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

ttr.-rciaIaILWAYS IN IRELAND. ; /Il irdf lt * r ,rlir presented a petition from the board of rd °I Queen's County, praying that the House Of e !tak e , Dr igru .mcn advances to those railways in progress their etton neighb ou as would aff o rd em pl o y men t f or th e p oo r rhood. Or, w„THE RAJA OF SATTARA. 14 1-4LlAM Spresentedpetition praying the a 4 r ,ex a e u t 4grant to the Raja of Sattara an opportunity 14 44 in g the ch arges b rought aga i nst him, azd t h e liclduced thereon. kr. p o . LIGHT DUES. aSTER presented tition from th.e mer ge ~. i~ "tage Cif a Competing line to the public woule taken -411 9. Negotiations were entered into subsequen d tl b y, which faded in an asreement wt h the Great Western Company to Purchase the line. To make the agreement valid, aecording to the provisions of the Act, a meeting ot the shareholders was re A i r t e h l, s girl on nthe 4th of De cem b er thi s wa s a c cordingly held. fir At red ' agreement m a d e by the (Electors was con med. The shareholders confirmed that agreemen'. At that Meetin g a gentleman attended of the name of Moseley, svho was fin a vowed age n t o t t h e Bi rm i ng h am C ompany, an d o ff ere d a Tntle h higher p r i ce t h an t h at o ff ere d b y t h e urea: Western. Con urea:siderable discussion ensued, but the proprietors declined to accede to the offer, as they had authorised the directors to enter co mpany aereernent with the Great Western. The Act of the rnparty'did not autho r i se th em t o en t er into a n agreement et he Birmi ng h am C ompany . Th ey therefore con flied the original proposition for entering into an a o greement with the Great Western. On the 16th I) ,_ecernber M r . Gl yn , t h e c h a i rman o f th e Bir na rlaa Comp y • ote a letter to the chairman of the m pan y u rene% r in g the offer made at . the meeting, but :„, " again rejected. A meeting of the Birmingham proprie ; 1; s was called about that time, for the purpose of approving o e conduct of Mr. Glyn and Mr. Moseley ; so that this was Purely a transaction ot the Birmingham Company, who were i 's ' r° " to get possession of this Oxford Company . obviously i the the purpose of preventing; that competition which it was i Oe wish of Parliament to establish. They would agre; with 4 ° that no public company could be guilty of more improper P . 4 ° that Immediately after the 16th fD. cember, when t he cha r Company hail given their final answer, the purchase of hY the Birmham Company commenced ; he said . by e Itirruinnham Coinany because he was justified in saying reaso ns which he ' should . adduce. They purchased ss ' "u shares out of the 50,000, in order that they might ac- FroPlish their object by unfair means, when they found that tr me ans had f a il e d t o e ff ec t it, t h a t th e y might have the e et control of the line. They were purchased in the course t° °torah or six weeks ; not, certainly, in the name of the I m d P at lY, but in the names of their agents. For instance, Mr. Ws 4 : - ' )°, an agent of one of the .Manch , ester banks, which emconnected with the Birmingham Company, purchased l not, it was true, on hi s own respons ibili ty, butin con tflreuteirtee of an indem n ity w hi c h h e had received from one of the o h R ' r ectors. Wh a t, then, was the next step pursusd by , e ftipany ? Th ey propose d to ra i se the num b er o f t h e th em to e i g h teen , an d t h ey a l so propose d t h at f our o f ' listel,,ahould go ou t. Th e y appointed six of their own dilectors, t difficulty arose as to the mode in which the three -800 ,uld go out, and the solicitor to the London and CO -pan;;, in ordar to meet he uifficultiea f GI k l ,:i' io uad actually summoned enethar special meeting _os' cr the tep 3° ,,,0f reducing the number of the e,,r,;tors.—(Lau,,h ast.',„ Thus, by means of all this complicated machinery, the ri s sq had obtained the entire possession of the railway. and 141 i ", adopt it to su i t t h e i r own purposes, notwit h stan di ng an d p t a llis line was passed as a rival line to the North-Western, the ( ° se d especially for the purpose of competition between . " lines, and thus to tend to the benefit of they nterests of tet' Pub:i es He contended that Mr. Moseley was the leg tad a gent of the London and North-Western Company, hloseeie : 4 ° whole t ransact i on h a d b een carr i e d on t h roug h M r. th e Y's solicitor. Ws Noble Friend Lad asked why not refer stteh ro _ a tter to th e R a il wa y Commissioners. He obiected to sztraie r eferenc e , b ecause th e Commissioners had no power to being witnesses ; while he equally objected to the matter Ilonarefeired to the Committee on the Bill in the other raiul, l , b ecause that Bill had no reference whatever to the Bilr bloat : 41 and Oxford line. Under these circumstaTies .. as i tt r r esr his motion for a Committee of Inquiry. He public groarlerest whatever on either side, and it was solely on pu No'la that he had made the motion. ,STANLEY begged to correct a statement made by Wa s all ui NFriend. He (Lord Stanley) was sure there never *h at I.,latention of reducing the number of directors.. But trie en ,L" the Noble Lord propose to do? Supposing that the Pobi,,T, taken in the House substantiated the statements of his he t h - 'riend, what could he do then? Why, nothing; therefote °l . j ght that his Noble Friend should not press the motn?n. s ait r e adlautained that there was no monopoly sought to be main the r , 13 Y the Loudest and North-Western Company against O at ' ,r est W es t ern C ompany. The Bill which was authorise d It's: t e : l lort authorised the use of the line freely by the Great t r r aie; rla , Company. They could, if they thought fit, run uss s -- ,: r urn Oxford to Birmingham and from Birmingham to des -r ",... But what did the Noble and Learned Lord seek to i sle s le seeks that the Great Western Company should ob lisidelk)fsession of the line against four-fifths of the shared !lore,',ll„,who Ware opposed to it. So far from the London an Wee western Company seeking to exclude the Great tees tls s-4 4 mpany, they had not the power to do so, as the Pro vided for the concurrent use of the line. If they ght tee d ,Proper t o go i nto an i nvest i gat i on , h e cons id ere d th e y t hat 47 losing v a l ua bl e ti me , b u t if th e y did agree h e tr us t e d *h at '"e end r Noble and Learne Lord (Lyndhurst) would state miauhe had in view by the inquiry. lI ATHERTON - would trouble the House a few to e s while h e s t ate d t h e reasons w hi c h h a d l e d hi m Tl,esuPPort the Oxford and Bi rm i ng h am R a il wa y Bill. tbj4 r °Prieto r y an d d irectors were almost the same. Their Port ed tr t as to serve the same districts, and as they were sup hoe „, °Y the same evidence these two lines were the crea k "' Public wants and opinion ' in that part of the kingdom. taio,ble Friend had old him that the Grand Junction was to i . 4 1/ the promoters of this line, and took an active interest ' hey did so f rom a sense of the necessity of establish ill :ft. fee_eßcP_ M irmi pet ngh ing am and line: with the London The lines and were sup Birmingham, be ported by as 2u Pincipal towns of Birmingham, and so overwhelming 4 4 ; the evidence given by these gentlemen in favour of the tri o as one likely to accommodate the manufactures of the dis that the Committee both of this and the other House t 5 ti sanctioned th e rai l way. If the Great Western t'aid no., however, purchase the line, they were to be 4 em be Wer e d t o run tra i ns on the line, no other company to al -4d that privile ge . If the North-Western Company tinethe proprietors of the line they would ectually destroy th a t competition with the Great Zi'Nem which Parliament wished to create, as they ght by crowding the Bi rm i ng h am line with heavy ti l oeral traffic prevent the rapid passage of passenger traffic on e Oxford li ne . B o th th e Bi rm i ng h am an d Oxford and the toirolingharn, Wolverhampto n , a n d D u dl ey C ompan i es re f use d h s ceette to the proposition of the Birmingham Company. stie c ane the offer of Mr. Moseley, a gentleman extensively ged in share transactions in Manchester and L verpool, hia i w t , c _ i ll acquainted with railway matters. He would not call ler r4 " mouth piece" of the Birmingham Company, as that fe sta ltd much displeased him at one of this meetings, but he see p ' : aPpeared to be the agent of that company. as he took tb; r e , ° °t of his pocket and Offered certain terms in the name t ,heir C rt h-W estern Company, if they would consent to lease our th e that company and to repudiate the Great Western.. most Pr° Position was scouted by the meeting ; and it was re that a of Mr. Glyn'3 standing, and of , t , e l:4 P s erie nce, should have n so far forgotten himself as to have th e ‘ , l `l the offer. He would not enter into the legal view . of whi t h °,.'e tr ansaction - but to show the difficult position in t he h t " Oxford ' Company was placed be should state that 13,e Nod Western Company, and who were detetmined to line Ise ' li e the a N ow, hi g t reernent with the Great Western, which had accordance with the Act under which the ih te: r4 : 1,1, 1) e constructed. in 'tier their HAM said that he was not disposed . to . per the tole Lordships to postpone or put off this inquiry, on t Ned ground that he was not able to see his way clear to the th o s e, got It aPpeared to him that great irregularities had taken hob.; not to lay fraud, between these two companies, and he I ' l ir that it was due to their Lordships, to the public, and a rei n Panies themselves, that the inqairy should take th; ; "other House and that there would be no necessity alpett'r Lordships trouliling ' themselves about it. With ta fr4, l t° the language of the petitioners, that they t ' r teuiry, he had never yet heard of any abase, the • ° which did not always pretend to court inqin . ry. u ght h s " e " ss said that there was a Bill in another place, which t rs,,, ate down there, or rather, he should say, come up „st, laugh) —and which also might not come there; oh, '47' 4 the Noble Lord, What signities that, if it does not , t k a ffiq e "P here it will be inquired into elsewhere. He had great bat i t l ee in that other place. He had the greatest respect eeej," Possible to entertain towards that other place arid its ,""te „ ' n gs, When he considered how it was made up of share r- who could not sit on this Committee but could on that, i„ e os:,T e mbered th e courtesies and co mpliments that passed th themselves, he must confess that he had not confidence i i arl i4 "eedings, ' he would net . say of that other place, but at t i l e t °ther place; and that opinosn . had induced him to think Y ought to keep the inquiry in that place.—( . Hear and to s er „r 11 ,' , He thought, however, that the Committee ought 4th ed by the Committee of Selection.—( Hear.) 0 11 1:: g areuis of LANDSDOWNE wished to know if the t,a,itl Learned Lord who made the motion had any objec lecti,:"°w the Committee to be named by the Committee of t L Q ,. (I ? ' t°o o ' 'Y NDHURST said he had no objection to the course t 44 ' t h 41 PIT sh„ , Z WILLIAM thought it was most desirable that inie r i:; 1 1 have an impartial Committee, but he doubted if a i"llh,'°lnrisittee could be selected in the ordinary way. He ''hs ve " l och a Committee would be too small. The ought o ° , 4 lieti,, 4l4 rge one, embracing as far as possible the various tha t thy' views on the subject. It was a most important th"t 4 1 he I i ly saw what the end of all this would be, z. i . , ke e t ‘fa e cuti P ve a g n oiernment would l have , in a great measure, ti ;!lr owri 'Le, control of these great lines of communication into il ,rse, 0, .o ads. It was not to be borne that all the great ,9e Int ercommunication in this country should fall into of three or four great companies. He was glad to ;Nis; !'ae feeling of their Lo b rdships on this subject, as his only ~tti ve Proposing to e n large the Committ e was t o ma k e i t as of r , possible. o orti ` . •AINIPBELL asked Lord Brougham if he had any 1. N . d ..51 , 44 to bring forward ? eft " ' I ROUGHAM said he had some other petitions to I e pa llt 0.0 . .t CAIIPRELL suggested that the petitions had better presented,, led"rd LYNaDadlitUhfte s eo T tnmittee appointed afterwards. aitlrtilade certain statemen ' t a s id h the authorit on which he in t a h t is address wa y s that of Mr. I t ts; . eY, the agent of the London and North-Western Com e Afte r _ 4 ,4 A tt few words from Lord STANLEY, in explanation on ie his o f Parliament under which the agreement lie referred th lso r e ts %le , _ , ech , , had been made, ars ''-iLGHAM presented two petitions of a similar p t the et h e .to the one presented by Lord Lyndhurst, in reference rtstol and Exeter and Crediton and Exeter Railway i h r e sote s , names i m ,, Gt ioll for a Select Committee on the several schemes the petitions was then agreed to 4; Th e b ut CANAL NAVIGATION. nod. ," of RICHMOND presented a petition from err ‘ ,h areholders complaining of the difficulties they Pra; 4 i n red ,under in regard ' to opposing railway companies, g for II remedy. T his LOAN BILL. Bill was read a third time and d passe . This Bill ONSOLAE BILL. was Ito read a ID third T time D and passed. I- °rd Ni ss ,, IRISH POOR-LAW. ss °4 4l s , `-"NTEAGLE gave notice that on this day week he t ' e f klf 4 ,_ y e, for a Select Committee to inquire into the best girdir, "Ministering the por-laws in Ireland, and especially The• -l g °ut-door relief. lr Lordships then adjourned. Th e " 11 0 US E co ti we VS March 16. bet; ire 0,, AKER t oo k the Chair at few minutes ", Lem , NEW MEMBER. kltt or „ t h , RT k.,oszYs;un.tic took the oaths and his borouth of Canterbury. j ilt A rt it o IRISH POOR-LAW. t 'eat erl NT • MF..mnett (whose name we could not learn) IrE. . x• Petition from the high sheriff and grand taild . "'Ws County against the proposed pour-law for '` THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, MARCH l7, IM7. chants and shipowners of Kirkaldy against the light dues, and also another petition to the same effect from the shipownon and merchants of Caernarvon. Mr. AINSWORTH presented a petition from the borough of Bolton, signed by numerous members ut' the Temperance Socirty, praying that the House would put a stop to the manufacture of all intoxicating drinks, in order that the corn used in their manufacture might be used as food for the people. Mr. WILSON PAT . FEN presented u petition from Chorley, in Lancashire, praying the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the causes which checked the growth of cotton in India. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. Dr. Ilt )WIZING postponed the resolution on this subject he had on the paper till this day fortnight. BOAVITA On the motion of 1)r. BOWRING, Dr. Mac WO report on the Boavista fever was ordered to be laid on the table. UNION WORKHOUSES. Mr. BOND CABBELL moved for returns of the union workhouses in England and Wales, and the num ber of the poor, and the cost of maintaining them in each union ; and the number of the poor, and the amount ar out-door relief by each un ion, during the years 184:1, 1844. 1845, and 1i46 rcspccively, classified according to age and ; of the number of children separated from their p uents in each of the union workhouses i t England and Wales, distinguish ing their sexes, and stating if any and what other classification exists; and a report of their school instru •tion, and the nunithr of deaths of infants, in each year, from the year 1834 to the end of the year IS-16 respectively; also, to move for a return showing the amount paid to the medical attendant. of the union workhouses, and the number of the poor, and the num ber of the sick in each union, and the number of the poor each attendant has under his care, and the number of the poor relieved by orders from medical men for extra nutriment, during convalescence, in each union, during the years 1844, 1845, and 1846, respectively. Agreed to. Mr. SPOONER said he would bow to the wish of the House. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. FACTORY BILL. Mr. DENNISTOUN wished to ask a question of con siderable importance with respect to factory labour. The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member is out of order. Mr. DENNISTOUN would throw himself on the in dulgence of the flouse.—(Hear.) The SPEAKER said, as is appeared to be the wish of the House, the Hon. Member might proceed. Mr. DENNISTOUN—The House was aware that the Factory Bill was to come before the House again, to-morrow. The manufacturing interest had been over whelmed with surprise by the majority of the Ilouse in favour of the Bill, and had not taken any steps what ever. He had received communications from some of the most influential of his constituents, with a proposal that would meet the vi'-ws of all parties. He regretted to see that the Hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fielden) was not in his place, but as the Hon. Member for Cockermouth w..s present, and his name was at the back of the Bill, pei haps he could say whe ther the mover would be ready, with the concurrence of the Noble Lord, to postpone the measure. Lord J. RUSSELL said it was quite true that the lion. Member had submitted the proposal of a plan which he conceived sva.; likely to men-t the views of botli the parties who were intere.aed in this matter, and likely • to remove those portions of the Tcn Hours' Bill w hick were objectionable in their eyes. In his own opinion he inti,t say that the pry p,sal was feasibl-, but it depended entirely on the teelin A s of the Hon. Member for Oldham as to whether he would postpone the Bill or not, especially in its present stage. Nor could he (Lord John Russell) ask him to do so. But it certainly ap peared a great advantage to adopt any plan which might meet the views of both parties. Mr. AGLIONBY had no authority whatever for acceding to a proposal for postponement, but he perfectly concurred in the opinion that it was most desirable to obviate the objections which had been entertained against the measure The Noble Lord had stated that it was necessary for the Hon. Member for Oldham to state what course - he intended to pursue,' before an mcc_ , wcra coodd be given to the quection. From what had felice from the Noble Led ; t eppeexed that the FropeA tion waa we:thy of attenticu. Mr. HUME said that as the first Minister of the Crown had expressly declared that this proposal was calculated to meet the objections of both parties, it was of immense importance that it should be duly con sidered. Mr. 'LINDLEY hoped the House would go on with the Bill. The difficulty of a private Member carrying a Bill through that House was very great, and he thought it unreasonable to expect the Hon. Member for Oldham to postpone it. With regard to the opposition of the masters, he believed it had very much abated of late, and he believed that, if the Noble Lord stated his wish( s to them, there would be a general acquiescence on the part of both. Mr. P. BORTHWICK thought the proposed course was irregular, and he trusted the Hon. Gentleman, if he wished for postponement, would be able to-morrow to convince the House of its propriety. Dr. BOWRING thought his Hon. Friend had done everything that could be expected of him. He received a communication from his constituents with respect to the Bill, and he no sooner received that communication than he communicated it to the Government. In fact. he had done everything that could be expected from him. Mr. FERRAND said that the only method to end the discussion was to pass this Bill in the way it now stood, for if it was otherwise, a more determined agitation wou:d take place in favour of the measure than heretofore, and the reason was, that the operatives had seen that the Anti-Corn•law League had carried their point by agi tation. from Mr. Msgennis, that General Sobieski, who was so dis tinguished for his gallantry in the contest of 1830, had altogether ab s t a i ne d f rom ta ki ng part i n t h e l a t e insurrection of Cracow. and hail, as soon as he had received information of the outbreak, not only refused the sanction of his great. name, but had remove d i nto t h e terr i tor i es o f Au s t r ia as soon as it commenced. The Hon. Member for Finsbury charged his Hon. Friend Lord George Bentincls) with only partially reading the manifesto of the provisional Government of Poland issues; at the breaking out of the revolution If the House would permit him, he would read the document in full, which might be called the Magna Charts of Poland. —( Hear ) (The Hon. Member here read the various articles of the manifesto. ) The penalty of death was also to be enforced upon spies, and all persons forming clubs against the new Government were to be declared traitors to the country. Any interference with the signals established was also to be punished with death. The 7th article regulated the national colours very minutely, and it wai that system of contemptible triflieg and sanguinary tyranny which was to guide the future destinies of Poland. The con duct of Cracow must be deemed as involving its own safety. He could not conceive that when a snsall state like Cracow was occupied by a military force that it could be other than imbe cile and weak, or that it subjected itself willingly to •uch mili tary occupation. M. Guisot had very much urged upon the consideration o f th e t h ree P owers the possib i lity of their adopt ing without dest ro yi ng t h e i n d epen d ence of C racow, suc h pre ventiv m e easures as would c h ec k t h e progress o f th ese conti nued insurrections. Such a cour,e could not be adopted without some vast and general system of espionage, which, even to the interest of Cracow its .it, would be most objectionable. Cracow would have been placed in a false position, and instead of being benefitted by such an arratigeineat it would bare been ma terially injured. Was the state of Europe such as would war rant them in directing to the three Powers such a fceble show of remonstrance and hostility, a.hich eculd not have the smallest effect upon the independence of Cracow ? So great a nation as England could never have recourse to a little war, or to a petty and inefficient measure. Let the House consider what would be the effect of a measure of petty hostility-as directed to these three Powers—it, would lead to innumerable protocols, and declarations on the part of Russia. that this country had been gu ilt y o f a gross b reac h o f f a ith, while it would be productive of no effect, but that of contempt. He was aware that warm feelings existed in this country towards France, but he knew, from his own experience, that the same feelings did not exist in France. France was, he believed, at that moment th e on l y nat i on of Europe w hi c h h a d a des ire ‘ for war, and a d es i re o f aggrand i sement b y conques t. Ihe drazling names of 'Marone°, 2 , usterlits an still , d Jena areFe =embeiscd In net country, and kept alfcc, that rtn ‘ lila; rpirit. He hoped ti's.filo polvcrs of Europe 7, - ou..labe enabled to zauge the preKbt dialeulty without exciting that fearful feeling. He felt convinced that in the event of any disturbance of the peace of Europe France would not be a safe ally for this country. How many times during the last seven years had they been on the verge of a breach of their treaty with this country? It was only the other night that they were called upon to increase the navy estimates. because they were assured that the whole seaward coast of France was arming. He did ri,,t know for what pur pose the 127 furnaces were burning at Brest, but of this he felt assured, that they did not burn there to restore the inde pendence of Cracow. Under these circumstances, he felt perfectly willing to vote with the Noble Lord on the previous question, and he did Rot feel inclined to interfere with the operations with respect to Cracow by any such inefficient measure. Lord HARRY VANE had not heard an argument to induce him to agree with the object of the present motion. He had listened with the utmost attention to the statements of the Hun. Baronet (Sir J. Walsh) to a certain extent he agreed with him, that the treaty of 1831 was a subsequent and a technical treaty ; but still he could not separate that trea' y from the treaty of 1815, and from that of the 14th of August, 1814. To a certain extent he coincided with the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth ( Sir R. Peel) that there had been an infraction of those treaties ; but yet, at the same time he quite acceded to the proposition of the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, that it was unbecoming in this country to descend to the monetary consideration of a great political ques tion, and that it was sufficient that a protest had been entered against the proceedings of the three Powers. Yet he, at the same time, must say that the three Powers saw reason to believe that the independence of Cracow occasioned disturbances in their dominions that they might not do away with the sixth article ot the treaty of Vienna. But although he was far from saying that the independence of Cracow was of the great importance to the peace of Europe which it had been represented to be, he would at the same time assert that the three Powers had no right to destroy the independence of Cracow without consult ing their allies. After going through the several political relae tions which had arisen out of the treaty of Vienna, but while delivering which it was utterly impossible to give the details in consequence of the peculiar tone in which the Noble Lord spoke, he proceeded to say that, reviewing all these circum stances, there appeared to be ample reason for the acknowledg ment that Russia and Austria had no right to act without the concurrence of France and England. He would not Tamworth ( Sir rely solely upon the alliance of France , although he felt that the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for R. Peel), had hardly done justice to the worth of that alliance. He quite agreed with M. Guisot, that it was no justification whatever for one party to love sight of his engagements, be cause another had altogether overlooked them. He had stated very shortly what his opinions were, but he could not agree at all with the opinion expressed by the Right Hon. Baronet the other night, that there was no sufficient justifica tion for the protest, and he sincerely trusted that the three great Powers would take warning from the observations of the House on the coarse which they were pursuing, and that this country might take advantage of the legal construction of this treaty. Mr. J. WORTLEY felt himself in a great dilemma as to the question which was before the House. He would express as plainly and as forcibly as he was able, his total disapprobation of the suppression of the independence of Cracow. But he could not forget that there were political considerations well worthy of attention, and which induced him to hope that the Honourable Member for Montrose would not force the House to a decision on the question. He did not wish to dwell upon topics which tended to create a spirit of hostility in that House, but he could not help re marking that, on the first partition of Poland in 1772, the same excuses were put forward by Catherine that had been lately advanced by the existing Sovereign of the same country. He reminded the House that in the year 1814 it was one of the first articles of the convention of Paris that the throne of Holland should be restored to the house of Orange, and Great Britain voluntarily gave up the colonies which had belonged to that country (and particularly Java), which they had every right by the laws of conquest to retain ; and therefore, in point of fact, the restoration of these colonies depended only on the friendship of the King for the house of Orange. By the treaty of Paris it was determined that Great Britain should pay 1,000,1:001. to Sweden, 2,000,5 001. for the re-construe tion of the fortifications of Holland on the side of France, and to give an equal a m o unt , w i t h H o ll an d, to the other allies; such sum not to excee d 3 000 0001. Among the subjects which came under th e cons id erat i on o f t h e convention of Vienna, was the c ons id erat i on of the l osses sustained by Russia—the destruction of h er anc i ent capital—the ravaging of her country in a g rea t er d egree than su ff ere d by her allies _and it was agreed u p on t h at E nglan d s h o uld waive her title to compensation in f avour of Russia ! And why? security for Holland. Thei r Be cause of the facility whi c h t h e l atter country h a d given to the settlement of Holland. B ut they did not undertake to pay an amount of money to R uss i a as obligation to pay w as a di st i nct and in d epen dent one. The Hon. Member then read th e st i pulations o f t h e treaty of 1831 , to show that Russia was guaranteed the repa yment of her old Dutch debt, on conifition of her maintainin g inviolate the tre a ty o f V ienna. —(Cr i es o f Hear, hear.) The consideration of th e t reaty of 1815, an d s ubsequently of 1831, was the general arrangements of the C ong ress of Vienna, and the facilities Russia had afforded towards carrying them out. Had that consideration failed? If it had on one side, the other had a right to take advantage of it. What was the state of things in the time of Lord Castlereagh? Why Lord Castlereagh, assisted by France, wished to restore the freedom of Poland, while Russi a wished to have the whol e of Poland annexed to Warsaw; an d th e contest was b roug ht to an end Russia's contracting t o secure t h e f ree d om o f Cracow. Upon that understanding the l oan un d er di scuss i on was t a ken up by England ; but as R uss i a h a d b ro k en one o f the conditiondsiosf the agreement, En g l an d c l ear l y h a d a right by ' continue its payme n t. B ut t h en , did not matters of policy sug g est t o th em t h at it would b e in judicious to pursue such a course ? E ng l an d was !n Poss ession of the colonies, which w ere p art o f t h e cons ideration for which she took upon herself th e l oan , w hil e i n times of danger and trouble now gone by, Ru ss i a h a d o b serve d—and with the tLexcep tion of this single instance, still observed the conditions of Treaty of Vienna. Was it p ru d en t, t h e n, for England_a geogra phical now to annul the loan, in consequen ce o f t h e confiscation of atom 9 Could she do it with o ut coming t o some new arrangement with Russia as to the p o ssession of the colonies?to the • He apprehended not, and therefore he was so far onno " motion of the Hon. Member for M on t r ose.— (ILL, hear. ) Still, however, there could be no doubt thatthe I ready of antly Vienna had had beeu violated; for Russia relateich related rented only to that part of the treaty still she did to the freedom of Poland, but consent to it, and there could not be a shado w of a doubt that the annexation of this geographical atom to Austria was I. manifest violation of the treaty. In the Co nventu n of Au-Via and Poland, the real contracting parties in this matter, Russia made certain proposals. upon which was ultimately founded the final treaty which settled the balance of p ower to be exercised by the various nations of Europe. Now in those very pro posals there was an article expressly providing for the freedom for ever of the town and state of Cracow, and in the face of that fact it was imposs ible to den y th a t Russia and the two oth er with regard to Cracow. At the time that trea t y was come to, s in the parts they had taken it was admitted on all Cracow was of the utmost importance to England, Powers of Austria and Pr ussia ha' violated the treaty of Vienna hands, that n ow it was a commerc ial station of no mean charac ter. a l n t ' w ) easvetn n thought at that time that Cracow was a city of too muc h importance to be gi ven to either p art y . It was q uite clear that a violation of the treaty had taken place. The conduct of the annexi n g p arties would also show that t hey con sidered it themselves that the y were takin g a cours e contrary to the treaty of Vienna. The y had acted in the matter alto gether without the knowledge and consent of Eng land.—( Hear, hear.) This country would, he hoped, not de scend to avenge the violation of the treaty by inflicting a mere pecuniary punishment. He hoped that the House would adept the dignifi ed course recommended by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, and set thereby an ex ample to the other states of Europe and to the world. He would, therefore, if the motion were pressed to a division, certainly divide with him upon the first resolution, but against him on the last resolution, recommending a suspension of the payment of the interest on the Russo-Dutch loan. Mr. CHRIS'I'IE said that the real facts of the history of the case appeared to be, that a payment should be made by England to Russia, of a sum of money equal in amount to the interest on what has since been known as the Russo -Dutch Loan. The portion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's n interests could of be tho consideredhvuijacohltai tseehsdeatS:haatlhdl otentered binding trpep_raa c e t: d y speech which might be deemed historic, had not, in his opi nion, affected or altered the position of the question, and wth great deference to that Hon. Gentleman's legal acqinrements, he did not think that words introduced into the preamble of a second convention fifteen years after the date of the first, and engagements yiennwttishrawet opinion, speaking in a very general and vague manner with respect orto athffeeetCioogngtrheess of Vienna.—( Hear, hear.) It had been said, that even if g o t: n e V i violation of the treaty had taken place, this country would he thought that lot:117,1 into. ife tHbhoeei did s provisions n l h fi so l oo t .f h e e vteh e re n . ties to that treaty would be released from their engagements. If, then, the infraction of the treaty h a d absolved England from paying the interest on the Russo-Dutch loan, England should cease to pay it, and it would not be shabby for the country to take advantage of that violation. and endeavour to inflict some punishment, however small, upon a great power, for the infliction of a great i njury. lf, on the other hand, this country was not. absolved from paying the money, then "shabby" would not express in proper terms the conduct of the country in withh o ldi ng the same. e thought, however, that it was inconsi s t ent w i th the functions of that House to pass resoiutions on the subject of the foreign relations of other countries. He thought that this debate should not conclude without some remark to the cruel ties of Minsk, and the barbarities of Gallicia, especially as the Noble Lord the Nleniber for Lynn had, in a most extrava gant speech which was its own refutation, gone considerably out ot his way to pass a high-flown eulogium on what he termed the mild and paternal Governments of Austria and Russia. The lion. Member then proceeded to read extracts front a number of letters written by Mr. Magennis and other persons, describing the condition of the people prior to the insnr.. rection and outbreak in Gallicia, and the conduct of the Austrian Government during the insurrection of the Gallician peasantry. The Hon. Member then went on to say that a great deal of odium had been endeavoured to be affixed upcn the manifi sto of the revolutionary government. He did not wish to defend that document, but he thought that some allowances should be made for the circumstances in which the people and the Go vernment wer, 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. Mr. S. O'BRIEN said, that in reply to the Noble Lord - whe had challenged them to give an instance of the violation of treaties on the part of Eng:and he would name an instance. He asked the Noble Lord, did she not violate the treaty of 1782, 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 Vienna. The Noble Lord (Bentinek) attempted to defend them on the ground that they had been guilty of former in fractions of that treaty, but that, in his opinion, rather aggra vated than extenuated their offence. The Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had ridiculed the idea that the suppression of Cracow had taken its rise I 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. fie should like to know from the Noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, why a diplomatic agent had nut been appointed for Cracow, agreeably to the premise given to 183(i? If this had been done, the scenes that hid 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 bad, by em broiling the friendly relations which existed . between them and :"ranee. '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, would 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 fi*Jr Montrose. T7lO questicna had been raised during the ishate. The tint, whether the suppr2ssion of Cracow . , by the • three Petnts, wes, or V 733 Let; a vich,tion of t!ie treaty cf Viertna ; and, tacondly, vrhather after the treaty had been I 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 tile 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 Weymou 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 Bute, 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, he 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 I 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 depended upon the observance of the treaty, and that if it had been broken, be 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 construction 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, thee must still pay the money to Russia.—( Hear, hear.) His argument was simply this, that where two con ditions were made between two parties, and one broke his portion of it ; the fulfilment of the agr, ement was not binding upon the other. He (Ur. Escott) 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 ha 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 them from the obligation which the treaty of Vienna had imposed upon them. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member fur 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 ass 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. The 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 saAlv of the last remnant of Poland should not be interfered with.' Lord Castlereagh, to whom history would do ju6tiee, 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 hail stated, "that it was a masterstroke of policy to bind Rusoa by a pecuniary obligation to observe the faith of treaties." There. fore he (Mr. Escott) 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 0,4,4 from ihe 1 Queen's Minister—respect the Executive Government." avow, he wanteo to help the Executive Government; but if trey con tinued, after what occurred, to p'y the money, the Minister of Russia would no (Lula say,—" If this is the nature of your protest, I wish you would do so in a similar strain as often as you think proper." Certainly they would cot be respected in Europe if they paid a pure:y unjust demand ; if it was just, let them by all means pay it, but it it was unjust let them manfully refuse to do so. Some seemed to think that the question was one or war, it they refused to pay the money, but he considered it simply a question a hotter 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 it 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 ail—in the shape of hush money. The Noble Lord the Member for Lynn h: d made one observation for which he thanked hint. 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 ottiniens of the country were against the country part), which he pro fessed to lead, as he hail 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 question, and he honoured him for his determination, because the question was one which ought not to be met by such a motion. tier Nia jesty's Ministers were of the same opinion, but the Noble Lord (Bentinek) said they were all wrong in their con clusions, as there had been no violation of the treaty ; as the three Pow ers, he said, had done their duty, and there fore, he should 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 ..ho 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 recited that the question must be viewed as one of pounds, shillings, and pence. as the question of honour depended upon its bein2 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 7,1)00,000/. 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 elf ti' s if it was not founded in justice. They were told that the colonies which they still held were compelled to pay this money. Ile should wish some Member to get up anti 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 these which they tie.:rd just stated. The Noble Lord was bot singular, as it had been observed, in his opinions. He hail 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 Aust: ian and Russian Cabinets, but he did not blame them, th e y were at leastj consistent. But how was the House of Commons, who condemned their views, to justify its own conduct. It was better upon such occasions as the present to speak the simple truth.... ( Hear, hear.) There was one great disadvantage in that ;,t,lrtbe'udutno country 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 goner I opponents—( Hear, hear)—and there was one great advantage derived from that other class vulgarly called Tories, who were sure to tie opposed by those who in office never brought any of those buds and flowers of patriotism which it required some other incentive to pr ,, duee than the reigns of power. The Noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown would have the support of the former, bat he would tell him that the present was a question of great constitutional policy, and one which the peove 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 liberties 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— and the result was, that he threw aside the weapons of oppres sion. The present was another great constitutional question, amongand be f() u h n e hd sw amongoo u ,, l n dfi h n is d e trhvail household, t e aid f o l ot t wn h ae i t s r..l.,_, b question, ecsht efer ire h si. e i)d had were enemiesnnt Mr. SNIYTHE said that he differed from the Honourable Member for Montrose in his particular conclusions, altheugh of for th e Fr t a r e n a c t :, of n e f d i v . o ti i eh n ne e n d l an t w ht e i a t rd h wt h aa i believing ks in ebn i o n puinadneb.y ptroo t ii h a, dt tiesahn nioin suffered g had been abandoned more shamefully by France than Poland had been, he was surprised that Metternich had sullied his fame, which had been stamped upon the present century, for a gain which had been termed a g eo g raphical atom, and for a loss which would b e the unsettlement of the p eace of Europe. The independence of Cracow had been guaranteed by more protocols S and treaties than that of an y other tate in Europe, an d that would be a reason wh y the abolition of its inde pendencebe regarded more seriously than otherwise. The three Powers , in their charge against Cracow. making , should prov fn e r d t s o n o nh mu a eh e , pr fo ie r . . r eras a of years, it was t h eir dut y sooner to , have interfered. The revolution hree Powers had acted towards , ( racew as Semiramis Mil to Ninus, who suckl ed hint first, and atterwards debauched hint, f He was persuade d, that had an understandin g existed between . h had c o proved their case. for f France and England , that the su pp ression of Cracow would have taken place. He hoped that the ehtente cm &ale would be renewed between those two countries , and he would not won venture to call on the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department, for the sake of the public order and the peace of Europe to do so. Their doing so would be the means of pre- • venting such acts as those in future. He thought a joint pro test would have been better than refusing to pay the loan which was now under the consideration of the House. He agreed with the conclusion come to by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, that while he believed the treaty to have been violated. he would not take advantage of any con struction of its meaning to avert the payment of the debt, but show to the world a scrupulous and honourable observance on the part of England of the obligations which treaties imp sods Mr. B. DISRAELI, i n r i s i ng to a d dress the Hou s e, said he could only appeal to them now on the present subject, 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 eon se. He had been given to under,tand that a treaty of the greatest importance had been violated; a treaty, which, for the interest: of thi-country, ought to have been observed ? Now, before going into this question, he thought they should first agree as to the subject which was rot before them ; arid 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 H trui.ted that they all lamented that the independence of Poland bad ceased to be. He re gretted the fall of Poland, mainly because he believed it was for the interest of England that Po!asid should have remained an independent Power. He could easily understand how the Hon. 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. I . ut 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 Enzlish 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 tb- 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 Healing 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 a Protectorate. It had been at various times occupied by military forces, and its constitution often changed. 'I he result was, that after half a century Cracow had again become an Austrian town. This was really the historic statement which they had to decide to night, and not the question of the partition of Poland. It was 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 ? ( Hear, hear.) Did their title deed to freedom depend on the treaty of Vienna? Let them take away their sympathy from Poland, and the question soon assumed a different aspect. It was nearly eighty years since Poland had been partitioned, the intervenin g period constituting what might b e c a ll e d th e e p oc h of modern history, a period during which England had lost her colonies, France had been revolutionised, Ireland united to this country, and that great legislative change accomplished by which many Hon. Members had obtained seats in that House. Who could deny that, under such circumstances, the partition of Poland had ceased to be a political catastrophe, and must now be considered peimanently effected? It seemed that two of the greatest Powers in Europe had protested that there had been a violation of this important treaty, which was at present the basis of their diplomatic settlement, by the termination of the quasi independent existence of this Austrian-Polish town. This town, which was Austrian at the commencement of those struggles, which the Convention affected to settle, and which had become again Austrian , was the subject In dis pute. England and France, by the mouths of two most able Ministers, had protected that there had been a violation by the three continental Powers of a treaty which shook, in fact, the total destinies of Europe. And one Hon. Gentleman, a Member of the House of Commons, responding to the protest of these two Ministers, called upon the House to re-echo their protest--to respond to them—and taking advantage of certain other treaties which were in existence, to punish one of the violators of this stipulation. The House would perhaps admit that be had fairly stated the case which was before them. On the first night of the sessions, although there was a general feeling in the Himse —at least very much so on the side on which he had the honour of sitting—that they should not enter into any discussion on foreign affair- ; although he thought, though it seemed mis 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 that there had been 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 throne, that the House 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 had been a manifest violation of the Treaty of Vienna in answer to the address, he thought it only a matter of statement, awl that they had to thank her Majesty for the information which had been given to th.em upon the subject. He had thought himself, therefore, perfectly sate 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 Royal Speech, stated that there was no human being who could doubt that h there had been a inanifes , violation of the treaty of Vienna. It was that observation which had made him (31r. Disraeli) observe as he did to his Noble Friend near him, that he thought it rather a susiielous assertion on the part of the Noble Lard. Now, what we. the result ? The Right Ron. Baronet the Member for the Uciversity, who was a great authority upon ail subjects, but especially upon Parliamentary reform—( laugh)—rose the other night and said that every gentleman was pledged by the answer to the Speech from the 'I hrone, 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 adm►rable coolness, that every gentleman who was pre ent had, by his silence, signified his acquiescence 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 hove - - - 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 equivocal ion or evasion, and he had the judgment of some of the principal judges of public law with him in his opinion —that nu one could call the viAation of a particular treaty inserted in a general treaty, a violation of that general ireaty. He put the p inciple 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 be believed to be of the gravest importance. He had addressed the House very im perfectly, but he hoped not in any dogmatical tone, and he aLlvised 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—and 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 after 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 House. The free states of Germany had been guaratteed by the treaty of Osnabreck political rights. The treaty of Osna- Greek was inserted in the treaty of Minster, and the Tree states of Ger Many were derived of their political rights. They applied to the signatory 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 bya m guarantee. treaty, to do them right, and fulfil th at It was decided, after the most w e ighty argument second to none, and who had interf er ed w i t h thef treaty great trans actionan of Vienna, that the violation of a politic al serted in the treaty achieved in Westphalia was not aty violationin of the general treaty. lie (Mr. Disra e li) sa id that it de cided In a man second to none, becaus e h e was sure was that the great great Chancellor of Austria, 1‘..1. Oxen s t ern . t o w h om h i , . Hon. Friend the Member fur Canterbury had referred, could scarcely consi ier himselt inferior to the great Chancellor Mazarin, who had given the opinion; and he (Jr. Disraeli) believe 6 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, b-ing 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 Alin-ter • opposed to th.-m, 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, becau-e, in his opinion, precedents were only important when th y 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 4.r four precedents would be as Ai clent as hundreds at another time, and under different circum stances. He 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 which be would remind them. Louis XIV. had given his decision in favour of his view of the case, and whiie 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 rig hts hFranca and the other Powers. They now came to the treaty of Osna burgh, and he would find that the decision then entered upon had been discredited, and it was ulti ma t e l y Diet of Germany. That Diet wa s decidedly opposed to the decision which had previously been come t.o. and n was referred to the consideration of Willi am 111., e first opp onen t o f Louis XIV. 'That monarch h a d re f used to clec:d e upon his own authority, and had de . ermined to decide it upon the general law of Europe.---(Cheers.) They could not call 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 they GRAND JURY OATH. Mr. LABOUCHERE presented a petition from the Frotent2nt grand jurors of Limerick, signed by Lord Adarse, Sir "v -- c. , r3 Vero, the insight of Glyn, and Wm. Monsen, of Tervoe, &0., praying for an alteration in the oath, because some parts of it were offensive to their Catholic tdlow-jurors. RATING ELECTORAL DISTRICTS. The HoN. MEMUER also presented petitions from owners and occupiers of land in Antrim, Armagh, and Down, complaining of the system of rating electoral districts, and praying fur an alteration in it. POOR LAW (IRELAND). Lord R. GROSVENOR presented a petition from certain persons at Limehouse, praying the House to enact a poor-law for Ireland. EX RAJA OF SATTARA. _ _ Mr. P. BORTIIWICK. presented a petition from the city of Westminster, praying the House would consider the claims of the ex-llitja of Sattara. WELLINGTON STATUE AND NELSON MON UMENT. Mr COLLETT said, as he saw the Noble Lord the Commissioner of Woods and Forests in his place, he wished to put a question to him. The Noble Lord had been reported to have said last night that the Wellington statue was to come down; but the Noble Lord had not stated where it was to be removed to, or at whose expense. He (Mr. Collett) certainly hoped it would not be removed at the public expense; but he henget] to ask the Noble Lord what site the statue was to occupy, and at whoa) expemo it vt-cs tc be removed to He hoped the Noble Lord could inform the House also when the Nelson monument would be finished?—(Laughter.) Lord MORPETII said he must state to the House what he had stated before, that the site for the Welling ton statue would be in Waterloo-place, whither it must be removed at the expense of the sub-committee, at whose expense the statue had been first put up. As for the Nelson monument, he said fresh instructions had been given for the execution of the bas reliefs, and for putting them in their place. Mr. COLLETT—When ?—(Loud laughter.) The Earl of LINCOLN made a remark across the table, which was not heard in the NEW HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT. Sir 1)E LACY EVANS wished to know whether any measures had been taken to admit the public to the new ['wises of Parliament, and whether any compensation was to be made for the loss sustained by the inhabitants by the contemplated new streets in Westminster ?' Lord MORPETII had been in communication with the architect of the New Palace at Westminster, and in order to enable him to redeem his pledge, it was neces sary to prohibit any persons whatever from entering its precincts, of course including the two Houses of Par liament, until the end of the Easter recess. He had. however, made arrangements for the opportunity of seeing the splendour of that place, for which the public had paid so largely, at the end of the present session. RECORD OFFICE. Mr. MONCKTON ARMS ES wished to ask the Right Hon. the Secretary for the Home Department, whether any measures had been taken fur the erection of an office for the reception of the records of England and Wales. lie had learned that the documents of other muniments of the country were in daily danger of destruction, and the question he had to put was as to whether, according to the promise held out last session, it was decided to have a Record Office built, and as to whether the situ had been chosen ? Sir GE , )11G E GREY was understood to say that the Government were duly impressed with the necessity of pr,,viding for the safe custody of the public records, but they had nut yet decided upon the site where the build ing was to be erected. The subject, however, was under consideration. GENERAL PUBLIC BILLS. Mr. AGLIONBY wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government would propose to the House general Biils fix the watch ing, paving, and lighting, or other matters of regulation and improvement of towns. He was desirous to know whether any such measures were to be proposed, and how soon they would be brought forward, so as to obviate the necessity of introducing a separate measure to meet the requirements of each case. Lord MORPETH stated, iu reply to the Hon. Mem ber, that on Thursday next several Bills for watching, lighting, and paving, would be laid on the table. WELLINGTON STATUE. Lord JOIN MANNERS would like to know with reference to'the question lately put to the Noble Lord, respecting the Wellington statue, whether it was the intention of the Government to ere,.t the statue in Waterloo-place—whether the opinion of the Govern ment was adverse to that site or not ? Lord MORPETH said that the Sub-Committee had now left the matter entirely at the discretion of the Go vernment. GENERAL FAST-DAY. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that the Archdeacon of Surrey, the Rev. Mr. Dombey, be requested to preach bofore the House on the general fast-day. Mr. HUME said that they had a chaplain of their own, and it would be rather casting a slight upon him if they appointed another to discharge hi: duty. Sir GEORGE GREY was informed that the state of their own chaplain's health rendered it impossible fur him to fulfil the duty. HOLYHEAD HARBOUR. Lord SANDUN would beg to aid( what steps the Government had taken with reference to Holyhead har bour, for the purpose of ascertaining its fitness to be a harbour of retuge. It was a matter of public importance that some inquiry should be made before there was an expenditure of public money, which might turn out wholly fruitless. Mr. COW PER answered that an examination had beer. made into the capabilities of the harbour by Capt. Peehell, and steps would be taken in pursuance of the results of that inquiry. ECCLESIASTICAL COM MISSION. Mr. E. DENISON postponed his motion for a Select Committee to inquire into English Ecclesiastical Com missions till Thursday. CORN FROM PORTUGAL. Lord J. MANNERS asked the Noble Lord at the head of the Gov , Tntneut whether it was true that the Government of Portugal had prohibited the exportation of gram? Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied, that he believed that some step of the kind referred to had been taken. TRADING IN SEDUCTION AND PAOSTITU- TION. Mr. R. SPOONER presented a number of peti tions against trading in prostitution; umoug others, one from a public meeting held at, the London Tavern on Monday, Sir Fowell Buxton in the chair. The Hon. Member then proceeded to address the House. In rising to ask leave to introduce a Bill for the better suppression of trading in seduction and prostitution, and on behalf of which SO petitions, signed by 10,000 persons, in addition to those now laid on the table of the House, had been presented, he had hoped that it • would have been un necessary to make any statement on its first reading. But he was sorry to say that he had inti mation from two Members of that House, that they would re suffer the Bid to be brought into the House, unless a statement were made . which should appear to justify hint in doing so. If, however, the House wished him to postpone any statem ent till that occasion, he was very willing.—(Cries of '`Hear, hear.") Yet, if the House would allow him, he would lay before them—(Cries of " No, no") —such groun ds as must appear to justify, him in expecting to meet. with no opposition i n b r i ng i ng in that Bill.—(Cries " No.") A similar Bill had been brought into the House of Lords, and had gone through all its stages, except the third reading, but just then the Duke of Wellingion begged the Right Rev. Bishop wined withdraw his Bill, as it was of such a nature as to equire the serious consideration of the Govern , merit, and he pledged himself that Government would give it their early attention. Considering then that a similar Bill had advanced so far in the other House of Parliament; that 10,000 petitioners had prayed the House to pass a measure on the subject ; and that that subject was a wrong for whi c h th ere was no legal remedy, he thought there was sufficient to justify the course which he was taking. B u t if th e N o bl e Lord opposite requested him to refrain from making any statement then, he would certainly consent. Sir G. GREY said he might state to the House what he had said to the Hon. Member privately, that con sidering the debate which came on that night it might be desirable that the Hon. Member should refrain from any statement on that occasion, and he (Sir G. Grey) would give him no opposition. But he did think that any statement now, under these circumstances, would be inexpedient. Mr. SPOONER—WiII the Hon. Members, the Ii al, Gentleman behind him, and the Hon. Gentleman oppo site, still impede my motion 2--(Laughter.) Mr. C. BERKELEY must say frankly that hp would ~oppose the Bill; at the same time he admitted that the subject was important. IRISH EMIGRANTS. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK desired to know if the Government had received information of any intention on the part of the Government of the United States or New York to impose a duty of 51. per head upon immigrants to that country. He also desired to know what were those other documents to which the Noble Lord referred upon a previous occasion when they were discussine the subject of Cracow. Lord PALMERSTON said that, with reference to the first question, he did not understand that any decided step had been taken. The subject had be,n'mentioned in Congress, but no intimation had been conveyed to him respecting it. In answer to the second part of the N-ble Lord's ques tion, he would say that his eye was quicker than his ear, for he (Lord Palmerston) only smiled and the interpretation of that smile was not that there were other documents, but that the Noble Lord would find, by reference to the library of the House, that the British Government, at the Congress of Vienna, were party to all protocols and treaties made at that C. ogress. ADJOURNED DEBATE.—ANNEXATION OF CRACOW. On the order of the day for the adjourned deblte on Cracow being read, Sir JOHN WALSH rose and said in addressing the House he would apply himself first to the particulars of the question arising out of the motion of the Hon. Member tor Montrose, and inquire what was the practi cal and immediate question before the Rouse. Tht) first question for them to consider would be whether they bad any legal right to free themselves from the obligation of that treaty to continue the payment to Russia— whether it would be consistent with the faith of treaties, or wirh their own character, to con tinue that payment. The second question was, whether, the other being assumed, it would be wise, whether it would be politic, whether it would be con sistent with their national status in the pre sent condition of Europe, to pursue such a course? When he entered upon this question, he must say that he felt considerable dissatisfaction at the mode in which the Honourable Member 'or Montrose had introduced his motion, not that he had stated what was not literally true, but any person who was not acquainted with the whole question, would is , led into a very erroneous conclusion. The conven tion of the 19th of November, 1831, was merely a supple mental measure, to supply a Parliamentary deficiency. It was contended that, in equity, England could not avail itself of the treaty of Vienna. It was, however, subsequently ad mitted that Parliamentary sanction was requisite. That treaty bore date May, 1815, and the treaty of 1831 was merely a subsequent and technical treaty, calculated to give effect to the former one. What was that treaty, then, of 1815, and what were the obligations by which England was bound under that treaty ? The treaty to which the treaty of 1815 referred was one between Holland and Russia, and, by the treaty of 1831, England rendered herself responsible for the obligations into which Holland had entered with Russia. In order to show what the nature of that treaty was, the Hon. Baronet read the preamble of the treaty of 1815, by which it appeared that, in consideration of the assistance rendered by the allied powers to Holland, she agreed to pay certain sums for the expenses which had been incurred. It was plainly evi dent that this sum was to be paid for the restoration of the kingdem of Holland. At the conclusion of his speech on Thursday last, the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth had taken occasion to remind the House of the services which England had rendered to Europe during the great struggle of the last war; and also of the obligations which she had undertaken when she assumed —when she took up —the responsibilities of the treaty between Holland and Russia. He rejoiced to hear such sentiments from the lies of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but he thought England should be reminded that she was not the only agent in making those arrargement!, and he thought some gratitude was clue to Russia, as she was the first that broke the power of Napoleon, and helped to effect the deliverance of Europe. '1 he Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth also pro tested against a doctrine in one of Alonsieur Guizot's despatches that the breach of one article of a treaty dissolved the obliga tion of the treaty itself on all who were parties to it. Ile did not think that Mons. Guizot was correctly understood, and though he was not sorry to see the protest of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he thought that he had put a wider latitude upon the phrase than the writer of it intended. He should like to know, how ever, how they should act in the event of their adopting the resolutions of the Hon. Member for Montrose. If they acted in this manner, they would be affirming the prin ciple that the infraction by Russia of one particle of 'he treats would justify them in releasing themselves from all those obli gations which they owed to Russia, on entirely other grounds. The Member for Montrose had made the question assume a judicial character, and he had called upon the House to decide whether, under certain considerations, they were released from obligr ions otherwise binding. This was a very delicate posi tion to be in, namely, to be judges of their own case, and it was, therefore, doubly necessary for them to consider all the bearings of the case, and to see how far they were justified in attaching weight to the allegations which had been made, and how far matter had been urged in defence of the parties accused. He said the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member tor Tamworth, had expresed a strong opinion of the necessity of a power like England,—of all the great Powers accoreing a full measure of protection to the smaller states. His expression was some thing to the effect that they were in a position to have no anxiety as to such a Power as Prussia absorbing Russia, or Bavaria, Prussia; but he did feel that it was the one principle of the body of international law to afford protection to the .weaker States, He (Sir John Walsh) entirely agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet, that that was the duty and the policy of the great States, and that it would be the solicy and the special interest of England to do so, for England had nothing to gain from territorial aggrandisement, or from conquests ; 1 and if she absorbed any weaker State, she would do that at t e h n a t e t ,r Britisht a a mi empire n d p,i that o,so o eu p l idn smalleri b on e a , h a sacrifice, a n d th e l oss wou ld b e en ti re ly h ers . B u t w hil e s h e that id. e ws v a e ts r i I s la, M rhe i e n c ii reciprocity oi would t f y saythoef ie s t ta hi t on e p s emd there i duty, that i if they had a right to protection they were also bound to observe strict neutrality, and to avoid giving any oc casion for aggression from the larger States. He did say that the smaller States ought to pursue such a course as would secure them peace, which to them was so valuable. But sup pose they should take an in.tanee. 'They all knew the im portance of the noble city of Frankfort, one of the most emi nent of commercial cities ; the had all seen her 'solaces for her merchants, the prosperity which existed in her streets, the vital spirit of commercial enterprise which had given such enn „ense to that town. Suppose, then, it were possible that France were suddenly inflamed with the lust of territorial possession, and with a wish to obtain that fair • city; that she was to set her armies in motion and invade the city of Frankfort. If such took place there would no doubt be a burst of indignation throughout Europe. But let them sup pose, that instead of pursuing the quiet avocation of commerce, that she was obliged, by some unfortunate circumstance, to be come a political point. Let them suppose that Frankfort was to become what 4 :obl entz was at the commencement of that century. from whence the century. Thnt she should become the p It would o be easy for enemies of France might issue. taken m France infraction of a treaty had place. s t„ ti , to state that an mutantlis, he did not see the g reat difference between the hypo. case of Cracow. thetical case of Frankfor t and the real call the attention of the lii making these observations he must . not, entitled to the House to the fact that this insurrection was . • the insurrection of 1830. In sympathy of the House, as was ko at Cracow. For this this insurrection there was no Koscius movement there was none of _ the countenan ce of those great Poles whe were f o remost in the grea t struggle of 1830, who stepped fo rwa rd with so much gallantry, men who were ever ready to promote the interests of their country, an who with . d of au much ardour were ready to encounter th e ,whole power Russia— men w h o sacr ifi ce d property, relatives, home, and all that man holds dear, for the ino c endence of their country. The se were n o t th e men w h o gave oun t eua r i ce to the insur reel ion of Craco w . H e believed, indeed, that i t was a well kn own fact that none of these men had, either directly or indirectly, taken part in this Cracow insurrection; tout they had, on the contrary, withheld all their countenance from th 44 4ilastivs enterprise. Hs perceived froth a dispatch \\,-) >`'- could not therefore rely upon the construction wbfikts made in their favour, or on the friendly interpositigis Powers who were parties to this treaty. He would beg fes. these several treaties beiore the House, and remincflitlap, vit; wha had occurred at the commence ment o f the present- St t sion. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for T amwort b (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 the Right Honourable Gen tleman say? He asked, what was the use of these. treaties, and had designated them, as if in contempt, as an= nexed treaties; and had asked what was the use of those trea ties. lie should be sorry to misrepresent those treaties, but he believed that the effect of the whole of them was to give nationality to Poland. And he did not believe that the treaty of Vienna at all interfered with the objects of that treaty.- ' (Cheers.) What, indeed, was the use or the meaning of these propositions, if they were not to be backed by the Go-• vernment ? Quite sure he was that the House would never sanction the fulfilment of the treaty if it were not sanctioned by public opinion. What, in fsct, was the meaning of these terms, or the use ot them, if they did not mean at the same time to sanction the expression of public opinion. -(Hear, hear.) What was the meaning of these terms if they %sere not to sanct i on the preceesiings of the several Powers ? Fli•ar, hear.) Was there a human being in existence who did not believe that the same faults would be committed if the same fanqs were to be observed at every trifling change? lie was not aware of the mischief which might arise, hut no ono t g ncr,e,:oui Cad hurch en e at, :t%:l to I.i l lain t ei ! rce:u l l tp B iif t:aitat} inculpate iclausectttel7,aeatsxycsailvvit,}:titrrrlaittelhuo:efmtchit:Ler,me,etinka.,,ecimr‘oh,sen o,,,t o vrf. f o:u P uatillh o divie l . a bfi r c i en d s jadtft w hit - it i loih t l nle h ai (ye s : aonfd Viennarleir ascht:i.o should h h ee broken,esti o s r s men's con s ciences was not whether a s to should stand; and in showing that the treaty of Vienna ought to be observed, he wsukt rely not only on what had been said on his own side of the House, but also on the plain principle of justice. and which was conformable to the general rule of the House with respect to treaties. He could not agree that the,general rules of the House should be violated for the sake of a trifling expense, and that the first principles of general law sht.uld be sacrificed in order to me. t the feeling of irrita tion from which we have suffered so much. The Hight Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamoorth had pointed out this ques tion as the foundation ot a triumphant expression of popular feeling, and the means by which it was to be reginated and im proved.-(Che.rs.) He would ask whether the opinion of the Ric ht Hon Baronet was to be maintained, and whether toe in fraction of a particular treaty was to be sufficient for the infrac tion of a genera teeaty. it was very evident that there had been an infraction of the general treaty, and if it was not, there was sufficient opportunity for correcting the report. The question had been discussed over and over again. but it as yet had never been settled. The Right Hon. Baronet had put the question as if the ttealy had never been violated. In this case, the treaty was evidently violated, and the consideration was, whether the violation of one article was sufficient to justify the viola lesion of others. That was the question to which Austria, Russia, Prussia, and France were parties ; and if they didnot adhere to the principle which they had laid down, they would lose their locus standi. If there were any objections to the particular article, still none could be entertained as to. the principles of the original treaty. And if that were to be abrogated, the signers of that abrogation ought to give notice to the parties to the original treaty, He would not refer to precedent, for precedent was altogether opposed t . the infraction of a part' of a treaty and yet retaining the principles of the whole agree• ment. He would ask the Noble Lord, after reading the gene ral treaty, and the whole series of the correspondence, whether one dot of a vowel of that agreement should be set aside, or whether any foreign interposition should be suffered? Hon. Gentlemen might choose to make an exi.ibition at Freemasons' Hall, and prostitute the influence of the British Senate, but ' he trusted that, for the ci edit of the country and the character of the Noble Lord, they would not carry this question to 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 which the signora 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 authority-he would hesitate very much-he would feel he had a great 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 that House. He must say, however, that nothing had mo re a maze d hi m t h an t h e speech which the House had heard irom the Right Hon. Gen tleman (Sir Robert Peel) on this question. He wouldisle the Right Hon. Gentleman, or he would ask the Noble Lord opposite, how they had both acted in tke case of Belgium?- 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 not a Member of that House, influenced by assemblies held at Free masons' Hall, which settled at will important questions of which they had no knowledge -( Hear, hear)-and, therefore, the King of Holland, looking only to his legal rights, did not appeal to Europe. Did the House think that the King of Holland, if he were justified in so d o i ng , wou ld 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 ;he 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 leoked 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 Prussia 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. Gentleman, and shortly afterwards support. d by the sanction of the Noele 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 shouts' 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 vas then called on to attend to the duties which were recognised by nations as demanded from the Powers signing general treaties, namely, to exert he: friendly interference in bringing about the peace of Europe It was in consequence ot signing the general treaty that France was called upon to interfere in this case. He had heard the principle which he was laying down urged by his Noble Friend the Member for Lynn in that House, and his remaiks touched the Right Hon. Gentleman from the po sition which he teen 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 no:orioua in Europe-which were acted upon by all nations, yet the Right Hon. Gentleman-a prac tised debater-in a speech which might be eharacterised as perhaps, too classic for Freemasons' Hall-(Laughter)-but which seemed realy 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. 1 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.) 1 never heard their names, bat I suppose we must ask them from Lord Aberdeen, who says that of all the infamous stipulations in the treaty, the wcrst 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 ke (Mr. Disraeli) could not share. That was one great advantage that Members of the Government had over less firtunate Gentlemen in that House.-( Hear, and laughter.) Bat 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 astute understanding of the Right 1 11_ 0 r o d n ad Gentleman.told themthat The t hNeorbel reason Lo rd,al a free town was on account of principles of e c o mpensation, yAirrabceorwsowiftoasorw:lmee col s ti s s considered e e d r that some compensation was owing o t be cause at the time the town was decla o re F d ra f o r o e e i f - e comp e nsation to England for her empire, and also some little_so e m n p h French people would be somewhat for the colonies. He thought the declaration, coming as it did from a gen tleman at such e a en theUnder-Secretary of State of no less ridiculous for France to make annual by some to be extreme ly atleptnersanonawgbeotbbaadn b een Duke of Wellington. It was considered pretests about the independence of Poland ; but after what had heard on this subject, he shou l d not be surprised if they was ler a Member of some Deputies rose in the Chambers to declare that there was one thing still more ridiculous-and that Parliament to attempt to explain the making Cracow a tree town on the score of compensation. But the opinions and conduct of Cabinets and nations could be better a s c ert a ined from p ublic documents than from peivate conversations , and he hoped no attention would be pai to gentlemen who .aid the treaty of Vienna was all very well, htl it , or a g. neman,whotold them that but . he knew Prince Metternich's opi nion did not coincide wit he had been in Paris, and in a conversation he had with M. Guigot, 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, he 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 Rustic, that Cra cow, if allowed to be free, would always be the focus of po litical disturbances, and the centre of sedition. Thirty year's 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 Aus tria.-(Hear, hear.) In the face of these solid facts how could he 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 regret 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 . ev en t . which, no d ou bt, i n th e i r warmth and inspir ation, t w on u , they had f org ott e n. One hundre4• ears ago, partitiongo, proposed to certain European Powers mounted her throne. She Austria, and just look to the circumstances under which it was proposed to divide that empire. It w as at the time governed by an unprotected girl, who had just the head of the conspiracy was th of the republic of Po was the Empress Maria Theresa,e Kingamilita_ry genius. Now, at, land ; but it failed, and why was Austria not partitioned ? Why, because her people , w ho at t he t ime by no m eans num bered so many as twenty millions, were brave soldiers, and their prowess had ever astonished the world. Austria had re mai ned faithful to England in trouble and in peace, and she ought not rAw ANT • • .'-' ' . : .-11 . , 1, i4ll 4 I . rrtg 0--111 ,Wl l llll , :I 1