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

------". wish of the s zinn of c':ll' 1 2 ,1),nr. )lit orayr. If on cno in- be the wish :ecd. ;lite that the tl bi en over: he House in r steps what' from snore ql:s, wit"! all Pa rties. for Oldhaai as the 11°1/ ' vi his DO' ald say whe :r ncurreace true that th e tl s Plao dews of bot h and Wh ic h Billwh! ci injof i , own iible 1 m h em at ber [on. or the d old he L° e rtainiy inn " hie° hatever for he perfeatif ' desirable to he en tertain s had stated for Oldham e, before el a; what bi, the Pr°P°s lister f the sal fall ;tropo rties, it 1: duty CO. w 00 °n with rrvog he th °u " for Oldbs ° he ition 0 f t tea of late, : i d his wi t e l e cence 00 )osed c° ; ti e r re go 0_1:nom," d had ` l `,: e d He re fi t reeP ec . • ntri nl‘ Io . fact, , d from bitocd t'°` d to e A for )1' 5t00,..01 ration , ' pfd y oo d -etcoort'' t he een flit& )int bi lig if th e know ti(' 0 i v in tesa • ti • Vl te ;he vs,. 5 1 . per d to ;0 d e sir , , ) *vint a w hen t; ° " 7,feW IC A ny that hsci übje c , 4 , t iott into" - 10 it , , frds g oes !, 91 :‘, • -. tier tbad 31 Y s itter ° that Lord " .° ,b° t 3e9hat e • r a s"° ienn t a dew' °° iressieg thg tiee lar° par tion „ f the . 0 nr.- t" r first The Log i ,3r thei r • obliga. ti° R u ssia% , faith or to c°n 3tion wag e ' ild be wi l l , ild be co oe' the t ? coors e st he Mu s t faction _ ble ln"r e o f that b : a ny perse ion, would io convey ly a suppir s iciei.cy, i f avail pv0 03' 1 4 1 : 0 ite. 183 1 ' i f i ted to g thee,p oe v, y, g land WS' e treaty of a nd, by pt: nsible for pith Russis• the 1 1 °1 i w i bie ;by renaere.. .rtain Or: oly a iti f the two ° bis 3 °f _340 00 , 01 00- to occalif ere d id ren d r; a e " vi ed he :e s t l' w e ell be t ` tY n tiole eti he egh-c t onlY 9 g - de e g estitli er ie P e v i be ,roPe• sls e t „rbes defrP 3 ' 7 the t. 1 j sto od, aoo , i g ht ituele." r to uld it of tbe trop , the tre c-tif. thes e ;lP r g sunie s to d e , ci o ti o : aged i r . cate r d " it ! t t n- t ile e " ooned j 0 mad e ' r igi d. .11 ace - tli, )ower 10'r rn ess ive. , gas 9° 0 o • ba le or ssi a '• tu le prioc d Ithe to with be lid Itbe y net bin% s o; g l e at st lo . t the v bil e e t be ter ° f id of roi l / a ye ° rere - batan! ,t ssY is °° nut 0 „ - ,0 the i ,„ °- lost ; , st fer be tb° eta, , 3 0 1 etsi, ble tb nr itori al r c ity e city bt be ° ° r imi erv- 1 to b e ' fort of t Olt , nce the Fran ce mutat° le bY co P . ' ;ra lt• n of tile d to the 30. *l, F ir trP. , e great to, l ib ! re ev er v""'"f Av er and S P [MOUT boar' we., 11 .,' iirecuy e ction; erianl a Lopat'"' from Mr. Magen nig, that General Sobieski, who was so dis t:ue'tishrd for his gallantry in the contest of IFt3O, had wo2uti,et ab , tahle‘i trom of Craea,,. and had, as 30 ,L Lf.l ;; Ma ion of the outbreak, not only refased the sanmitn of Lis r;at but had removed into the territories of is as soon ; , 1 it commenced. The Hon. Meint.er for Fii.sbury charged his lion. Friend t Lord George Bentiock ) with only partially !Whig the manifesto of the provis.mial Government of Poland ~.1 411e d at the b rea ki ng out of the revolution. If the Hi-use " u ,uld permit him, he would read the document in full, which Welt be call e d th e M agna Ch ar ta of Poland. (Hear ) (The st• Member he re r ead the various articles of the manifesto. ) The penalty of death was also to be enhereed upon spies, and all declared forming cl u b s ag ainst the new Government were to be "dared traitors to the country. Any interference with the s iptuala establi s h e d was a l so t o be punished with death. The w th article regulated the national colours very minutely, and it . 1, 14 : that system of contemptible trifling and sanguinary tyranny r c h was to guide the future destinies of Poland. The ccin rof Cracow must be deemed a 3 involvin,2; its own safety. could not conceive that when a small state like Cracow was - t lieuPied by a military force that it could be other than imbe ,..! an d weak, or that it subjected itself willingly to - ugh Judi "4l occupation. M. Guizot had very much urged upon the con sideration of the three Powers the pos-ibility of their adopt ithot3t destroying the independence of Cracow, such pre alve measures as would check the progress of these conti nued insurrection s . Such a course could not be adopted without 4 , interest vast a n d genera l s y s t e m of espionage, which, even to the s, ere st of Cracow itself, would be most objectionable. Cr acow k ,uld hav e b een p l ace d i n a f a l se position, and instead of being r n efitted by such an arrangement it would have been ma 'Molly injured. Was the state of Europe such as would war 'l nt t hem in directing to the three Powers such a feeble show r emonstrance and hostility, which would not have the ta llest effect u p on th e independence of Cracow So great a t7 O " 611 as England could never have recourse to a little war, or v ,,Petty an d i ne ffi c i en t meas ure. Let the House consider 1 16":‘ Would be the effect of a measure of petty hostilit y —as ?,,;,__ ct ed to these three Powers—it would lead to innumerable s ou r ll , and declarations on the part of Russia, that this iv„ id Y had been guilty of a gross breach of faith, while it be productive of no effect, but that of contempt. He r aware th a t warm feelings existed in this country towards Zees but he knew, from his own experience, that the same e tt : s ßa did not exist in France. France was, he believed, at tuctnent the only nation of Europe which had a desire ~Zart and a desire of aggrandisement by con q uest. The spj'lng bered namin thates of Ma count r engory,, Auster and likept tz, analived Jenathat warlike are still re ipir, to o l* He hoped that the powers of Eu ro p e would be tie to arrange the present dif fi c ult y without th" e g that fearful feeling. He felt convinced that in p event of any disturbance of the peace of Europe b LsOce would not be a safe ally for this country. How many t i"Z during th e l as t seven years had they been on the verge of o u le ah of their treaty with this country? It was only the tetb.. t night that they were called upon to increase the navy to u rtes. because they were assured that the whole seaward D o of France was arming. He did nit know for what pur- IC the 127 furnaces were burning at Brest, but of this he kliaured, that they did not burn there . to restore the inde itofMatonens of C ra cow. Under these circumstances, he . felt tel oo - t rY willing to vote with the Noble Lord on the previous ep ee ° 12 2 and be did not feel inclined to interfere with the with respect to Cracow by any such inefficient 7 1 . h . re. 14;7 HARRY VANE had not heard an argument to induce t ite ' agree with th e object of the present motion. He had Il k lse d with th e utmost attention to the statements of the Hon. o Irjoinita ct (Sir J. Walsh) to a certain extent he agreed teeh ri u , 't that the treaty of 1831 was a subsequent and a To teal treaty ; but still he could not separate that tree . y from treaty of 1815, and from that of the 14th of August, 1814. tees c ertain extent he coincided with the Right Hon. Baronet, sit i i elnber for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) that there had been 41 11 4' 4 04in of those treaties ; but yet, at the same time he of th acceded to the proposition of the Noble Lord at the bead Government, that it was unbecoming in this country to ti o i`wd to the monetary consideration of a great political clues , I N ' and that it was salleient that a protest had been entered ttot e nst the proceedings of the three Powers. Yet he, at the same th e . must say that the three Powers saw reason to believe that de o l isc . l ePendenee of Cracow occasioned disturbance s in t h eir of ti ntu cs that they might not do away with t he sixth art icle U na e treaty of Vienna. But although he was far from saying %%the independence of Cracow was of the great importance It etua e Peace of Europe which it had been repr esented to be, he tigh" at the sam e ti me assert that the three P owers had no tto destroy the independence of Cracow w ith:ot onsult %%their allies. After going through the several p lit : cal rela deli,lawhich had arisen out of the treaty of Vienna, but while e ,, -4 'ng which it was utterly impossible to give this details op o iT' l acquence of the peculiar tone in which the Noble Lord st tn e , he proceeded to say that, reviewing all these circum to,,tea, there appeared to be ample reason for the acknowledg h%he'd that Russia and Austria had no right to act without i concurrence of France and England. He would not tbi ti teY upon the alliance of France, although he felt p'"e, Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth ( Sir ee '), bad hardly done justice to the worth of that al l iance. v.quite agreed with M. Guizot, that it was ne justification e t ever for one p ar ty t o kite sight of his engagements, be eet!arvele another had altogether overlooked them. He bad stated he Y shortly what his opinions were, but he could not re at all with the opinion expressed by the Right Hon. ti7enet the other night, that there was no sufficient justitica "it for the protest, and he sincerely trusted that the three peat Po wers wou ld ta k e warn i ng from t h e o b serva ti ons o f th e 4 se on the coarse which they were pursuing, and that this Zehtry might take advantage of the legal construction of this "tety, the Itlr. J. WORTLEY felt himself in a great dilemma as to question which was before the Hou se . H e wo uld express as plainly and as forcibly as he was able, his total disapprobation If the suppression of the independence of Cracow. But he could not forget that there were political considerations well worthy of att en ti on , an d w hi c h i n d uce d ra to hope that the Honourable M em b er f o r Montr ose °Old not force the House to a decision on the question. t ie did not wish to dwell upon topics which tended to create a 'Pith of hostility in that House, but he could not help re kitking that, on the first partition of Poland in 1772, the Y 414 0,_? excuses were put forward by Catherine that had been ad arced by the existing Sovereign of the same country. ik t :leminded the House that in the year 1814 it was one of 47„ o rst articles of the conv e ntion of Paris that the throne o f 11 6 1 , 11 d should b e res t ore d t o th e h ouse o f O range , an d G reat t o voluntarily gave up the colonies which had belonged ti g - Ct i ceuntry (and particularly Java), which they had every if fat t the lle laws of conquest to retain ; and therefore, in point frierua. restoration of these colonies depended only on the tre at of the King for the house of Orange. By the Yof Paris it was determined that Great Britain should title )000/. to Sweden, 2,000 , 000 1 . for the re-construc ted t "' the fortifi ca ti ons of Holland on the side of France, eke: Rive' an equal amount, with Holland , to the o t her tki t i; s uch sum not to exceed 3,000,0001. Among the subjects Vee n „ e ame under the consideration of the conven t ion o f `ths t i o ' Was the consideration of the losses sustained by af h er the destruction of her ancient capital — the ravaging country in a greater degree than suffered by her allies t itle t o it was agreed upon that England should waive her el t° of the in favour of Russia! And why ? Bee ici cle the facility which the latter country had given to the S tooe nt ets .. ,t ef Holland. But they did not undertake to pay an "alog iti "i money to Russia as security for Holland. Their ir o. On to pay was a distinct and independent one. The to 4 1 `"eneber then read the stipulations of the treaty of 1831, old 7 that cassia was guaranteed the repayment of her Zice He st ch debt, on condition of her maintaining I e the t reaty o f Vi enn a.—( Cries of Hear, hear.) Eierttatderation of the treaty of 1815. and subsequently of 44 4 1 114 the general arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, eee Lfeciliti es Russia had afforded towards carrying them the oti ; l ad that consideration failed ? had on one side, Of e . r , had a right to take advantage l of t it. What was the things in the time of Lord Castlereagh? Why Lord ' 4 1 1 0 14 1 1 h, assisted by France, wished to restore the freedom ltee ee u, while Russia wished to have the whole of Poland 'Zla? to Warsaw ; and the contest was brought to an end by `alt 4 - * a contracting to secure the freedom of Cracow. Upon o derstanding the loan under discussion was taken up by and; but as Russia had broken one of the conditions of es ti, tie Lt o ercent, England clearly had a right to (lie f' a it , payment. But then, did not matters - „ c Y suggest to them that it would be in !tk'lls, to pursue such a course ? England was in possession too Hies, which were part of the consideration for which of ePon herself the loan, while in times of danger and tl ee o ;, t e evi gone by, Russia had observed—and with the excep l'e ty . instance, still observed the conditions of the eetelt • Vienna. Was it prudent, then, for England now to h ieti tnel oall, in consequence of the confiscation of a geogra kttr, ka g r °lll ? Could she do it without coming to some new ga b Cement with Russia as to the possession of the colonies? te„stierellended not, and therefore he was so far opposed to the ( Rill the Hon. Member for Montrose.— (Hear, hear. ) A r ie n ' t l u o wever, there could be no doubt that the Treaty of s e L tit e d had been violated; for Russia reluctantly con to only to that part of the treaty which related ." 3 es eo - t e freedom of Poland, but still she did e `ce toe `e it , and there could not be a shadow of a doubt that 'etei fe 'eaation of this geographical atom to Austria was a kid t i at violation of the treaty. In the Convention of Austria tosd t ° 'and, the real contractin g . parties in thin matter, Russia btla<t proposals, upon which was ultimately founded the th: es tY which settled the balance of power to be exercised N o various nations of Europe. Now in those very pro le,. e t there was an article expressly providing for the freedom 1 1 1 1 4 f ' uc ee t lf t the town and state of Cracow, .and in the face of It the Austria was im 13n0sds.lprleust:iadehnayi violated t z e an tr d e h ty e o tr s o iri o e t n h n e a r ban , time Parts they had taken with regard to Cracow. '41 1 ,0 time that treaty was come to, it was admitted on all at h ris that Cracow was of the utmost importance to England, h v even now it was a commercial station of no mean character. thought at that time that Cracow was a city of too CO importan c e to b e g i ven to e ith er p a rty. It was quite %! that a violation of the treaty had taken place. The lidZliet of the annexi ng p ar ti es wou ld a l s o s how that they con tra re d it them se l ves th a t t h ey were t a k in g a coarse contrary t eth e e e treaty o f Vi enna. Th ey h a d acte d i n th e matter alle le% t without the knowledge and consent of Eng acee'f`( Hear, hear.) This country would, he hoped, not de liZreto avenge the violation of the treaty by inflicting ,soi ti Pecuniary punishment. He hoped that the House 4.or d .,d•pt the dignified course recommended by the Noble ean m _et the head of Government, and set thereby an ex- Ro t r 4to the other states of Europe and to the world. He tiet.ptiliniutk,,rnfore,. if the motion were pressed to a division, o e th olvide with him upon the first resolution, but against rient e last resolution, recommending a suspension of the of the interest on the Russo-Dutch loan. ` 4 S '"RISTIE said that the real facts of the history of byte evae m auti Ppeared to be, that a payment should be made t het int er to Russia, of a sum of money equal in amount to ettn. es t en what has since been known as the Russo-Dutch 4 111 06 The tsh l e • portion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's so,off cacti might be deemed historic, had not, in his opi teat d e or altered the position of the question, and with edi ct tere n „ a._ not think to that Hon. Gentleman's legal acquirements, ei,Zotil eou , that words introduced into the preamble of a_ to elation fifteen years after the date of the first, and tli tlitt e c o _ i n a ver general and vague rnanner with respeet or afjeoti n u f gTess o f Vienna, could b considered as binding on vieo o .g the general interests of the parties to the. treaty R hear ) It h b said, that even if a b th e 1 )4 eear treaty had taken ad place, een this country would et'• be to fulfil th e en g a g e ments which she had entered tiel t if - e " 54 not , however, agree in that opinion, he thought to te a provisions of the treaty were violated, all the par•• ,then"`!.tre7ety would be released from their engagements. re in o„,i(ce infraction of the treaty had absolved Eegland tzkia rte e t the, interest on the Russo- Dutch lean, England s od olltr pay it, and it would not be shabby . for e t odea eo Y to take advantage of that violation. , t f i vat pow _ t tr to inflict some punishent, however small, upon k i t e h em 'lifer the infliction ef am reat injury. le on the th u S ey, th e ' e t nla country was not absolved from paying the eh c co nduct " "shabby" would not express in proper terms tt conduc t h of the country in withholding the same. He nta.t 14 ever, that ss it was inconsistent with the functions Nati o „11"se to pa resolutions on the subject of the foreign 4 41 C. oth er countries. He thought that this debate IC! of ir....,ennclude without some remark to the cruel- IsTobi, s l, l and the barbarities of Gallicia, especially as Z o !lt 1 1 ,;_t r) rd the Illember for Lynn had, in a most extrava itis`lv which was its own refutation, gone comiderably it,a r t he ay. to pass a high-flown eulogium on what he Mild and paternal Governments of Austria and ")% h " Member then proceeded to read extracts -4111 . ber of l etters written by Mr. Magennis and other THE SUNS persons, describing the condition of the people prior to the insur.• rect ion and outbreak in Gallicia, and the conduct of the Austrian : •i, , t.il, Tailirisa p,...aFnrtry 1 lit 1 , , ticY; odium had been endeavoured to be affixed urn the manif,sto of the revolutionary government. He did not-wish to defend that document, but he thought that soma allowances should be trade for the circumstances in which the people and'the Go vernment were placed. He trusted the House would excuse him for trespassing so long on its attention, and he would con clude by expressing a hope that the Hon. Member would with draw his resolutions,. and rest satisfied with the strong expres sion of opinion which they had called forth. Air. S. '!'BRIEN said, that in reply to the Noble Lord whe . had challenged them to give an instance of the vi,lation of treaties on the tart of.Eng!and he would name an instance. He asked the Noble Lctrtcdidshe not violate the treaty of i 782, which she had entered into with Ireland—a treaty as solemnly and for mally entered into as that of Vienna. With regard to the question before the House, he thought that there could be no doubt that the northern powers had violated the treaty of Vi, , nna. The Noble Lard ( 13entinek) attempted to defend them on the ground that they had been guilty of former in fractions of that treaty, but that, in his opini,,n, rather aggra vated than extenuated their offence. The N Lard the secretary for Foreign Affairs had ridiculed the idea that the suppression of Cracow had taken its rise from the apprehension entertained by the northern powers that this was necessary to their security. The effect, however, of this annexation, was to deprive the minor states of Europe of all confidence in the stability of present arrangements. He should like to know from the Noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, why a diplomatic agent had not been appointed for Cracow, agreeably to the premise given in 1836? If this had been done, the scenes that had taken place in Gallicia and Cracow would never have occurred. The Noble Lord, instead of taking the course which he ought to have taken under the circumstances, had paralysed the in fluence which this country would have had, by em broiling the friendly relations which existed between them and France. The French press had now taken up the ease of Poland, and represented it to the Govern ments of Europe in its true colours, and he trusted France and England by their co-operation, and determined efforts, wquld endeavour to circumvent the policy by which it was sought to keep a great nation in a condition of perpetual degradation. Mr. B. ESCOTT rose to support the resolutions sub mitted for the approval of the House, by the Hon. Member for Montrose. Two questions had been raised during the debate. The first, whether the suppression of Cracow, b y the three Powers, was, or was not, a violation of the treaty of Vienna; and, secondly, whether after the treaty had been violated, as it had been, this country ought to continue to pay a large sum of money to one of these Powers which in the opi nion of many was only contingent upon the strict observance of the treaty. He, for one, was content to leave the vindica tion of the honour of the country to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in accordance with the sentiments of the speech from the Throne at the opening of Parliament. He was, therefore, unwilling to enter upon the discussion of that part of the subject; but on the record he thought they ought unhesitat ingly to express their opinion, especially after the speeches de livered that evening by the Hon. Gentlemen the Members for Bute and Weymout h. One party in that House was in favour of Russia receiving the money, but another party held that the people of this country ought not to be called upon to pay the money, unless it was clearly payable. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bate, after making one of the clearest state ments ever made in that House, that they were not liable to pay the money ; but he followed it up by one of the weakest argu ments he had ever heard, namely, that although it was not due, lie could not vote in favour of discontinuing its payment. There was, however, but one Member who had taken a straightfor ward view of the matter—he meant the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn. If he was correct in stating that the three Powers were consulting their own safety and the safety of their subjects in suppressing Cracow, and that the act was no invasion, and that we ought to pay the money; but still he admitted that the payment of the money doper.ded upon the observance of the treaty, and that if it had been broken, he should, nevertheless, vote in favour of the payment of the money. All he could make of the Noble Lord's speech was, that one-half of it went to show that they ought not to pay the money, and the other that they ought to pay it. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bute laid down two propositions—first, that the payment of the money de pended upon the oonstruction to be put upon the treaty of Vienna; and, secondly, that the annexation of Cracow was a gross violation of the treaty of Vienna; but then he pro ceeded to state that although the treaty had been violated, they must still pay the money to Russia.—( Hear, hear.) His argument was simply this, that where two eon diti,,tis were made between two parties, and one broke his portion of it ; the fulfilment of the agreement was not binding upon the other. He (Mr. Etcott) was at a loss to understand why this country was to pay large sums of money to foreign Powers which were not due. It simply resolved itself into a question of pounds, shillings, and pence ; but he had remarked that whenever that argument was brought forward it was treated with derision—as a part of the subject with which one ought not to deal.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. Hume.) But, in his opinion, it was the most important question of all.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Weymouth said it was a mean thing to pay an unjust demand from fear of a foreign Power—( Hear, hear) —that it was the very consum mation of meanness to do so ; and he wished Honourable Gentlemen who differed with him would point out how it was incumbent upon this country to pay the money to Russia, when she had violated the faith of treaties, and, consequently , released t h e m from the obligation which' the treaty of Vienna had imposed upon them. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth produced a great impression on the House by reading the treaty of 1815, under which the money was formerly paid ; but he ought to have known that the money was payable even in 1832, and that he told the Ministers then in office, that, until they could get an indemnity from Parliament to pay it, that they would not be justified in doing so. 'I he Act passed in 1832 repealed altogether the stipulation of 1815, and the Act of 18 ! .32 . showed that the Noble Lord was correct. when he - - ---- - ....... ......_ stated that the payment of the money was dependant upon Russia adhering to the faith of the treaty, and that the satety of the last remnant of Poland should not be interfered with. Lord Castlereagh, to whom history would do justice, for he was a nobleman of great powers, had, in the opinion of the Duke of Wellington, acted most judiciously in his negotiations with the three Powers, as he bad stated, •' the t it was a masterstroke of policy to bind Russia by a pecuniary obligation to observe the faith of treaties." There. fire he (Mr. Escort) was correct in saying that the question simply resolved itself into one of pounds, shillings, and pence. But now, having it in their power to act justly—having justice on their side— to give some effect to the eloquent protest of the Noble Lord, they were told that the House of Commons had nothing to do with foreign affairs—" here is a protest from the Queen's Minister—respect the Executive Government." Now, he wanted to help the Executive Government; but if they con tinued, after what occurred, to pay the money, the Minister of Russia would no doubt say,—" If this is the nature of your pretest, I wish you would do so in a similar strain as often as you think proper." Certainly they would not be respected in Europe if they paid a purely unjust demand ; if it was just, let them by all means pay it, but if it was unjust let them manfully refuse to do so. Some seemed to think that the question was one of war, if they refused to pay the money, but he considered it simply a question whether the treaty had been violated or not. It was not a war question, but the dan ger of war was not created by refusing to pay a demand which was unjust. Yet if any of the three powers were disposed to go to war with Great Britain, he thought they would hold out a direct encouragement for them to do so, if they were to pay the demand under such circumstances, and particularly if they paid it—as they must if they paid it at all—in the shape of hush money. The Noble Lord the Member for Lynn lard made one observation for which he thanked him. The Noble Lord seemed to think that his opinions peculiarly fitted him for the head of the " country party," as it was termed, but the speech which he had delivered on this subject, clearly showed that the opinions of the country were against the country party, which he pro fessed to lead, as he had declared that he would meet the motion of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) by a decided negative. He would have no moving of the previous qui stion, and he honoured him for his determination, because the question was one which ought not to be met by such a motion. Her Ma jesty's Ministers were of the same opinion. but the Noble Lord ( Bentinck) said they were all wrong in their con clusions, as there had been no violation of the treaty ; as the three Powers, he said, had done their duty, and there fore, he shouLl stand up for the payment of the money, still, he must vote with those who supported the resolutions, that the question should be put by the Speaker, and having agreed to that motion, they would then come to the resolu tions ; but how Hon. Gentlemen who considered that the treaty had been violated could, on the division, tgo into the other lobby, he was quite at a loss to understand. He re, eated that the queation•must be viewed as one of pounc's, shillings, and pence, as the question of honour'depended upon its being viewed in that light. They had had to borrow 8,000,000/. for the relief of the destitute poor of Ireland ; therefore, that was no time to continue the responsibility of a debt of 7,000,000/. when the other parties to the treaty had broken its conditions, and taken away their liability to pay it. The plea of honour was nonsense, and was one which a Minister could not avail him s elf of, if it was not founded in justice. They were told that the colonies which they still held were csrnpelled to pay this money. He should wish some Member to get up and say that it compelled them to pay it to Russia— for such was not the case; they were not bound to pay one sixpence to Russia upon account of their colonies. Well then, was the House of Commons about to vote the payment of this money on no other grounds than those which they heard just stated. The Noble Lord was not singular, as it had been observed, in his opinions. He had no doubt that the Member for Shrewsbury supported the views which he had taken, and he had no doubt but that they should hear him gravely argue in the same strain respecting the wisdom of the Austi ian and Russian Cabinets, but he did not blame them, they were at least consistent. But how was the House of Commons, who condemned their views, to justify its own conduct. It was Letter upon such occasions as the present to speak the simple truth. Hear, hear.) There was one great disadvantage in that Government which was vulgarly called Whig, namely, in any question such as that under discussion, in anything which bore upon its face the character and nature of a job, it was sure to be supported by there generel opponents—( Hear, hear)—and there was one great advantage derived from that other class vulgarly called Tories, who were sure to be opposed by those who in office never brought any of those buds and flowers of patriotism which it required some other incentive to produce than the reigns of power. The Noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown would have the support of the former, but he would tell him that the present was a question of great constitutional policy, and one which the people would take up. The late Minister had quitted office, not by reason of the great liberal schemes which he had propounded, but because he thought to lay his hands upon the constitutional Lberties of a part of the United Kingdom. The House of Commons de feated that attempt, and the Noble Lord had scarcely been placed in power before he showed symptoms of a similar ten dency—( Hear, hear)—by the introduction of an unconstitu tional measure. But the Noble Lord took time to consider; he took counsel of his own reason—of his better judgment— ansl the result was, that he threw aside the weaisass of oppres sion. The present was another great constitutional question, and he would find, that on this question, he had enemies among his own household, and that his hest friends Were not to be found among his servile followers.—(Cheers.) Mr. SMYTHE—As a purely financial question the subject of our debate has been so completely disposed of in the mas -1 terly tracings of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark, that I do not think any Hon. Gentleman can successfully maintain that, as a matter of mercantile and commercial fair ness. we are not responsible for the performance of the obliga tions into which we have entered. But, Sir, though that may be my opinion, and though I differ from the Hon. Member for Montrose, I have many misgivings as to the opinion stated on this question by the First Minister of the Crown. 'I he Noble Lord laid down, with all the gravity which belongs to such a high constitutional authority, that discussions on matters solely of foreign policy were seldom attended with any prac tical advantage, and he illustrated this positien by re ferring to the annual protests in favour of Poland, which had been well called mere ", sword thriests in the water," but in which the French Chambers delighted to indulge. It is impossible not to feel the value of this counsel, and the warning of this example. It is impossible not to remember how little has been done for the Polish nation, notwithstanding such declarations of sympathy.—( Hear, hear. ) It is impossible for some of us not to call to mind that truth wrung from the dying agonies of Poland, and which has since grown into a I roverb, when she said, speaking of her heroic • insurrection of :31, " God is too high, and France is too far." LONDON, WEDNESDAY E protest—to respond to them—and taking advantage of certa;n other treaties which were in existence, to punish one of the violators of this stipulation. The e-reses ~ eat he had fairly stated the cese which w as b e : ore th em . On the first night of the sestions, although there was a general feeling in the House —at least very much so on the side on which he had tee honour of sitting—that they should not enter into soy disitaision on foreign affair ; although he thought, though it s. eined mist takingly, that they were not at all bound by the address which was voted to the gracious speech of her Majesty, still, from some observations which unexpectedly fell from the Noble Lord the First Minister, he felt bound, though he did it very im perfectly, to warn that House not too suddenly to admit that there had been a manifest violation of the treaty before them. He did not speak upon the subject as a question of policy, but as a question of public law; that they were urged precipitately to admit th a t th ere h a d b een a violation of a treaty which was for the interest of this country, and which, as he then observed, and as he now believed, had not been infringed on. He had always understood that whatever might have been the language in answer to the address from the torsos, that the Ilouse was not pledged to the language of that address, however decided might have been the words in which it was couched. On a late occasion it was to be remarked that her Majesty's Ministers did not attempt even formally to pledge the House upon that question, because, although on a previous occasion they might have agreed with her Majesty's Ministers that there bad been a manifest violation ot the Treaty of Vienna in answer to the address, he thought it only a matter of statement, and that they had to thank her Majesty for the information which had been given to them upon the subject. He had thought himself, therefore, perfectly safe in receiving the information upon the first evening without any comment. He was therefore very much astonished when the first Minister of the Crown rose, and in adverting to the R o ya l Speech, stated that th ere was no human being who could doubt that there had been a manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna. It was that observation which had made him (Mr. Disraeli) observe as he did to his Noble Frieed near him, that be thought it rather a suspicious assertion oil the part of the Noble Lord. Now, what was the result ? The Right Hon. Baronet the Member foe the University, who was a great authority upon all subjects, but especially upon Parliamentary reform—( A laugh)—rose the other night and said that every gentleman was pledged by the answer to the Speech from the Throne, to be of the opinion that there had been a manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna ; and the Noble Lord the first Minister, in his speech, to which he (Mr. Disraeli) might be permitted to say he had listened with great pleasure, but he had more admired his powers of declamation than the effect of his observations upon public law, had stated with admirable coolness, that every gentleman who was present had, by his silence, signified his acquiescenee in the opinions of the Government, that there had been a viola tion of the treaty of Vienna. He must appeal to the House whether, under any circumstances, their silence would have been an acquiescence ; but, under the existing circumstances— looking to the language of ~the address in answer to the Royal Speech, he would ask, if all the Members present had been silent, and went to the question of a division to vote in silence, and had appeared even favourably disposed towards the opinion, whether they would have been bound by the language of the ad dress ? He was decidedly of opinion —and he laid it down with out equivocation or evasion, and he had the judgment of some of the principal judges of public law with him in his opinion —that no one could call the violation of a particular treaty inserted in a general treaty, a violation of that general treaty. He put the principle as broadly as words would permit him, because he was unaware of any exception, and he should listen with great respect to any one who could furnish him with any exception to this principle, which he believed to be of the gravest importance. He had addressed the House very im perfectly, but he hoped not in any dogmati ca l t one , an d h e advised it to look well to the ease of the peace of Westphalia, which had been detailed by a great authority —the Noble Lord the Member for Hertford—arid who had reminded the House that in that instance a treaty had been inserted in the general treaty, and that that treaty, clothed in one of the most remarkable and stringent guarantees on their diplomatic records, had been violated. The parties to that political treaty had, on a subsequent occasion, applied to the signators of the general treaty, and it had been decided, after grave discussion, and atter the case had been referred to the first judges in Europe, that the violation of a treaty inserted in a general treaty at Congress was not a violation of that general treaty. There was another case similar almost to the case before the HOU - st'. The free states of Germany had been guaranteed by the treaty of Osnabreck political rights. The treaty of Osna breck was inserted in the treaty of Minster, and the free states of Germany were deprived of their political rights. They applied to the signators of the treaty of Minster, and they called upon them, in consequence of the guarantee with which the treaty of Osnabreck terminated they called upon the great Powers, the signators to the general treaty, to do them right, and fulfil that guarantee. It was decided, after the most weighty argument, by a man second to none, and who had interfered with the great trans action of Vienna, that the violation of a political treaty in serted in the treaty achieved in Westphalia was not a violation of the general treaty. He (Mr. Disraeli) said that it was de cided by a man second to none, because he was sure that the great Chancellor of Austria, el. Oxenstern, to whom his Hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury had referred, could scarcely consider himself inferior to the great Chancellor Mazarin, who had given the opinion; and he (Mr. Disraeli) believed, that if Talleyrand had lived, he would have been insulted to have been compared to him in political dexterity, and yet those two great statesmen, equally interested in the adverse decision, because Sweden, being a German state, had exercised all its influence to secure the political rights of the independent states of Ger many, and with the, treaty of Minster opposed to them, these two great statesmen decided that the viola tion of an inserted treaty was not a violation of a general treaty of Congress. He would put the case before the House, not by the number of precedents, because, in his opinion, precedents were only important when they were connected in detail, and almost touched the subject, and upon the authority of persons implicated in the transactions to which they had reference. Under such circumstances three or four precedents would be as effi cient as hundreds at another time, and under different circum stances. Ile would put the case as one of public law so clearly, that he defied any man , to disprove it—at least he de fied any man, a member of the present Government, or a member of the late Government, to do so, for he would show, even to their prejudices, the opinions of one who might, with out any offence to the gentlemen on either side of the House, be considered as not inferior to any leading statesmen, and who had scrupulously, discreetly, and wisely always followed the precedent of whieh he would remind them. Louis XIV. had given his decision in favour of his view of the case, and while France was compelled to give up the Palatinate, it was stipulated that it should retain its religion. The religion of the Palatinate under France was the Roman Catholic. The German princes murmured very much that the seat of the Protestant Reformation should be thus converted into a Roman Catholic country. After the peace which followed the war of thirty years, the whole of the Governments of Europe were placed in a state of controversy, and the question was, what would have been the course of this country if there had been no such rights in exist ence ? He would then refer to the treaty made with France arid the other Powers. They now c a m e to the treaty of Osna burgh, and he would find that the decision then entered upon had been discredited, and it was ultimately referred to the Diet of Germany. That Diet was decidedly opposed to the decision which had previously been come to, and it was referred to the consideration of William 111., the first opponent of Louis XIV. That monarch had refused to decade upon his own authority, and had determined to decide it upon the general law of Europe.—(Cheers.) They could not can in the ex pression of kindness of the several Powers, for they had all assented to the proposition that it must depend upon the con struction which those Powers placed upon the treaty , and the y could not therefore rely up on the construction which had bees made in their favour, or on the friendly interposition of the Powers who were parties to this treaty. He would beg t o p ut these several treaties bef ore the House, and remind them of what had occurred at the commencement of the present ses sion. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), after a series of observations on the real con sequences of the treaty, had expressed his opinion that this was but an annexed treaty to the treaty of Vienna. —(Loud cheers.) But what did t h e Ri g ht Honourable G . eu tlernan say ? He asked, w h a t was the use of those treaties, and had designated them, as if in contempt, as an nexed treaties ; and had asked what was the use of those trea ties.bu He should be sorry t o m i sre p rese nt those treaties, t he believed that the effect of the whole of them was to give nationality to Poland. And h e did no t b e lieve that th e treaty of Vienna at all interfered with the objects o f that treaty. — of (Cheers.) What, indeed, w as th e use or the m h ea t T e n g Go. these propositions, if they were not to be backed Y uld never vernment ? Quite sure he was that the Hous e w sanction the tulfilment of the treaty if it were not. o sanctioned of these by public opinion. What, in fact, was the m eaning the same terms, or the use ot them, if they tt did not mean (Hear, time to sanction the expression of public opinion?-- hear.) What was the meaning of these terms if they w ere not to sanction the proceedings of the sev e r al Powers ? e xistence —( Hear, hear.) as ' there a human being in who did not believe that the same faults would be committed trifling change? if the same fan is were to be obser v ed at ever y t r im He was not aware of the mischief which might arise, f 01a bu n t d ;noonecould read the 118 th clause of t he convention of with out being aware that it was a pert of the same wouldy ofthe ceahl nothing to inculpate th e s ever a l mem b ers Church was in existence, except that which would best bind men's consciences and their acts. The qu estion was not as t o wretllethe treaty of Vienna should be broken, or whether it should stand ' • and in showing that the treaty of Vienna oughtd to be observed, he would rely not only on what h a d been his °en s e s e otthewHasouesoeo,fobrumtaballoso toon on the thegiednaemr alprinciple f of justice. and which the House with respect e to treaties. He could not agree that the general rule s of the House should be violated for the sake in order to meet the feeling of irrita of a trifling expense, and that the first principles of general law sheuld be sacrificed which we have suffered so much. The Right Hon. orth hadpointedthis t ion from ques tion triumphant expression o Baronet the Member for Tames out popular aodm _ w a hich it was to beregu;ateci f feeling, and the mean as the foundations obty He would ask whether the proved.—( Cheers. ) be maintained, arid Rio lit Hon Baronet was to whether the in fractiontreaty was to be suffici en t f or the of a particularinfrac tion of a general treaty. It was very evid en t th at there had been an infraction o f the ge neral treaty, and if it was not, there was sufficient oppo r tunity for correcting the report. The quest i on over and over again , but it as had been discussed yet had never Hon. Baronet lead been settled. The Right put the question never been violated. In ' as if the treaty had this case, the and the treaty was evidently violated, • consideration was, whether the violation of one article wassufficient to justify the viola. t t lei ion of others. That was the ques i n o d n i o f which Austria, Russia, Prussia, and France were parties; ado they did not adhere to the principle which they bad laid down, they would lose their locus stand!. If there were any objections to the particular article, still none could be e t nter t talned as t o th e principles of that the original treaty. And if were to b e abrogated, the of that abrogation ought to give noti ce to • signors the parties to the original treaty, He would not ref er to precedent, for s altogether opposed te the infracti r precedent wa -on or a part r• I of a treaty and yet retaining re E mei !' ee ef the whole agree ment. He would ask the Noble ord, after reading the gene ral treaty, and the whole series of the corrosond ence, whether one dot of a vowel of th at a g reement sh ould be set aside, or whether any forsign interp osition s hould be suffered? Hon. Gentlemen might choose to make an extibition at Freemasons' Hall, and prostitute the influence of the British Senate, but he trusted that, for the cr edit of the country and th e character , of the Noble Lord, they would n ot c arry this questi on t o a division. Well, this had been laid down as the rule under these circum stances, that when a superior instrument Was present the mere repetition of its clauses was to be looked upon as a mere • reci tal. They were merely the machine by w hi c h the signore gnora of the original treaty were allowed to interpose in • the settlement of questions which might arise under the particular treaty. He would hesitate very much, although he might be able to esta blish his opinions by reference to very grave auth • onty—he would hesitate very much—he would feel he had a gre a t diffi culty to encounter in referring to the past— but he could well ' establish his position by reference to living witnesses—by re ferring to the experience of statesmen in th a t H ouse. He must say, however, that nothing had more amazed him than the speech which the House had heard irom the Right Hon. Gen tletnan (Sir Robert Peel) on this question. He wouldask' the Right Hon. Gentleman, or he would ask the Noble Lord opposite, how they had both acted in the cas e o f B e l g i um ? — How had the King of Holland acted? What was the conduct of the King of Holland ? He had an intimate knowledge of the law of nations ; but then he was not a mem ber of the House of Commons.—(Laughter.) He was pot a —( Hear, hear.) But if France is too far, England, morally and politically, is not so. Unlike France, she is not bound to P . 1 , :e) batik' , Ilianeet. nor by a lone cen'raternity. now of e.f. iriu , .2, t^:,,n: :I.c the V:•!, , ,' the days of Napoleon. It ever any country Iva , : bound to another, it was France to Poland ; if ever any country was bound to strive for the national.ty of another, it was France for Poland ; and it ever there was a country aban !coed by another, it was Po land by France.— (Cheers. ) It is a chapter in a contemporary history, and as old as the story of Athens and Platma. But if England has not the same interest as France in the inde pendence of Cracow, I yet—with all deference to the Noble Lord—am persuaded that this is no disqualification for our considering the question in this House; for, if I understand the spirit of the Hon. Gentleman's resolutions, he does not propose to interfere with or embarrass the Executive, but to corroborate, confirm, and enforce the views of the Government —to give effect and sanction to the protest of the Noble Lord the Minister for Foreign Affairs, especially when that protest has been so long neglected and disregarded. —(Hear, hear, from Mr. Hume.) And if the Noble 1111 mber for London had brought the whole weight of his authority ii: favour of the posi tion that such questions are not within the immediate province of this House, there is another constitutional authority, scarcely second to the Noble Lord, Mr. Hallam, who has said in a noble image," that the pulse of Europe beats according to the impulse it receives from the Parliament of England."— ( Hear. hear, and cheers.) And I think we should be wanting in our duty—we should ill represent the feelings of this country, if we failed to express, not per• haps our indignation, but at least our regretful sorrow at so inauspicious and untoward an event.—(Cheers. ) And if anything could enhance our regret at the act, it would be the manner in which is was defended. It is surely a melan choly thought that Prince Metternich, whose name for nearly half a century has been a synonyme for good faith—whose po licy of wise adjustment and honourable compromise has stamped itself on this country—that he at the close of a long and glo rious career should have connected himself with that immo derate policy, with that Cadman conquest, if I may say so, where the gain is so inconsiderable and the loss so ge neral—where the gain is a geographical atom, and the loss the unsettlement of Europe.—(Much cheering ) There is not any one of the arrangements and stipulations of the treaty of 1815—not that as to the Germanic Confederation, not that as to the Italian dominions of the house of Austria, not that as to Venice, or Genoa, or Prussia—which has gained more by peace than she ever did by war—nor that as to Hanover or the Netherlands, more distinctly secured than the stipulation for the independence of Cracow. Nay Sir, as if by a prescience that that small State would become the battle-field between might and right, between liberty and force, its independence was guaranteed by a greater number of articles than those applied to any other states which formed the subject of that arrangement.—(Cheers). Now, Sir, one word about the manner. Was there ever any thing more rude, more abrupt, more unlike the diplomatic usage so familiar to Prince Metternich, than the mode in which that violence was consummated ?—(Cheers.) On the 17th of April Count Dietrichatein expressed an alarm as to Polish emigration, but no alarm as to Cracow. From the 17th of April to the 6th of November the three Powers made no sign. On the 6th of November Count Dietrich stein communicated the intention of the three Powers that Cracow should cease to exist as an independent state. And what was the excuse for so dolorous and precipitate a ra pacity ? From the dispatch of the 6th of Nov. amber down to the speech of the Noble Member for Lynn, we can find no other pretext for such a proceeding than the accusation, repeated in every shape, form, and phrase, that Cracow had become the focus of a conspiracy. 1 think the advance ment of this accusation by the three Powers has over-proved their case • because, Sir, if Cracow was " morally and materially a city of buccaneers"—if it was the retreat of every kind of brigandage, the question naturally arises, what were the three Powers about—why did not they sooner interfere to prevent this decoy, and resist this depravity ? What otherwise is the meaning of the word " protectorate ?" Would it, for example, be borne that we should now come forward in the face of Eu rope, after a lapse of 30 years, and say that the inhabitants of the lonian Islands were morally and materially a people of buc caneeers—that these islands were full of misery, the retreat of every brigandage, and that, therefore, their liberties should be extingnished ? And yet that would not be a more monstrous violation of the treaty of Paris than was the annexation of Cracow of the treaty of Vienna.—( Hear, hear.) Remember too the promises of that period—remember the protest of the Emperor Alexander, already referred to by the Honourable Member for Pontefract. "This state," said the Czar, " shall enjoy tranquillity and peace, by consecrating itself to the arts and sciences, to industry and commerce. And she shall terrain as a monument of the magnanimous policy which linerty has established 011 the very spot where the ashes of her best sovereigns repose." Well, then, of the two—between" the magnanimous policy," which I will not say connived at, but which at the end of thirty years permitted that misery, that brigandage, and emigration which Prince Metternich so elo quently paints, and " the mercy of decision" for which the Noble Member for Lynn thanks the three Powers—l am in clined to favour the conclusion of the Noble Member for Lynn, bat this I will say, that the two combined—the "magnanimous policy" and " the mercy of decision "—find no parallel in his-. tory, not even in the example of that prince whom I am afraid other princes have imitated.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) But it is in vain to look to history for the precedent of such a proceeding. It is only to be found in the story of Semiramis and Ninyas. She first nursed and then de bauched him. The three Powers first nursed Cracow and then destroyed it.— (Hear, hear.) It was not the events that took place in Cracow that led to its dissolution; it was the events in London, Paris and Vienna. History will record the fact, that all the pains, and penalties, and persecutions which this small state has undergone has been the consequence of that spirit of absolutism which has gone abroad whenever any coldness has arisen between the two great constitutional states of the world. For example, at the end of 1835 differences arose between England and France on the subject of Spain ; at the beginning of 1836 those differences came to a crisis when M. Thiers refused all intervention. The " three Powers" were, however, beforehand with us ; they seized on their prey of Cracow, all treaties of neutrality were violated, and the rights and independence of that state were outraged. With such lights and such reminiscences, I must state as my be lief, that if the entente cordiule now existed—if there was an intimate understanding between these two great constitutional countries, the independence of Cracow would have been re spected.—( Hear, hear.) I believe not less that the three Powers would have obtained the legitimate end of their alliance, the security of their own borders. I will endeavour shortly to explain my meaning. It has been said that the art of absolute government is taught in a stable by a centaur—a cross between a man and a horse. And the meaning of the myth I take to be this—that when you cannot employ address you must apply force ; where you cannot use your hands, then you must use your hoofs. Now, Sir, I believe that if there was an intimate understanding between the constitutional states of Europe, the three Powers would have employed their hands, and not their hoofs.—( Hear, hear.) The inference, then, is obvious. I would venture to impl ore th e N o bl e S ecre t ar y for Foreign Affairs to use every effort to bring again about the entente cordiale, and to resume our intimate alliance with France, and I venture so to call on him by what is due to the in terests of civilization and humanity, of public order and European peace.—( Cheers.) And not only, Sir, for the prevention of acts such as this, but for the prevention of that re-action which is their formidable consequence ; of that re-action which is now smouldering wherever there has been or is misgovernment ; which has flashed forth along the whole line of the Appenines, fiom Genoa to Calabria, and which may there or elsewhere burst into a more serious conflagration.—.(Much cheering.) But this I will say, that the knowledge that the two great constitutional Govern ments of Europe were really acting together would be a better protest against so untoward an event than the refusal to pay the interest of the Russo-Dutch Loan. If the three Powers, in their notions of a mimetic morality, have thought right to sanction the annexation of Cracow, that is no reason why England should repudiate her debt to Russia. I think with the Noble Lord the Member for London, that we shall act a far nobler part by saying to:them, " You have broken a solemn compact: we respect a doubtful engagement. You have broken a most important treaty that universal Europe has ratified ; we will respect a constructive understanding, on the merits and obligations of which even publicists have differed."— ( The Hon. Gentleman withdrew amid cheers, which lasted a considerable time. ) Mr. B. DISRAELI, in rising to address the House, said he could only appeal to them now on the present subje..t, as he could not pretend, as was the case with usual questions of do mestic or municipal policy to bring feelings of passion or pre judice to bear upon it. On questions like the present, which were rarely brought under the consideration of Parliament, he could only address himself with only one sentiment, which was how far the question now before the House concerned the in terests and honour of this country ? He thought this was not a difficult question. At present, while many indulged in a blaze of philanthropy, which was easily illumined, and to which he objected; he was equally averse to contrary principle, which might be supposed to arise from some turbid feeling, that they should become the champions of arbitrary and despotic Govern ments. He did not mean to take either course. He had been given to understand that a treaty of the greatest importance had been violated; a treaty, which, for the interests of this country, ought to have been observed ? Now, before going into this question, he thought they should first agree as to the subject which was not before them ; and in offering that suggestion, he would submit that they had not before them the question of , the partition of Poland.—( Hear, hear.) He had heard great bursts of eloquence about the treaty of 1772, which redounded to the credit of the House He trusted that they all lamented that the independence of Poland had ceased to be. He re gretied the fall of Poland, mainly because he believed it was for the interest of England that Poland should have remained an independent Power. He could easily understand how the lion. Member for Pontefract ( Mr. Milnes) and the Hon. Mem ber for Canterbury (Mr. Smythe), should state that it was still more for the interestof France than of England that Poland should be independent. Put while he stated this—while he believed that both France and England were interested in Polish na tionalities, he submitted that the last parties which should ob ject to the partition of Poland, was an English Parliament. Before the partition of Poland, the English Minister for Foreign Affairs, when he was made aware of what was going forward, communicated with the Minister of France, offering to unite with the Government of that country in a protest against the proceedings of the three Northern Powers. And what did the English Parliament do? At this very time they turned the Minister out of office. Poland was consequently partitioned, and France became our inveterate foe in taking the side of the North American colonies. Thus the same vote which turned out this Minister, resulted in the partition of Poland, and the loss of our colonies. The question, therefore, which was not before the House, was the partition of Poland. Let them then see what was the real question. It was said that an important treaty had been violated. Now, in dealing with this matter, he would premise his observations by stating that it appeared, that prior to the struggle which ended in the treaty of Vienna, Cracow was an Austrian town—for the cause of the struggle it became a Saxon town—subsequently it was made a Polish town; and was placed under aPi oteetorate. It had been at various times occupied by military forces, and its constitution often changed. The result was, that after half a century Cracow had again become an Austrian town. This of hes P de e o rtm l ha a sae n td d s . t p I It e was n t was really the historic statement which they had to decide to night, and not the question of the partition easy to talk like the Hon. Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring) about the injured rights and liberties of twenty millions of peo ple ; but to that he (Mr. Disraeli) would ask, did these twenty millions live in Cracow or occupy its suburbs ? t ( r l aet a y r, of h v ea i r e . n ) o a rd L t e h t ei t r he ti m tle ta d k e e ed aw to ay fr t e h e e d i o r m sy d m e7 a n t d hy on fr t e h m e was lt Po l a n nearlyd , an d e i the gh t quest ion eighty ceoanrsatis. soon constituting teiengp a ow s i s ah u na m td e mh d ai gdah b e enl different calledren partitioned, t aspect.the epocht intervening perio d oe colonies, l modernes, France history, had a period hee n legislative s du h r a idngo revolut i on i sed,bwt iinchd IrelandE seatsng England n i n d u tnhi had tet d l lost ot House.her th ia ththearet had country, wwhhioe heou manyl a (i n t d i e Hon. n t y h a t t h great aNti,e under nhdeerr such uc h politicale circu mstances, uamenagstteaasnt catastrophe, oe ps,h eth.ea accomplishedpar tit ion driuo b sn y t of Poland had ceased to be a enb been etwhn the greatest e uvr ci la n at s te i i d sot e n r i e ,oo d i permanentl y wtherissi n Eimp o rtantarepe Austrian-Polish town. the quasi independent existence of t treaty, he termination of the basis of their diplomatic settle effect e d? ml ia e d h it pr o wb t hy e l i s t et . This town which was Austrian at the m and which had b ecome ag ain Austrian was theo m subjectee tedn em in " tof dis pute. EnglandEnglandand France, by the mouthsce to settle, of two most c those struggl es , w hi c h the Convention affected t a h b e le th li re i e j3 Gentleman, a the total d es ti n i es o f E urope. A n d one Hon. c t e o r n a t , h a e a d e t p a l r o p t e owe d r a t h o a f t t a h t e r r e e a h t y a had b h e i e e h n s a h v oo io k la: in ion fac b t y , o N f le t mbe hese r of the twoii Hniostuesrea,oefaClloedmmapoenns,threesHpooundointgo to r the proteste-eehotheir VEN IN CT, M ARC H_l7, 1847. Member of that House, influenced by assemblies held at Free masons' Hall, which settled at will important questions of which they had no knowledge—(hlcer, hear).—and, therefore, the King of Holland, looking only to his legal rights, did not appeal to Europe. Rd the House think that the King of Holland, if he were justified in so doing, would not have appealed to Europe ? He could only expect his legal rights—he held these rights from the Congress of Vienna, and they were embo died in the same stipulations which embodied the rights of Cracow and of Poland. But they were stipulations subsidiary to the general instrument, and were expected to demand only from the signing Powers a moral interference for the preserva tion of their integrity. But did the King of Holland appeal to Europe against the violation of the treaty of Vienna? No, he looked to the original treaty, and he appealed to the Plenipotentiaries who had represented the Powers of Europe in Vienna. The Right Hon. Gentleman, although he did not occupy the position which the Noble Lord then held at the head of the Government, was a distinguished Member of the then Ministry ; he was the leader in that House, and therefore, from his position, doubly responsible to the House and to the country. The King of Holland then appealed to the two Im perial Courts of Pi ussia and England, the Powers which had made him King of the Netherlands. A conference was called in consequence of that appeal, sanctioned by the Right Hon. G, ntleman, and shortly afterwards supported by the sanction of the Noble Lord opposite. If they would peruse that prece dent—if they would peruse only that—they would find ample authority for the proposition he had laid down—a proposition which he would be greatly surprised to find damaged. It was of great importance that France should have been present at the conference on this appeal ; and what was done ? It was dis covered that, according to the principle of general law, France, as a signing party to the general treaty, might be appealed to. France was then called on to attend to the duties which were recognised by nations as demanded from the Powers signing general treaties, namely, to exert her friendly interference in bringing about the peace of Europe. It was in consequence of signing the general treaty that France was called upon to interfere in this case. He had heard the principle which lie was laying down urged by his Noble Friend the Member for Lynn in that House, and his remarks touched the Right Hon. Gentleman from the po sition which he nen occupied. The Right Hon. Gentleman did rise to reply to his Noble Friend, but he had not once alluded to the precedents which his Noble Friend had in stanced, or to the principles which he had laid down—pre cedents which were notorious in Europe—which were acted upon by all nations, yet the Right Hon. Gentleman—a prac tised debater—in a speech which might be characterised as perhaps, too classic for Freemasons' Hall—(Laughter)—but which seemed really imbued with all its spirit—(Conti nued laughter)—had never referred to them. I will ask (continued the Honourable Member) the Noble Lord opposite whether he is prepared to deny his protocols ?—(Hear, hear.) I will ask whether he will produce the secret dispatches which were sent to Sweden ?—(Cheers.) I will ask him of his hurried dispatches to Portugal ? I will ask him of the vessels sent to Spain ? Will the Noble Lord give the names of the Plenipotentiaries of the powers which assisted at this con ference, and who advised him in that agony of European politics ?—( Cheers.) I never heard their names, but I suppose we must ask them from Lord Aberdeen, who says that of all the infamous stipulations in the treaty, the worst was that which had taken the army from Denmark to give it to Sweden.-- (Laughter.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had given them his exposition, and they were called upon to attach to it an official importance. He told them what were the intentions of the Powers with reference to the free town of Cracow. He (Mr. Disraeli) would be sorry to misrepresent what had fallen from the Right Honourable Gentleman, but he believed that he had said that Cracow should have constitutional insti tutions, and be established as a free and independent state. He (Mr. Disraeli) had had no means of information; he had had no idea of what had beem intended for the settlement of Europe, but he presumed that it was the intention of the great powers of Europe to erect Cracow into a sort of Normal school—a model constitutional farm, from which, perhaps, on account of its limited extent, they were to regenerate Europe—(Laughter)—and prepare them for that constitutional arrangement which Prussia had lately given to its subjects. But the Right Honourable Gentleman had means of information, which he (Mr. Disraeli) could not snare. That was one great advantage that Members of the Government had over leas fortunate Gentlemen in that House.—( Hear, and laughter.) But he was reminded by his Noble Friend that Lord Castlereagh had offered to Europe in conjunction with Austria, Prussia, and Russia, that the nationality of Poland should be respected and held inviolate —( Hear, hear)—and that the independence of that country should be revived. He (Mr. Disraeli) did remember to have read that correspondence, but it had seemed to him that the sarcasm was so clear, the irony so transparent, that it needed not to have deceived the acute understanding of the Right Hon. Gentleman. The Noble Lord, the Member for Hert ford had told them that the real reason why Cracow was made a free town was on account of principles of compensation, be cause at the time the town was declared free it was considered that some compensation was owing to France for the loss of her empire, and also some little compensation to England for her colonies. He thought the French people would be some what astonished at such a declaration, coming as it did from a gen tleman who had been the Under-Secretary of State of no less a personage than the Duke of Wellington. It was considered by some to be extremely ridiculous for France to make annual protests about the independence of Poland; but after what they had heard on this subject, he should not be surprised if some Deputies rose in the Chambers to declare that there was one thing still more ridiculous—and that was, for a Member of Parliament to attempt to explain the making Cracow a free town on the score of compensation. But the opinions and conduct of Cabinets and nations could be better ascertained from public documents than from private conversations, and he hoped no attention would be pail to gentlemen who said the treaty of Vienna was all very well, but he knew Prince Metternich's opi nion did not coincide with it • or a gentleman,who told them that he had been in Paris, and in a conversation he had with M. Guiset, he learned that Prince Talleyrand differed from a particular construction of the treaty. Now, what really was the original situation of Cracow ? Why, the Emperor Alex ander being in military occupation of Poland, be naturally wished to keep it. Austria wanted it too ; but in the end a partition took place, and Cracow was declared to be free. Prince Metternich warned the Emperor of Russia, that Cra cow, if allowed to be free, would always he the fneus of po litical disturbances, and the centre of sedition. Thirty years' experience had proved the accuracy and foresight of Prince Metternich's opinion, and Cracow had once more, with the consent of Russia, become a part of Am tria.—(Hear, hear.) In the face of these solid facts how could be believe that Cracow was made free for the pur pose of establisl-ing a monument of Polish independence, or as compensation for the loss of the French empire. Such an idea was an insult to the twenty millions of independent men of whom the Hon. Member for Bolton had reminded them, rather than a monument to the freedom of a great people. Great nations, however, produced great men, and it was not by millions that the greatness of a nation was to be estimated; and however deeply, as an Englishman, he might reg ret the political event which led to the partition of Poland, he had no sympathy for the partitioned. Let him remind those gen tlemen who attended Freemasons' Hall of an event which, no doubt, in their warmth and inspiration, they had forgotten. One hundred years ago, it was proposed to certain European Powers to partition Austria, and just look to the circumstances under which it was proposed to divide that empire. It was at the time governed by an unprotected girl, who had just mounted her throne. She was the Empress Maria Theresa, a military genius. Now, at the head of the conspiracy was the King of the republic of Po land ; but it failed, and why was Austria not partitioned ? Why, because her people, who at the time by no means num bered so many as twenty millions, were brave soldiers, and their prowess had ever astonished the world. Austria had remained faithful to England in trouble and in peace, and site ought not to be denounced for acts done to a town said to be in a state of political decrepitude. It was the pampered lusts of a sub verted aristocracy, who had betrayed their country, which had led to its present situation. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury had expressed great sympathy for what he was pleased to call the sufferings of Poland. Be (Mr. Disraeli) had often supported him in mo tions showing a sympathy with the working population of England. He would ask him, why had he thoughtlessly embarked in the cause of continental liberalism ? There was no man who felt for the millions but would hesitate before he adopted a course, the origin of which he could not comprehend. The remnants of a subverted aristocracy had brought about this state of things with which so much sympathy appeared to be ex cited. it was all very wellforthem to come with an affectation of sympathy for the people, and to support these men—those very orders of men who always kept the people as serfs under them, who never showed any spirit except in promoting the clergy —that priesthood which, whatever be their faults, were always more or less, its the early part of the 18th century, the friends of liberty and of the people. The Hon. Member for Weymouth, in a speech, that in many parts showed great abi lity, and which certainly entitled bins to the attention of that House, had paid a passing tribute to the pseudo-feeling of the politics of the day. He appeared deeply to regret the masa• cres which had taken place in Gallicia. Massacres in Galli cia? From what newspaper, or from what coterie of pampered and subverted nobles did he derive his account of the massacres of Gallicia. The House had heard to night many marvellous statements:of a sovereign denounced because he freed his people, and actually vindicated his right. He (Mr. Disraeli) had never been in Gallicia, but there were none of the provinces of Austria in Italy which he had not visited, and there were also few of the provinces of other powers which be had not at one time or other found himself in; and this he would venture to state upon his credit, that whenever there were disturbances of this kind in Europe, you would find that in every case the people rose against a subverted aristocracy ; and, for his part, he should be glad to find every aristocracy which had forgotten or neglected its trust, meet the same fate.—( Cheers.) These were the kinds of movements which had agitated Europe, and called into existence the morbid sympathy of the people. He was unwilling to detain the Weise by extracts at any length ; he would, however, call the attention of he House to the work of a great political economist—a work which was to be found on the shelves, he hail no doubt, of every Hon. Member —he referred to Mr. Macgreg , a's work upon the Russian em pire, in which it was staled that the condition of the peasants in Russian Poland was considerably better than it was before the dismemberment of the country took place. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read a number of extracts from different works, all of them tending to show that a marked im provement had taken place in the condition of the people under the government of the great Powers. The Hon. Member then went on to say, that despite all the gatherings in Freemason's hall, where morbid speeches had so lately been delivered in savour of Poland, that the inhabitants of Cracow would not be found to rise against the present authorities. They wore, in fact, by encouraging these feelings, endanger ing the peace of Europe. He thought that by preserving their friendly relations with France, they had the best guarantee for the security of their diplomatic arrangements ; and he re gretted to find from what was said by the Right Hon. Gentle man (Sir R.Poel) that he had no cordial understanding with that Power. There was one other point to which he wished to refer. His Right Hon. Friend had noticed the case in one point, and he would now briefly allude to it. The Hon. Gen tleman the Member for Montrose called upon them to punish one of the parties who signed that treaty, by depriv ing him of a sum to which he was entitled from an arrangement connected with that treaty. In 1831 and 1836 the Governmentpaym ent wa was brought of that dbaeyfor was them,s up do antl, rted by an undisciplined mob, it had the courage to resist the appeal notwithstanding which was made to it for its refusal. The Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was then in office , and he h uestion of t t h h i e s had the moral courage to resist with intre p idit y the attem p ts made on that occas ion, and as he (Mr. Disraeli) understood that he was about to act in a similar manner that night, he would give him his support. He was very much surprised, however , on looking o ver the list of voters a tthat time to find that the Honourable Gentleman the f the Russian loan. — ( L aug hter. ) The Hon. Gen- Member for Mon trose had recorded his vote in favour of the payment o d pence of every question , an d how he could have tleman prided himself on the attention he paid to the pounds, shillings, Di sr aeli) could not understand. He was aware that he left an behind him of the reasons which influenced lost sight of t hese considerations on that occasion he (Mr. historical description his vote, but he had his d oubts whether that would be considered c harge of inconsistency, to which the course sufficient to'mee t the he now proposedon science subjected Hntlear.) That was the me orab e p of twelve years, he had given them and now, a fter the lapse speech—(Laughter)—which he was about to to his country. Then he voted : that black was white • ano ther white confirm by a wh ite vote, and it was to be feared that he was also going to show the white feather.—(Laughter.) Having b recorded his feelings on the subject in 1842, he was going to do penance in 1847 for his juveni:e errors, and to show by a bru (um fu/roan that age was not so impotent as to disable him from cancelling hie offence and vindicating his reputation. An Hon. Gentleman who had addressed the House that evening talked of their influence on Europe. He was aware of the peculiar character of that influence, and he hoped they would long con tinue to exercise it, but moral influence, though one of the most in estimable functions they possessed, must be preserved by far clif f:rent means than by II udibrastic speeches and grotesque resolu tions. When they did exerc i se t h e power which they possessed in matters of foreign policy, let it be done in a way that would prove beneficial to Europe, and which would protect the glorious reput a tio n o f thi s country. -- (Cheers. ) - Lord PALMERSTON said, he should be sorry to damp the disposition which the Honourable Gentleman who had just resumed his seat had evinced; but the subject should be discussed in a fair and temperate manner. He promised them that, at that late hour, and after the length to which the debate had extended, that he should confine himself as closely as he could to the particular subject under the consideration of the House. The subject divided itself into two points—first, whether the sup pression of the city and state of Cracow hail been a violation of the treaty of Vienna ; and, secondly, whether, under the cir cumstances of the case, that extinction absolved this country from continuing the payment of the Russian-Dutch loan. .Now, notwithstanding the ingenious argument which they had just heard from the Hon. Gentleman opposite, who had told them that the extinction of Cracow was no violation of the treaty of Vienna, be thought there would be no diffi culty in satisfying the House that the opinion expressed in the Speech from the Throne, was participated in by almost every Member in that House, with the exception of that Hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) who sat by him, namely, that the extinction of Cracow was a gross violation of the treaty of Vienna.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman had gone into an ingenious argument, and had shown by ancient transactions in Europe, and partly by the aid of Government authorities, that a treaty inserted in another treaty did not necessarily bind the parties to the treaty in which the insertion was made. He could concede to the Hun. Gentleman everything which he understood him to contend for, and yet maintain that the ground taken was in no degree shaken by such concession. The argument of the Hon. Gen tleman was this—that if a treaty signed by two parties was in serted in another treaty, signed by other parties, the obliga tion of the former treaty was not necessarily binding on the parties contracting the second treaty, and the examples he adduced went to the question whether the parties who signed the treaty included were or not bound by the guarantee con tained in the other. Undoubtedly he (Lord Palmerston) was ready to acknowledge that that position was in that respect indisputable ; nay more, he would go further, and say that if in a single treaty, to which a certain number of parties were guarantees, another party became guarantee for something else, that the ethers were to be considered wholly absolved from the allegations which they might contract. But the question on the present occasion was not the one which was involved in the Hon. Gentleman's argument—the question was not whether England and France were bound by any guarantee to take steps in consequence of the extinction of Cracow, but whetter that treaty by which Cracow was constituted an independent state, and to which England was a party, had been broken ; and also whether, under such circumstances, they had. a right to object to the extinction of that state.—( Hear, hear.) He threw aside altogether that point which turned upon the question, whether the insertion of fresh matter in a treaty did or did not invalidate that treaty, because in the present case the treaties between Austria, Prussia, and Russia relating to Cracow were annexed to the treaty of Vienna, and were by the 118th article of that treaty declared to have the same force and value as if they had been made articles of the treaty. Fortunately for the argument which he was advancing, it was wholly unnecessary to rely solely upon the 118th article. As the treaty itself, in other parts, contained everything ne cessary to bear him out in asserting that the extinction of Cracow was a violation of the treaty.—(Hear, hear.) Let them put aside, if they would, the 118th article altogether; they had still the 6th, 7th, Bth, and 9th, which were far more material. The parts of the treaty to which the three Powers were contracting parties, justified him in saying that the ex tinction of the republic of Cracow was a violation of these articles of the general treaty itself.—(Hear, hear.) It was said that England and France were not parties to the record to which he had referred.—( Hear, hear.) Now he denied that altogether. The documents to which he had al ready referred that evening, namely, the records of the proceed ings of the Congress of the different Powers, at Vienna, which were to be found amongst the state papers, in the library of the House, proved that England was a party to all the negotiations which directed the general treaty, and all those arrangements which bad subsequently taken place between the different Powers of Europe, and which formed portions not only of the general treaty, but of the whole treaty and especially with regard to the arrangement with respect to Cracow—in fact, in regard to that State, England, by her representatives, was present, and took her part in the discus sions that took place. It will be seen in the third protocol of the conferences of the Congress of Vienna, dated the Bth February, that a commission was appointed to prepare a draftof the articles which related to the agreement between the Powers, and the heads of which had been agreed to by the Congress. Each nation was represented, and on the 10th of February the report of the commission was read to Congress, in which it was stipu lated that Cracow should remain a free and independent state. It appeared also that Lord Castlereagh, writing to Lord Liver pool fl.om Vienna on the 13th, says, " Your Lordship will receive inclosed the territorial arrangements for Poland and Prussia, including Saxony,Holland, and Hanover; they have been re duced into articles, and having been formally agreed to by Austria, Prussia, France, Russia, and Great Britain, they have been inserted in the protocol till they find their place in the general treaty." It appealed by this that not only did a general treaty, to which England and France were parties, contain conditions with regard to the city of Cracow; but it appeared that those arrange ments were settled afterwards at the conference, to which England was a party, and that they took place anterior to the time when the general instrument.. was drawn up.---( Hear, hear.) Well, then, it was perfectly plain that an arrangement respecting Cracow formed a portion of the conditions to which England was a party ; and he therefore held it to be a viola tion of the treaty to do any act not in accordance with it, without the consent of Great Britain.—( Hear.) They had bees told that similar things bad been done by Eng land, and the case of Belgium was cited as an instatice of her having acquiesced in an infraction of the treaty of Vienna. As he understood the Hon. Gentleman, he said that the King of the Netherlands applied to Austria and Prussia, and that England and France came in as after parties to the act. To meet that asserticn, he had read -ome of the protocols of the Earl of Aberdeen, who recorded the manner in which the subject was brought before -he five Powers on the 4th of November, 1830. The Noble Lord then read a document to show that the King of Prussia had invited the five Powers as signing parties to the treaties of Paris, and that what was agreed to at that meeting was agreed upon by all. The lion. Gent. seemed to him to Imagine that the five Powers did not immediately agree to the arrangement for the separation between Belgium and Holland. and that England and France entered into some separate arrangement, and that Hus•ia immediately after consented to it ; but such was not the case, for if they looked to the treaty of 1831, they would find that the five Powers agreed, one as soon as the other, and signed at the same time the arrangement. It therefore appeared to him perfectly plain, from the docu ments to which he referred, that the extinction of the indepen dence of Cracow and its annexation to the empire of Austria was in direct violation of the treaty of Vienna. ( Cries of " Hear, hear.") The grounds ota which he rested his opposition to the resolutions were the same as those of his Noble Friend—namely, that it was not fitting that they should pass, unless they were followed up by something more active and decisive, for it was not consistent with the character of this country that the House of Commons should pass strong resolutions, and then remain quiescer.t. No one would contend that the address of the House in answer to the Speech from the Throne was an expression of concur rence with the opinion given in the latter. The agreement to theaddress was a matter of form, and left Hon. Members still unfettered. But though this was undoubtedly true, it had been justly remarked that the silence with which this subject had been passed over in the address was suffi cient to meet the view of the Honourable Member for Montrose as to the sense of Parliament on the question of the suppression of Cracow • but having heard this view expressed in the progress of this debate, it was his intention, before sitting down, to move the previous question to the first resolution as it was not a resolution which, with his sentiments and opinions, be could meet with a negative.—( Loud cheers.) He would do so because he believed that it was inexpedient and unnecessary for the House to express an opinion under the circumstances. Now the second question had reference to the violation of a treaty which was alleged to release this country from the payment of the Russo-Dutch loan. He did not think that the violation of the treaty would so release them. If they looked to the conventions of 1831 and 1815, he thought it would be shown to the satisfac tion of any man that the extinction of the state of Cracow did not justify the non-payment of the interest of the debt. With the view of making this apparent, it would be necessary for him to go into the origin of this engagement. It was shortly this : At the end of the war, when Europe was delivered, and ar rangements were making for reconstructing its interests, it was felt by the great Powers, that as some states had made greater exertions, and gone to greater expense than others to bring about this peace, that they should be recom pensed in some degree by the Powers which had been benefited. Now, no sovereign had been benefited more than the Sove reign Prince of the Netherlands, as not only had his estates and kingdom been restored, but considerably enlarged, while an engagement was made that the allies should come to his assist ance should he require them, at any time to maintain his power. A recompense was agreed to he paid to Prussia, Austria, and Russia. Prussia and Austria waved their claim in favour of Russia, and the result was an engagement in which Holland agreed to take upon itself the payment of the Russian loan, which had previously been raised by the latter power in the Netherlands. At the same time another negotiation was going forward, in which England was to retain the colonies of the Cape of good Hope, Demerara. Eeequibo. and tierhiett. The condition of Enelaed doing co seas, that. she should pay hal the Russian loan. In order to snake this arrangement ad vantageous to the Netherland.. it was provided. that if at any time Belgium separated from Holland, England and Holland should cease to pay the debt, and the burden :could have to fall back on Russia. The object of this was to get the interest of Russia in maintaining the union of Belgium with Holland, in order to procure . th: balance of prover in Europe. Then came the revolution i — a Belgium, with the s e paration of Belgium from _ separation to which this country very reluct antl y c on sented, but which was intended and considered to he necessary inortier to avoid the chance of a general war in Europe. 13 Russia having consented to that separation at the request of England, she having been ready in the outset, frequently in this debate, to bring as has been well stated her 6:x,0 1 0 men to defend Holland and re-annex Belgium , if it had entered into the policy of the Powers of Europe to a ttempt to no that by force —Russia having been ready to employ her army to re-unite the two, but hay ng abstained fr o m so doing st the request of the other Powers, arid having consented , at th eir request, to the separation of tee two , it would hehavtebeenmanife.staly eventmost s n unjust to have inflicted upon Russia penalty which had not come to pass in consequence of i fo any aches on her part, but which she had consented to at the special request of the other Powers on whose behalf the contract was made. A new convention was then made to back the engagement be tween England and Holland ; England took one engagement and Russia took another. The engagement taken by England was that, notwithstanding the separation of B el g ium from Hol land by the agency of England, that the English should con tinue the payment of the Russo-Dutch loan. Russia substi tuted a new engagement for that which was no longer appli cable to that state of things, which was that she bound herself to consent to the separation of Belgium from Holland, and that afterwards, if by the course of events, its inde pendence and neutrality should be put in danger, she should not 'make any new engagement with regard to Belgium without the previo • us consent of England. They were, therefore, in ex actly the same position as before, but the terms of the en gagement were altered. It was stated that in the Convention of 1831, words were inserted in the preamble, stating that it was founded on the Convention of 1818, and that the general engagement of the treaty of Vienna still existed. He had helped to frame that Convention, and he could tell why these words were inserted. It was to keep up the great original principle upon which the Conventi on was originally formed, and to benefit Russia, in con s id era ti on of thesacritices she had made in co-operating with England.—(Hear, hear.) But then it is said (continu e d th e N oble Lord) that in the ) convention of 1831 words were inserted —in the preamble that is—not found in the convention of 1815. In that preamble it is recorded that the general arrangements of the treaty of Vienna still subsist. Now, I can state to the House who put those words in, and why they were put in; because that con vention was drawn up by myself and the late Count Mastufze wich on the part of Russia ; and it appears frcnn the papers which I have laid on the table that those words were inserted by the Russian Plenipotentiary. And why ? To keep on record the original principle on which that convention had been made with Russia—namely, that it was by the assistance and cooperation of Russia that those general ar rangements of Europe had been framed, in consequence of which, in 1815, the Government of this country con sented that pecuniary compensation should be made to Russia, to make good to her one portion, at least, of the great sacrifices and exertions she had made.—( Hear, hear.) Well, then, I say that the general arrangements of the treaty of Vienna, and more especially those referred to as constitut ing the claim of Russia to compensation, do notwithstanding still subsist. If we read these words found inserted in the articles of stipulation to mean, instead of the payment de• pending on the general arrangement of the treaty of Vienna, that the continuance of the payments had been made to depend on the continued existence of every one of the stipulations of the treaty of Vienna, then I should admit, with my Hen. Friend, that no doubt could exist as to the fact that England was released from the obligation which followed on that convention.—( Hear.) But I cannot certainly bring my self to think that, under these words put into the preamble, the single violation which has been made of one article of the treaty of Vienna does release Great Britain from the fulfilment of her en gagement.—( Hear, hear.) I state therefore that, in my own opinion —called upon as I am to say what that opinion is upon a solemn treaty and engagement contracted by this country—l am bound to tell this House that I cannot think we are in ho nour released from the engagement we entered into. But even if there were a doubt in any man's mi n d on t hi s point, if in the mind of any man in this House there was a doubt whether we are or are not bound to that engagement, I think the feeling of every Englishman will be, that in a question which involves the honour of this country that doubt must be given in favour of the other party, and that it wouid not be becoming in this House to interpret the doubt in our own behalf without know ing first whether the other party consented to our view of the subject.—(llear, hear.) I am free to admit that if the case were plain and palpable, if ii had been shown to demon stration, and to the satisfaction of every reasonable and impartial man, that in the course of circumstances, and in a fair interpretation of the agreement, we were released, as we wished to be released, from our engagement, then 1 agree with my Hon. Friend, the Member for Weymouth, that we should not, from any feeling of chivalrous geeerosity towards other nations, continue to burden the people of this country with a payment they were not strictly and properly obliged to contri bute.—( Hear, hear.) But believing tuy e selt that there is no doubt on the subject, and seeing that the greater part of those who have spoken on this question, however they may differ from me on that point, all admit that there is a doubt; I think, under these circumstances it would be little becoming in this House to agree to the concluding resolution of my Hon. Friend, and to decide that this payment should henceforth cease and determine.—(Cries of "Hear, bear.") Sir, I am sure if either powers are found to be wanting in their engagements, it is no satisfaction to this country to fol low their example, and to break our engagements with them in return.—( Hear, hear.) It cannot be contended that ex amples of breach of faith in one party justify the violation of engagements on the part of others ; and if there is one foundation on which the political strength of this country de pends more than another, it is on that moral strength which it derives from its faithful and honourable fulfilment of every en gagement it has contracted.--( Hear, hear.) Sir, we know that the physical power of countries is infinitely augmented by the moral respect which is attached to them; and I should hope, therefore, that this House will not be led, in any case, even if doubtful, to risk the reputation of England in a matter of good faith, and that my Honourable Friend, seeing that the majority of the House do not concur with him in the opinion which he entertains, will be disposed on the fourth resolution, as I hope he may, perhaps, be on the preceding ones also, not to press the House to an expression of its opinion by a division. On the first resolution it will be most desirable that we should abstain from dividing. There is, I think, with very few exceptions, a general unanimity of opinion as to the transaction which has taken place at Cracow. —(Hear.) It would be most unfortunate if that opinion were exposed to the danger of being misunderstood, or even a little misunderstood elsewhere, and if my Hoe. Friend were to press this House to a division on the previous question, though we would here understand what that division means, yet, I am sure, he will see it would be treated by others as a division of opinion on a question on which hardly any division of opinion exists.—(Loud cries of " Near. hear.") I am sure my Honourable Friend, with that Parliamentary judgment which he possesses—(Loud laughter) —and wishing—sincerely wishing—as I know he does, to carry out the opinion which he maintains, will see the propriety of not taking a division which would be sure to be misunderstood by others, and will not think it necessary to divide the House on an occasion on which the opinions of the House are with him. —( Hear, hear.) I should also hope that my Hen. Friend will not press the House to a division on the last question ; be cause, unless he had a fair chance of carrying into effect the opinion which he entertains, I think, for many reasons which the House will at once see, it is better for the character of this country that it should not appear that any attempt was made in the House of Commons to effect a cessation for which there is no clear and adequate justification.—(The Noble Lord resumed his seat amidst loud and general ap plause, but immediately after rose and moved the previous question. ) Mr. J. O ' CONNELL and Mr. Hume rose at the same moment, but ultimately Mr. J. O'CONNELL was heard, and he said that his ob ject its rising was to protest, in an assembly of freemen who represented the British constituency, against the cruelties which had beer, practised in Galicia. Mr. HUME would trouble the House with only a few re marks, and those would bear only on the debate, which had been partaken in by Members on all sides of the He use. Whether he referred to the present or to the late Ministers of her Ma jesty, the result was still the same. A triumph, a complete triumph had been obtained, for, with few exceptions, the whole of the British House of Common- had declared their belief that the suppression of Cracow was a gross violation of: the law of nations, anti he trusted ina.t this expression of the public opi nion would team the despots by whom that law had been bro ken, that it could not be set aside with impunity. The ques tion had received great attention, but not more than it deserved. He (Mr. Hume) had heard the language of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, with feelings of admira tion. These sentiments and that language did the Right Hon. Gentleman immortal honour; while the speech of the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury—but he would leave him to the benefits which history would confer upon his memory.— (Laughter.) When he was taunted with having voted black was white, he need only remind the House that the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury had done the same without having the moral courage to avow it.—(Cheers.) At the period re ferred to, he was under the necessity either of voting as he did, or of helping to bring in a Tory Administration, and he chose the least of two evils. Then said the same Hon. Member he had continued twelve years without bringing on this question. Why, how could he properly bring it on until there had been a breach of treaty ? Discretion, he would remind the Noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck ) and the Honourable Member (Mr. Disraeli) was the better part of valour—(A laugh )—and there fore he should not take their counsel, but act upon his own judgment. The Hon. Member for Bute had proved in the most clear and satisfactory manner the violation of the treaty. Considering that his motion had completely triumphed, and had met with a warm response from all sides except the few mis chief-makers opposite ; he would take the advice of the Noble Lord and not press it to a division. The motion was accordingly withdrawn. The remaining orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a Quarter -past One o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) TUESDAY, MAACK 16. The following Railway Bills were read a second time, com mitted, and referred to the Committee of Selection:— Waterford and Limerick. Edinburgh and Glasgow, Monkland and Kirkintilloch, Bal lochney and Slamannan Railways Amalgamation, Sale, or Lease. STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE. The following Resolutions were reported from the above Committee : 1. That in the case of the North British Railway (No. 2) petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with : That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, with the exception of such part as enables them to enter into any contracts with the Maryport and Carlisle Railway Company, and with the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Company, for a permanent interest or right to the use of their station and the works connected therewith, and for the passage of their traffic over and along the Railways belonging to such Coin panics, and to refer any dispute with such Companies to the Commissioners of Railways. 2. That in the case of the Coventry, Banbury, and Oxford Junction Railway petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, with the exception of those parts which enable them to lease the proposed Railway to the Great Western Railway Company, or any other Railway Company. That the Committees on the two preceding Bills do exa mine, in the first place, how far such orders have been com plied with; and do report the same to the House on the re port of the Bill.—Resolutions egad to. RAILWAYS COMMITTEE (1846). Select Committee appointed, " to consider the circum 3tances under which a certain document was printed by order of this House, purporting to be the report of the Select Com mittee of last session, appointed to inquire whether, without discouraging legitimate enterprise, conditions may not be embodiel in Railw.iv Acts better fitted than those hitherto inserted in them, to promote and recure the interests of the public:"-11r. Milner Gibson, Mr. Goulburn, Lord John Russell. Mr. Morrison, M, .Huron, Sir George Gre3, Sir Cierk rri:teu, Mr. Wuthu r ton, Mr. G(C01 ge , Labuuchere, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. George Hamilton, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hume, Mr. Charies liim,ell, Sir John Easihope, and Mr. Baring. . IRELAND. REPEAL ASSOCIATION. DUBLIN. MAacII 15.—At the usual meeting of the Repeal Association to-day, a lettex was rew , torn Mr. John O'Con nell, in which he states that his lather is ordered to the south of Europe by his physicians. and he adds that they pnwise him restored health and constitution by next autumn. The repeal rent for the week was declared to be 301. CITY OF DUBLIN REGISTRY. The sessions closed on Saturday. The following are the results:— Registered. Rpjected. Conservatives 493 Repealers lB7 20 —3013 majority for Conservatives. FIRF IN ATIILONE.—A destructive fire broke DESTRUCTIVE , . , out in Athlone yesterday (Sunday), owing to a chimney having taken fire in a populous part of the to wn , which is chiefly inhabited by poor persons. Upwards of 30 cabins have been burned, and were it not for the unexampled exer tions of the military of the garrison the result might have been dreadful to contemplate, as a violent gale of wind pre vailed during the whole time. FIRE IN WATERFORD. —OR Saturday morning the hemp and flax stores of Messrs. White, in Waterford, were de stroyed by fire. A detachment of the 15th Regiment were in attendance with the barrack lire-engine, and they *uc ceeded in saving the adjoining buildings. MR. 11 ISRAELI'S NEW WORK, " TANCRED:'— -We are requested to state, that Mr. Colburn has this day pub lished " rancr e d, or t h e New Crusade, " by B. Disraeli, Esq., M.P., author of " Coningsby," "Sybil, ,, in three volumes post Bvo. ; which can now be had of all bookseller, and. at all the libraries in the kingdom. HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE.—There were present at her Majesty's Theatre yesterday evening, the I , :arl and. Countess of Sheffield and Lady Susan Holroyd, who occu pied her Majesty Queen Adelaide's box ; his Excellency the Russian Minister, the Baroness Brunnow, and Mademoiselle Olga de Lechner ; the Marquis and Marchioness ofAilabury, the Marquis of Clanricarde, the Harquis of Huntley, the Earl of Munster, the Earl of Falmouth, the Countess de Jarnac the Baron Rehausen, the Viscount S. Maynard. Lord Gar 1. ner, Lady Seymour, Lady Howard , th e Count Koudriafty,kv, Sir H. 'Willoughby, Bart., Sir G. Wombwell, Bart., 5,., . Webb, Bart., Mr. Trelawney , Mr. Herbert de Burgh,. Packe Redding, Colonel Wildman, Mr. C. W. Packe,, ,, N ajor Buckley. _ :