The Express. — London, England, 1847-03-12 00:00:00

exagreated. The supply of feed sent to Ireland from last Angell up to the present time was very large. As to what the noble lord said had been done by the French governors% they had not purchased food except to supply_their army and_ to send to Algiers. lie ed the noble rid bed not blurred the observations he h id made info Aneemiem. Mr. DISRAILI all that the right hon. gentleman (Sir C. Weed) mesa` t his wide friend of only =kin; assertions end rerepthse la import of hi. statement. Toe number of paIIMIMS who bad Mid in the workhouses up to the 30th of January, was stated, in a return made to the bowie, to be 1,493 ; while in the corresponding period of 1816 it was only 162. This was not an assumption or an amertion. It was true that the Embers in the workhouses were greater, but they wore net gra double, and calculation would show thatit weal ear sumer sinefold. Redid not suppose any of the ministry tsg this tor en ororiset or an assumption. With re gent to goe total =mat et deaths, hi + noble friend had mole no d'art* atatenteut; and it was on that point he wasted iskratatirm. It was reported to be 240.000. The right Min gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said there was no authority for this. He (Mr. Disraeli) thought the number was greater; and it was on that very subject his noble (timid wanted information. 'f he right hon. gentle man also said that the French government had not puss. chased food except for their army, and to send to Algiers . That statement SS accurate, but the right hon. gentleman had forgotten to say that the reason was that they emptied all the rnagsoines for their army, which contained a three years supply, in order to feed their own people and population Tb..ortion was then withdrawn. LORDS' AMENDMENTS. On the motion of Lord June RUSSELL, the Lords' Amend moats le the Labouring Poor (Ireland) Act were agreed to. In monorer to a quest,. trim Mr. W. S. O'Bnice, Mr. &LEDUC HERE 'aid that there were only two usendroote,oue of a hichdireeted the commimioners of Pub- RS Win* on the subject of the agreements between land leellegiwillsnanta ; and the otter that the sums recovered or ifeellisr simeld be r ported to the house from time to time. NC 'SCOTT wished to ask a question of the noble lord, the eerarary far foreign affairs. The house was aware that the t of what was called the Russo-Dutch loan de an the provisions of an set of parliament. He wished akar,. M there had been a manifest violation of the treaty of Violet% if it was the intention of the government to bring is a bill to est its future payment ? Viscount PALMERSTON (who was indistinctly heard) was understood to ray that the payment of that money was provided for by an act which was intended to tarry into alma a convention between Great Britain, the Nether di, mad cassia. When events occurred in 1831, which rendered' a new convention necessary, an act was resod to euthoeise the payment under that new convention. In reply to a question from Captain PECHELL, Lord J. RUSsELL was understood to say that he Amid nal the house to go into committee of supply to-morrow. CRACOW.—ADJOURNED DEBATE. H. MILNEB said that the speech of the noble lord (J. Russell) during the debate one former night was not one which the house would be likely to forget, and he thought it more advantageous that they did not approach this ques tion under the influence of the exalted sentiments contained in that speech, but more coolly and less enthusiastically than whew under the influence of the high impulses which it oust have caused. He thought there were other consideration involved in this question besides the national honour, and which ware not undeserving of attention. The noble lord had said that it was almost improper in that house to enter tin the question; and implied that they were taking en titemealms an act of supererogation, if not of ssaumption, Ia ifillaning it out. In this country we were too apt to leave IWO affairs entirely to the foreign minister, who was almost alsoloto ; and on whose will it almost depended whit isAsmallen skean be laid on the table of the house ; bat be (Mr. Mikes) coocei red that it was a privilege of dm braes L judge of that minister's acts. The government having, la one portion of the speech from the throne, alluded in the most solemn manner to the protest which had been made against the aims ration of Cracow, would not have doss so without a strong sense of its injustice. In another pomp of the speech, allusion had been made to another insideat in foreign affairs, namely, the correspondence which had takes place between the governments of England, Francs, and Spain on the subject of the marriage of the Infants with the Due de Montpenaier. In that case, the noble lord had made a strong protest, but no mention was made of that protest in the speech, and therefore it was right that there should be no discussion on that subject in that house. Bat the subject of the absorption of Cracow had been very dif ferently treated, and the honer had a right to confirm the sentiments expressed by her Majesty, and those which hod emanated from a large body of the people. By one past of the resolution now before the house, they would state their opinion that they viewed this act with alarm and in dignation, and it would tend to strengthen the effect of that protest in the eyes of Europe. The hon. member here entered into a review of the history of Europe connected with Poland up to the treaty of Vienna, and observed that in October, 1814, the Emperor Alexander himself had issued a proclamation stating that Russia had caused to be adopted a proposition, making Cracow a free and neutral state, which would remain " a monument of a most magnanimous policy." A short time, however, had elapsed before, at the hand of the same power, this " monument of a magnanimous policy " was extinguished. (Hear ' hear.) It had often been matter of controversy how it was possible the the. e great powers, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, could have consented to allow Cracow to be established in the midst of them as an independent state. It however did not appear that from this arrangement an inconvenience bad arisen. On the contrary, whatever had been the spirit of Polish nationality, it was gratified without injury to any of. those powers, and Cracow had enjoyed a decent share of liberty until the outbreak of 1830. Into the subject of that outbreak it was not his intention, nor was this the proper time for him to enter further than to observe, that, not only in that house, but amongst the public generally, there existed the same sympathies as had been expressed by the noble lord at the head of the government, and by the right hon. baronet the member for Tamworth. But it seemed that Prince Metternich had brought an accu sation against the inhabitants of Cracow for their sympathy with the fall of Warsaw. Now he (Mr. M. Milnes) saw no guilt in their having witnessed with something like interest the awful struggle which their fellow-countrymen in War saw were making, but it was wonderful that Cracow had not thrown itself into the conflict, and, if so, perished more honourably than she had now done. However it was marvellous that the senate of Cracow had succeeded in maintaining order and peace during the Polish revolution. It was quite clear that when Warsaw fell, Austria and Ramis had determined upon the destruction of Cracow. By a rearm tion agreed to between the three powers in 1834, they agreed to send into Cracow troops, in equal proportions, on the demand of any two inhabitants. Such a demand they could not have any difficulty in obtaining. It would occupy the house too long were he to detail the vexation; the tyranny, and the injustice, to which Cracow was expoeed from the' time of its occupation by these troop the end of all, how ever, had been that which might have been expected namely, the extinction of Cracow as a free state. In this there had been a clear dereliction of duty, both on the part of this country and of France ; to that neglect of duty this result was in a great degree owing. It was impossible to read the debates in this and the other house of parliament on the subject of Cracow, without observing that it had there been felt that the only chance to save •teat state from the destiny which had sines befallen her was the cordial intervention of England and France in the appointment of consular and diplomatic agents there. He believed that if, on the first occupation of Cracow by Austrian troops, consular *gents had been sent out by England and France, the whole of this misfortune might have been averted, and a safer and more secure state of things established, by which the people of Cracow might have been spared the national loss. In the course of those debates, the noble lord opposite (Lord Palmerton) de clared to the house the positive intention of her Majesty's t to send out consular and diplomatic s gen ts to mr= l He had not done so, and though he (Mr. M. Milne') did not wish to press hard upon the noble lord on this yet be thought the noble lord ought not to have re l p u m sed, when called for, the production of those papers which form ed the basis of the non-fulfilment of his promise. But the in terest which had been shown in that house with respect to sending out a consul to Cracow had been shared by the other house of parliament, where Lord Lyndhurst expressed himself strongly on the subject, slid urged that the suppression or annihilation of Cracow would inflict a arises bijou upon the commercial interests of Lis senntsr-ein opinion which had been reiterated by the aside lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) in one of ble LAM deopetchm Notwithstanding the declaration of Lord Landlann•sepinionan this subject, he (Mr. M.Milnes) did set dot the* ea a Aimee of ministry the noble and learned hied bored bit oalleope, the Earl of Aberdeen, to show soy mono syeeaem te moue Cracow than had been evil's,* by the bed egyeiles (Lord Palmerston). The three pewee. to whom he lied already PO often alluded, had deteemdooi goo the datreetion of Cracow as a free state, am& the fromolkite came anigned was the impossibility of ere after the events which had taken i p P arlini=there at the commencement...if last year. A dis ilusion Ise pies at the end of the last session, in the course of whteh the lAA, of the circumstances of that transaction letemplred. halm appeared that the town of Cracow had been tocephed by Austrian troops, and that, on the entrance Into the town of a very small hod of democratic insurgents, the Austrian General eva Craosw, and took away with him all the wealthy residents and authorities of the place, leaving it in the hand' of a band of revolutionists, who issued a sort of proclamation, and established what they called a government The whole number of this body was extremely null, and mig ht at once easily have been p u t down ; but, whether from • yor intention , th e w h o l e territory of Galicia bad been le apparently undefended—the peasantry had been excited by the local authorities, not to say by the nunediatis orders of the central authorities, to massacre the principal landowners of the district. This had been allowed to take place in one of the most civilised empires of the world in the nineteenth century. (Hear, hear.) As to the facts of this massacre, the Austrian government had shown so much concealment that it was impossible to come to accurate details. The number of persons sacrificed had been very large, but the may clear idea of it was given in a sentence of a despatch of Prince Metternich, in which he used phraseology which, however shocking in its reality, WAS calculated to provoke a smile. Restated " that in conse quence ol the great accumulation of embarrassment to the Austrian government, it was not with impunity that the stratum of the social hierarchy of the political body could disappear." Therefore, it appeared, on his au thority, tlot one stratum of the social ierarchy had disappeared—;hat was to my, the landed gentry— had been murdered. To an such expressions in re ference to an sena of this amass was a pismires= which before was unparsiOrled. ( Hem, hear.) After rush a dis patch, it was astursl:v to be szpand die annihilation of Cracow would follCw ; bats the lea sf diplomatic agents abroad, there sneered 10 love sees sogirot, or alt. aft bad bun pnetiled upon them by th e au j n i e t e re of th e MUM to which they were wreck :ad, became it did not ISM that the government at 'dome had any intimation d lie ultimate breech of the '.reaty until the molter hed bairn goratiaL From the rapers on the table it was foRM , t lint WM of Westmoreland wrote to Lord Aherdei 1 eating tut the matter 'fled been much discussed by united repommtatives of the great powers, but it was shown that Lord Aberdeen used any precautions, or mobs any protest tar the subject; on the contrary, on the 26th of Juno, Loral Aberdeen, writing to Colonel Du Plat at War- saw. stard " that the three great powers possessed the right to take proper steps to secure themselves egoist any recur rence of the dangers from which they had recently escaped, hut that until something positive shall hare occurred to throw a light on the future determination of the three groat powers more immediately concerned, her Majesty's' government would suspend their judgment, and abstain from active interference on behalf of the republic of Cra• cow." He thougtt, however, Lord Aberdee. , had received sufficient warnineto hove anticipated a despatch written by the noble lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) within a very few days after his return to office. The noble lr,rd writing to Lord Westmoreland, said, " 1 hare to inforei your lord ship that her Majesty's government have learnt with pleasure the statement contained in, your laid despatch, and hope that nothing sill be done in regard to the state in question, which will be at variance with the etipulatiens of the treat of Vieona." It appeared to him (Mr. M. Manes) that Cracow, by the interference of France and England, might still have remained under the protection of Austria, and retained all her commercial rights and indepeedence, and he could not but exprees his profound regret that amongst the powers which had joined in the atrocity of the annexation of Cracow to Amelia, he found one which he had koked to as the founder of better things in the north of Germany. He could have hoped that the King of Pruada, when about to establish the model of a constitution in Germany. would not have neutralised its political advantages by a participation in this act of the suppression and destruction of en independent state. (Hear, hear.) Before he set down he wished to say a word on the subject of the Ruso.Dotch Loan. The hon. member for Montroee by this motion called upon the house to register its opinion that the convention of the 3rd Aug., 1832, hail been violated by Russia, and, therefore, that the claim for the payment by this country of a large sum of money no longer existed. Now he was inclined to agree with the noble lord, at the bead of the government, that this country was bound in honour to maintain that pay. I meat; still be thought that a new convention ought to be introduced for the approval or rejection of that house. The question involved matters of fact and evidence, upon which esquiry ought to be made. This money was paid In consideration of Russia coming into an arrangement which was, she then considered, satisfactory and approved of. The general arrangement was the condition of the payment; and if the suppression of Cra. cow was a breach of that general arrangement ; if this ar rangement with the duchy of Warsaw had formed a most important point tor the consideration of the convention; and if, after the greatest attention to all parts of the arrangement, the establishment of the free state of Encow had been de cided on as the best at that time, how could it be said that Russia had adhered to the general arrangement of the con gress of Vienna • and bow could we (Acacia having con curred in the breach of lbw arrangements) be authorised, or be able to pay this debt. Certainly, in the present case, the state of things which had lad to the promise being given, did not now exist. Cracow might be regarded as a geographical atom, bat it was one of much importance, The Maitre, of was lees than that of Cracow ; bat, w as it to be that the occupation of Hamburg by Pretoria, with all the laducementa of the Zollvereiu tow:copy, would be permitted ? Them caws were perfectly parallel ; and if the latter would be a Image of the general arrangement, so was the former ; mid RN convention absolutely fell to the ground. The WNW arrangements of the treaty of Vienna W ism Infringed; those general arrangements wore eesdneive to the peace of the world ; and this act of the three powers was conducive to the disturbance of that peace. No man could believe that Europe was now as secure from confrulaion, or that there was as great security for the continuance of peace as before this act took place ; for it was a violation of one of those solemn right over which there was no statute of Limitations—ow of those rights established in the international law of Bumps and the world—and with reference to which he might use with perfect accuracY, the phrase of the Roman moralist— Allemande dornft Joß,nunqoamntoritur. Lord DALMENY said he did not yield to the hon. mem ber who had last spoken in indignation at the grasping am bition of Russia and the other powers. He regarded the absorption of Cracow as the overthrow of the last vestige of Polish nationality and independence ; all hope of its revival was at length extinguished. Had the hoe. gentleman who moved these resolutions confined himself to the first, he should have supported it ; but be would not vote in favour of the pecuniary part of the reeslutione. Dr. BOWRfNG said the noble lord who had just spoken, by voting for the first resolution was not pledged to follow up his vote by supporting the others. This war a question of more than Cracow and the Crux...nano; it was a question of Poland and the I'olee. At this moment the greatest distrust prevailed betweenthedifferentrourts; and theliberty of an petty nations, if not overthrown, was menaced. He heartily desired that the good feeling between England and France should be reestablished ; but he could not forget that England had been grossly deceived by the late transactions in Spun. (Hear.) He honoured the domestic character of the King of the French, but deplored the evil influences by which he had been guided. (Hear.) Everywhere the pro spect was alarming. In Portugal all was confusion . ; who ruled and who obeyed no one knew. Spain was also in the most disturbed state. In Italy, the efforts of her excellent sove reign for advancing freedom were thwarted by the absolutist powers. The liberties of Switzerland were menaced. In the east, the Danubian provinces were in danger ; and though the independence of Wallachia and Bulgaria had been promised, it was obvious that, at the will of Rus sia, rulers were throned er disenthroned. (Hear.) In all this was plainly to be seen the advent of that fearful struggle foretold by the late Mr. Canning. And it was not by a regard to the treaty of Vienna alone tint this was to be averted; more regard must be paid to the liberties and in terests of nations themselves; for treaties unratified by public opinion were of little =omen , . Though sharing in all the feelings of disgust that had been expressed at the recklessness with which the great powers had violated their engage ments, he rejoimd that the great question was now placed on a new buil, that the whole structure of European policy would have to be reconsidered, and that we should not simply have to decide whether the protest of England should restore Cracow,—whether a small fragment of Poland should be saved to the Poles and Polish nationality, but that the question which in 1772 had been first approached, and solved with so much iniquity and folly, would come back again— the great question of the re-organisation of Poland itself, and the recognition of those great rights and liberties which had been so recklessly trampled on. Sir W. MOLES WORTH said he quite concurred in the first resolution, and in the opinion, which had been gene rally expressed, that the treaty of Vienna had been violated. Had the first resolution stood alone, he would have voted in its favour; but he could not support the rest. In deter mining whether we should continue the payment of this Russo-Dutch loan, we ought to take into consideration, not merely the words of the convention of 1831, but the reasons which induced us to enter into that engagement, and the advantages we derived by it. A certain part of that sum had been agreed to be paid for certain colonies which we now possessed—namely, the Cape of Good Hope, and the settlements of Demerara, Esoequibo, and Berbice ; and if we refused to continue the payment, we were in honour bound to restore those colonies. The papers laid on the tattle of the house proved that we acquired those colonies by engaging to make this payment. These colonies originally elcoged to Holland ; we took pos session of them during the last war, not because we were at war with Holland, but to save them from the Ftench, when the French took possemion of Holland. Consequently, in 1814, when Holland wee liberated from the French domi nion, we were bound to restore theft colonies. A conven tion was entered into between Chem Britain and the Netherlands, on the 13th of August, 1814, the first article of which stated that " his Britannic Majesty restored to the Netherlands the niacin possessed by Holland on the Ist of January, 1803, with the exception of the Cape of Good Hope, and the settlements of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice, which were to be reserved by the contracting partite, to be disposed of, by a supplementary convention to be afterwards established, according to the Interests of the parties, and ta-din&to certain articles referred to in the treaty of Paris." The impplementary convention was to be found in the additaonal articles of this con vention; and in the find of these additional articles, it was stated that " the prime sovereign of the Nether lands agrees to cede, in fall sovereignty, to his Britannic Majesty, the Caps of Good Hope, and the settlements of Demerara. Emequibe, and Berb," in consideration of cer tain engagements stated in the first part of the article. Those engagements were the payment of certain sums of money. This country agreed to pay, first, a million sterling to the government of Sweden • two millions to improve the defences of the Low Countrie;; and also to bear, along with Holland, certain other charges, to be agreed upon by the high contracting parties, towards the final settlement of the Low Countries in union with Holland; and the sum for that Bpurpose was not to exceed three millions sterling. Thus we agreed to pay six millions for the purchase of those four colonies—three millions to be expended in such a manner as to promote the union of Holland and Belgium ; and it was to be determined by a subsequent convention for what purpose, and in what manner, that money should be paid. The subsequent con vention was signed at London, on the 19th May. 1815, be tween Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Rands ; and by the third article, this country took upon itself the payment of a portion of the debt immured by Russia, on memo* ef a loan ratted by the house of Ho& and Co., of hotherdent. We agreed to the intend of that mow, sad a certain annual sum lewarda its dad liquidation; the engagement being thee the mem should he ia risk uromir as te ro- mote tie &el selliemor emi thi paid ne( Helleml and Belgiu p m, al u prodied he hothe ad' Miele tithe movenden, to which ques tion emu test th e mower in shairethee sees dn la the moth of Me widOW of the two seentries ereles." He thought that that thews& the following lbeie—ffiet, that they had =ll to pay • sum net exceeding 6,000,0001. far the pommies ef the colonies already named •, and esseedly, that die Wei of the Netherlands agreed to comporate RUMS Of likarthe king of the Netherlands' from !noes. Inelsoi of that awn to the Nether lands, and the Nethmthele r =inp it over to Russia, they agreed to pay it se NM 1111 RIBIAN or to take into their hands a pottiest of the lesdeoththel bras, sad therefore as it were is beam Ueda es loth en semen of the purchase of thme edeolth emd he weld oh, if they refused to con tinua dr moor el lift debt, were they entitled to retain pommies el diem sebum ? He would not d y Amite* inarintion con metros& in the moat lite ral SWUM, there might be sore loop-hole by which they might maim from payment s but when he considered that they made this payment in return for concessions made by four of the continental empires, he thought it would be un worthy of a mat empire like this to ava4 itself of a , doubt to repu dia te a debt, end at the same time to retain the property for the possession of which that debt was in. curled, and while they condemned the conduct of Austria, Ramie, and Prussia in this matter, to show to the world that they were actuated by pecuniary motives, and by a desire to follow their example. (Cheers.) Lord MAHON said that he rose to record his vote against the resolution* moved by the hon. member for Montrose, which vote he rested oa the arguments brought forward by the noble lord the first Lord of the Treasury. He wouldoat the same time say that his decided conviction was that the annexation of Cracow was altogether unjustifiable. 81r ft. H. INGLIS believed that if an English minister of the very lowest rank, recognised as a diplomatist, was resi dent in Cracow at the period at which this oe:urrenee took plant, there would have been no such annexation. (Hear.) It was in vain now to deplore that they had not en English minister there; but he was quite sure that the principle which justified the annexation of Cracow to Austria might equally justify the annexation of Frankfort and Hamburg, or any of the minor states of Germany, the freedom et which was made sure by treaties. (Hear.) Every other country may equally repudiate similar obligations. It was not in vain that the representatives of England should place on solemn record that a great political and moral offence had been perpetrated. Looking oa war as the greatest of all calamities, and not to be undertaken except, he was going to say in the ease of self-defiance, he was not prepared to go to war with these countries in consequence of the conduct which they had pursued ; but there was an intermediate course of conduct which it was becoming this nation to pursue. Their lose reign had entered her protest against the violation of the treaty, and he trusted that the representatives of the free people of this country would enter on their proceedinp• record of their sentiments on this occasion. The right hon. gentleman concluded by stating that he would give his cordial support to the proposition, without saying bow he would act with regard to the others. Lord G. BENTINCK said that the hon. member for Montrose was good enough to inform the house that he was perfectly ashamed of he hon. friend the member for Shrew* bury and himself for the course which they thought fit to penes in answer to the address proposed to the crown. He was sorry to my that he feared that by the course he was going to take he was not likely to restore himself to the good opinion of the hon. member; for though he 'loaned with great attention to his epeech, during the whole of it, there were only three statements contained in it in which he con curred; the first was, that nothing could make the hon. gentleman forget pounds, shillings, and pence ; the second that he considered that general peace was the get atest blessing which countries could have bestowed on them ; and the third, that they should hare the moral courage to act honestly. With regard to the last statement the hon. gentleman took a strange course in endeavouring to prove that the house ought to have a great dears to act honestly when lie proposed that on such alight grounds aa he held forth they should cheat the Emperor of Russia of his money. But if he could not hope to restore himself to his good opinion, still there would be this congratulation to the hon. gentleman that he did not Rand as the political godfather of either his noble friend or himself. He said the other night that if there were any sins which he would dislike answering for more than any others they were those of his hon. friend end himself. He would enter his pretest against the doctrine of the right hon. member for Oxford, when he declared that the house had pledged itself, in answer to the address of the crown, to the belief that Austria, Russia, and Prussia, had been guilty of • manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna. The hon. member for Shrewsbury, in a speech which was unanswered entered their protest against any such declara tion. But the mover of the answer to the address studiously avoided pledging the house to any such declaration; and the house did not pledge itself one way or the other, as to whether it was or was not a manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna. Upon reflection, moreover, and a careful study of all the documents laid before the house, he had come to the conclusion that there had been no violation of the treaty of Vienna whatever. To treat the minor gumtree, the payment of the money, bet, he would only say, that he concurred so entirely in the statement so ably made by the hon. baronet the member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth), that he should detain the house but a few mi nutes on that part of the subject. There was, however, one point which had not been touched upon by any speaker who had preceded him, namely, that it was admitted in the con vention of 1831, and also recited in the act of parliament, that it was in consideration of Russia having given her ad hesion to the general provisions of the treaty of Vienna, which were still in full force, that the convention was signed and the act of parliament was panned. Now, It would be recollected that the 9th article of the treaty of Vienna, which related to Cracow, recited that 0311 M. plete neutrality was guaranteed to Cracow, sad that no military force was to be permitted to enter the free state of Cracow. If it were true that any infringement of the articles which related to Cracow, was a manifest vio lation of the treaty of Vienna; it was perfectly true that no lea a violation of the treaty was committed in November, 1831 than in the present day, for at the time the convention was signed, and the act passed, Russia was in military cam- Mrel Cracow. The recital of the act passed in July, stated, that in the opinion of both houses of parliament, a military occupation of Cracow, although it was in contra diction to some of the articles of the treaty of Vienna, was ao violation of the general treaty. But when hon. gentle. men talked of treaties they seemed to forget that there were two parties tea treaty, sad that it meat, like any other con tract, be kept on both sides. (Hear, hear.) Although it was true that one condition of the treaty was that there should be no military occupation of Cracow, and that it should remain a free sate; it was also a condition on the other side that Cracow should maintain strict neutrality and give no asylum or protection to refugees or any other persons prosecuted by the law and no state could have been a greater delinquent in these respects than Cracow. He could show by the correspondence that in 1831 and 1832 there were found no less than 2,000 refugees in the free state of Cracow. And when it was stated by the honourable gentleman who opened the debate that evening that there was no pretence for the interference of Austria, and when the noble lord at the head of the government stated that he suspected the disturbances in Cracow were far from being unacceptable te the government of Austria, he could only say that if Mr. Magenis was to be trusted it was certain that Austria had dmde all in her power to maintain the peace of Cracow, and as soon as the senate called upon her to send a force to keep the peace, Austria sent 800 men for that purpose ; and it was not until the Poles appeared with a force of 5,000 strong, that the force under General Collin withdrew. It appeared that, on the 18th Feb., the Austrian troops ad vanced to Cracow, but, on the 22nd, Gen. Collin found it prudent to retire ; and, on the same day, the manifesto of the Polish revolutionary government was put forth, pro• claiming that they were twenty millions, and that their brethren were in arms at Posers, prepared to revenge the wrongs of Poland. ( Hear.) They had heard that night from the hon. member for Pontefract (Mr. Mines), of the misconduct of the Austrian government in encouraging the Galicians to murder the landed proprietors. He (Lord G. Bentinck), did not, however, find anything of the kind to bare been the cue. It appeared by the statement of Mr. Mogen s, that the first information received by the Austrian government, so early as the 13th of February, was derived from no less than seventy villages in Galicia, pray ing for assistance against this Polish revolution. And it was not until these landowners and others who were promoting the insurrection had recourse to force, and shot some of the peasantry who refused to joie in their wicked insurrection. that the peasantry raw against them. It had been well stated by Prince Metternich that to call upon the peasantry of Galicia to rise upon the cry of the restoration of the king dom of Poland was only to remind them of the ancins regime under which they had suffered so much ; it was only to re mind them that they were serfs under the enciee rigintik and were proprietors of land under the government of Austria. Was it therefore to be wondered at that should rise against the tyranny of which they still p the traditionary recollection ? And it seemed that Muni they were unarmed they were able to kill 8013 ef *eft pretenders. The Crewe - ens and Poles tagether, who INTO the first to invade Austria, crossed the Vistula 5,000= and admitted into the richest part of the territory of towards the salt-mines, seven miles beyond Wkikeita. Unless this treaty of Vienna deprived Austria of the dint right of esdeee—self-preservation—he could not undesired on whet purple it could be pretended that Austria had not a eft to aim war into the state of Cracow, and treat her ea • genguered nation. (Hear, beer.) With respect to the prelease that Austria, Russia, and Prussia, had no right to altar that part of the treaty of Vienna se to Cracow, he could only repeat the argument of his hon. friend the member fee Shrewsbury on a former occasion, and remind the house that the articles relating to Cracow were not articles of the treaty signed in chief either by Great Britain, France, Sweden, Spain, or Portugal ; and he believed the law of nations to be that an annexed treaty stood on very different grounds from a treaty signed in chief. They had heard from the noble lord—the first lord of the treasury that we had never violated or broken any treaty to which we bad been a party. How mold the noble lord reconcile that statement with the fact that, in a like ease. Great Britain favoured the separation of Belgium from Holland ? The words of the treaty in reference to the mainte nance of the connexion between Belgium and Holland, were, if possible, stronger than those relating to Cracow ; bat when Belgium rose in revolt against - Holland, and France marched her troops amen the frontier, were any of the parties iavited to the conference for the separation, who were not parties in chief to the original treaty by which the union between Holland and Belgium was gua ranteed ? France it was true was a party to the conference, but not beeause she was a party to the treaty (which she was not), but because her troops were across the fron tier. The noble lord (Palmeerton) said in his note to Prince Metternich, that no treaty could be abrogated except with the concurrence of all the parties to it, but neither Austria, Ruses, Prussia, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, or the Netherlands, were celled upon to concur in the separation of Belgium from Holland previous to the noble lord's sign. ing the convention with France for that purpose. And with regard to Russia, so far from concurring, she offered to march an army of 130,000 to Belgium to drive out the French and recover that country to the sovereignty of the King of the Netherlands. If, then, the proceedings of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, in respect to Cracow, were a violation of the treaty of Cracow, what must be mid of the conduct of England in 1831 And 1832 7 In the one case the then parties in thief all concurred in the new arrangement, but in the ease of Belgium no one of the chief contracting powers had con curred with England fa the separation. There was no earthly pretence for laying that either Auetria, Russia, or Prussia had violated the treaty of Vienna in its letter, so far as Cra cow was concerned. He now came to the ?licit of the treaty and to examine the statements which had been made, that, 111 regard to the stipulations as to Cracow, the object one to THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 12, 1847. maintain inviolate the 111litiOnali b l e of Poland. Anything more contrary to the evidence them or to the truth, never was asserted in that house. The correspondence of Lord Castlereagh showed that that was not the °eject, but, on the contrary, it was to do that which Russia had at length acceded to—restore Cracow to the dominion of Austria. And so earnest was the Emperor Alexander, on the one side, to obtain this key, as it was considered, to the empire of Austria; and no earnest were Great Britain, Austria, and France, that Russia should not be permitted to advanoe her military outposts from the Vistula towards Germany, that those three powers actually stetted, on the 3d of February, a secret article of offence and defence to defect what were considered to be the ambitious designs of Russia. The object of Lord Castlereagh was to carry out the treaty of Reichenbacb, of June, 1813, by which Austria, in consi deration of her stipulating to loin the Russian end allied forces, was guaranteed the restoration of her powers in the duchy of Wines, which bed been wrested from her lry Napoleon, and to re-establish her in the pu-ition she held up to 1809. There was no sentiment in Lord Castle reagh's correspondence which showed that there was any intention or any desire on the part of Cracow to renew the nationality of Poland in maintaining the independence of Cracow--in fact, the whole course of Lord Castlereagh's government e as opposed to such • supposition—it was only net:emery to quote the answer of the Emperor Alexander to one of Lord Cattlereagh'm private communications on the subject, to chow how little the north , rn powers admitted the interference of Great Britain in respect to Cracow. In the last letter the Emperor requests that that communication may close the private correepondence, and Count Neeselrode in a note of Nov., 1814, declined to be the agent of England. From thin time to the conclusion of the treaty no other com munication took place between Lord Castlereagh and the three powers. That treaty was signed by the three powers in May, 1816--the general treaty being dated the 9th of June following. When, then, the three powers sought to undo the treaty of Cracow without the assistance of the parties to the general treaty, they were only untying the knot as they had themselves made it. Sir Robert Gordon ' so far beck as the 22nd of August last, gave notice to the noble lord (Palmerston) that the three powers would not permit the interference of the other parties to the general treaty as to 'the settlement of the affairs of Cracow. Why did not the noble lord then remonstrate, and my to Austria, Russia, and Prussia, you have no right to settle the affairs of Cracow by absorbing it into the dominions of Austria, without first inviting us to a conference on the sub ject and obtaining our consent The noble lord, however. made no remonstrance until the 6th of Nov., when he found the annexation was • jail areonspli. Haying thewn by the ex , ample of the noble lord's owe conduct in the ease of the Netherlands and Belgium, that Austria, Russia, and Prussia, in this absorption .1 Cracow, had proceeded only in accord ance with the course this country had itself adopted in another case—having shown that the treaty had been undone in the way and by the parties by whom it was made, and that as to the spirit of the treaty, there was no violation so far as the original wishes and object of England were con cerned,—he would now proceed to consider how far the welfare and substantial interests of the Cracovians them selves had been consulted. Originally, the Cracovians were not admitted to any of the conferences which took place pre paratory to the treaty of 1815: 47 empires, kingdoms, repub lics, cantons, free rine., and states were represented at the general congress, and ninety other corporate bodies end indi viduals were also represented there. The Jews of Ham burgh and Lubeck, the Lady Abbess of Thorne, and the duchy of Bouillon, were represented, but Cracow was not represented at all. And the question was settled at last, not because of the feelings and wishes of the Cracovians, but because,—when, happily for the peace of Europe, at a time when Russia, having 200,000 men marched into Poland, refused to resign her intention of advancing her military territory, when Prussia had armed her contingent of 173,000 men, to side with Russia, and when the Anglo- Belgian army was colleeting,—because, when happily for the general peace Napoleon mistook his moment, the then great powers, roused by the fear of their common enemy to their common danger, not being able to settle the ques tion of which should occupy the military poet of Cracow, agreed to leave it to the joint protection of the three. With regard to the feeling of the Cracovians, when the Russian troops marched out of Cracow they were accompanied for seven miles by thousands of the inhabitants of all deuce, who at parting greeted them with the most enthueiestic cheers in honour of the Emperor Nicholas ; this showed how far the feeling of the Cracovians was in favour of Polish nationality. Then, with regard to Austria, he had shown that the Poles bad good cause to rejoice at the contrast which the government of Austria afforded to the reign of terror which would have been established had the revolu tionary party succeeded. Cracow had at all events reason to rejoice at the change. Contrast the manifesto of the national government of Poland with the declaration of the Emperor of Austria, in which he unites Cracow, end pro mises that henceforth it should be incorporated as part of the empire. (" Hese, hear," and • laugh.) This was what was to be substituted for trials by courts-martial and death. The Emperor promised the people of Craaow to maintain and protect them in the exercise of their religion—to administer justice impartially—to apportion equitably the public bur dens—to watch over and uphold the general security ; and, to all who, by their submission, should show their attach ment to him, and prove themselves worthy of his favour, he promised that they should find in him • pa ternal sovereign and • clement emperor. (Hear, hear.) Was not that • pleating contrast to the threat that every man capable of bearing arms, who did not, within four-and i hours, put himself at the disposal of the revolution ary authorities, should be tried before a court-martial as a deserter, and that every one who should, without the sanc tion of the revolutionary government, become a member of any club or committee, should be declared* traitor to his coun try. He now came to the evidence as to how these promisee on the part of Aastriahad been folflled. Every one acquainted with the local history of Cracow knew that from 1795 to 1809, while Cracow belonged to Austria, the prosperity of the dis trict greatly increased. The expenditure had lately in creased from 100,000 to 300,000 dollars; the district had been (attacking in material wealth ; and out of 279 wholesale mer chants not more than 87 remained in 1845. It was also stated that all the landed property had been mortgaged; and that the debts, amounting to three million dollen, Austria had un dertaken to pay, without charging the community with the interest due on them. Such was the impartial opinion of a gentleman who never dreamt that his letter would see the light, and upon whose statements, therefore, more reliance might be placed than on the anonymous communications read by the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Hume). Under these circumstances, seeing that it was not easy for this country, without condemning herself, to make out that there had been • manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna; seeing that justice had been done to all parties, and that the interests of general peace had been consulted ; see ing that those objects which the British government in 1814 and 1815 earnestly desired, had been carried out by the mag nanimous concession—(laughter)—of the Emperor Nicholas, without an y compensation being made to him; seeing that the interests of Cracow had been so greatly consulted, and that, instead of tyranay and despotism, freedom and promo. city were likely to be the lot of Cracow. (" Hear, hear," from Mr. T. Buncombe.) Yes (continued the noble lord, addressing the hon. member), well regulated freedom, pros perity, wealth, and security, instead of the tyranny to be found in your revolutionary constitution. (Laughter from Mr. T. Buncombe.) The hon. gentleman did not like it to go forth to his constituents that the freedom which he professed to admire was tyranny in reality, and that real i despotism was to be found arrayed on the side of republican rather then monarchical government ; seeing all these things, he (Lord 0. Bentick) would not consent to brand the Em peror of Austria, the Emperor of Russia, or the King of Prussia with the charge of having been guilty of a manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna. (Hear, hear.) He had beard with deep regret and pain from the noble lord at the head of the government, a de claration ascribing, on mere suspicion, mean, paltry, and unworthy feelings to those sovereigns. It was the first time that those three crowned heads had been charged with such unworthy and dishonourable motives by any minister of England on ground. so trifling. Upon these grounds (continued the noble lord), far from condemning, I thank the mild, clement, and paternal sovereign of 1 Austria—(greatlaughter)—yes,l thank him, and I thank the mild and just king of Peru, and I thank the emperor of Russia. (Ironical cheers.) Well, let those who cheer ironically show me by argument and by evidence that they have justice on their side. (Hear, bear.) I have brought evidence to back my assertion. There was no evidence adduced in the two hours' speech of the hon. gentlemen who quoted law, and said that if the Emperor of Russia had inserted Certain words in a conven tion, in all probability England would have inserted some other winds. That is a description of law which I never heard quoted before. I prove my ease by evidence which the hon. member for Pontefract could not bring forward. Far from censuring, I thank these northern powers that their too long forbearance has, at last, given way to the mercy of derision, and that they have put down and sour thared this den of revolutioniate—(laughter)—who promised to keep Europe in hot water whilst they were ruining their country and disturbing their neighbours ; and with these feelings, Sir, I will move a direct negative to the resolutions. Mr. T. BUNCOMBE said it was impossible for him to say whether the feelings of the noble lord towards the northern powers would be reciprocated by that house. (" Hear, hear," and laughter). He really believed, how ever, that after the speech which they had just heard, her Majesty's ministers would be too happy to withdraw their opposition to the motion. (Hear, hear.) Whatever might be the opinion of the Protectionist party generally, he felt quite satisfied that not one man in one hundred in this country would be found to concur in the opinions which had just been expressed. (Hoer, hear.) Such opinions should be met by a direct vote; and he extremely regretted that the noble lord at the head of the government bad not assented, at all events, to the first resolution. That noble lord admitted that this country had been insulted by the three northern powers • yet he said, " Pay your money, and think no more about it." (Laughter.) The noble lord (Lord 0. Bentiuck) said the people of Craoow were, and ought to be, most grateful for the favours be stowed by Austria. He (Mr. T. Buncombe) entirely denied that Ruch was the case. He could assure the noble lord (Lord 0. Bentinek) that the Austrian go vernment was detested in every part of Europe where it was known. He would just give an illustration of the eon of education which that government gave to the South of Aus tria. In a sort of catechises taught to the scholars he found the following:—" How ought subjects to conduct themselves towards their sovereign?" "Subjects ought to behave towards their sovereign like faithful slaves towards their master." (Laughter.) " Why ought they to behave like slaves ?" •• Because the sovereign is their master, and his power extends over their property as over their persons. It is a blessing that God bestows in giving us good and Christian kings and superiors—(laughter)—yes, it is one of the greatest blessings he can bestow, when he gives us good and Christian king' and superiors such as him under whom we have the hap pinata to dwell. We ought to pray God He will grant a long life and a long reign to our beloved sovereign." (" Hear, beer," and laughter.) What he had read enurele with the sentiments expressed by the noble lord. re (Lasghter.) The noble lord had contrasted the advantages conferred by Austria with the revolationary manifesto pub lished at Cracow on the 22nd of February, but he had omitted to state that the latter was dirocteu against the Austrians, Russians, and Prussians who would not consent to the new order of things. The manifesto of Cracow declared that the government was " responsible to the nation;" was any such declaration ever made by either of the three northern powers? (Hear, hear.) Extremely did he regret that the revolutionary government had not succeeded. There were great principles at issue on the continent of Europe—the principles of absolutism, and those of constitutional government. How could Frankfort, Hamburg, and Switzerland, say that their liberties were worth six months' purchase, if the act in question were not only sanctioned, but actually admired its the British House of Commons. Supposing the act to be so necessary fur the peace of Europe, would the noble lord explain why it had been committed in such an insulting manner ? Any one who read the papers on the subject must oome to the eon elusion either that our ambassadors at the three courts had been negligent of their duty, or that they had been grossly imposed upon by thes , benefactors of mankind. (Bear, hear.) On February the 23rd, after the occupation of Cracow, our ambassador at Berlin, the Earl of Westmoreland, wrote to Lord Aberdeen, " The oc cupation of Cracow is ectirely of a temporary nature." He would go next to St. Petersburg, and there our ambas sador was informed that no change in the state of Cracow was then proposed. Similar declarations bad been received from the ministers of the other powers concerned. He be lieved that the annexation of Cracow had been projected long before the disturbances, and that time wouldpreve that the insurrection in Galatia had been got up by the noble lord's particular friend, tne Emperor of Austria. In that *thresh, 2,000 persons were murdered, and not one of the Peasants who committed the murders had been brought to justice, while it appeared that all the political partizans were to be tried at Berlin. (Hear, hear.) It was just two Tears since the Queen had informed parliament that the Emperor of Russia had, at great personal inconve nience, honoured her with a visit. If such were to be the results of intercourse between crowned heads, he hoped that his Imperial Majesty would not swain put himself to per sonal inconvenience, or disgrace this country with his pre sence, at least, so long as Cracow should remain in slavery. (Cheers.) He thanked his hon. friend the member for Montrose, for having brought the question under the con sideration of the house, and he trusted that such an infrac tion of public faith would not remain uncensored by a British Home of Commons. (Hear, hear.) Sir R. PEEL: Sir, if I thought that the vivre of the hon. member who proposed these resolutions were just or right, I should at once admit that he had proposed a series of con sistent resolutions. If we are justified in relieving ourselves from the obligations which the conventions of 1815 and 1831 imposed upon us, of taking upon ourselves the payment of a portion of the debt contracted by !twain from the subjects of Holland, I think the hon. member has pursued a parlia mentary and consistent course in p refacing practical resolu tions by an emaciation of the =rives on which those tiso lutions are founded. And if I agreed in the conclusione to which he has come in his 4th resolution, I should have no great di ffi culty in a ffi rming a proposition, if not identical in form with those he has proposed, at least corresponding in substance. But I have the greatest doubt as to the right of this country to relieve itself from the obligations' contracted by the conventions of 1815 and 1831, and if there be any question as to the right, I greatly doubt the policy of our pointing out that doubt, and deciding it in our own favour. (Hear, hear.) On thane grounds I differ from the practical conclusion to which the hon. member has come. I find that in 1815 we assumed these obligations in respect to pecuniary matters on two grounds. First, on account of the exertions which had been made by the powers who were parties to the treaty of Saumur, in releas ing Belgium from France, and annexing it to Holland ; but secondly, and most materially, as affecting the honour of England, because, on the conclusion of the peace with Hol land we reserved to ourselves those valuable possessions of Holland, the Cape of Good Hope, Demerara, Essequibo and Berbies. I think that Lord Castlereagh's letter is almost decisive on this point, He, who was so conversant with these transactions, distinctly says: "It appears to me impos sible, after the principle laid down in our negotiations with Holland, that Great Britain should retain the Cape, Deme rara, Essequibo, and Berbice, that we could remain without , some such charge, either to increase funds or as applicable to fortifications." We net only, therefore, contracted a pecu niary obligation for exertions made in a common cause, but it is also manifest that we received en equivalent for our pecuniary payment, and, what is mere, at the general con gress we reserved in absolute cession, to he held in perpe tuity, in consideration of our payment of the Russo-Dutch loan, the valuable colony to which I have before alluded. But what further does the treaty say ? There is an express stipulation that the pecuniary obligation shall endure ; that the paymentof half the interest of the Russo-Dutch loan shall continue even in the event of war between the contracting powers. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, supposing the hon. member for Montrose to be correct, supposing there to have been a violation of the treaty of Vienna by Russia, even so flagrant as to justify our going to war, I contend that, even after a declaration of war, you are bound to continue this payment. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME— With another condition, the annexation of Belgium to Holland. Sir R. PEEL—No, there was a distinct obligation on the part of England, even iu the event of hostilities with Russia, to continue the payment of this debt. It seems odd then, that if we choose to remain at peace, we should attempt to violate conditions held binding even in erne of war. (Hear, hear.) For these reasons I doubt the right of England to relieve herself from this obligation. Certainly it is possible, as the noble lord has observed, that a court of law might give judgment in our favour, but construing the matter equitably, as to the intentions of the parties at the time when the treaty was concluded, I deny that morally or equitably we have a right to relieve ourselves from this obligation. (Hear, hear. ) And if we have not, I protest at any time, but more particularly at the present, against seeking any pecuniary advantage, and thou disen titling us to hold the language we wish to ' hold on this important question. (Hear, hear, hear.) I am the more anxious that we should equitably and honour ably fulfil our engagements, because I differ from the lan guage used by the minister of France as to the result of these transactions. M. Guizot says in his protest: "No power can free itself from this treaty without at the same time freeing ethers. France has not given the example of such attempts 'on the policy of conservatism snd peace; France has not forgotten the painful sacrifices forced on her in 1815, and must rejoice at the opportunity now afforded to con sult nothing but a provident estimate of her own interest." I protest against the conduct of the three powers, and also against the language held by the Minister of France. (Hear, hear.) I cannot admit that either this country or France is entitled to consult nothing but a provident estimate of its own interest. I totally deny that the failure of other parties justifies us morally or legally in violating a treaty. (Hear.) And it is because I believe that in the present state of Europe the strict and honourable adherence to treaties is the best foundation of peace, and affords the best prospect of solving the difficulties presented by the aspect of affairs ; it is because I differ from the minister of France as to his con struing of this treaty ; because I differ from him as to our right to relieve ourselves from =obligation by following the example against which he protests ; it i s on these accounts, that I feel doubly anxious, that if such language be held by other powers we should not participate in it, and that if we stand alone, we shall stand alone an honourable example in the face of Europe of a strict and honourable adherence to our obligations. (Cheers.) On these grounds, on grounds of equity and high policy, on grounds connected with the name end honour of England, I cannot concur with the hon. member in taking the first step, or any step, towards reliev ing ourselves from this debt. I find that there are some hon. members whe, concurring with me as to the continued obligation of the eoavention, still are prepared, while dissent ing from the fourth resolution, to concur in the first. Now, asl said before, I think the resolutions are consistent, pro viding that the practical conclusion is correct ; but if the conclusion be not correct, then the three first resolutions 'tend without any foundation. The hon. member invites us to declare that we view the conduct of the three powers with alarm and indignation. I do not think that, as we are not prepared to take any practical step, we should judified in coming to such a preliminary resolution. After a solemn declaration that we viewed the conduct of the three powers with alarm and indignation, what does the hon. member praises* that we should do ? I cannot say that I think that for a popular assembly, the represestative body of England, it would be dignified after a resolution of that nature, to remain unprepared to follow it up with some practical step. The honourable member says that be deprecates war, and is not prepared to follow up his resolutions with any practical step. (Hear, hear.) I think that the noble lord at the head of the government is fully justified in the distinction he has drawn between the executive government and a popular assembly. The crown has entered its protest against the annihilation of Cracow as a free state. It was the duty of the crown on the part of this empire to make such representations. The crown is the legitimate channel through which should be conveyed the opinion of the country, but I confess I very much doubt, if we are not prepared to take some practical step, the policy of the House of Commons agreeing to these resolutions. I cannot consent, therefore, to vote for them when we are not prepared to follow them up by some prac tical proceeding. Leaving, therefore, this question in the hands of the crown, on whose part the prime minister has entered his protest, leaving it on the responsibility of the executive government, I must dissent from the hon. mem bers conclusion, and therefore must negative his resolutions. At the same time I feel it to be my duty to accompany that expression of my opinion on these particular points with the distinct declaration, that I adhere to the conviction I ex pressed oa the first day of the session, that the act of the three powers in extinguishing the independence of Cracow, in annihilating its existence as a free state, is as opposed to the stipulations of the treaty of Vienna as it ia to the main tenance of public confidence in trestles. (Hear, hear.) I repeat this opinion with great rehictenee,Theasuse, while I express it, I retain my opinion also that it is of the utmost th:e:eaecont:dtenaatr:AlPcrarYtee.teUt..l7l:l: wofiththedeesPraP&o:::mthe'rrillf::: importance for us to maintain friendly relations with these three great powers. (Hear, hear.) I. for one, have viewed with the utmost satisfaction that amicable understanding which for some years past has prevailed between this country and France, as fraught with pro as calculated to ten e d a tran in t g ha q to t ui g. uth.th m t huoeig;;r:ihviionthluodi f h u e ir , d ing, but while I rejoiced at our cultivaticg these friendly rela • times with France, I never wished to cultivate them in any way that should impair our maintenance also of friendly re lawns with the three powers. (Hear, hear.) I never d. sired to have any such secret understanding with France as should Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN explained, that he understood the motion for adjournment to be to Tuesday next, and oat Is th►t day—the business of which he did not wish to interim* , wit b . After same further explanationii,the debate, on the .sdm of Sir J. WALSH, was adjourned to Tuesday. LANDED PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion foe the further consideration of the repvt on this bill, The Earl of LINCOLN moved the omiwion of a part et the 4th clause, relative to the appropriation of the mosey 10. be lent for improvements. A collimation ensued as to the objects for which it wadi be best that loans should be made. Ultimately, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said would accede to the amendment, under the impresdos *m suflicient powers for all practical improvement. were i under the bill, without the rc'ention of the word. objededels Afier some verbal amendments, the report was received. The bill, as amended, was ordered to be printed, and tad a third time on Monday, the 22nd instant. The house adjourned at one o'c:ock. afford cause of jealpusy to the three p 0,,, „. with whom for many years we have maintained relatiea d honouiable:to all parties, and most beneficial to Romp. at large. (Hear, hear.) My own experience teaches me, te e d, our friendly relations with these three powers have been ed .. tirely justified by their conduct towards us—by the hcootir_ able confidence which they Lave, up t this point, exhibited towards us. It is, therefore, with deep regret lan bound to state that I cannot concur in the 00. nion -which the noble lord who spoke just bet on me has expressed, to the effect that the three pun are entitled to • public acknowledgment of thanks on the part of this country. (Hear, hear.) I cannot find in the elaborate arguments of Prince Metternich any justification of the course which the three powers have pursued. (Hear.) I take this general treaty of Vienna: I am told that the liberty which was given to Cracow, was given it by *m a separate and independent act to which England was not s party ; that the three powers consented to give to Cracow an independence which it did Out posirss before, and that England and France merely stood by, in the humble caps. city of registering powers, to put their names as witnesses to a consent, but having no authority confix.d on them to interfere in the event of any violation of it. Now the 324 article of the Treaty of Paris of May, 1814 , un d er which the congress of Vienna was held, set e„,e that the congress of Vienna should be hold for the per. pose of collecting into one general act all the various negotiations, en,,;agemeute, couventioas, and stipulations of the various contracting powers, and giving a Kellen' elu tion to them, and a general uniformity to all regulations of superior and permanent interest. The Gth article of the general treaty of Vienna sets forth, that the Liven of Cracow is declared to be • free, independent, and strictly neutral state, under the protection of Austria, Prussia, and Russia This is one of the distinct and leading articles of the treaty, and from its position, we may f s ed, regard it as one of those articles of supe r 4 mid permanent interest, which were to be Ppecifiull y united in one general act. To this general treaty we find the name of the minister of England attached, and I cannot understand how it should be contended that three of the contracting powers have a right to abrogate this 6th article ; and incorporate Cracow with Austria, without communicat ieg with the other parties to the treaty. (Hear, hear) I can well conceive that Cracow may have broken it particular engagements; and I at once admit that Cracow has no right whatever to disturb the peace of the countries around it. I can imagine that if Cracow be made the focus of insurrections, by which the peace of the three powers is affected, the result may become so intolerable ea to justify the turee powers in looking to some decisive measure as the only remedy for the evil ; but I contend that no such step should have been taken wittiest • previous understanding having been come to with the other powers. (Hear, hear.) The three powers, however, have had recourse to no such preliminary sanction on the part of France and Eugland ; but have sacrificed the independence of Cracow on grounds even more dangerous in their tendency than the act itself. (Hear, hoar). The claim to deal with the convention regarding Cracow u a separate convention, without reference to all the parties by whose common ratification the treaty of Vienna was confirmed, is one which I consider most perilous to the peace of Europe, is its tendency to shako the public opinion of Europe as to the validity of great European engagements. (Hear hear.) Again, it is urged that Cracow is only a geographical atom ; very true; and on that very account do I consider that the engagements respecting it should be most religiously adhered to, that not one stipulation regard. ing it, made by the five powers, 'head be even modified without the consent of the five powers. Humbug is only a geographical atoms Frankfurt is only a geo graphical atom, yet will it be said that became they are only atoms geographically, they are to be aanif Need to the next strong power which shall choose to assail them, or either of them) (Hear, hear.) As in this country there would be far more danger, constitutionally, SO an attack upon the freedom of a pauper than on that of a peer, so is Continental Europe, while I do not few that Austria will attack Russia, or Wurtemberg or Bavaria Prussia, I do look with apprehension at the attack of a great state upon • small city, or a small state, on the plea that the latter is only a geographical atom, (Hear, hear.) With reference to this country in the matia I must say, that, looking back to the position which she has maintained since the commencement of the revolution/ay war, at the sacrifices she has made, at the disinterested reefs. tutiona she made upon the settlement of the affairs of Europe, at the subsidies she paid, at the manner in which elle alone stood the brunt of the stupendous efforts of Napoleon, I must say that I think the treatment to which she has been subjected in this matter of Cracow has been wholly unmerited on her part. (Hear, hear.) This was the feeling which evidently pre vailed with the Prussian minister. As to the policy 41 the act itself, I think it very questionable. It is • shock to the public feeling of Europe. That public feeling is in intelligent feeling. It has no desire to inter fere usith the independent action of other states. The French revolution has read us • useful lesson. It boa taught us the policy of early reforms--of relinquishing unjust exemptions, and special privileges held by particular classes. It has, on the other hand, calmed the wild aspirations after impossibilities, and taught us to distrust the magni ficent premises either of demagogues or of sincere enthusima. But there did, at the same time, pervade the intelligent and reflecting classes of the community a sincere desire to witness the progress of sober, well-considered. and rational reforms, and there was a feeling of sympathy to be formed for such a course of proceeding, with one from whom liberal measures were not generally expected—from him who presided over the spiritual concerns of a great state. (Loud cheery.) With respect to Cracow, if the power of these three states had been absolute and complete—if Cracow had not been placed in some respect under the guarantee of other powers, an its. willingness to interfere with the free action of independent, authorities would, he believed, hare induced that intellie gent opinion to which be referred to remain quiescent, and not interfere with the free discretion of those powers, which were entitled to exercise an absolute authority; But it was felt that by the treaty of Vienna there was a public assurance given. —(hear, hear,) —that the city of Cra cow should form an example of free institutions and inde pendence. The noble lord said that tl:e nationality of Mad was never dreamed of by those concerned in that treaty. Rs begged to remind the noble lord that in the correspoadsmied Lord Castlereagh he would find a distinct suggestion W the Emperor of Russia that his moral duties compelled Ida to ameliorate the condition of his Polish subjects, and diet that object was to be effected by restoring to Poland her rights as an independent nation. Lard Castlereagh, 1110... over, did convey to the Emperor of Russia, on the pent 4 Austria and Prussia, that those powers would readily else quiesce in inch an establishment, The noble lordesesK find, that in the first article of the Treaty of Vienna, it UlllO distinctly declared that the Poles, who an respective satiate. of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, shall obtain a tepemenfin• tion and national institutions regulated according le Ihe degree of political consideration that each of the gennea• ments to which they belong shall judge expedient ad. proper to grant them." Whether or no the conduct d Poles in 1831 justified the withholding of those instiaeline was quite another matter. What he contended was raise that treaty of Vienna hopes were held out that there waddle given to Cracow not only a tree government, but With spect to other Poles, subjects of Austris, Prussia, and that there would be given that degree of national separate existence which was implied by reprennatiee en semblies and national institutions. Again, he repaid the course which had been adopted; sad again be and smart that he could not fled any sufficient vindicable it it, and that the arguments by which it was attempts& it r justify it were at least as dangerous as the course feel& (Hear, hear.) He approved of the protest which had bee ~ entered into by the noble lord opposite. He thought tad that noble lord had acted wisely in determining, la the coda. tien in which he stood to France, to enter the protest sepa rately, and independently upou the part of this country—. (hear, hear,)—and as he (Sir R. Peel) concurred in the Ma of it, he felt it his duty to give to the government seek Nap . port, small as It might he, u the expression of his opi favour of the courts they had pursued, could give to *ea • (Loud cheers.) Sir J. WALSH having moved the adjournmeat of the debate, Lord J. RUSSELL said he mill not too strongly a press his unwillingness to see the debate adjourned. (Load cheers.) If adjourned to that day, it would greatly sad injuriously interfere with important government bemuse, which affected the welfare and safety of one portion of the kingdom. (Hear, hear.) He had observed that the greatest inconvenience had been occasioned in past WIDOW by having bills of importance deferred to • period of the , session when the number of members attend* , the house was greatly diminished. Still more did he feel that it was not jut thwart other house of parliament that queeteons of importune should be sent before it when there was not a sufficient , number of peers in town to deliberate upon the proposed • legislation. He, therefore, on public grounds must object* . having the order days for government business interfered with by motions of lion. members. On the other bank if they adjourned the debate again to a motion lose r • he felt they would he doing away with the impression vrim it was likely to produce. He, therefore, hoped the beam would consent to bring the debate to a close. (Ilea) Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN said that justice could not be dame to so important a subject without another adjournment. • Mr. LABOUCHERE thought that the hon. member, after his attacks on the government for their neglect aim- , land, would have been the last in that house to wish to pot pone Irish business, in order to give room for the diseemies of the affairs of Poland, however important they raga SIP pear to him. (Loud cheers.) The right hon. peadems then urged with much earnestness the necemityof advisable without delay the Irish measures before the house. • -11.