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

VIVAL v 0 jo 101 1 'Cf$ 11' W heti foll °l' ', th! e Of B re ad Bd e . ; o ' 0 3d eo l " 9on' w ou o re 0o - IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. 1 , 4 HOUSE OF LORDS, March 11. BLit . 1 Leal) CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool ,elT,ctlY after Fire i.'cluck. yi-34k/NKRUPTCY. AND INSOLVENCY ACT. ' 4 2 1 1 BROUGHAM said that he had received the advice and assistance of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency `sf ntnissioners both in town and country, and the sug gestions he had rece i ve d f rom t h em we re so valuable. it a di a li h . 0 had b een i nduce d to ma k e great a l terat i ons and uns to the 13111 which now stood for the second reading.cb He wish e d, th e r e f o re, to withdraw that Bhl he ri ng in another in its place, which he now moved $d TLe u fir s t ti me . s u I 3 P:1 was then read a first time. cf e r t era private Bills were brought up from the House vairnos, and read a first time. INFLUX OF IRISH INTO HULL. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the 'corporation of Hull, to which he begged to call the attention of his friends opposite, lamenting the calamity V I !" had befallen Ireland, and stating that they felt i: be rt great hardship that they had to support the Irish For,i t a great number of whom flocked into the in addition to their own. They also prayed ," 0 Legislat ure t o p a ss an effective poor law, and 'that it would take measures to carry it out, was done in England. They further stated that they felt no confidence in the administration of the law if Confided to the Irish alone. His Lordship read a utter which had been forwarded with the petition, show that the rates wire now levied unequally. The Perish of which the letter spoke con:ained upwards of 6,0 00 acres, 1,100 of which were in Chancery, and could so t pay any contribution, but there were 2,600 ac r es 'Which were not rept esented at all, and the proprie t ors of which were subscribers neither to the dispensary nor any other charitable institution in the parish. POOR LAW SETTLEMENT. • Lord ASHBURTON presented several petitions agains t the law passed last year. SILK MANUFACTURES. f The Earl of ELLEN BROU Gil said that in moving had return s of the exports from this country last year he 2 4 d stated that the exports of cotton. woollen, and linen `''arluflietures had been smaller than before , but that the silk manufactures appeared to be stationary, or had !Father advanced. In looking to those returns, however, -41 e found that while the value of the whole of the ex rug of silk was 2,345,000/, upwards of 1,461.0 0 04 had earl imported inio this country during the last three i k el`rs, so that the net value was only 879 , 0001 . He be 'eyed that this arose from the fact that a large quantity 4)1 bandannas were introduced into this country Which here underwent a process of manufacture, 4 101, 2 i d ely thBeritisnw h e:e exported as British manufacture. " e would now move the return of the exports of the goods as distinguished from those which had beea previously imported, and then exported as British. • ;lite Earl of CLARENDON believed that large quan "'tam of bandannas were introduced into this country, Which were afterwards dyed, and thus having undergone ▪ process here were deemed to become British manufac it. He had no objection to the return. The Earl of RADNOR suggested that the declared • tia should be stated as distinguished from the official take. Tho return was then ordered. PUBLIC WORKS IN IRELAND. Jo reply to a question from the Duke of BUCK- The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that all the in f been at present in possession of Government had weeo presented in the books laid on their Lordships' table, a Ad further inquiries at the present moment would be iiely to disturb the existing arrangements. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH wished to ask the oole arquis if he bad any objecio to l on the table of M the House a continuation cf t the n correspondence ' s f the Board of Works since the last publication of the co rrespondence ? t. The M arqu i s o f LANSDOWNE said, there would he 00 objection to publish from time to time all the cot.- t etPondence. He wished, al.°, to take that opportunity of- observing, with regard to Capt. Wynne, that the names Of the labourers struck off the lists of the destitute pers.ns employed on the public works in Care could not be re timed as their names were not recorded in the hooks of the relief committee. He also wished to observe that Galway. Lord Wynne was not now employed in Clare, but in UrajWfty . Lord BROUGHAM moved for a return of the exami• Tuition and commitment of four boys who were com !Pitted to prison by a Middlesex magistrate for taking the cap off another boy, and throwing it into a field.— agreed to. Lord MONTEAGLE moved for a return of the num. ber of persons who were transported during the last ten years in Ireland.—Agreed to. CUSTODY OF OFFENDERS BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. PRISON DISCIPLINE BILL. This Bill was also read a third time and passed. The following Bills were read a first time : The Consolidated Fund (Eight Millions) Bill. The Markets and Fairs Clauses Bill. The Commissioners Clauses Bill. The Gas Works Clauses Bill. The Waterworks Clauses bill ; after which their Lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 11. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. LYNVI IRON COMPANY. The Lynvi Iron Company's Bill was read a third time 44 K 1 Passed. REPORTS. The following reports were brought up and agreed to, acid,..the Bill s were or d ere d t o b e rea d a thi r d ti m e : he Doddington Rectory Division. R oada. Whiteburn and Kelso and Lauder and Kelso The Wolverhampton Rates. Sir a COTTON IN INDIA. p r . , STRICKLAND presented a petition from lawpraying the House to grant an inquiry into the a r9gulating the growth of cotton in India. ANATOMY ACT. Ca ptainLi tt , PEC HELL presented a petition from the inha ef• t he s Of Chatham complaining of the injurious effects Anatomy Act. WAR AND PEACE. h n ,r• BOWRING presented a number of petitions from y—!oes and other places, praying for the substitution of n i tration for fighting. —They were ordered to lie upon e table. Mr. W. ELLIS presented seven similar petitions. REDUCTION OF DUTY ON TEA. rr. &CRAWFORD presented a petition from the in- L uitants of Rochdale, which stated that the manufac t ! t rers of cotton were suffering severe distress, and that t he t greatest relief would be a ff orded to them by the ex tension of th e trade with China, and they prayed the °use to make a reduction in the duty on tea. - FORESTALLERS—IRISH POOR-LAW. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE p re sented a petition from the xi nQuiployed operatives of Bury, praying the enforce luent of the laws against forestallers, and all persons 1 2 10 kept u p the price in the markets. • They also prayed at complete noor-14w might be passed for Ireland. • THE MALT.TAX. le M r. CHUTE presented a p etition from the county of - Aortolk, praying for the repeal of the malt-tax. TENANT RIGHT. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented several Petitions from Belfast, Antrim, Armagh, and certain Place s in England, praying that all proceedings would be :1 4 4 Yd upon the Landed Property (Ireland) Bill , until e tenant right should be finally secured. MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND. Mr. HUME w i s h e d to ask a question of the Right 'en- the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. He , W ' 4 hed to know if the Government had as yet deter -Irted to appoint a commission to take into considera :4 len the subject of the Merchant Seamen's Fund ; and, 44 So, when the House might expect to receive the report? Merchant M. GIBSON said that the whole su b j eet of the Seamen's Fund was under attentive considers "en, and a commission would be appointed immediately. Mr. WAWN moved for a return of the revenue re ceived by the Commissioners appointed under the Act 11 Geo. 4, c. 49. intituled, " An Act for the Improve tent and Preservation of the River Wear and Port 'tad Haven of Su'iderland, in the county palatine of -uarh am ," in each year since the year 1842 : list of t he A Commissi o n e rs now acting and qualified under that 'Act, stating their names and places of residence ; also, number of meetings of the board,and the names of the `. 4 roraisAioners who have attended each of the meetings of - Z ; board, in each year since 1842. Account of the debt t) th . ,; ° , by the Commissioners, the dates of contracting of i ara ,ep and the rate of interest paid (in continuation an andainentary return, No. 514, sess. 1843). Also, ...,"Planation of the account for the year 1832, where „2 12 e arrears of river duty, due December 31, 1831, ^ere Dis Puted in Lord Londonderry's stone 4 ccourit 75 11 1 Ar e A , made to amount to the sum of t i a particular and detailed account, in each year lice 1842, of what has been paid in salaries; also in lot exp..nses, in promoting and opposing Bids brought u ll „? threatened to be brought before Parliament, and ot - '," what clause in the Act 11 Geo. W., c. 49, or 'er authority, the same was paid.—Agreed to. Market, he hir. GROG A N move d f or a re t u rn, showing the nutn. k r of loads of hay and straw forfeited in Smithfield Dublin, for the five years ending the 31 st day t k n ''''eceraber, 1836, 1841, and 1846, and how the same or Proceeds thereof were disposed of. THE WELLINGTON STATUE. Mrs CRAVEN BERKELEY gave notice that. on utiq Y next , he should ask the Noble Lord, the First tni Coen • ss • ioner of her Majesty's Woods and Forests, at the fi na l i ntent i ons o f h e r Majesty's Government `ere with respect to the removal of the Wellington statue. RETAIL BREWERS. d,. Mr . MUNTZ moved that the petition he had y ester- I„, presented from the retail brewers of Birming h a m ' l u printed with the votes.—Agreed to. the Hor t . M EMBER g ave umice that on the 234 of this tn e nth, he sho u ld b r i nes i n a Bill to enable retail brewers in tue midland districts to keep open their houses till 'twelve o'cl oc k at n i g h t, as t h ey were p e rmitted to do so i the metropolis. POOR-LAWS (IRELAND). blr. FIT ZGERALD presented a petition from the F_ll oo tir r di%ns and rate-payers of Thurles, praying that the I!. :rate s s h ou l d be levied on union instead of electoral %strict*. PUNISHMENT BY DEATH. i n M , EWART pres ente d p et iti ons from several places reotland pray in. , for the abolition of all capital punishment. RELIEF COMMITTEES IN IRELAND. hr.STAFFO D O'BRIEN, seeing the Right Hon. the e l elary f or his•clin plfftee, w):111.ci to know eche t° the ci rcu l ar Whi.th nad been issuttl by Yie.itetiii4 - Rsa tO be the sole &Ale foT relief committees relative THE S N , months, commencing the Ist day of September, and ending the Ist day of March respectively with a summary for each period. It was important that they should know whether the proper course had been taken, in order to save f omen life. There had been two systems in operation. o.le, the last year, which provided food and maintenance for the people ; and this year a system of political economy in which all the previous precautions were treaten as of no use. It was for this purpose that he moved fel. these returns. Mr. LABOUCHERE could assure the Noble Lord and the Heuse that whatever difficulty there might exist in meeting the present motion, he had no wish but to furnish the fullest information of the destruction of human life which had taken place. He regretted it as much as any man could do, and he believed it was going on, and would continue to do so to a fearful extent. The Government had already supplied two returns ; one was the number of coroners' inquests at which ver:icts of death by starvation was given ; and the other was that to which he consented the other night, supplied through the constabulary force. The real difficulty of acceding to the Noble Lord's motion was, that he - did not know hew accurate information was to be obtained. There were but two ways of getting in formation. With regard to the first plan. he regretted there was not, as in England, a register of births, mar riages, and deaths, owing principal:y, he believed, to re iig,ieus differences. He was not without hope that this difficulty would he got over, but at the present moment there was no such system in operation as could furnish correct returns to the Noble Lord. Nothing could be more inexpedient than inaccurate information, as it was only calculated to mislead the public mind. The other o bj e ction was, that the returns, if made out at all, would be entirely voluntary on the part of those alone who could give any information on the subject, as there were no public functionarie: in Ireland whose duty it was to furnish the information sought by the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord proposed that the clergy, of all denominations, should be required to furnish the information; but as they did not keep returns of the numbers who died in their respective :localities ; neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic clergymen were expected to keep lists of the deaths that occurred in their parishes, so that in many instances they could only assume the numbers. Thus the information would be most fallacious. All he could say was, that be would write to Ireland to inquire whether there existed any means whatever of affording information which, being accurate, could be relied on. He feared that there were no accurate means, and if there were not, he thought the House would derive no good by having information of a vague character before them. These were the only objections he entertained to the motion, for he concurred with the Noble Lord, in thinking that it was the duty of the Government, and he was sure it was their desire, to afford the fullest information on the subject. The Noble Lord had alluded to a statement made by the Hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. S. O'Brien) that 240,000 had recently died from starvation,'or from diseases closely connected with it. Now he must say that he was quite ignorant of the source from which the Hon. Gentleman had derived his information. He (Mr. Lebouchere) was totally ignorant that any such possible accounts had reached the Irish Government. But he had writtt n to Ireland, and he could not help protesting, in the name of the Government., against the statement of the Noble Lord, that the Government, acting upon the principles of political economy, had not devised proper remedies, and that, in consequence, starvation and death had increased. The Nobte Lord stated that the present Government had not acted so benevolently or so wisely as their predecessors; but he (Mr. Labouchere) was at a loss to know in what respect the conduct of the two Governments differed? lie scat-d that they had not provided food for the people like their predecessors, but if he would look at the returns of the quantity of food that hay'_ been exported for the - people of Ireland, he would find that the quantity of food very much exceeded the quantity exported by the late Government. The dis tress, it was true, had increased, but the Government had done all in their po*er to meet the increasing wants of the people. Nothing could be more dangerous to the Government than to make these vague and unjust accusations against it un less Gentlemen were prepared to prove tht in by facts. The Government had done all in its power to rel'eve the present calamities ; but there was unfortunately pre valt nt in Ireland a notion that the Government could prevent these c lamities, and the motion of the Noble Lord was much calculated to give force to that idea. He thought it rather hard that the Noble Lord, without giving proof, should state in the face of the House and the country that the Gevernment had sacrificed the lives of thousands of their fellow-beings at the shrine of poli tical economy. Captain HARRIS considered that things were con tinuing in a most objectionable state. He would suggest that the duty might devolve upon the relief committees to ascertain the numb, rof deaths which occurred. He considered that it was this continual compromise which rendered their legislation upon Irish subjects such a matter of int. rminable difficulty. Mr. SHAW said that he did not consider that the clergymen in the different districts kept registers of the deaths which occurred. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Government would make inquiries, but they would not undertake to furnish any vague information they might receive. In consequence of the many reproaches which had been cast upon the. GcNernmt nt, he considered it right to make some statem , nt to the House next Monday night, en going into Committee on the Poor Relief Bill, with regard to what had been done and what was then doing, and why he thought it necessary that out-door relief should be administered. Lord G. BEN TINCK said that the increased mor tality in the workhouses, throughout all Ireland, was nine-fold. Last year the deaths were 162, while this year they were 1,493 per week ; and within the last three wicks there were 004 218,000 quarters of wheat sent into the country. He blamed the G wertnnent for not making earlier and more stringent exertions to avoid the calamity which had befallen the country. Ile would beg leave to withdraw the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the estimates of the deaths, which the Noble Lord had made, were just as much exaggerated as those esti mates he had made when making his late proposition to the House. The French Government had only sup , plied food to the army in Algiers. Mr. DISRAELI contended that his Noble Friend had not exaggerated his estimates ; he had founded them upon the very documents before the House. And with respect to the statement of the Chancellor, respecting the French Government, the reason they only purchased corn for their army was because they had exhausted a three years' store of provisions in first feeding the people. The motion was then withdrawn. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the consideration of the Lords' amendments to the Labouring Poor Bill. They were agreed to. RUSSIA LOAN. Mr. B. ESCOTT desired to know if a new Act wou'd be necessary in order to pay the interest on the Russia loan ? Lord PALMERSTON said that a new convention would not by any means be required. NAVAL ESTIMATES. Captain PEdifiLCaskei if the Government in tended t:► take the naval estimates upon Monday or Friday. Lord J. RUSSELL said it was not the intention of the Government to take the consideration of them till Friday week. CRACOW.—ADJOURNED DEBATE. On the motion for resuming the adjourned debate upon Cracow, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a numerously signed petition, adopted at a meeting held in the Tottenham court-road, against the annexation of Cracow to Austria. .Mr. .AONCKTON NIILNES said that the Noble Lord on the tormer evening propounded a doctrine which he (Mr. Manes) did not trunk was very tenable. He implied that the House were not warranted in going into the question at all. It was a matter of fact that their foreign affairs were generally too much locked up in the bosom of their Foreign Secretary. The subj , ct of the absorption of Cracow was made a matter of a moral, distinct. and solemn protest, and he thought that the House was in no degree derogating from its dignity by taking that opportunity of confirm ing that act of her Majesty's Government. He had re joiced to hear the protest wh ch had been delivered against that act by the Duke of Bedford, and he had been glad to see a letter on the subject by that distin guished diplomatist Sir Stratford Canning. He believed that by the consent of the House to the resolution pro posed by the llon. Member for Montrose, the :Govern ment would give effect to the protest which had already been made. If, however, the Noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government refused to give the assent of the Government to the resolution, it would encou rage a notion upon the Continent that the Government of the country was not glad to have an opportunity of declaring itself against this act of incorporation. The general feeling of the people of this country was so strongly marked against the wrong which had been done to Poland, and it was not because the Poles in this country were emigrants or strangers that that feeling was shown by large contributions to their assistance, but because it was deeply felt that they were suffering from suppression lastt he t e f n r e o e r citytwlve p injustice and o pp ress i on . I n t h e p a p ers re l a ting to the s C a r g a e c s o w , were laid taken before up the Howe, tho of by an elaborate argument—he supposed by some Austrian author—to show that Russia, Prussia, and Austria had at their disposal and sole control the independence of the city of Cracow. It stated that the independent existence of that city was granted solely by those three Powers, as, iu 1815, when the treaty was concluded, the assent of no other courts beside those of these three powers was. demanded. He should be enabled to show that the assertion was wholly destitute of foundation. In the Congresses held at Utrecht and Aix la. Chapelle, treaties were entered into so:ely between England and France, to which the other nations were merely usseroing powers. The treaty of Vienna was, however, an agreement between all the powers f Europe. A distinguished statesman had said. that the final act of the treaty of Vienna was now the fundamsntal Itw in Europe with reference to European States; for it was a law framed by all the States com prising the system, and obligatory upon all. it was not in the power of the Congress of Vienna to arrange all the affairs of Europ e, but one of the principal objects was the disposition of the terriwy whets hscl become vacant hs tile peace of Paris. This• was divided into taro bodies, one relating to Poland, and the other to Saxony. There had been previously made arrangements with regard to part of this territory, and there were several articles in the treaty of Paris by which the allied powers a ere to have cry relinquished by France. she disposiden of the te rrit The first arrangement made with regard to the Duchy of Warsaw wits made between Russia. Prussia, Austria, and England ; and France and S p ain were to be ca l led on to advise, but were to have no part in the proceeding, and to agents of each of the powers forming a The object of Erigissud, as would be found upon an to the time when public works should be discontinued. He saw by the papers of that morning, that there were 60,000 m( n at present engaged, and if that circular were to furnish the only rule, he thought the number would require to be increased instead of diminished. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the Treasury had issued direecons to the Board of Works of a very precise nature regarding the manner in which they were to dirai • nish the number of men engaged on the public works. He had no objection to lay those directions on the table, when the Hon. Gentleman would bo put in possession of the views of 11,r Majesty'., Government upon the subject. RUSSO-DU TC H LOAN. Mr. HUME presented various petitions praying the flou , e to discontinue the payment of the Russo-Dutch Loan. DESTITUTION IN IRELAND. Mr. P. SCROPE wished to know from the Secretary for Ireland whether the Government had taken mea sures to prevent the families of those persons who were confined in prison fur offences from starving. lie re ferred to one ease in particular—that of a woman, who, Laving been confin+ d to prison ;or stealing some articles of bread. found, on her release, that her husband was dead. He wished to know if, in such cases us these, Government had provided any resource ? Mr. LABOUCHERE complained that the Hon. Member had given no notice of his question. He thought, however, that such a ease as that named by the Hon. Gentleman should be the first to command the attention of the relief committees. NEW WRIT. Lord MARCUS HILL moved that a new writ be issued for the elt ction of a Member for the borough of Lewes, in the room of Sir Howard Elphinstone, who had accepted the office of a steward of the Chiltern Hun dreds. CASE OF SIR THOMAS BRISBANE AND OTHERS. Dr. BOWRING called the attention of the H use to the petition of Sir Thomas Brisbane and others, with a view to the redress of the , grievance of which it com plained. The petitioners were the executors of a gen tleman who died a short while ago in India leaving per sonal property to the attiount of 150,0001., and the executors retained a conSiderab!e amount in their hands in anticipation of being called upon to pay the legacy duty upon the residue. In the year 1839, the probate of the will was granted. Subsequently the legacy duty was demanded of the executors, and paid, though they protested against the claim as altogether illegal. The Hon. and Learned Member having stated the particulars of the matter, cited two cases in 1837 and 1838. in which, under ens. logous circumstances, the legacy duty was not exacted. The opinion of the late Sir William Follett was, that the legacy duty could not be claimed under the circumstances. This, he submitted, settled the question. Ultimately the authorities in Scotland, probably acting under the influence of menaces from the Government, paid 9,2841. 6s. 4d. on the 19th of January, 1842, the Scotch judges having decided that the legacy duty was payable. An appeal against their decision was carried to the' House of Lords in the same year; considerable delay took place, which was not, however, attributable to the petitioner; but in February, 1845, it appeartd so clear to the House of Lot-de, and to the judges there as sembled, that they came to the opinion that the legacy duty was not pa} able in this case, and declared that the payment of the duty entirely depended upon the testator at the time of his death. The Government had thus appropriated about 9,2001. which did not belong to it. He hoped that after the statement which had been made the House would allow his motion for a Select Com mittee to inquire into the subject. Mr. PARKER said that he did not at all dis pute the general facts stated by his Honourable Friend, nor would he attempt to controvert any fact stated by him, with one exception. The reasons on which the Government had acted were sound ones, and he would state them to the Mouse. An Act was passed in the year 1796, and a principle had been elite blished under that Act, which had continued down to the present time. The practice was that wherever let ters of administration were taken out, legacy duty was payable upon the 1::a quests. That principle had not altered in any way from the year 1796 down to that time. The construction of the law since 1845 was somewhat different from that which had ruled since 1796, for it had been laid down by the judges that domicile was the test of exemption from legacy duty, and that administration on property in India was liable to legacy duty. He did not think that the Hon. and Learned Member had made out any case to call for the intervention of that use. It was in the power of the House of. Lords to pronounce a reversal. — (Hear, hear.) It was in their power, and there might be circumstances to warrant a decision not accordant with general rules ; but until that supreme court did pronounce such an opinion, he thought that there was no case made out by the Hon. and Learned Member. Mr. WARBURTON said it did not appear to him that the Crown were prepared to refund the money, and by this rule, if the Crown did wrongfully possess itself of the money of a subject, they would never return it. Wasit art ason that, because the money had been taken by a mi,construction of the law, the Crown should not return that money ? A distinction had been attempted to be drawn in this case between the law as laid down by the House of Lords in the cases of the Attorney-General v. Jackson and Arnold v. Arnold, because the property in this case was partly in India and partly in England. Was he to take the law as laid down by the Lord Chancellor, or was he to take the law as declared by the Secretary to the Treasury? That seemed to him to be the simple question to be decided. Sir R. H. INGLIS contended that at the time the money was paid the law justified the Crown's receiving it, and therefore the parties had no right to have itrefunded. He concurred with the Hon. Member for Sheffield, and would resist the moti.m. Mr. HUME said that in 1838, when a similar claim for legacy duty was made on the property of a party that died in Jamaica, the payment was resisted, and the Go vernment did not enforce the claim. The ATTORNEY- GENERA L said the Hon. Member who had spoken in favour of the resolution misappre hended the question. In 1845 an alteration had been made in the law regarding the legacy duty, and since then it had not been enforced against the estates of those who died abroad. With regard to the opinion of the late Sir William Follett, that was an opinion founded on a private case submitted to him, and was not to be taken as any authority on the point. In 1795 two of the most eminent lawyers that had ever held office in this country under the Crown, Lord Eldon and Lord Redesdale, gave their decision that legacy duty was payable in every case where the probate duty was claimed in this country. From that time up till 1845 the first lawyers in the country concurred in this decision. In the case of Arnold v. Arnold, which, however, had no bearing at all on the present case, Lord Cottenham decided that the parties were not liable to pay the le gacy duty in England, as they had done AO in India. In the case of the Attoiney-General v. Thompson. it was decided that legacy duty was payable, and Mr. Thomp son accordingly paul it. 'Dr..BOWRING said Mr. Thompson denied that he had paid it.. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted that the decision was appealed against, but Lord Campbell, Lord Brougham, and Lord Lynd burst decided that the payment of the legacy duty was governed by "domicile." If this case had occurred before 1845, the duty would not have been payable ; but if the principle of the lion. Gentleman was to be adopted, every shilling levied since 1796 would have been an illegal act. It was a prin ciple in law, that all money paid through the decision of juries, or by mistake, was not recoverable.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and laughter.) He repeated that was a principle in law. On these grounds he felt it his duty to oppose the motion of the lion. Gentleman. Mr. SCOTT said that it appeared that Mr. Douglas had paid a legacy duty upon certain moneys to the amount of 9,2001. The Attorney General had stated that the case was one perfectly similar to that which might happen between private parties. inasmuch as the money had been paid with the belief that the just interpretation of the law required it. Now he took the strongest exceptions to the arguments of his Learned Friend, for the law had not been decided, and at the very moment when the Crown demanded the money the Crown was aware that the law was contested in the case of the. Attorney-General v. Thompson.— (Hear.) Now, if the case was similar to that of private parties, he ventured to say that any man would blast his character for ever as a man of honour, if he refused to pay the money, and what was more, he would affirm that there was not a mercantile house in the whole of the city of London that would act in the manlier the Crown had acted in this case. He believed that domicile, instead of governing the law of legacy duty for only the last two years, had been the rule for the last twenty years. Tne Government, there fore, in calling upon the administrators to pay 9,2841. at that time were acting against the principle of the law us then existing, and as acted upon by the judges. The Hon. Member then referred to precedents in support of n this o p n o s t i o ti s o u n p , p a , i i i r d t e trioo u t e i d o nby of expressing a h n i d s dzetaerriml Learned Member for Belton. • Sir F. TIIESIGER, said, that after the very clear statement of his Hon. Friend, the Attorney-General, there remained very little to state on this subject. T h e iotnwlyoquiud grantestit question the Select o h tn a m d t t t o e ec, cons d c e n r wwoansl,d beech h t . sidered to be equivalent ordering the money to be rnse funded. It seemed strange to him, that p who had saved money under the law as it then stood, should afterwarde, on a change takin g erso place inahe law, call upon the Government to refund ihat money. He would certainly vote against the proposition of his Hon. Friend. Mr. BERNAL said that the Right Hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had omitted one important point in his view of this question. He (Mr. Bernal) maintained, ii the facts contained in the petition were correct, the money had been paid under a protest, and that at once toek the case out of the narrow circlein which the Right Hon. Gentleman had pieced it. It was a question of vast im portance, and it was very necessary taut points involving considerations like the present ehould be permanently set at rest. The money was paid according to the then construction of the law, and nit under the law itself, and the motion could not therefore be objected to on that ground. Dr. BOWRING replied, and asked leave to withdraw his motion, promising at the same time, at a future period to bring the subject forward in another shape. The motion ,vas two rdingly edraen. FLOtiGING IN THE NAVY. Mr. HUME postponed his motion for a return of the numbpr of iwrions flogged in the British navy till after the other Orders of the day. DEATHS IN IRELAND. td (3. 1311YEINi_;1,._ )tto - ,.? ,;ouip, - .117,:tir2 r.'tarn of the number of deaths yiLteh hare occurred in each parish of ;reland in each of the three last periods of ail( LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH 12, 1817. inspection of the papers relating to this subject, was to have an establishment of, the independency of the kingdom of Poland. The Emperor of Austrie, agreed to so laudable an object ; but the Emperor of Russia insisted upon an absolute connexion between the king doms of Poland and Russia. To this Austria and England objected, and that so strongly that there was every expectation of the breaking up of the Congress, and the recommencement of war. A committee was then appointed of Russia, Prussia, France, Austria, and England, and called the Committee of Saxony, to whom was intrusted the arrangement of the matter. On the 31st of December the Emperor Alexander laid before the committee his proposition for the partition of the Duchy of Warsaw, and it was in that proposition that it was offered to allow Cracow to be a free, independent, and neutral city. After many modifications, that was agreed to, and that was the foun dation of the independence of the city of Cracow. It was therefore clear that when the final arrangement of the Duchy of W arsaw was made, England and France were parties to it, for shortly afterwards the independ ence of Cracow was declared. How, in the face of these simple facts, could the Austrians declare that Cra cow became a political body by the will of the three protecting Powers alone, surprised him; for it was one of the most extraordinary assertions which was ever made, The Emperor Alexander afterwards declared the independence of Cracow to the Poles themselves, and stated that it had been agreed upon, that in those por tions of Poland submitted to the authority of other powers, they should be .governed and regulated by their own magistrates, elected by themselves. How little was to be trusted to such a promise was shortly after shown, and how little the Polish people might calculate upon the fulfilment of that part of it which related to the independence of Cracow, was demonstrated. It was impossible to read the documents of those times without being convinced of the truth of what he had stated ; that Cracow had all along maintained the greatest moderation in regard to whatever was going forward in Pol an d. B u t from the moment that Warsaw I fell, it srae clear that the three powers would lose no op portunity of annihilating the independence of this small state whenever a chance occurte d. At a convention held some time subsequent to the fall of Warsaw, this determination was fully shown in the deliberations of the three powers. With regard to the disturbances in Gallicia, and the entry of Cracow by the Austrian troops, from first to last every endeavour had been mace to irritate the inhabitants of that city, and to induce them to commit excesses. No one could read the regu lations of General Collin, the Austrian commander, without being convinced of this fact. Cracow was in consequence suppressed ; a step which he was persuaded would never have been resorted to if France and England had but acted in concert in the matter. A joint protest from the Governments of these two countries, would have prevented this melancholy catastrophe. K" was also firmly persuaded, that had the Noble Lord then at the head of the Foreign Department sent a consul to Cracow to watch over British interests there, that state would have been independent now. But the Govern ment which succeeded had shown itself no more active than the one before; nothing was done whatever to avert the fall of the unfortunate republic. Russia, Prussia, and Austria, determined that Cracow should be suppressed, and it was done, the reason assigned for it being the disturbances in Gallicia, and the allega tion that no peace could be secured till Cracow ceased to be the focus of insurrectionary intrigues. The real circumstances, however, were well known, from the dis cussions last year th tt to- lc place in Parliament on the subject. It appe :red that the Austrian troops had vacated Cracow, tehing with them all the local autho rities, on which an insurgent democratic force entered, and eiteblished a provisional Government. This force was alleged to have mede itself the moving cause of all the rebellious proceedings that then took place exterior to Cracow, and hence the violent proceedings that took place in Gallicia. In the latter province the greatest cruelties were practised ; the peasantry, insti gated by the Austrian authorities, rising up, and in every direction destroying all the landed proprietors and gentry supposed to be friendly to the cause of the in sureents. These were the causes which had been assigned for the suppression of the free State of Cracow. fhe Hon. Member here read extracts from certain docu meats of the Austrian authorities in illustration of the matters to which he had referred ; also some corres pondence from the diplomatic agent of the British Go vernment at the Austrian Court, to the effect that at the time of the disturbances, no intimation bail been given by Austria of any intention to suppress Cracow, with the an :veers of the British Government, expressing a hope that whatever was done, the independence of Cra cow would be m aintained inviolate. In reviewing the whole case, he much regretted that, among the three Powers, he found one, Prussia, from which he had hoped better things, and to whom he had looked for the progress of constitutional freedom in Ger many. Having said thus much, he would, in the remaining observations he had to make, confine himself to the question before the House—the Russia-Dutch loan. After giving his best consideration to the ques tion, ho found there were tw o distinct c onditions in the convention of 1832—one, that England would agree to pay Russia the interest of the Dutch loan, and that Russia on that condition agreed to the general arrange ments of the Treaty of Vienna. If the House agreed with him that the stipulation with the duchy of Warsaw was an important part of the treaty, they could not fail with him to be ofopinion that Russia had clearly violated the Treaty of Vienna.—(Bear.) The treaty was an Act of Parliament as it were, and must therefore be inter preted as one, and certainly considered as solemn and as binding.—(Hear, hear.) They might look upon Cracow as a mere " geographical atom," but the small ness of her dominions was no argument in favour of her annexation in opposition to the treaty ; it was not, in his opinion, a small question, and he could not agree with the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Disraeli), that it was a matter of small diplomacy, because he saw on one hand a small weak state, and on the other three powerful oppressors—Russia, Austria, and Prussia—its powerful executioners. He did say, on looking at the whole transaction, that there was great cause for blame; because if this spirit of aggression was to be tolerated, there would be no safety for weak states who had powerful neighbours.. —(Haar, hear.) If it was to be tolerated, what security was there for the safety of Switzerland, and for the awakening liberty of Italy.— (Hear, hear.) Certainly, when solemn treaties were thus violated, there was little security for the safety of the countries of Europe. Yet, looking at the whole proceedings, he might justly exclaim with the great Roman moralist, there was still hope for Poland—" Ale quando dormit jus, moriter nunquam I"—(Hear, hear.) Lord DALMENY concurred in the observations of the Hon. Gentleman, that the annexation of Cracow was one of the greatest cases of oppression that had oc curred for years. If the Hon. Gentleman, who had proposed the three resolutions, had adhered simply to the first, which would confirm, if it were acceded to, that, in the opinion of that House, the three Power, had committed a gross breach of faith, in violating a solemn treaty, to which they were parties ; but when he asked them to deal with it as a mere matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, he co nsidered that he was asking them - to do that which wou ld lower their high national character. Let them protect the oppressed, and do their best to reinstate them in their former post- Lion ; but do not l e t them so desec rate the character of that House, by lowering the question to thi a s m e e r re; e matter of economy. If they ad of his proposition, foreigners woulddopecelare by tthhaet petty i l e i t e t y y were not actuated by philanthropy, but spirit of self-interest. He trusted the Hon.Gentlen the the Member for Montrose would withdraw portion of his motion to which he objected, because it would be wrong if he divided the House up on such a proposition. Dr. BOWRING explained tha t the Noble Lord (Lord Dalmeny) would not pledge himselhfotvoottehde pfoavrtthoef acne resolutions to which he objected if timent of the resolution of which ly one he approved. The of money, but of "Poland an question which the resolutiodnthreairseodieves.ts....n(%:aimvs it was o thought f polan Poland thathen it Cracowspared to fr o remainmt h genera lliving w v r e e m e k . would was continue nant of the nationality of Poland-, but A t u,scirviaae, o P w ru h s a si d a h ,a e n e d n Russia, having violated a solemn tree y Cracow w s destroyed, and the last ves ti g e of Poland d a eliv to er h e e d t o h v u e s r to universal darkness. But if qu i e tly destroyed, the safety an . d pea lieth wis peace between England and France, buth h e d cou e ld not help thinking that the K in g of the French a behead) advised as to, his conduct in this matter.—(eaThe promises made have all been forfeite d. been v i olated, parnod mises made to Bessa rabia have all princes are seated, or are deposed, and in those countries there is an universal feeling of discontent. He saw that that crisis which Mr. Canning had predicted—that strugg l e between the oppressor and the oppressed, must be brought to a conclusion, and though he was ono who shared in the disgust this violation of treaties had ex cited,yet one of those who was glad that the question he was bad been brought to an issue — not the question as to whether Cracow was to be restored, but as is whether the nationality of Poland was to be restored. Sir W HOLDSWORTH said that there were two questions before the House. The first was, whether the payment of 48,0001. was to be continued; and re the tpolitical se o second, w hether they we re to take p art i n the great revolutions of Europe. He shared in the opinion of the Noble Lord the Member for the city of London, that it rested on the question as to whether the colonies which had been taken from the Dutch should be restored to them or not, by the convention of the 15th of August, 1814. By that convention the colonies of Essequibo and Berbice were to be restored in the event of our failing in these payments to the Dutch. This was the engagement, and the result was, that we should pay not exceeding 1,000,0001. sterling. This was guar an teed by the convention of 1803, or , a t l eas t, that we should pay not exceeding 6,000,0001. for the defences of Holland and in satisfaction of the engagements between the Netherlands and Russia. That was the origin of the Russian Dutch loan, and this country made it a debt, or, in the event of our not paying this money, we should restore the colonies of the Caps of Good Hope, Essequibo, and Berhice. This engage ment was made with the understanding that Holland and Belgium should be considered as one country, and well the u nderstanding . , also, that Russia should be a perry the two tr eat i es . Thi s was ma l e to the combination of under the conve n t i o n in 1801 ; but a different arrange ment wa s made at the C ongress of Vienna ; b u t ho did not see that this made any difference, for if w e i t eetel e el to deviate from that engage ment there ought to have been some clause to the effect, that we repudiated this engagement, or she we ought to have restored those colonies to the Dutch, and if we did either one or the other we ought to have acted differently, or we should be acting on the same principles as those by which Russia, Austria, and Prussia had been guided. Lord MAHON had listened with the greatest atten tion to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for fee -elope teat rPtiaf.;iit•ti •:1,, ;) no one was more anxious to express his feeling for the high character of the Minister who had for so many years directed the measures of Austria, he need hardly ; say that he alluded to Prince Metternich, yet he looked ; upon the Convention of Vienna as a guarantee for European security, and if one clause was to be taken out of the treaty of Vienna, why not take all out. Than , convention hal been agreed upon by five of the great I Powers, and he did not see why three of those Powers should act independently. The motion brought forward by the Hon. Member for Montrose was merely an ab stract motion, and although no one was more anx;oui to sui,port the independence of Cracow than he was, yet he felt bound to support the Ministry on the first reso lution which had been proposed by him. It was true that the law officers of the Crown had given their opinions in favour of this payment, but nevertheless he could not assent to the principle which they had ad vanced. He did hope that the words that had been uttered in that House would not be lost upon the three Powers, but that they would convince them that the time had arrived when they must respect the rights and liberties of their neighbours. Sir R. H. INGLIS thought that this country ought to unite with other powers iu restiricg that State, which he hoped was not altogether extinct, but only suspended. The Noble Lord at the head of the Government said he was prepared to support any abstract resolution upon the subject. Now, was not the resolution which had been placed in the hands of the Speaker sufficiently ab stract. It was merely a respectful echo of the speech from the throne upon this manifest violation of the Treaty of Vienna,and without troubling the House upon the pounds, shillings, and pence of the matter, it merely went to affirm that the extinction of Cracow, as a free State, was an unjustifiable act. The House unanimously passed the speech from the throne, and he could not un derstand upon what ground a resolution, echoing a por tion of it in a substantive form was to be rejected. The principle. which justified the annexation of Cracow would equally justify the extinction of Frankfort,tbe ex• tinction of Harnburgh, or any of the German States, whose freedom had long been conceded and respected.— (Hear.) Until a treaty should cease to be an obliga tion between two nations or a charter existing between two great Powers, and become simply a piece of parch ment with a piece of sealing -wax dangling from it, ha would never scruple to denounce acts of the kind under discussion in the strongest possible language, or formally to place his opinion with regard to it on record.—(Hear, hear.) Every individual from her Majesty on the throne down to individual Members of that House con curred in reprehending this act, and he trusted Government and the House would do themselves the honour, and Poland the justice, to pass these resolutions unanimously without one dissentient voice, —(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord at the head of the Governasent seemed to concur in its spirit, and as no member of, the: Government had moved any amend ment, he would sit down expressing a fervent hope that her Majesty's advisers would still, for the sake of prin ciple and justice, see the necessity of allowing the House to pass the first part of the resolution as a renewed ex pression of their opinion upon this all-important sub ject, connected, as it was, with the rights and privileges of freedom.—(Hear, hear.) Lord G. BENTINCK said the Hon. Member for Mon trose .was good enough to inform the House that he was perfectly ashamed of his Hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury for the course he had taken on the motion for the address is answer to the speech from the Crown and he was sorry to say that the course he was going to-take to-night would not enhance him in the estima tion of the Hon. Member for Montrose. He had list ened with - great attention to the speech of the Hon. Member for Montrose, but it contained only three sen timents he agreed with. The first was, that they must not forget pounds, shillings, and pence ; the second was, that peace was the greatest blessing that could befal a nation ; and the third was, that they ought to have the moral courage to be honest. Now, with regard to the last, he thought the Hon. Member took a strange course in his endeavour to prove to the House that he had a great desire to act honestly when he proposed that on the slight grounds he had stated they should deny the Emperor of Russia his due. His Hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Disraeli), in a speech unanswered. as well as other Hon. Members who agreed with him, had entered their pro test against the declaration that had been made from the Throne. But, still further, the mover of the address, in answer to the speech from the Throne, avoided pledging the House to any opinion upon that section of the speech; he only went so far as to pledge them to thanks to her Majesty for the information which she had given them, namely. that she had ordered a protest to be wade to the Emperors of Russia and Austria, and the King of Prussia, against that which appeared to her to be a manifest vio lation of the treaty of Vienna; and her Majesty at the same time informed the House that papers would be laid before the House which would elucidate the matter. They had not been called upon to pledge themselves either the one way or the other, to say that it was a mani fest violation of the treaty of Vienna. But he (Lord George Bentinck) after the most patient study of the papers which had been laid before the House, had come to the conclusion that there was no violation of the treaty of Vienna whatever. —(Hear, hear.) In treating of what he must call the minor question, the payment of the money, be concurred so entirely with the Hon. Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth) that he should detain the House for a very few minutes on that point. But he must be allowed to observe on one point which had not been noticed by any preceding speaker, viz., that it was admitted in the convention of 1831, and it was also recited in the Act passed by the House, that it was in consideration of Russia having given her adhesion to the general provisions of the treaty of Vienna, which were still in force, that the convention was signed and the Act of Parliament passed. Now it would bo recollected that the 9th article of the treaty of Vienna, which related to Cracow, recited that complete neutrality was guaranteed to Cracow, and that 'no military force, on any pretence whatever, was to be permitted to enter the free state of Cracow. Now no infringement of the article relating to Cracow could be taken as a manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna, unless it was clear that a violation of the treaty of Vienna had been committed in the year 1831, for at the very time that that convention was signed, and the Act of Parliament passed by the House, Russia was in military occupation of Cracow. The military occupation of Cracow, though in contradiction to some of the articles of the treaty of Vienna, was no violation of the general treaty of Vienna, which then continued in full force. When Honourable Gentlemen talked of treaties they seemed to forget that there were two parties to a treaty, and that treaties, like other contracts, must be kept on both sides. Although it was quite true that one of the conditions of the treaty of Vienna was that no military force should occupy the free state of Cracow, it was also a condition of the treaty of Vienna that Cracow should observe a strict neutrality, and that she should give no asylum or pro tection to any refugees or other persons hostile to the Government. If they were to believe the statements made upon this point, there was no State which was a greater delinquent in this respect than was the free State of Cracow. In the year 1831, there were no less than 2,000 refugees in that State. It had been said that there was no just cause for interference on the part o Anstria,•and the Noble Lord at th e h ea d o f t h e G overn . 4nent had said, on a former occasion, that he thought the disturbances of Cracow might not have been altogether unacceptable to that ceuntry. Never was a charge so %% holly without foundation as that. It Mr. Magenis were to be trusted, it would ap pear, that Austria had done all in her power to maintain the peace of Cracow, acd so soon as the Senate of Cracow called upon the Emperor of Austria for assistance, be sent a force of 800 strong, and it was not till the Polish emigrants appeared in a force of 5,000 strong that General Collin thought it prudent to retire. It appeared that upon the 18th of February the Austrian troops advanced to Cracow, and upon the 224 General Collin retired. Upon the same day the manifesto of the Polish Government was put forth, in which they stated that their brethren in Posen were in arms, and prepared to avenge the wrongs of Poland, and called upon the people of Poland to unite and take an oath swearing fidelity to their country. He hoped that Hon. Gentlemen who seemed to connect the idea of the Polish Government with that of liberty, would look a little closely at tee constitution of the re volutionary Government of Poland. What were the articles of that Government.? They first made the Government, so far as Poland was concerned, universal and absolute. The second article imposed the penalty of death upon any person who should refuse to occupy the place under the Government, which might be as signed to them. The third compelled every person ca pable of bearing arms, to assemble within twenty-four hours after the manifesto of the national Government was put forth, and place themselves at the disposal of the authorities of the place near which they resided, and in the event of their not doing so, they were to be treated as deserters, and punished us such. The fourth article, punished with death all who did not submit themselves to the revolutionary Government. The fifth punished with death also every person who should be long to any committee or society, without the sanction of the Government. The sixth, punished with death any person who should destroy the signals of the coun try or interrupt any officer in the execution of that duty. j Some Hon. Member had spoken rather severely of the conduct of the Austrian Government in encouraging the Giallicians to murder the landed proprietors of the court ! try. But how did that matter stand ? It appeased from the statement of Mr. Magenis that upwards of 70 deputations from the Gallician peasantry waited upon the Austrian Government, praying for assistance against the Polish emigrants, and it was not until the landlords had shot down some of the peasantry who had refus , d to join in the insurrection, that the peasantry of Gallicia rose in self-defence against their persecutors and mut tiered upwards of 600 of them. Well, did Prince 'Metternich say that the peasantry of Gallicia dreaded the restoration of the Polish Govern ment, which only reminded them of their former oppression, and the time when they were nothing but serfs, while, under the favourable rule of the house 0' Austria, they were nearly all proprietors of land. Was it, then, to be wondered at, that the Gallicians should rise as one man against the Polish emigrants? It had also been said that Austria had no just ground for breaking the treaty with Cracow. The Poles, or the Cracovians and Poles together, were the first to invade Austria; they crossed the Vistula with a force of 5,000 strong, and proceeded to the salt mines—the richest' p s t a a r n t d o n f p n A n u w s t h r s i a t — a r a g nd uni e h n e t e i o t u couldld not , ne therefore, l e d u n d t h e a r- t Austria had no right to carry the war into the heart of t h e c ity ofiv iCthracroewsp,enatndtntothtereaptrehteenrneasthaatcoqAnuusetrricd a, nation. llus ia and Prussia, ha 1 no right to alter that part of the treaty of Vienna com prisedidthe artielerela n t s i e n d g nn to a C fo r r a m co er w, nc h na e sii c m ou by h only i s a H d r o t e h n pi e . ne F lt r Houseitehned argumentsthe that Member t hn articles for relating. tn and cra nroew dl d Bn , Po t at r . 't7e'od7jailn'llef chief Fry 1 . t b :: tre a ties ro a i : 3 f r ill t d ;l4 i : ft .fr: : : : : :n el 'he.; from treaties in chief. But if it were wrong for Austria, Russia, and Prussia to break the tre ity of Vienna with respect to Cracow, on what ground could the Noble Lord at the head of the Government justify the conduct of Great Britain in her efforts winch she made for the separation of Belgium from Holland ? for, by the 733 article of the treaty of Vienna the King of the Netherlands was recognised as the head of the king dom of Belgium and the United Provinces.—(Hear.) What, then, was the course taken when Belgium rose in revolt against Holland? Were there not several poten tates' signatures in chief to that connexion, yet, neither Sweden, nor Spain, nor Portugal, were invited to the conference by which the separate existence of Belgium was recognised. France was a party to this separation, but not by virtue of her having signed the treaty of Vienna, but in consequence of her troops having been then across the frontier. The Noble Lord (Pal merston) said that when the articles of a treaty were signed in chief, the various attieles engrafted into that treaty were attested and ratified by that signature. Now, he should like to know whether Austria, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Portugal, or Split), concurred in the ' arrangement with regard to the separation of these coun tries ? Instead of the Emperor of Russia concurring in the arrangement, he offered to send 60,000 men to Bel gium to drive the French over the frontier again. In the one case, then, there were three parties in chief concur ring, and in the case of the separation of Belgium and the Netherlands, there was no attempt made to obtain the assent of the parties to the original treaty, and they did not wait for tile concurrence of three out of four of the parties, who had agreed in chief for the settlement ot" the low countries. If England wished to set the example of keeping the faith of treaties. She ought to have act:ei differently with respect to that management, and she had no pretence now for saying that Russia, Prussia, and Austria, had violated the treaty of Vienna. Anything more contrary to the truth had never been stated than that the spirit of the treaty of Vienna had been violated. They had the correspondence of Lord Castlereagh to show that no such thing was contemplated by the treaty of Vienna as the security of the independence of Poland —it was to secure what had now been effected—the an nexation of Poland to Austria. So earnest was the Emperor Alexander, with regard to this matter, and so great was the desire of Prussia, France, and England to prevent his designs, that a secret treaty was entered into between these powers on the 3d of February to de feat the intentions of the Emperor of Russia, whilst Prus site refusedito give up possession of any portion ot the terri tory. It was said, however, that though Lord Castlereagh was not permitted to enter into the discussion with regard to the arrangement for the settlement, yet that England was a party to the treaty of Cracow. Now, for the satia faction of those who said that this treaty was for the maintenance of the nationality of Poland, he would re al a few extracts from the correspondence of Lord Castle reagh and the Emperor Alexander. The Noble Lord having read these extracts, proceeded to ask where any anything was to be found in that correspondence to show any desire to secure the nationa'ity of Poland. Cracow belonged to Austria from 1795 to 1809, and it was only in the latter year that it was wrested from Austria by Napoleon, and constituted into the Duchy of Warsaw by the treaty of Reighenbach. It was the object, there fore, of Castlereagh, in that correspondence, to restore things to what they were in 1809. So far as Cracow was concerned, Austria, Russia, and Prussia would not permit England and France to inter fere in the arrangement, and this he considered must be evident to any one, from the curt reply of •the Emperor Alexander to Lord Castlereagh, on the 21st March, 1814. Now the Treaty of Cracow was not signed till the 3d of May following, and was ingratted into the general treaty of Vienna in July afterwards. How came it then that the Noble Lord, when he received that communication from S.r Richard G ,rdon, did not remon strate ; but it was not until a'terwards that he did so when he had ascertained that Cracow was to be absorbed in the power or Austria Having thus shown that in this settlement the wishes of E:.gland had been consulted, he would inquire how far the wishes of the Cracuvians themselves had been consulted. It would be remembered that the city of Cracow was not represented at all in the treaty of Vienna, although there were representatives from Ham burgh, and Lubeck, and Bremen, and even from the Jews of these places ; still Cracow was not repre sented, because she was considered in the light of a neutral party. The three great Powers, who were di vided as to which Power she should be annexed, were obliged to throw aside their petty squabbles, to meet the immense force of Napoleon, and they agreed to allow Cracow, for the time being, to hold the rank of a free city. The Hon. Member opposite, had seen fit to tax him (Lord George Bentinck) with misrepresenting facts, ashen he stated that the news of the aunexation of Cracow had been received with acclamations and il lumination.—(Hear.) He would show the House that the Cracoviens had reason to rejoice that they were freed from the reign of terror which would have been, if Poland hal succeeded ; and that they were glad to be placed under the gentler rule of Austria ; and he would, in the first place, read the declaration of the Emperor of Austria, to show that the Emperor did not threaten with courts martial and with executions the persons who had joined committees, or any societies whatever. (The Noble Lord read at length the declara tion of the Emperor of Austria.) Was that not a pleasing prospect to those persons who admired well regulated Governments ? But he would inquire how these promises had been fulfilled, and he would quote authorities which might be received with more confi dence by Hon. Gentlemen opposite than some he had already quoted in the course of that evening. lie would quote from the correspondent of the Times newspaper, and from the correspondent of the Republican paper of llamburgli. The Noble Lord proceeded to read ex tracts from that correspondence to show that the social and political condit'on of the city and territory of Cra cow would be improeed under the Austrian domination. The Noble Lord then read a letter from a gentleman in Cracow, which stated that it was much fur the advantage of Cracow that the annexation had taken place, as the expenditure of the republic exceeded their income, and that the people of Cracow would free themselves from :300,000 dollars of taxation annually, and also obtain the abolition of the import duties upon Austrian pro duce. The country would also be freed from the im mense military force which they were obliged to maintain gratis, and a number of Austrian capitalists would settle in the country, arid render it prosperous. Prosperity would therefore Lei the lot of the Cracoviennes; and he would not consent to brand the Emperor of Russia and the King of Prussia with having broken the faith of the treaty of Vienna. He regretted that the First Lord of the Treasury should have charged three crowned heads with such paltry motives, upon such slight foundation, and he thanked the mild paternal Government of the Kitig of Prussia, and of the Emperor of Russia; he was glad that they had given way to the mercy of decision, and that they had smothered this deo of revolutioni s t s , which threatened to keep the whole of Europe in hot water. From al these considerations, he was prepared to move a direct negative to these resolutions. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he was not aware whether the feelings of the three crowned heads would be as warm towards the Noble Lord as his were towards them.—(Hear, hear.) The opinions of the Noble Lead ought to be met by a direct vote of the House of Commons. He had a letter from a gen tleman, not written from Vienna, but from Cracow itself. He hart seen a gentleman who was there at the time itself, and' had remained there for three days after the revolution, and his opinions were very different from those which they had just heard uttered.—( Hear, hear.) That gentleman had informed him, when the declaration was made public it was done amidst the tears of the women, the murmers of the men, and the thunder of the Austrian artillery. He ha,l heard of illuminations, and he knew of people who would have preferred illuminations to having their windows broken, and Cracoviennes preferred illuminations to havisig their throats cut. The inhabitants of Cracow had sworn allegiance to the Austrian Government, and he would say that that dissatisfaction existed with regard to the Austrian Govern • merit, when it was known. He would give an instance of the sort of education which the Austrian Government gave to the youth of Austria, and, of course, they would in future extend it to the youth of Cracow. The following was the catechism read in the schools:—Q. How ought subjects to conduct themselves towards their sovereign ? A. Subjects ought to behave towards their sovereign like faithful slaves before their master. Q.—Why ought they to behave like slaves? A.—Because the sovereign is our master, and his p o wer extends over our property as over oui . persons. We feel the blessing God bestows on us in giving u , a good and Christian king and superior.—(Laughter and cheers.) Yes, it is one of the greatest blessings he can be stow upon us when he gives us a good and Christian king— such as him under whom we have the happiness to live, and we ought to pray to God to give a long life and reign to our be loved sovereign. The Polish Government, as it was to be esta blished, was to be absolutely answerable to the nation. He should like to know whether the Governments of the three Powers who had seized Cracow were answerable to the nation. —(Hear, hear.) In the address to the Poles, it was urged, that if the twenty millions of Poles were to unite, no Power could subdue them. Every Pole under the new system of Government should be made to provide for his wife and family, and the crippled sad sick should be sup ported by the community. It prayed the Divine bless ing on their arms, and concluded with a recommendatio n that their arms should not be sullied or stained by plunder or murder. An oath was also to be administered, by which each Pole swore to devote himself, life, and property, to the cause. 1 He (Mr. Duncombe) wished that they had succeeded instead of their oppressors. He did not think that the opinion h expressed by the Noble Lord that evening would at all help oppress ing powers. Under such a system as the one adoptedhy Aus tria, what guarantee could be giv e n that Saxony months longer, or Saxony or Switzer land would preserve their libe rties for s' that they would not be taken b y these ene bfactors of mankind? have been the present case , the a mbassadors of this country must been duped by these powers, and that , le ambassador greatlyat aggravated the insult to the honour of t his count .ry. I Berlin, the Earl of Westmoreland, in a I eter to the Earl o Aberdeen, dated the 2 2 d of February, had stated that the oc- f cupation of Cracow was _ merely 1 of a temporary nature, and o n ly destined to last so required it. How woongaus the security of the Govern mentld the Noble Lord exulaii, that ? A letter from Mr. Bloomfield, at St. Peters burgh, to the Earl of Aberdeen, stated, that in consequence of a rumour having reached him that it was in con templation . to make some changes aff e c tin g the independence of Cracow he made inquiries , and wa- answered that no idea of any !no e dification was as yet entertained. A letter from . t i‘a dated Vienna, March 17, stated that Prince r et ern!nnis, m lr h had - i n formed him that no mention had b een made of an y s p ecific points which were to be discussed in an approaching confer ence with referen .0 to Poland, but he had no reason to be lieve that any permanent military occupation of Cracow was contemplated by that Cabinet , and he had further said that that which had been consecrated by a solemn treaty, forbade any sine, such supposition.—( Loud cheers.) A dispatch from Warsaw, from a Colonel —, stated that it had been in eons temptation to occupy Craccw for the next two years, and that that idea was rai ed before the present disturbances in Gallicia, or befoie the revolutionary manifesto at Cracow was published. Here would show, and, indeed, here would prove, that the dis turbances had been got up by the Emperor of Austria and Prince Metternich. He should like to ask why, when nearly 2,000 persons were murdered, the peasantry who committed this murder had not in any single instance been apprehended, while all the political insurgents had been taken, and now awaited their tri,l at Berlin? The real culprits had escaped, and those who were comparatively innocent were taken. Two years ago the Emperor of Russia visited her Majesty, and seb-eigneni 1 'hat event, her Majesty, in an address from the throne, state.. that an the Eroserer ef Rue,ia had unarias.rn a journey to this country at considerable inconvenience to hhu- self, that she had great hope that this event would into rove the amicable feelings between this country and Russia. To that he would only say, if the result of his visits was to be such acts as the suppression of Cracow, he hoped he won Id not put himself to any personal inconvenience in visiting this a %nen try, or in gracing them with his presence.—(Laughter end cheers.) He begged, however, to thank the Hon. Mem 'bee for Montrose. in the name of his constituents, for bringing the question before the House, so that he had given the No ble Lord, who aspired to be the future Chancellor of t lie Exchequer, an opportunity of expressing his sentiments on the subject. The money part of the question he (Mr. Du is. combe ) thought the least important, but the opinion of the House ought in be expressed in the most decided terms, in order to strengthen the hands of the Government should it ever be required. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, if the views of the Hon. Member for Montrose, in proposing his resolutions, were just and right, be would at once admit the consistency of proposing a series of resolutions in relieving themselves from the obliga tions which the Conventions of 1815 and 1831 imposed, in taking on themselves the payment of the debt contxacted by Russia with the subjects of Holland. He thougrSt the Hon. Gentleman has pursued a Parliamentary and consistent course in proposing the practical resolution by the circumstances on which that motion was based, and if they agreed to the 4th resolution there would be, no great difficulty in affirming the resolutions, if not in their present form, at least in substance. But he had the greatest doubt as to the right of this country to relieve itself of the obligations of the Convention of 1815 and of 1831, and if there was any question as to the right, be doubted the policy of construing the convention in favour of such a course.—( Hear, hear.) By th e convent i on o f 1815 , this country assum e d the oblig a ti on o f t h e d e b t on two grounds. The first was on account of the exertions made by the Powers who were party to the treaty of Chamount, inducing Belgium. to part from France, and to annex herself to Holland ; and the second, which was one that affected the honour and character of England, was not because peace had been concluded, but because Holland had consented t o g i ve up to this country the valuable possessions of the Cape of Good Hope, Essequibo, and Berbice. He th oug ht t h e letter of the Marquis of Londonderry, which had been recently published, decided this question. That Noble Lord said that the prin ciple of the. convention was such as he had described, and that while it contained the obligation that the payment of the inte rest on the debt to Russia should be transferred to England, while the latter, as an equivalent for this pecuniary payment, should take possession of the colonies in question. But what else did the treaty stipulate? It expressed the stipulation which had been recognised by an Act of Parliament, and this was a matter not before referred to in the debate. It expressed the stipulation that this obligation should endure—that thepay ment of the half of the interest of the Russia-Dutch loan should. continue even in the event of war between Russia and this country.—( Hear, hear.) Supposing, then, with the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montrose, th a t th e t reaty had been violated in so flagrant a manner as he had described, and even were a war to arise, he (Sir Robert Peel) con tended they were bound to continue the payment. While it was expressly stipulated that Russia. should be bound to the arrangements in relation to Belgium, so would England be bound, in consideration of the colonies which had been ceded to her, even in the ease of a war with Russia, to pay the in terest on the debt. Mr. HUM E.—Was there not another condition—the an nexation of Holland to Belgium ? Sir ROBERT PEEL said there was no such ob ligation, though against England, in the event of hostilities with Russia, there was a distinct and enduring ob ligation to continue the payment of the debt. It was because he doubted the right of England to relieve herself, that he op• posed the resolutions. Consistently and equitably he main tained that the spirit of the convention imposed on this country the payment of the debt, and they had no moral right to relieve themselves. Whatever pretext they might have at any other time to relieve themselves, at the present time such a course could only lead to suspect their motives, and it would be said that the object they had in view was to gain a pecuniary advantage. He was more anxious than ever that they should honourably and equitably fulfil their engagements, because of the different sentiments of the Minister of France in relation to this transactitsn. M. Guisot said in his protest, " No power could free itself from the obligation of treaties eithout freeing others that were also parties to it. France had not forgot the fearful sacrifices imposed on her by the treaty of 1815, and s uch a viol a tion of a treaty as had now taken place would be made a precedent for the regulation of the conduct of otber powers." He (Sir Robert Peel) protested against the language of the Prime Minister of France. He totally denied that the mis deeds of certain powers—if misdeeds they were to be considered —could sanction the violation of a treaty by those powers, because he believed the present state of Europe was such as to make such a proceeding dangerous. By adhering to trea ties, was the best mode of securing peace. If t h ey stood alone they ought to furnish an honourable example in the face of the world of maintaining inviolate the obligations they entered into with other nations. On these grounds—on grounds connected with the name and honour of England—he could not concur with the Hon. Gen tleman in taking the first step towards relieving themselves from this liability. He found that there were gentlemen who concurred as ith him in thinking that the obligations of the con vention were still binding, and although they dissented from some of the resolutions of the Hon. Gentleman, thsy con curred with him thus far in believing that the three Powers had violated the treaty. Now he (Sir R. Peel) thought the resolutions of the Hon. Gentleman consistent, if a practical conclusion could be arrived at; but if no conclusion was in tended to follow, the three first resolutions were without support or foundation. The Hon. Gentleman wished them to declare that they viewed the proceedings of the three Powers with alarm and indignation. On the part of the Hon. Gentleman, this resolution might be very proper, and with his opinions it comprised everything. After a solemn declaration in the face of Europe, were they to view the conduct of the three powers with alarm and indignation ? What did the Hon. Gentleman propose that they should do ? He did not think that for a po pular assembly for the representation of England a proceeding like that recommended by the Hon. Gentleman would be a very dignified one, unless they were prepared to follow that proceeding up by some practical and determined step. He considered the Noble Lord was justified in the distinction which he drew between the executive Government and a popular as sembly. The Crown had entered its protest against the annihi lation of Cracow as a free and independent State. It was the duty of the Crown to make such a protest on the part of this great empire ; it was the duty of the Crown to make a repre sentation of that nature. The Crown was the channel through which the embodied opinions of this country should be made, but he confessed that as they were not prepared to take any practical step on these resolutions, he felt the difficulty of ac ceding to them, although they themselves abstractedly consi dered might appear fair and reasonable. He could not see the necessity of coming to any of the resolutions brought forward by the - Hon. Member. He thought that the House should rather leave the matter in the hands of the Government ; he thought that they should rather leave it in the diecretion of Ministers, and refer it to the responsibility of the executive. On these grounds, he could not agree with the Hon. Gentle man in supposing that any practical conclusions could be founded on his resolutions, anti therefore he was not prepared to accede to them. At the same time, although it was his opinion that to assent to these resolutions would lead to no practic . -,l result, at the same time that he deprecated any mere declaration of opinion on the subject, he felt it his duty to ac company these expressions of opinion with the distinct declar ation that he (Sir R. Peel) adhered to the opinion which he had expressed on the first day of the Session—that the Act of the three Powers, extinguishing the independence of Cracow— in annihilating its existence as a free state—was equally con trary to the stipulations of the treaty, as it was inimical to the confidence which ought to exist between the great Powers of Europe; and, therefore, while he retained his opinion that, while it was of the utmost importance that they should main tain friendly relations with these three great Powers, he, for one viewed with the utmost satisfaction the amicable under standing that for some years past had existed with the neigh bouring country—an understanding only interrupted by what had taken place with respect to the Spanish marriages. He perceived with satisfaction the cordial relations wench existed between this country and France, because these relations were of the greatest importance to the cause of civili zation and the peace of the world, and it was with pain that he had seen that interruption ; but while he was strenuous for the cultivation of friendly relations with France, he Lever wished to cultivate these relations by any secret understanding with France that should give cause of suspicion or j. alousy to the other Powers with whom it was expedieet that they should maintain similar relations with those three Powers, as would be honorable to the parties concerned— serviceabie to the cause of civilisation —to the general interests of humanity—and eon ducive to the peace of Europe. He must sac, that in his ex perience the cordial relation which England had maintained with Prussia, Austria, and Russia, was justified by their ac iions towards Great Britain, and the just confidence they had placed in this country's peliey. He thought that the inaintenance of their friendly relations with France was per fectly consistent with their iiiaintaining similar relations with :he other powers. He thought, as he had already stated, that these three powers, during the five years of which he had had experience, had justified the confidence which had been placed in them, and therefore it was that from a feeling of this kind, ;hat he was obliged to express his regret that he could not concur in the opinion which the Noble Lord had just expressed chat these countries were entitled to a public acknowledgment on the part of England. He could not find in the elaborate argument of Prince Metternich a justification for tee conduct of these Powers—for if he took the general treaty of the Congress of Vienna, he was told that the liberty which was given to Cracow was given by some separate and independent act to which England was not a party. He was told that the ;hree Powers consented among themselves—consented to give Cracow her independence—and that France and England were merely passive and registering parties to the policy pursued by these three Powers. When he read that treaty, he found that the contracting parties had, on the 30th of May, 1814, in pursuance of the 32e1 article of that treaty, met at Paris for the purpose of embracing as one common transaction the various results of that negotiation. They united in one gene ral act the various treaties which had been signed by the different powers. If he were not to assume that these several acts were to form one treaty—if the language did not convey that these separate ereaties were not to form portion of this one act—what, he as ked, could be the meanin g of the term that the separate treaties would have the same force as the e not intended to be so ? Did it general act, if they mea n that a part wer of the treaty had a bearing on some of the states of Europe, and that other of the treaty had not such a bearing ? PrahretsMinisters had met together for the purpose of confirming these treaties, and after they had been confirmed, was it pe s _ sible to maintain that they had not the same ferce when united into one general treaty, as if the Ministers of every country had been at the framing of each separate treaty ? He found that the parties met at Vienna. He would not speak of the several conventions of Cracow and of Warsaw, but he would refer to the sixth article of the treaty of Vienna, and he did not see that any circumstances could arise that would in any way invalidate the substance of that article. By that sixth article, it was expressly guaranteed that. the independence of Cracow should be supported, an d h e diet not see that anything had occured to invalidate the terms of that treaty, or that the terms of the eix.h article was in any way to effectuate the destruction of the terms of that sixth article. He did not rich to invalidate in any way the terms of the general treaty. Far f rom it . H e could well consider hat events might well take place, which would render the continuance of its existence an intolerable grievance to the neighbouring powers, and p rove i t 3 to their interests. On this ground, he felt th a t just cornplaintmight be made of the interference with their interests. Ile Jul not say that just com.laints might not be made upon this point, nor did he intend to deny that, discussions might be raised on this subject. Far from him, to deny that every Government had a right to regulate its own proceedings. that was a doctrine which he had never advocated, and on the same ground he distinctly denied, and totally denied that the geographical position at all affected the question before the Huuse. He would net speak of the position of the Government. But they had to settle the matter on another account ; but there was ono question that was alike of importance to this country as to all countries, and that was the principle of defending the strong against the weak. In this country, if a complaint was made by a pauper it was taken up by the parties, but much more espe cially in proportion as the poor man was able to keep his posi tion is the State.— (Loud cheers) He deeply I egretted that this measure had been viewed as it had been by the Govern. ments of Wirtemburg and Russia, for both were vitally intea rested in the preservation of the independence of Cracow. • urrounded as it eas by powerful states It was, therefore. doubly unwise to take this question as it afiected the geogrs. phical position of Cracow.—(Load cheers.) Then, with re.