the firm the protest of the noble lord the member for London. Elector of Brandenburg, and, when peace was arranged, If that noble lord brought the whole weight .1 his authority the elector refused to join in that peace unless he obtamed to prove that this was not • proper subject for the House of com p e nsation for the atta c k which had been made upon him Commons, another parson, scarcely second to the noble lord by the King of Sweden, whom he had defeated ; and he as a constitutional guide, had said in a noble image, that the appealed to the stipulations of the Westphalian treaty, pulse of Europe beat according to the impulse it received and to the King of France, who was the ally from the parliament of England. (Hear, hear.) He thought of the King of Sweden, as a signator y . of that they would be wanting in their duty if they failed to express, treaty. That King of France was Louts XIV., net perhaps their indignation, but at least their regret at a sovereign whose character was now better understood than such an inauspicious and untoward neat; and if anything formerly, and who, though • king, was, betides, the greatest could enhance their regret at the act itself, it would be minister of his time—and he replied to the Elector of Bran- I the manner in which it was defended. (Hear, hear.) It denburg "It is true the King of Sweden has violated the , was surely • melancholy thought that that Print Metter. treaty of Ornabruck, but we cannot admit that the violation nth whose name for nearly half a century had been a of an inserted treaty is any violation of the general treaty, ' synonym. throughout Europe for good faith; whose m a p/ and if you refuse to join in the peace peopled, I will march anise adjustment and honourable compromise was stain an army into your territory and compel you." There was =their century , should at the close of a long and • us- &isotherm.. to which England herself was a party, and he career , hove been connected with so Coalmen a called their attention especially to this precedent thequet—(hear, hear.)—with an acquisition where the es being complete and unanswerable—a precedent pin we. so inigaithant sad the lasso immeasurable ; where which would appeal to their prejudices as well the gain was a geographical atom, and the loss the mantels- as their reason. (Hear.) The congress which followed men of Europe. (Cheers.) There was no one of the ar that of Nimeguen was that of Ryserick. Louis XIV. rangemente, so one of the stipulations, which dated fromthe having to restore the Palatinate which he had conquered Mot governments of 1816— not the Germanic Confeders- made it a condition in his negotiation in chief that the (na tion itself; not the Italian dominions of the House of Aintria, Mined religion of the Palatinate should be maintained. not Venice, not Genoa, not Prune which had gained more William 111. of England, at that time the head of the Pro by peace than she ever gained by war, not the kingdoms of t ee t an t interest , consente d. But it turned out that the este- Hanover and the Netherlands--there was no one of the blished religion of the Palatinate, since its subjection by arrangements that dated from that :period which was one L ou is XIV. was the Roman Catholic; and the Princes whit more sacred than that of Cracow. (Hear, hear.) Nay, of Germany rose and end, " What, is the Palatinate—the as if by a prescience that this small state would become the birth-place and the cradle of the Protestant religion—which battle-field between might and right, between liberty and religion was secured to us by one general treaty, to force, its independence and liberty were guaranteed by a which the King of England was a party, now to greater number of articles than any other stipulation which become the centre of the Roman catholic faith ? " had formed the subject of treaty. (Hear, hear.) Now one We call upon you, the aignataries in chief to the peace of word about the manner. Was there ever anything more Westphalia, to come forward and vindicate onr rights." rude, more abrupt, more unlike diplomatic usage, more un What was the answer of the King of France ? He said, like Prince Metternich, than the mode in which thisnolence " Your only right is to appeal to the diet of Germany. This was consummated ? It was only in fable thatthey could find a is a domestic and municipal question. It has been decided paralleL Like Semiramis, who suckled Ryon, and then before, that an included treaty touches only the signatories debauched him, the three powers had suckled Cracow then of that treaty, and not the signers of the genera treaty." debauched it, and then destroyed it. And why did ' they What happened then ? It was refund to William 111., destroy it ? If no one bad stated the cause in tkat debate, who said that such had been the recognised public law of there were none who did nokknow it. It was not events in Europe for 70 years. He decided that the violation of an Cracow which had led to that result, but events in London, asserted treaty was not a violation of the general treaty, Paris, and Madrid. (Hear, hear, hear.) History would end that yen mould not call upon the signatories of that ge reseed all the pains and penalties, and all rho per- neral treaty in any other way than you could call upon the minion borne by this hostage in the hands of cab- signataries of all general treaties. He had understood the ether whenever a conflict should arise between the right hon. gentleman the member for Tarnworth to ask what powers of Europe. It was known in 1836 was the nee of declaring that these annexed treaties to the Catena were dffilerences between England and Prance on pin ipal sot of the Congress of Vienna had precisely the the 'abject of Spas. In the beginning of 1836 theme diffn ewes beoe as if they were inserted in the treaty, if they had I =NO came to a di. On the 18th of March it thatpliq net the same force. He (Mr. Disraeli) at once admitted 11 .•,____Thiers, In a thithlike to M. Sebestrani , lornMiterelsool that th ere was no distinctson between an annexed and an 1_„'•"•••• ... ,_sda••• p••__lh• three Powell had be thetheneeth Meseta treaty. He knew of no instance in which such a 1 s "" t•tarlf tMa *MY dart beim Meow hllli lath thellanien could be made. But the question was, eles a7: 1 •41:11 : 11 'V 2 • 1"11814 I :lol l4bis tualle h 6 a ele. wee the force m an e d t thatPaf,ll.= tre aty h be a r tell esetl a 11111111111, be that If aa hthemte ham be- kat ago. It had always been held, and the nobis them Oa We gnat etheelhatithall sennteies MI athied. the lord and the right hon. gentleman had wisely acted 1.61"."1.1 of °ne w sea" him bun nelaattad- on the principle , that if a particular treaty was in (Hem, hem) Aessedlag to the ansionla, the l4llt of cab - sorted in • gensialltreaty, the signatories to the general "hie pat was taught hi • stable. by ac tentatar. treaty were not to be called upon by any sismataries to the a arm bilwma a nun and • hens i the meaning of the particular treaty, in case that treaty was violated Nobody le g s" Id "' *et when you cannot employ eadmea there pretended that there was any power by such a treaty with =meet employ terms; that where you do not no your to Poland to have called upon France or England to there you mum me year hoots. He believed that if !eg trfere. Neither Russia, Austria, or Prussia' bad called en Mtheate understanding between the two 000stlentional an monis@ had continued to upon France or England to interfere. (Hear, hear.) Who the three powers would men had called this i Where upon is coun tr y to interfere . was Iwo CW4I" their loads b=t l of their hoe& (Hear.) their locus stets& for interfering ? If there were any '~ . -..~5..y..~._ THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 17, 1847. tr = the argment of the e i gist has. gentleman the I sote kw %Newer*, sal the groestd was cut from under Washy the hut that Aare wea s Sl covenants about CeacowmadPviendleithegeneral independent ofin anted treaties. Itewoeld settle could he bring idea forward a lie& resedeat ist whisk the general signers of a treat had been celled *pea to gin their reciprocal ratifies lion (as Hen did is the general treaty of Vienna) to parti cular treaties, in which the same form had not been fol lowed. The principle of public law upon which it depended, was ',lsar, stringent, mid intelligible. Upon their own ad- Walton the particular treaty was part of the general treaty. That was the foundation of the argument of the right hon. gentleman. When you read the general treaty of Vienna, you read the treaty upon Poland ; and he asked the noble lord to tell him when he had a general treaty placed before him, in which there were two series of covenants upon the Fame subject, end coached in precisely the same words, what was the rule of law upon which he would decide, if called upon to interpret that treaty. The rule had been settled, and was this—that for an interpre tation you must look to the original and authentic lustre meat. If by the principal act of the treaty of Vienna you were called upon to decide upon the rights of Cracow, or the duties of the three Polish powers, would you not go to the original stipulation in the superior instrument embodied is that treaty 1 (" No!") Some bon. gentlemen might come down there to Tote, after punt= resolutions at the Free masons' Tavern calculated to lead the country into a war. (Cheers.) But let him tell them, that unless their opinions were founded upon knowledge, and expressed in more decorous language than some phrases he had heard in that house, they would not be assisting their clients, or maintaining the honour and integrity of the country. (Hear, hear.) He was prepared to establish his point by living witnesses, by statesmen in that house, and by the in strument under discussion. (Hear, hear.) He would ask how the noble lord and the right hon. baronet the member for Tamworth had both acted in the ease of Belgium (Hear, hear.) What was the conduct of the King of Hol land 1 He bad some knowledge of the law of nations ; but he was not a member of the House of Commons; nor liable to be influenced by meetings at the Free mesons' Tavera, where subjects were discussed by per sons who were wholly ignorant of them. (A laugh.) He looked to his legal rights. He did not appeal to Europe and say that the treaty of Vienna had been violated. He knew very well that he was in a position to gain his legal rights, but that equitable assistance he could not look for. He held his kingdom by the final act of the congress of Vienna. All the stipulations were inserted in that es re spected Cracow and Poland; but they were stipulations merely quoted from the original instrument to obtain the ' moral interference of the signataries of the general treaty. The King of Holland - did not appeal to the treaty of Vienna, but looked to his original treaty— to the authentic instrument—to the inverted treaty. What did they do ? The Kiog of Holland appealed to the two courts of Prussia and England, the powers which had made him King of the Netherlands, and a conference was called with the sanction and advice of the right hon. gentle man, as also of the noble lord opposite. What was the next step ? It was immediately discovered that, according to the principles of publie law France must be appealed to, and she was called on to ful fi l the duty devolving on those powers which had signed the general treaty, namely, to give her advice and mediation, and to do everything in her power to bring about an adjustment. It was in that character that France interfered in the affairs of Belgium. His noble friend near him had noticed that precedent, which touched the right hon. member for Tamworth so closely. and yet the right hon. gentleman took not the slightest no tice of it in the course of his speech. He never once alluded to the use of Belgium. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Disraeli) would ask the noble lord opposite, did he mean to adopt the same course ? Would he deny his protocols ? (Hear, hear.) Would the noble lord have recourse to the archives of the Foreign-office, and bring out the secret despatches to Sweden, the hurried meassges to Portugal or would he name the plenipotentiaries who had assisted h im in this agony of European politica ? (Hear, hear.) Was the treaty of Vienna more infamous than that which gave Norway to Sweden? — and yet nobody alluded to the latter. The righthon. member for Tamworth, following up his definition of what be considered to be the intentions of the annexed treaty, had favoured them with his views as to what was intended in creating the free town of Cracow. The right hon. gentleman had said " he believed that the intention of the treaty of Vienna was, that Cracow should have liberal institutions, and be a free and independent state." He (Mr. Disraeli) had no idea that the object of the great settlement of Vienna was to raise up a sort of normal political state, which, by its exam ple, limited as it was to nineteen square miles, should re generate Europe and prepare them for the constitutional privileges which the King of PruWa was at last about to con fer on his subjects. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentle man had also said that Lord Castlereagh recommended that the independence of Poland shouldhe preserved. Why, who could see anything but the most transparent irony in the observations of Lord Castlereagh on this point ? (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman had also said that there was in the treaty of Vienna an attempt to secure the :inde pendence of Poland. He (Mr. Disraeli) had always under rood the Emperor of Russia himself morbidly anxious to make Poland a kingdom. The language of Lord Castle reagh confirmed that opinion, but he mustbow to the autho rity of the right honourable gentleman. They had also been favoured with the opinions of the noble lord the member for Hertford ; and his account of the creation of Cracow as a free state was, that it was established on a principle of compensation: it was intended to compen sate France for the loss of empire, and England for the loss of some of her colonies. Certainly, it did seem to him that if the French people, when in the midst of their triumphs' had been told that, although they would ultimately be driven back to the Seine, they would still receive compensa tion in the establishment of a free state, 19 miles square, on a branch of the Vistala, they would have been very much astonished. This, too, from a noble lord who had been been Under-Secretary of State to no less a person than the Duke of Wellington. (Hear, bear.) The document* should be their guide in considering the matter, but, instead of them, they had been favoured with much diplomatic gossip. One gentleman bad said, " Never mind the treaties ; mind what was said behind the curtain. What did Prince Met ternich think of the treaty ?" Another gentleman had told them that he had been recently in Paris, and that IL Outset had informed him Prince Tslleyrand said so and so. That was not the way in which they should arrive at a conclu sion • they should look to the documents, and not pin their faith to what diplomatists said after dinner. He would remind the house of what was the rationale of the creation of Cracow. The Emperor Alexander was in military occupation of Wareaw and wished to keep it. The other powers of Europe were afraid he would be too powerful if he did so. Austria wished to keep Cracow, while Russia wished to preserve it indepen dent. The result was, as in many similar cases, a metro tensing, the Emperor of Russia himself proposing that it should be a free, that was to say a protected, town. It was accordingly made a free town. Thera remained a protected town, and Mayence a confederated garrison. Prince Met ternich was opposed to this arrangement, because he feared that the town would become a focus of disturbance to the ooun try, but the Emperor, his master, preferred a middle course. The end of thirty years' experience had proved the foresight of Prince Metternich, and Cracow had become an Austrian town, Russia having yielded to Austria that which had been the subject of so much hostile controversy in the Congress of Vienna—and yet they were told that this wu but evidence that the history of Poland was ended ; they were told that Cracow was a normal farm of political liberty ; end the noble lord, the member for Hertford, told them that she was so established as a compensation for the loos of part of the French empire. These were the specious improbabilities with which every man rose to spuk on a subject about which he would not speak the truth: some in the warmth of their feelings for Poland persisting in cohfeunding this city with Poland which had ceased to exist eighty years ago, and thou who were cognisant with diplomatic affairs would not meet the morbid feeling of that assembly, but agreed that the suppression of Cracow as vi:free city was the lest homage to Poland, and that by her extinction a blow had been struck at the liberties of Europe. Of all the insults ever offered to that unha land, and to that 20,000,1000 f men of whom the hon.stambr for Bolton reminded them, there was no insult so flagrant, or no contempt so bitter, as to say that the suppremion et a patty town by the three great powers was a homage to the 1111111ory of a great people. (Cheers.) He knew the died ventage he and others had to encounter when they expressed their opinions, owing to the conforion of ideas which existed as this subject. If he could divest the too fervid linagine den of the hon. baronet the member for Oxford of his fuel. by towards Poland, and persuade him, when he rose in that hone, that he was not the NOW panion of Kosciusko, he might take the same trugusalle part in this ens which he usually did. But this so** , socersiesd a •ong influence upon him, and he could net be made to believe that they were not adding another weed le the expired corpse of Poland. He (Mr. Disraeli) told the hon. baronet and those around him, who rose in that hones or on the brawling hustings of a tavern, not for the purposes of dimension, but to outdo each other in language most violent and policy most perilous, when they talked of those 20 millions of men, they cast a slur on that numerous race that had met a doom which they all acknowledged. They had heard of great nations, 20 minions in number ; but a rest nation was one which produced great men. It weasel by millions of population that you proved magnitudeefeimd a end when he heard of the partition of Poland, though le Englishman he regretted it, because it was injurious to hie own country, he had no sympathy with the nee that was partitioned. Let him remind those who were so loud at Freemasons' Hall that it wee jest one hundred years ago that it was proposed in Europe= partition another empire. Let them look at the eireene 'Maces of that nation of many races and many i and governed by a girl who, unprotected, had just m = the throne. Let them look at the conspiracy of Freaddirt te dethrone Maria Theresa, let them read the list of re ireh conspirators, at the head of which was the King of P. (Hear, bear.) Why was not Austria then partakes* end that young female dethroned 1 He was speeldng of that Austria which they had reviled, with the Malinke of whisk they were so unacquainted, and white they lmd se de twinned. He was speaking of that analog empire which they said was in a state of political decrepitude, but which he said was possessed of resources which in any exigency would astonish Europe and bails aU her advesseries. At that time of which he wee spea king, law was in a sere difficult position then in which she was now pissed. He asked why was ehe not then partitioned when Pelead was et the bead of a conspi racy to sever her demimiees. Let them a nswer that before they delivered themselves of sash rags of superficial rhetoric. He asked what preserved an ancient dynasty but her faithful population end her national character ? She was not then twenty =aliens, and yet this was she who baf fled Frederick of Prussia end France, and when that Poland which was always talked of as a victim in Europe, entered into a treaty with ecempirators who pampered the loot of that aristocracy that ultimately betrayed her he would ay to those who sympathised with Poland, he would say to tpl:t e hr. member for Finsbury, 'tie who bad se often rep that hos. member in inot , osu in which he showed his sympathy for the working population of England, he would ask him why be had rase thoughtlessly embarked in the cause of continental liberalism. No one who felt for the million but would hesitate to embark in a Mae the origin of which be did not comprehend„ eeen if he exhibited the same zeal as the hon. member for Finabury. What was the cause of this movement ? Was it the suffering people in Italy and is Spain that were the moving parties ? In every one of those countries there were relics of a subverted aristocracy, sub verted because they did not place themselves at the head of the people. Those were the men who were the real cane of the fall of Poland, and sot the great powers they denounced; those were the men who never supported the people, and who never showed any spirit except in opposing the clergy, who, in the very worst of times, were ...twigs the friends of the multitude; it was this subverted aristocracy that had raised this false cry in Europe and had appealed to its morbid punons. He had heard in the speech of the hon. member for Weymouth, in a passing comment on the pusedo.political feeling of the ilay, an expression of his regret at the massacre in Gallicia. What was the cause of it ? From what news paper did this hon. member gain his intelligence, from what agent of the expelled nobles hid be obtained his information ? They had been taught the most marvellous statements ; they had heard a sovereign denounced who had thanked his people for advocating his rights. He (Mr. D'lsraeli) had never been in Oallicia, but he had visited the Austrian States of Italy and others, and he could say that wherever there was that mysterious movement conducted by committees us foreign capitals, they would fiud that the people were rising against a subverted aristocracy, and he should be glad if every aristocracy that neglected its duty met with the same fate. It was these movements which agitated Europe. lie had before him a plunge in a work written on the Russian Empire by a great authority, Mr. Macgregor. (The hon. gentleman then read an extract from the work in question, to the effect that Posen and Galicia remained with addi tional privileges from Austria and Russia, and the popu lation and peasantry possessed many advantages. In Ruesian-Poland their condition wan more easy than it was under independent Poland) What was that condition? He would quote a passage which illustrated it from the work of a German liberal. (The hon. gentleman then read the passage in question, to the following effect, " that, in the year 1804, the Emperor Alexander issued edicts for the improvement of Livonia, and the serfs, although they were not to be immediately set at liberty, were to have fourteen yeas. to prepare for their emancipation. All the enslaved population was divided into classes, and one-fourteenth was emancipated every year. The punishment inflicted, and the labour allotted by the masters was fixed, and tribunals of the peasants themselves were established.") Could they he surprised to find that those who were thus made freemen instead of serfs should cling to that constitution, and flee from the aristocracies that were now thus patronized by some gentleman. Could they believe that a population which possessed its own tribunals would rise because there was a talk in Freemasons'-hall about the partition of Poland ? It was a movement of this kind which produced the affair of Cracow. He admitted that in his opinion the making Cracow a free town was a mistake That it wan a violation of a solemn treaty was an utter de lusion, and it was precisely those that encouraged this delusion who were endangering the peace of 'Europe. (" Hear, hear," from Lord George Bentinck.) He would now make an observation with reference to the proposition before the house. (Hear, hear.) The question brought forward by the hon. member for Montrose had already he, n several times before the house. In 1831 and 1832, it was more than once diacussed, and the government of that day, though pressed by an undisciplined mob of supporters, the slaves of economy—though pressed 'oy a no very scrupulous opposition—had the courage to resist the appeal made to it, and the then, as sow !Secretary for Foreign Affairs exhibitedtin resisting it, moral courage very habitual with him, and which, it was to be hoped, he would again display on the present oecisaion. Among the number of those who then supported the noble lord in his resistance, was the hon. member for Montrose—(" hear, hear," from Lord G. Bentiack)—who, at that time, gave his hearty vote in favour of continuing the payment to Russia. How the hon. gentleman could reconcile it to his conscience to have permitted so much money to have been paid away in the course of the fifteen years since elapses], with the views he had declared on the subject, was quits inexplicable. On the particular occasion itself, the hon. gentleman admitted that he sacrificed his conscience to his country—that he was ready to vote black white. (" Hear, hear," from Lord George Bentinck.) Now, how ever, the hon. gentleman had made a white speech, and was about to do penance for his juvenile error. The hon. gentleman, in conclusion, observed that none could be more ready or more rejoiced than he to admit the moral in fluence of that house upon the proceedings of other countries; but he would remind honourable gentle men that this influence was held by a delicate and refined tenure, and that its efficacy would never be in creased by Hudibrastic speeches and grotesque motions. If the counsels of that house were to be heeded elsewhere, they must be founded on knowledge and expressed in dignified language. (" Hear, hear," from Lord G. Bentinck.) Fulfil these conditions, and they might retain and exercise their moral influence ; but let it be ever exercised for the true benefit of Europe and the glory and reputation of England. Viscount PALMERf3TON—I shall, in the observations I have to make, confine myself to the particular subject of the discussion to which we have been called. This dis elusion divides itself into two points; first of all, whether the suppression of the free city and state of Cracow was a violation of the treaty of Vienna • and next, whether, under the circumstances of the case, N a extinction absolves this country from continuing the payment of the Rueao- Dutch loan. Notwithstanding the ingenuous argument which we havejust heard from the hon. member opposite, tending to show that this extinction of Cracow is no violation of the treaty of Vienna, I think I can have no difficulty in satisfying the house that the opinion expressed in the speech from the throne, and which is partaken by almost everybody in this house, with the exception of the hon. gentleman op posite and the noble lord who sits near him, is correct, namely, that this extinction wan a violation of the treaty of Vienna. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman who has just sat down has gone into a very ingenuous argument to thew, by reference to ancient transactions in Europe, and fortify. ing himself with grave authorities, that a treaty which inserted in another treaty does not necessarily bind the perdu to the treaty in which the insertion is made. I can concede to the hon. gentleman everything in this respect which I understand him to have contended for, and maintain that the ground on which we stand is in no degree shaken by that concession. I might go further than this, and acknowledge that, u to a single treaty, of which a number of parties ate guarantees, the failure of one party to execute his guarantee is held to ab solve the others from the obligation which has been created in that raped ; but the question here is,;not that which is dealt with in the hon. gentleman's argument, The question here is, not whether England or France is bound by any guarantee to take steps in consequence of the occu pation of Cracow,. but whether, in virtue of the treaty by which Cracow, was constituted a free state, and to which England was • party, we are not entitled to abject to the extinction of that city. (Hear, hear.) The question is, whether the extinction of Cracow is a vio lation of the articles of that treaty, and not whether such a violation binds the parties to the treaty to take any steps in consequence of its infraction. I put aside all the questions which have been nixed in the course of the debate, and because, in the present case, there was a separate treaty to which Russia, Austria, and Prussia were parties, and which was annexed to the general treaty of Vienna, the 118th article of which declares that the annexed treaty should have the same force and value as if it was an int eg ral part of the general treaty. But fortunately for my argument it is unnecessary for me to rely on the 118th article of the general treaty, because the 6th, 7th, Bth, and 9th articles of the general treaty itself contain everything that is essential to justify my assertion that the extinc tion of the state of Cracow is a violation of the stipu lations of that treaty. Expunge, if you like, the 118th article, but you cannot get rid of the 6th, 7th, Bth, and 9th article", to which all the contracting powers were parties, and upon these provisions I reassert that the extinction of the republic of Cracow is a violation of the articles, not of the annexed, but of the general treaty. (Hear, hear.) But it is said that this is only the record of a transaction which was independent of the general treaty, and to which England and Franca not parties. Thu I deny. (Hear, hear.) I say that the document to which I alluded in the early part of this evening, in reply to the question put to me by my noble friend opposite, records the whole proceedings of the Con of Vienna, and is contained among the state papers to , be found in the library of this house. (Hear, hear.) This document proves that England was a party to all the nee tiations and all those arrangements, of Europe which afterwards formed portions, not only of the general, but the annexed treaties, and especially in regard to Cracow. At the arrangements with respect to that state, England was duly represented, and had been a party to them. It will be seen, on reference to the third protocol of the conference at the congress of Vienna, dated the Bth February, that a commission was appointed to prepare a draft of the articles which related to the arrangements consented to and agreed upon by the and that communion oom prised the Earl of Clancarty, Barn Humboldt, and in short the representatives of all the five great powers. It appears further, from protocol No. 4, agreed to by the five powers on the 10th February, that the report of the commissioners was , read, and among the articles so drawn up by them was one constituting Cracow a free state, with a surrounding district. It appears also that Lord Castlereagh, writing to Lord Liver ' pool from Vienna, on the 13th February says this "Your lordship will receive inclosed the territorialarrangements fur Poland, Prussia (including Saxony), Holland, an Honorer. reduced into articles having been finally agreed to, and • signed by the five principal powers, and recerded in a pro tocol until they can find their place in a general treaty. I say, therefore, it appear. not only that the general treat to which England and France were parties contain stipulations with regard to the free state of Cracow, but from the docu ments to which I have referred it is shown that these ar rangements were settledat a conference to which England was • party, and that this conference and arrangements took place ' anterior to the conclusion of the separate trades which are considered as the instruments which determined that matter. I It is, therefore, I submit, perfectly plain that Cracow formed part of the stipulations to which England was a party, and it is a violation of the treaty that those arrangements should • he altered without the consent of the oontracting parties. (Hear, hear.) But we are told that similar things have before been done in instances in which England has been partly concerned. The hon. member for Bhrewebury had stated that, with r ega rd to Belgium, the arrangements of • the treaty of Vienna had been departed from, and that Bee t land had been a party to that infraction. Now I am net quite sure if I understood correctly the observations of the r hon. member as to that point. I understood the hon. mem ber to sta sn te d that only gy for ad of ce ui the Nedthasii.erlantandscea, and that to applied , Austria r *IMO end England only came forward aft, .- that lint ... rto the other powers I have named Now 1 will the house to ths first protocol n o t he cant', react held en question, a protocol which was nt inv.,' hy me, but by Earl of Aberdeen. This protocol recce- 4 % the manner he the subject of the Netherlands was brooght under the esnaideration of the five powers; viz., France, Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, on the Iwo Norember, MO. It states that his Majesty the King - f the Nether lands, having invited the fire great power. I have named, ha their character of signing powers, not of ~,y inserted or "operate treaty, but of the treaties of Par's and Vienna, which established the kingdom of the Netherland', to deli. berate in concert with his Majesty ~‘ to the best omens of putting an end to the, disturbemne which had taken place in his k‘iiedom. Here there was no inserted treaty. The tr, ity of Paris bears date 1814—that of Vienna 1815: and aby was it that them five great I,owers were alone the path, :. to whom the emotion was ref rred ? Why, because the ling of the Nis therLods mooted and made an appeal to to. m in order to settle disturbances and differences which hail taken place in his territory. The appeal was made, not to the three but the five powers by whom the kingdom of the Nether lands had been constituted, and by whom the separe•mn which took piece was effected. That separation was in ...rim conformity with the stipulations under which the kingdom had been constituted. The noble lord opposite (Lord G. Bentinek) bad assumed that to this arrangement the live powers did we, for a considerable time, agree,—that the arrangements,' to the partition of the Netherlands was ma i , originally by France and England only, and that it was o..iy after a time that Kuria, Austria, and Prussia agreed to that which had previously been arranged. But if the nol.:e lord would look at the treaty of the 15th November, 1 , 31, he would find that the arrangement under which Belgium and Holland had been separated was signed by all the five powers on the same day, and that one power agreed to it as soon as another. I say, therefore, that it appears to me lobe ' perfectly dear, from the documents to which I have appealed, I that the extinction of Cracow as a free state, and its annexe lion to Austria. is a manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna. (Hear, hear.) But then I may he lake.', if such is lay opinion, why I should feel any hesitation in acceding to the proposal of my hononralile friend the member for Montrose to record that opinion as a resolution of this house. The ground oa which I objeet to do this has already been stated by my hon. friend at the head of the government. That ground was, that if thin house did take up the foreign affairs of this country, and come to resolutioas of such grave importance as that now premised, it is not fitting that such resolutions affecting foreign powers should be passed unless it was intended that they should be followed up by some more active and decisive measures. It would not be consistent with the dignity of the house or the honour of the country to allow such resole dons to paw without following them with I ...her proceed loge- (Hear, hear.) We hare already sta-e.l our opinion that, in the ease of Cracow, the treaty of Vi. nos has been violated, and in the name of her Majest2, the executive government has communicated to the parties concerned, as well as to the house, to protest against the proceeding. It is justly argued that an acknowledgment li, , his house ora speech from the throne leaves the house perk-oily unfettered as to the course it should pursue. But, on if., other hand, it was said by my noble friend (Lord J. Russell), the dimes of the house on any passage of a speech is a eutficient acqui escence in the views which it propounds. Believing, there fore, that this motion is unnecessary, it is ins intention to move "the previous question" upon ills first rem tuna'. It is a resolution which it is impossible for me, with the opinions I entertain on this subject, to meet by a direct negative—(loud cries of " Hear, hear, from the back ministerial beuche- , --and I shall, therefore, propose that the question be not put. But then comes the second resolution. Admitting that there has beta a violation of treaty, does that violation rel, rso this country from its obligations to pay the Russo-Dutell loan? My opinion decidedly is that it does not. (Hear, hear.) I think that if members will only look at the conventions either of 1815 or of 1831, it will be clearly shown to them that the extinction of the state of Cracow would tint justify um in impending our payments on account of that loan. Let us bete at the origin of the engagement ? At the end of the war it was generally allowed that the greater powers of Ea sego, which had made the rester sacrifices to ).ring the warto la conclusion, ought to receive some compensation from the entailer powers, which were materially benewiied. Now, an sovereign was more benefited by the result ot the war ltan the then prince sovereign of the Netherlands. Not only was he restored to his position on his throne, hut his territory was greatly increased in extent ; it WS, strengthened lay numerous fortifications, and confirmed by en gagements on the part of the allies to come to his 'sentence in case of attack. It was thought. therefore, that Holland ought to contribute considerably towards the ex incurred by the greater powers; but, at the Congreesof re 'm n e raa, Austria and Prussia consented to w Ave any claim on that country in favour of Russia, which power had raised in Holland a loan to enable her to prosecute the war. It was agreed, accordingly, that the compensatina to be made by Holland should be made to Russia alone, Holland taking upon herself the payment of the interest and sinking fund of the loan which Russia had raised in the Netherlands. But then there was another transaction going on at the same time between the Netherlands and this country. It was considered very desirable that Great Britain aiould retain in her own hands several of the colonial dependencies which she had taken from the Dutch—among others the Cape of Good Hope, Demerara, Berbice, and E. sequilio—and it was thought fair that in compensation for the los , of these colo nies we should waist the kingdom of the Nether. lands by bearing half the burden of the debt which she incurred. The result was that it was determined by the congress that England and Holland aliould go shares, half and half, in taking upon themselves till' interest and sinking fund of the loan, Russia had raised in Holland ; and in order to make this arrangement the more permanent, a condition was added to it that in the event nf Belgium at any time being sepias ed from Holland, the payment of the debt, on the part of Holland and England, 'should cease, and the burden should fall back upon Rui-iii dose. The object of that arrangement principally era, that Romig should have an interest in maintaining the arrangement respecting the union of Holland and Belgium, which the other great powers considered desirable with i view to the maintenance of the balance of European power. But then, sir, tame the revolution, which was followed by the 'opera tion of Belgium from liolland—a separation to which this country reluctantly consented, but which was necessary in order to avoid a European war. But at the time this occur rence took place Russia was prepared with hi r contingentof 00,000 men to prevent, if necessary, the disunion of the two states. It was on the representation of the other great powers *man, abstained from employing those forees.hut having been so prepared, in compliance with the terms ot the treaty, and having abstained from interference in come quence of the representation' of the other powers, it would manifestly have been unjust to inflict upon Russia the penalty of an await which came to pass in consequence ot no lashes upon her part, but solely in consequence of the representation of the other states. A new convention was at this time mad*, In order to adapt the terms of the original convention to the new state of things which had arisen in Holland. One oldie arrangements under that new convention was, Mat England should continue to make this payment. Sends, on her part, substituted a new engagement : for, whereas by the original convention she had bound her self never to consent to the separation of Belgium from Hol land, she now bound herself (that separation having taken place) to this engagement—that if, by the COIIIIO of events, the independence or neutrality of Belgium , hould ever be put in danger, she would not enter into any new engage most with foreign states, relative to Belgium, without the consent and concurrence of Great Britain. Itut then, air, it is said that in this new convention certain words were altered. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Hume.) Those words occurred in the preamble, and no one can state better than myself the circumstances under which the altered words w ere introduced , or who put them in the form, for the convention in ipesion was drawn by myself and the Russian pleniantentimy then . in this country. The words were put in by that RIMINI isle- , nipotentiary for the sole object of putting upon issued the original conditions for which the treaty was made. ?lot was the sole object for which tlhe words were introduced. 14 lOW - of being inserted in the preamble, they had Moe inewebell as , , the articles of stipulation; and if the payment of our:shige d t this debt depended, not upon the continuance of a gesal adherence to the stipulations of the treaty of Vienz ve le upon the continued adherence to every one of those , Lions in all their particulars, then, poesibly. I being myself to believe with my hon. mend we had a right to release ourselves from this obligation. But I certainly cannot bring myself to think, under those words put into the preamble, that the single violation of one article in the treaty of Vienna, does release Great Britain from the obligation which that convention imposes upon her. If called upon to declare my own opinion upon a solemn treaty and engsgement contracted by this country, I am bound to tell the house that I cannot think we are in any manner released from the engagements we have made. (Hear.) But even if there were .doubt in the mind of anyone in this house, the feeling of every Englishman would be that, on a question which involved the honour of the country, that doubt must be given in favour of the other party. (Hear, hear.) It would not be becoming in this hones to interpret a doubtful case in ourown behalf, without knowing that the other party consented to such an interpretation. (Hear, hear.) If the case were plain and palpable, we ought not, from any sense of magnanimity towards foreign powers, or from any feeling of generosity, to continue to burden the people of this country with a payment which we were not strictly and properly obliged to make. But, be fleeing, in common with the greater part of the bon. 1 members who have spoken on this subject, that there is no doubt, I member, it would little become this house to realm that this payment should cease and determine. If other countries are wanting it will be r addiction to this cout cannot he contended du tides the violation of an t (Hear.) The political more than on anything rived from its faithful an, merits; and I hope the this were a doubtful lion of England honourable friend majority tithe house posed not I. peess (Hear, hear.) Up. desirable that he ahem pears a general unanimity or u, self, and it would be unfortunate sion on the previous ---- of this house are little n on the previous question of opinion on a question iris. (Hear.) Nt ith the hon. friend possesses, house, either on the r- Previous question, e had a fair chance. ' ..'"%. .ling in their engaperne , .ts, it will be no country to follow their example ; for it led that a breach of faith in one party pm- of an engagement on the part of another. Political strength of this c..untry depends, g t rtbing else, upon its moral strength, &- Mut and honourable fulfilment of anger - ripe the hones will not be led, even if loubtfial matter, to risk the repute- od for good faith I trust that taY RA (Mr. Hume), saving that lie a tome do not concur with him, will be me any of these resolution. to a dirties. Jpon the first resolution, I think it very should *Wain from this; for there or nanimity of opinion as to the transaction d- ibe unfortunate if we are for to a divi- view question. (Hear.) The technicalities little understood elsewhere ; and a division oration might looked up. o as a diViiioo 1 1: nation on which hardly any difference es • ith the parliamentary judgMent which my series, I hope be will not divide the the resolution on which I hove moved the or on the latter one • beca use, unlade he of carrying into effec t the resolutions he