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

e, as the with henry ;er traffic me ofd and the inies refused C om pany extensively L vcrpool, ould n ot call iany, as that but he F. as he took in the name !sent to lease eat Western• and it was of !ding, en as to nri e , legal view of It position It Id states tha, epr etente u letet mined le. n , Vi 1 101 had ler which the dosed to re-_ s inquiry, eo clear to the iies had tekr m ies, and ci pu blic, 0 1 ;_ s h o uld ta ke ssiti n o neee ~ it I. they base, the 'y a court incl.., r place, whiup come Ti ot h, Tie there; - n f it d ( ''' lie had gret t reates t resP e ,'.. r place an le up of o°7 cou ld on thl to t hat wo e not confidence her place , I)° ,. t vox d ',t in to t.• a _ (f i e ar a rf n b , Ttmittee sear.) ) know if . t e , l ad any ob i e f Comtr.itteow 1 to the courle desirable that Le doubted I l os lary way o bt 'fliey 0" , , le the vari' ti t 't importss° . this woula Du reat roc:000e; iunication In t all the Per, could fall jA ts le was g . 13 `1; as tos ? " 0 to make it f he had '`9/ petitions to Nis had "tier ward!, hye Y. s 011wh t cNIP that. Western • n° l3 e x piatia‘.io red no t he refer s of a. " i r li ; ' 0 1 :: st, in rele 116'1° ;seter everal selleOes t ion fro faculties frr i ' co, ' Na y collll4° he is 418 Y ' c ' esA . best into the Oa • Ilf a nd ele rch 16. 0 CLIO 1:) led detAte - THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING-, MARCH 17, 1847. fr o at Mr. Al3gennis, that General Sobieski, who was so die , it aillai.shed for his gallantry in the contest of 1830, had bqether ab s t a i ne d from taking part in the late insurrection °f Crems.. and had, as stem as he had received information I tl m. the out b reak, not only refused the senct i en o f hi s great i i ' s ' it. e i c %t in h e a n t e l e r d e . moved into the territories of Austria ae soon ! The Hon. Member for Finsbury charged ? on. F r i en d I L or d G eorge B ent i ne k) w ith wily partially cad's the manifesto of the erovisional Government of Poland is ' u eo at the breaking out of the revolution. If the Heuse , , permit him, h' would read the document in full, which I ,..,'_gct be called the Magna Charta Puland.— ( Hear ) (The iT,tl. 'Member here read the various articles of tne manifesto.) Iser e penalty of death was also to be enforced upon spies, and all : 9 1 2 ,_ . 44r °rrning, clubs ag ainst the new Government were to be ( : - esett traitors to the country. punish interference with the ti n4 to established was also to be ed with death. The ,article regulated the national colours very minutely , and it ;_that system o f c on temptible trifling and sanguinary tyranny d „ ''n was to guide the future destinies f ly Poland. The con ;.ict of Crac ow must be deemed as invoing its own safety. e Could not conceive that when a small state like Cracow was eit eti P ie d by a military force that it could be other than imbe t ' , and weak, or that it subjected itself willingly to •uish mili 4') o ccupation. M. Guizot had very much urged upon the i ' Z in ' i deration of the three Powers the possibility of their adopt se4nt!ithout destroying the independence of Cracow, such pre re measures as would check the progress of teese conti starinsurrections. Such a course could nut be adopted without east and general system of epionage, which, even to e -t "', It of Cracow itsslf , would be r m ost objecti o nable. Craeoy;- the b t c ' t i'd have been placed a false position, and instead of be in g ? b efitted by ‘ such an arrangen; era it would hare been ma rtat 'riall Y injured, Was the state of Europe such as would war --(tll in directing to the three Powers such a feeble show re monstrance and hostility, which woul d not have the iltilliest eff ec t upon t h e i n d e p en dence of Cracow ? So great a t e : 4 as England could never have recourse to a little war, or `woulda anti inefficient measere. Let the House consider ei, pr ' e eted to these three Powers—it would lead te innumerable -° „ t o 4 , e( tits and declarations on the part of Russia, that this t s t) ,,"„` r }' had been guilty of a gross breach of faith, while it w - `il be productive of no effect, but that ot contempt. He P ra 't aw are that warm feelings existed in this country towards f e 4eei but h e k new , from his own experience, that the same ih at n its did not exist in France. France was, he believed, at ( to . niement the only nation of Europe which had a desire e ar, and a desire of aegrandisement by conquest. The t i n le z "ner name s g of Maren o ' r Austerlitz, and Jena are still re tpi, t'atnitbered in that cou ntry, and kept alive that warlike hi. , He hoped that the powers of Euro p e wo u ld be ti; ; ' w to arrange the present difficulty without that fearful feeling. Ile felt convinced that in 'tent of an y disturbance of the peace of Europe ti ' "' would not be a safe ally for this country. How many 4 b t ' d 'iring the last seven years had they been on the ver g e of "th of their treaty with thi3 country? It was only the s t i s r night that they were called upon to increase the navy ts t ,„, sl " , because they were assured tat the whole seats ard asst ° f Fran c e was arming. He did nit know for what pur fsrt tne 127 furnaces were burning at Brest, but of this he tietici assured, that they did not burn there . to restore the inde i.f."ce of Cracow. Under these circumstances, he felt 4,? tl Y willing to vote with the Noble Lord on the previous o k , - ;"Oni and he did not feel inclined to interfere with the tai .t "s with reapect to Cracow by any such inefficient sense, 4.0 e h' n , , r ' HARRY VANE had not heard an argument to induce Lo agree with the object of the present motion. He hall I; ; L 'ed with the utmost attention to the statements of the Hen. ao l t - i l ' i r r (Sir J. Walsh) to a certain extent he agreed lee h I tns that the treaty of 18'31 was a subsequent and a th Neal treaty ; but still he could not , eparate that tree y from T: tre a'Y of 1815 , and from that of the 14th of August, 1814. tba,c•ertaiti extent he coincided with the Right Hon. Baronet, ta e i Acthber for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) that there had been ti.,eiraetion of those treaties ; but yet, at the same time he te ' i l e t acceded to the proposition of the Noble Lord at the head te k Government, that it was unbecoming in this country to en d to the monetary consideration of a great political ques ts:'ardi that it was sufficient that a protest had been entered limp' t the proceedings ot the three Powers. Yet he, at the same th c es Must say that the three Powers saw reason to believe that do-nl.4pendence of Cracow occasioned disturbances in their Of t) l i ni°,l s that they might not do away with the sixth article tl oi , ',treaty of Vienna. But although he was far from sa y in g to t h tue independence of Cracow was of the great importance es ;0 ' Peace of Europe which it had been represented to be, he tight at the same time assert that the three Powers had no ; 'st to d es , • cif Cracow without consult th . • aoy the ini epere enee s 1;54 eir allies. After goine, through the several political rela tleli,', which had arisen out t . if ihe treaty of Vienna, but while ir ~- " inss which it was utterly impossible to give the details ap,l"seeeence of the peculiar tone ir. which the Noble Lord i he proceeded to say that, reviewing all these circum -"eto h acknowledg— e 1 .4 co ncurrence of France and England. He would not e upon the alliance of France, although lie felt 1. 4 tpthe Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir 1.4 ee l), had hardly done jesticts to the worth of that alliance. „ .a tluite agreed with M. Guizot, that it was no justification ever for on e p ar ty t o lore sight of Isis engagements, be va" t ' t o anothe r h ai l a lt oge th er over l oo ked them. He had stated Eer y shortly what his opinions were, but he could not reat all with the opinion expressed by the Right Hon. net the other night, that th ere was no sufficient justifica o Areal for the p ro t es t, an d h e s i ncere ly trusted that the tierce i s P owers wou ld ta k e warn i ng f rom t h e o b serva ti ons o f the *use on the coarse which they were pursuing, anti that this ty y might take advantage of the legal construction of this , th Mr. J. WORTLEY felt himself in a great dilemma as to e question which was before the House. He would express ds plainly and as forcibly as he was able, his total disapprobation of the suppression of the independence of Cracow. Lot he could not forget ththere political . st were eonsiderations well worthy of attention, and which induced him to hope that the Honourable Member for Montrose rood not force the House to a decision on the question. 'le did not wish to dwell upon topics which tended to create a spirit of hostility in that House, but he could not help re 'riarking that, on the first partition of Poland in 17%, the t a me excus es were put forward by Catherine that had been Ile advanced by the existing Sovereign of the same country. the reminded the House that in the year 1814 it was one of K e „first articles of the tonconvetion of Paris that the throne of t ? '"t l nd should be restored the house of Orange, and Great t , l t t h att voluntarily gave up the colonies which had belonged ri g h t o t country (and particularly Java), which they had every o t fatal the laws of conquest to retain ; and therefore, in point fri eor i t t the restoration of these colonies depended only on the tr e „' shi P of the King for the house of Orange. By the pov—Yi of Paris it was determined that Great Britain should t Sweden, , for he -construc gof the 00 fortifications of Hollan o d on r. t the side re of France, alle, to give en equal amount, with Holland, to the other *h cs; such sum not to exceed 3,0(10100/. Among the subjects i en eh r , ame under the consideration of the convention of li so ,'‘) Was the consideration of the losses sustained by tch e t t —the destruction of her ancient capital—the ravaging .... iv ' Country in a greater degree than suffered by her allies lisl e it was agreed upon that England should waive her e s ,,, l ° compensation in favour c f Russia! And why ? Be sstiT °f the f ac ility w hich the latter country had given to the 14N:tient. of Holland. But they did not undertake to pay an %lee, ' it , of money to Russia as security for Holland. Their 11,,,Z a , t i° 1 1 to then was a distinct and independent one. The to 4 , lo 'leenher then read the stipulations of the treaty of 1831, old w that Russia was guaranteed the repayment of her n ost.l ; ; I) ilieh debt, on cendition of her maintaining Ti ). ate the t rea ty of Vienna.—( Cries of Hear, hear.) 14"n‘ideration ot the treaty of 1815, arid subsequently of aud i t ' was the general arrangements of the Congress of Vienna , teat he facilities Russia had afforded towards carrying them th, Had that consideration failed? If it had on one side, rit t "irr had a right to take advantage of it. What was the Case °f things in the time of Lord Castlereagh? Why Lord p "eaeb, assisted by France wished to restore the freedom tntl oland, while Russia wishe ' d to have the whole of Poland li4 x ; 'd to Warsasv; and the contest was brought to an end by 11, t 'a l s contracting to secure the freedom of Cracow. Upon underst an di ng the loan under discussion was taken u; by th e tl a nd ; but as Russia hail broken one of the cond i t ions of tru oti 'Areement, England clearly had a ri g ht to chi tlf ', ti t," its payment. But then , did not matters itator'icy suggest to them that it would be in ef t ic °ll s to pursue such a course ? England was in possession sh o colonies, which were part of the consideration for which tr o - ti t t ° ; ° l t upon herself the loan, while in times of danger arid o n r - 1 . :7 now gone by, Russia had observed—and with the excep l'reh th i s single instance, still observed the conditions of the 4 441i tt l Y of Vienna. Was it prudent, then, for England now to alt loan, in consequence of the confiscation of a geogra tee atom? Could she do it without coming to some new H e s s tl iZernent with Russia as to the possession of the colonies? etet7prehended not, and therefore be was so far opposed to the till 4 , of the Hon. Member for Montrose.— (Hear, hear.) Vi e s h owever, there could be no doubt that the Treaty of s etite t ia had b een violated; for Russia reluctantly con to only to that part of the treaty which related en ns th e freedom of Poland, but still she did th e se nt to it, an d th ere c ould not be a shadow of a doubt that an nexation of this geographical atom to Austria was a manifest violation of the treaty. In the Convention of Austria tu a a' s 'iand, the real contracting parties in this matter, Itussia e il e certain proposals, upon which was ultimately founded the b tram , y which settled the balance of power to be exercised i s 3 : tl , l e various nations of Europe. Now in those very pre oia there was an article expresslv providing for the freedom Li n t fact of the town and state of C'racow, and in the face of la'" fact it was impossible to deny that Russia and the two other °w ers of Austria and Prussia ha ! violated the treaty of Vienna 2, the p ar t s they had taken with regard to Cra cow. the time that treaty was come to, it was admitted on all h ands, that Cracow was of the utmost importance to England, ?II even now it was a commercial station of no mean character. Was thought at that time that Cracow was a city of too 11. t, kerb importance to be given to either party. It was quite cl ear that a violation of the treaty had taken place. The : 9 ° ,l tict of the annexing parties would also show that they cons tkiered it themselves that they were taking a course contrary ° the treaty of Vienna. They had acted in the matter alto tathee without the knowledge and consent of Eng e-•( Hear, hear.) Thie country would, he hoped, not de rtilled to avenge the violation of the treaty by inflicting es e , i ,' Pecuniary punishment. lie hoped that the House adept the dignified course recommended by the Noble 4 ,, at the heath of the Government, and set thereby an ex iPte to the other states of Europe and to the world. Ile eer 'i a ti th ere f ore, if t h e mot i on were pressed to a division, 1 Y I Ydivide with him Olson the first resolution, but against Pa : 4 the last resolutien, recommending a suspension of the A ir 'nt of the, interest on the Russo-Dutch loan. th e • CHRISTIE said that the real facts of the history of by Ll' apeared e, tat a should hade th e • I gis e nd to p Russia to of b a s l um of m oan y n equal in am o u nt to Loalnoterest on what has since been known as the Russo-Dutch epe e oh Thy p or ti on o f th e H un . and Learned Gentleman's a v `,.,,lne.n might be deemed historic, had not , in his opi rtreet ti lleeteil or altered the position of the question , a nd with h e did eferenc e to that Hon. Gentleman's legal acquirements, , e eenti not think th a t wor d s introduced into the preamble of a 'k a ki c onvention fifteen sears after the date of the fi rst, anti th n F, in a v er y ge neral and vague manner with respect or at ! tn k;ongress o f Vi enna , c ould be considered as binding on of v i ,;ig the general interests of the parties to the treaty Hear, hear.) It had been said, that even if a 'till b urt t. of the treaty haul taken place, this country w ould int o riand to fulfil the engagements which she had entered t i k t: did not, however, agree in that opinion, he thought te e , .1• provisions of the treaty were violated, all the par k th r ' , t hat treaty would be released from their engagements. fr o , 4 . the infraction of the treaty had absolved England 'hould )'aYin ß the interest on the Russo- Dutch 1,-,an, England th e y , are to pay it, anti it would not be shabby for Sr lq ( e , ou , ntry take advantage of that violat ion. a Fr eat te "v"or to inflict sortie punishment. bows - wee small, upon c'toer viand, for the in fl iction of a great injury , lf, the Ins et antis this country was tart absolved from paying the the ',.,3nfue Y ' i t be , ll "shabby „ would not express in proper terms gets , of the cou n t r y withholding the same. He of th at i l On wever, that it was incensisttnt with the lune:ions t !lati on „ ° ° , e to pa-s resolutions on the subject of the foreign g houl' • "f other coun t r i es . H e th oug ht th a t thi s debate tie s ot 110 t conclude without Come remark to the cruel and the barbatities of Gallicia, especially as I;:ttie, 5., :? „ 1 . -- ; ord the Member for Lynn had, in a most extrava- Zot er o t 'Otirh was it, .:iv; , 1111 er ms way to pass a high-flown eulog,iwn en what he nes e i, ,ec mild arid paternal Governments of Austria and tro t , 4 the Hon. Member then proceeded to read extracts Inbar of letters written by Mr. Alagennis and other r persons, describing the condition of the people prior to the incur. reel ion and outbreak in Gallicia, and the conduct of the Austrian Government during the insurrection of the Gallician peasantry. The lion. Member then went on to say that a great deal of odium had bean endeavoured to be affixed upon the manif•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 peo;le and the Go vernment were placed. He trusted the House would excuse him for trespassing so long on its atteniion, and he would con clude by expressing a hope that the lion. 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. Ile 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 ( Bentinck) attempted to defend them on the ground that they had been guilty of former in fractions of that treaty, but that, in Isis 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 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. lie should like to know from the Noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, why a diplomatic agent had not been appointed for Cracow, agreeably to the promise given in 1836? If this had been done, the scenes that had taken place in Gallicia and Cracow would never have occurred. The Noble Lord, instead of taking the course which he ought to have taken under the circumstances, hail paralysed the in fluence which this country would have had, by cm broiling the friendly relations which existed between them and ;France. The French press had now taken up the eaie of Poland, and represented it to the Govern ments of Europe in its true colours, and he trusted France and England be 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 app-oval of the House, by the Hon. Member for Montrose. Two questions had been raised during the debate. The first, whether the suppression of Cracow, by the three Powers, was, or was not, a violation of the treat v of Vienna ; and, secondly, whether after the treaty had been violated, as it had been, this country ought to continue to pay a large sum of money to one of these Powers which in the opt- T1:011 of many was only contingent upon the strict observance of the treaty. Ile, for one, was content to leave the vindica tion of the honour of the country to the Minis•er for Foreign Affairs, in accordance with the sentiments of the speech from the Throne at the opening of Parliament. He was, therefore, unwilling to enter upon the discussion of that part of the subject; but on the record he thought they ought unhesitat ingly to express their opinion. espec , ally after the seeeches de livered that. evening by the lion. 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 lion. 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, be could not vote in favour of discontinuing its payment. There was, however, but one Member who had taken a straightfor ward view of the matter—he meant the Noble Lord the Member fur 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 depereied upon the observance of the treaty, and that if it had been broken, he should, nevertheless, vote in favour of the payment of the money. All he could make of the Noble Lord's speech was, that one-half of it went to show that they ought not to pay the money, and the other that they ought to pay it. The lion. Gentleman the Member for Bute laid down two propositions—first, that the payment of the money de pended upon the oonstruction to be put upon the treaty of Vienna; and, secondly, that the annexation of Cracow was a gross violation of the treaty of Vienna; but then he pro eded to state that although the treaty had been violated, they must still pay the money to itusitia.—( Hear, hear.) His argument was simply this, that where two con ditiens were made between two parties, and one broke his portion of it ; the fulfilment of the agreement 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 he wished Honourable Gentlemen who differed with him would point out how it was incumbent upon this country to pay the money to ltussia, 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 for Tamworth produced a great impression on the House by reading the treaty of 1815, under which the money was formerly paid"; but he ought to have known that the money was payable eaen in 1.83 . 2, 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 doin g so. The Act passed in 1832 repealed altogether the stipulation of 1815, anti the Act. of 1832 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 sa•ety of the last remnant of Poland should not be interfered with. Lord Castlereagh, to whom history would do justice, for he was a nobleman of great rowers, had, in the opinion of the Duke of Wellington, acted most judiciously in his negotiations with the three Powers, as he had stated," that it was a masterstroke of policy to bind Russia by a pecuniary obligation to observe the faith of treaties." There. fire he (Mr. Eseott) was correct in saying that the question simply resolved itself into one of pounds, shillings, and pence. But now, having it in their power to act justly—having justice on their side— to give some effect to the eloquent protest of the Noble Lord, they were told that the House of Commons had nothing to do with foreign affairs—" here is a protest from the Queen's Minister—respect the Executive Government." Now, he wanted to help the Executive Government; but if they con tinued, after what occurred, to pay the money, the Minister of Russia would no d eiht 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." Cci tainly they would not be respected in Europe if they paid a purely unjust demand ; if it was just, let them by all means pay it, but it it. was unjust let them manfuily refuse to do so. Some seemed to think that the question was one of war, if they refused to pay the money, but he considered it simply a question whether the treaty had been violated or not. It was not a war question, but the dan ger of war was not created by refusing to pay a demand which was unjust. Yet if any of the three power,. w ere disposed to go to war with Great Britain, he thought they would hold out a direct encouragement for them to do so, if they were to pay the demand under such circumstances, and particularly if they paid it—as they must if they paid it at all—in the shape of hush money. The Noble Lord the Member for Lynn h: d made one observation for which he thanked him. The Noble Lord seemed to think that his opinions peculiarly fitted him for the head of the " country part y;' as it was termed, but the speech which he had delivered on this subject, clearly showed that the opinions of the country were against the country party, which he pro fessed to lead, as he had declared that he would meet the motion of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) by a decided negative. He would have no moving of the previous question, and he honoured him for his determination, because the question was one which ought not to be met by such a motion. Her Ma jesty's Ministers were of the same opinion. but the Noble Lord ( Bentinck) said they were all wrong in their con clusions, as there had been no violation of the treaty ; as the three Powers, he said, had done their duty. and there fore, he 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 who considered that the treaty had been violated could, on the division, tgo into the other lobby, he was quite at a loss to understand, lie re, eated that the question must be viewed as one of pounds, shillings, and pence, as the question of honour depended upon its brine 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 le sponsibility of a debt of 7,000,000/. when the other parties to the treaty hail broken its conditions, and taken away their liability to pay it, 'file plea of honour was nonsense, and was one which a Minister could not avail himself of, if it was not founded in justice. They were told that the colonies which they still held were compelled to pay this money. He should wish some Member to get up and say that it compelled them to pay it to Russia— for such was not the case; they were not bound to pay one sixpence to Russia upon account of their colonies. Well then, was the House of Commons about to vote the payment of this money on no other grounds than these which they heard just stated. The Noble Lord was hot singular, as it had been observed, in his opinions. He had no itoubt 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 Austrian and Russian Cabinets, but he did not blame them, they were at least consistent. But how was the House of Commons, who condemned their views, to justify its own conduct. It was batter upon such occasions as the. present to speak the simple truth. j Hear, hear.) There was one great disadvantage in that Government which was vulgarly called Whig, nameiy, 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 gener,l opponents—( Hear, hear)---and there was one great advantage derived from that other class vulgarly called Tories, who were sure to be opposed by those who in office never brought any of those buds and flowers of patriotism which it required some other incentive to produce thethan Minister f reigns t he r Crownwould have the support of po er. The Nob i e ,or L t o o rd f th t e he for l m i t o rs r t , but he would tell him that the present was a ques tion of g reat s constitutional policy, and one which the people would take up. The late Minister had quitted office, not by reason of the great liberal schemes which he hail propounded, but because he thought to lay his hands upon the constitutional liberties of a part of the United Kingdom. The House of Cumulous de feated that attempt, anti the Noble Lord had scarcely been placed in power before he showed symptoms of a similar ten dency'—(Hear, hear)—by the introduction of en unconstitu tional mensure. But the Noble Lord took time to consider; he took counsel of his own reason—of Ilia better judgment— ani the result was, that he threw aside the weapons of oppres sion. The present was another great constitutional question, and he would find, that on this question, he had enemies among his own household, and that his best friends were not to be found among his servile followers.—( Cheers.) Mr. SMYTHE—As a purely financial question the subject of our debate has been so completely disposed of in the mas terly tracings of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark, n m e a s i s n , ai o n a t r h e a n t, o a t s re a s m po a n t s te ib r lo of fo m r e t r b c o an y t e i i le fo a rm nd aL o o m o m f that I do not think any lion. Gentlema n can success f u lly ce therci obliga tionsal fair into which we have entered. But, Sir, though that may be my opinion, and though I differ from the H on . M em b er for‘ Montrose, I have many miseiviegs as to the opinion stated on this quastion by the First M mister of the Crowe. 'I he Neble Lord laid down, with all the gravity which belongs to such a high constitutional authority, that discus ions on matters solely of foreign policy were seldom atterdcd with any prim- Goal ailvsotaga, and he illustrated this pesititel by re. ferring to the annual protests in favour of Polarrti, which had been well called mere " sword thrusts in the ',eater," but in which the French Chambers delighted to indulge. It is impossible not to feel the value of this counsel, and the warning of this example. It i; i m p oss ibl e not to remember how little has been done for the Polish nation, eat with: 'aniline such deelerations of ssrapathy.—( H ear . h ear. ) It is impossible for some of us not to cell to mind that truth wrung from the dying agonies of Poland, and which Iras since grown into a roverb, when she said, speaking of her heroic insurrection of :31, " God is too high, and France is too far." —( Hear, hear.) But if France is too far, England, morally i and politically, is not so. Unlike France, she is not bound to Poland by family alliances, nor by a long confraternity. now of triumph and now of misfortune, from the days of the Valois to the days of Napoleon. If ever any country was bound to another, it was France to Poland ; if ever any country was bound to strive for the nationality of another, it was France for Poland ; and it ever there was a country aban,loned by another, it was Po land by Ft ance.— (Cheers. ) It is a chapter in a contemporary history, and as old as the story of Athens and Platen. But if England has not the same interest as France in the inde penitence of Cracow, I yet—with all deference to the Noble ! Lord—am persuaded that this is no disqualification for our r 1 considering the question in this House; for, if I understand the spirit of the lion. Gentleman's resolutions, he does not propose to interfere with er embarrass the Executive, but to corroborate, confirm, and enforce the views of the Government —to give effort and sanction to the protest of the Noble Lord the Minister for Foreign Affairs, especially when that protest has been so long neglected and disregarded.—(Hear, hear, from Mr. Hume.) And if the Noble Member for London hail brought the whole weight of his authority in favour of the posi tion that. such questions are not within the immediate province of this House, there is another constitutional authority, scarce ly second to the Noble Lord, Mr. Hallam, who has said in a noble image, " that the pulse of Europe beats according to the impulse it receives from the Parliament of England."— ( Hear, hear, and cheers. ) And I think we should be wanting in our duty—;re should ill represent the feelings of this country, if we failed to express, not per• haps our indignation, but at least our regretful sorrow at so inauspicious and untoward an event.—(Cheers. ) And if anything could enhance our regret at the act, it would be the manner in which is was defended. It is surely a melan choly thought that Prince Metternich, whose name for nearly half a century has been a synonyme for good faith—whose po licy of wise adjustment and honourable compromise has stamped itself on this country—that he at the close of a long and glo rious career should have connected himself with that immo derate policy, with that Cadman conquest, if I may say so, where the gain is so inconsiderable and the loss so ge neral—whore the gain is a geographical atom, and the loss the unsettlement of Europe.—(Much cheering ) There is not any one of the arrangements and stipulations of the treaty of 1815—not that as to the Germanic Confederation, not that as to the Italian dominions of the house of Austria, not that as to Venice, or Genoa, or Prussia—which has gained more by peace than she ever did by war—nor that as to Hanover or the Netherlands, more gistinctly secured than the stipulation for the independence of Cracow. Nay Sir, as if by a prescience that that small State would become the battle-field between might and right, between liberty and force, its independence was guaranteed by a greater number of articles than those applied to any other states which formed the subject of that arrangement.—(Cheers). Now, Sir, one word about the manner. Vas there ever any thing more rude, more abrupt, more unlike the diplomatic usage so familiar to Prince Metternich, than the mode in which that violence was consummated ?—(Cheers.) On the 17th of April Count Dietrichstein expressed an alarm as to Polish emigration, but no alarm as to Cracow. From the 17th of April to the 6ih of November the three Powers made no sign. On the 6th of November Count Dietrich stein communicated the intention of the three Powers that Cracow should cease to exist as an independent state. And what. was the excuse for so dolorous and precipitate a ra pacity ? From the dispatch of the 6th of Nov Faber down to the speech of the Noble Member for Lynn, we can find no other pretext for such a proceeding than the accusation, repeated in every shape, form, and phrase, that Cracow had become the focus of a conspiracy. 1 think the advance ment of this accusation by the three Powers has over-proved their case ; because, Sir, if Cracow was " morally and mat erially a city of buccaneers"—if it was the retreat of every kind of brigandage, the question naturally arises, what were the three Powers about—why did not they sooner interfere to prevent this decoy, and resist this depravity ? What otherwise is the meaning of the word " protectorate ?" 'Would it, for example, be borne that we should now come forward in the face of Eu rope. after a lapse of 30 years, and say that the inhabitants of the lonian Islands were morally and materially a people of bue caneeers—that these islands were full of misery, the retreat of every brigandage, and that, therefore, their liberties should be extingnished ? And yet that would not be a more monstrous violation of the treaty of Paris than was the annexation of Cracow of the treaty of Vienna.—( Hear, hear.) Remember too the promises of that period—remember the prote t of the Emperor Alexander, already referred to by the Honourable Member for Pontefract. " This state," said the Czar, " shall enjoy tranquillity and peace, by consecrating itself to the arts and sciences, to industry and commerce. And she shall remain as a monument of the magnanimous policy which liberty has established on the very spot where the ashes of her best sovereigns repose." Well, then, of the two—between'' the , magnanimous policy," which I will not say connived at, but which at the end of thirty years permitted that misery, that brigandage, and emigration which Prince Metternich so elo quently paints, and "the mercy of decision" for which the Noble Member for Lynn thanks the three Powers—l am in clined to favour the conclusion of the Noble Member for Lynn, bat this I will say, that the two combined—the "magnanimous poley" and " the mercy of decision "—find no parallel in his tory, r.ot even in the example of that prince whom I am afraid other princes have imitated.--( Hear, hear, and cheers.) But it is in vain to look to history for the precedent of such a proceeding. It is only to be found in the story of Semiramis and Ninyas. She first nursed and then de bauched him. The three Powers first nursed Cracow and then destroyed it.— (Hear, hear. ) It was not the events that took place in Cracow that ltd to its dissolution ; it was the events in London, Paris and Vienna. History will record the fact, that all the pains, and penalties, and persecutions which this small state has undergone has been the consequence of that spirit of absolutism which has gone abroad whenever any coldness has arisen between the two great constitutional states of the world. For example, at the end of 1835 differences arose between England and France on the subj. ct of Spain ; at the beginning of 1836 those differences came to a crisis when M. Thiers refused all intervention. The " three Powers" were, however, beforehand with us ; they seized on their prey of Cracow, all treaeies of neutrality were violalcd, and the rights and independence of that state were outraged. With such lights and such reminiscences, I must state as my be lief, that if the entente cordiale now existed—if there was an intimate understanding between those two great constitutional countries, the independence of Cracow would have been re spected.—( Hear, hear.) I believe not less that the three Powers would have obtained the legitimate end of their alliance, the security of their own borders. I will endeavour shortly to explain my meaning. It has been said that the art of absolute government is taught in a stable by a centaur—a cross between a man and a horse. Arid the meaning of tie myth I take to be this—that when you cannot employ address you must apply force ; where you caunot use your hands, thee you must use your hoofs. Now, Sir, I believe that if there was an intimate understanding between the•consti:utional states of Europe, the three Powers would have employed their hands, and not their houfs.—( Hear, hear.) The inference, then, is obvious. I would venture to implore the Noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs to use every effort to bring again about the entente Tallith., and to resume our intimate alliance with France, and I venture so to call on him by what is due to the in terests of civilization and humanity, of public order and European peace.—(Cheers.) And not only, Sir, for the prevention of acts such as this, but'`or the prevention of that re-action which is their formidable consequence ; of that re-action which is now smouldering wherever there liar been or is misgovernment ; which has flashed forth along the whole line of the Appenines, from Genoa to Calabria, and which may there or elsewhere burst into a more serious confiagration.—(Much cheering.) But this I will say, that the knowledge that the two great constitutional Govern ments of Europe were really acting together would be a better protest against so untoward an event than the refusal to pay the interest of the Russo-Dutch Loan. If the three Powers, in their notions of a mimetic morality, have thought right to sanction the annexation of Cracow, that is no reason why England should repudiate her debt to Russia. I think with the Noble Lord the Member for London, that we shall act a far nobler part by saying to,them, " You have broken a solemn compact we respect a doubtful engagement. You have broken a most important treaty that universal Europe has ratified ; we will respect a constructive understanding, on the merits and obligations of which even publicists have differed."— ( The Hon. Gentleman withdrew amid cheers, which lasted a considerable time. ) Mr. B. Disanhu, in rising to address the Howe, said he could only appeal to them now on the present subje,.t, as he eJuld 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 conceined 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 phdanihropy, which was easily illumined, and to which he objected; he was equally averse to contrary principle, which might be supposed to arise from some turbid feeling, that they should become the champions of arbitrary and despotic Govern ments. He did not mean to take either course. He had been given to understand that a treaty of the greatest importance had been violated; a treaty, which, for the interests of this country, ought to have been observed ? Now, before going into this question, he thought they should first agree as to the subject which was not before them ; and in offering that suggestion, he would submit that they had not before them the question of the partition of Poland.—( Hear, hear.) He had heard great bursts of eloquence about the treaty of 1772, which redounded to the credit of the House He trusted that they all lamented that the independence of Poland had ceased to be. He re gretted the fall of Poland, mainly because he believed it was for the interest of England that Poland should have remained an independent Power. Ile could easily understand how the floe. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Milnes) and the Hon. Mem ber for Canterbury (Mr. Smythe), should state that it was still more fur the interestof France than of England that Poland should be independent. l'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 way 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 (lid the English Parliament do? At this very time they turned the Minister out of office. Poland was consequently partitioned, and France became our inveterate foe in taking the side of the North American colonies. Thus th- same vote which turned out this Minister, resulted in the partition of Poland, and the loss of our colonies. The question. therefore, which was not before the House, was the partition of Poland. Let them then see what was the real question. It was said that an important treaty had been violated. Now, in dealing :with this matter, he would premise his observations by stating that it appeared, that prior to the struggle which ended in the treaty of Vienna, Cracow was an Austrian town—tor the cause of the struggle it became a Saxon town—subsequently it was made a Polish town ; and was placed under a Pi otectorate. It had been at various times occupied by military forces, and its constitution often changed. '1 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 ured rights and liberties of twenty milli ons o f peo ple; to that he (Mr. Disraeli) would ask, did th ese twenty'r e thu e l t n inj illions live in CracowCracowor occupy its su b u rb s ? a h r ) Did their title deed to freedom depend on the t r eaty of ienna . Let them take away their sympathy from Poland, arid the V partitioned, the lt intervening period co e questionsi since soon p a o s i s a u o m d assumed been (liffe different i a t was nearly years cons tituting what might be called the epoch of , m al h pd revolutionised, Ireland united to this iod during which England had lost her t legislative change accomplished by country, and that great s had obtained seats in tha t House. vs many flon. Me mber (o io:iiele,r,n France history,h (>I,6M catastrophe, and :oust of Poland had ceased to be a l p It seemed that two now be c msidered pe , rnanen , effected?tyhad t ' cl that there had pro es e of the greatest Powers in Lurope trea. present Who could deny that, snider such circumstances, the partition the basis of their diplomatic sett of ‘ b 'h y ic tl h ie ‘ t ' e a r s mi e nat ion of the quasi independent existence t the commencement of brut a violation of this important i This town, which was Austrian a affected to settle, those struggles, which the Convention. and which ha - t become again Austrian ssfs the subject in dis pute.mouths England ant France, by the ir aisle Mieistere, hadride 'left that there had been r the three continental Powers of a treaty whichin fact, l the total desti n i es o f E urope . And one Ho• Gentleman, a Member of the H ouse o f C omm ons, responding to the protest of these two Ministers, called upon the Hours 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 Horse would perhaps admit that he had fairly stated the case which was before them. On tho first night of the sessions, although there was a general feeling in the House —at least very much so on the side on which ho had the honour of sitting—that they should not enter into ail discussion on foreign affair ; although he thought, though it st emed mis takingly, that the y were nut at all bound by the address which svai voted to the gracious speech of her Majesty, still, from some observations which unexpectedly fell from the Noble Lord the First Minister, he felt hound, though he did it very im perfectly, to warn that House not too suddenly to adroit 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 we re urge precipitately to admit that the re h a d b een a violation of a treaty which was for the interest of this country, and which, as he then observed, and as he now believed, had not been infringed on. He had always understood that whatever might have been the language in answer to the a dd ress f rom t h e 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, and that they had to thank her Majesty for the information which had been given to them upon the subject. lie had thought himself, therefore, perfectly safo 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 Roy al Speech, stated that there was Re human being who could doubt that there had been a manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna. It was that observation which had made him (Mr. Disraeli) observe as he did to his Noble Friend near him, that he thought it rather a suspicious assertion on the part of the Noble Lord. Now, what was the result ? The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for the University, who was a great authority upon all subjects, but especially upon Parliamentary reform —( A laugh)—rose the other night and said that every gentleman was pledged by the answer to the Speech from the 'hhrone, to be of the opinion that the re h a d b een 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 publ c law, had stated with admirable coolness, that every gentleman who was present had, by his silence, signified his acquiescence in the ornions of the Government, that there had been a viola tion of the treaty of Vienna. Ile must appeal to the House whether, under any circumstances, their silence would have been an acquiescence ; but, under the existing circumstances — looking to the language of ,the address in answer to the Royal Speech, lie would ask, if all the Members present had been silent, and went to the question of a division to vote in silence, and had appeared even favourably disposed towards the opinion, whether they would have been bound by the language of the ad dress ? He was decidedly of opinion—and he laid it down with out equivocation or evasion, and he had the judgment of some of the principal judges of public law with him in his opinion —that no one could call the violation of a particular treaty inserted in a general treaty, a violation of that general 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 he believed to be of the gravest importance. He had addressed the Reuse very im perfectly, but he hoped not in any dogmatical tone, and he advised it to look well to the ease of the peace of Westphalia, which had been detailed by a great authority—the Noble Lord the Member for Hertford—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, hail b.!en violated. The parties to that political of thealtreaty had, on a subsequent occasion, applied to the signators general treaty, and it had been decided, after grave discussion, and alter the case had been referred to the first judges in Europe, that the violation of a treaty inserted in a general treats , 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 guaranteed by the treaty of Osnahreck political rights. The treaty of Osna breck was inserted in the treaty of Alinster, and the free states of Germany were deprived of their political rights. They applied to the signators of the treaty of Minster, and they called upon them, in consequence of the guarantee with which the treaty of Osnabreck terminated they called upon the great Powers, the signators to the general treaty, to do them right, and fulfil that guarantee. It was decided, after the most weighty argument, by a man second to none, and who had interfered with the great trans actionbDeiLrauese Disraeli) said was that sure it that. was d thee - of Vienna, that the violation of a p olitical treat y in serted inn the treaty achieved in West p hali a w as not a violation e t e t h d e hv a general nlauo se treaty. cdto He none,(Air great Chancellor of Austria , st. Oxenstern, to whom his Hon. Friend the Member for Can terbur y had referred, could scarcel y consi ler himself inferior to th e g reat Chancellor i'ilazerin, who had given the opinion; and he (Mr. Disraeli) believed, that if Talleyrand had lived, he would have been insulted to have been compared to him in political dext erit y , and y et those two g reat statesmen, equally interested in the adverse decision, because Sweden, being a German state, had exercised all its influence to secure the political rights of the independent states of Orr , t r eaty of Minter opposed to them, these two great statesm en decided that the viola many, and with the tion of an inserted treaty was not a violation of a general treaty of Congress. Ile would put the case before the house, not by the number of precedents, because, 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 ix four precedents would be as EA . eient as hundreds at another time, and under different eireum- 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 sKrupulously, discreetly. and wisely always followed the precedent of which he would remind them. Louis XIV. had given his decision in favour of his view of the case, and white France was compelled to give up the Palatinate, it was stipulated that it should retain its religion. The re li g i on 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 ? Ile would then refer to the treaty made with France and the. other Powers. They now came to the trea'y of Osna burgh, and he would find that the decision then entered upon had been discredited, and it was ultimately referred to the Diet of Germany. That Diet wa s decidedly oppos ed to the decision which had previously been come to, and it was referred to the consideration of William 111., the first opponent of Louis XIV. That monarch had refused to dee,de 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 could not therefore rely upon the construction which had been made in their favour, or on the friendly interposition of the Powers who were patties to this treaty. He would beg to put these several treaties before the House, and remind them of what had occurred at the commencement of the present ses sion. lhe Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamvrorth sequences of the treaty, had expressed his (Sir R. Peel), after a series of observations on the reel con o imago p that, this was but an annexed treaty to the treaty of Vienna. —(Loud cheers.) Put what did the Ri g ht Ilonrabf these le Gen tleman say? He asked, what was the use eu o treaties, and had designated them, as if in contempt, as n nexed treaties; and had asked what etas the use of those treaa ties. He 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 Go these propositions, if they were not to he ba cked by the Ge. vernment ? Quite sure he was that the HOW would never sanetlon the tulfilmt nt of the treaty if it were not sanetirthed by public opinion. What, in fact, was the m eaning of those terms, or the use of them, if they did not mean at the same time to sanction the expression of public opi"1"11? (Hear, hear.) What was the meaning of these terms if they were not to sanction the proceedings of the several Powence ers ? —( Hear, hear.) Was there a human being in exist who did not believe that the same faults would be committed if the same faults were to be observed at every trifling change? He was not aware of the mischief which might arise, but;no c,ne could read the 118th clause of the c onvention of Poland with out being aware that it was a pert o f the me eaty. If they t sa hey w ould find that read the whole of that treaty through, nothing to inculpate the several members of the Catholic Chords was in existence, except that which would best bind men's eonsciences and their acts. The question was not as to whether the treaty of Vienna should be broken, or whether it should stand; and in blio, log that the treaty of Vienna ought to be observed, he would rely not only on what had been said on his own side of the House, but also on the plain principle of justice. arid which was conformable to the general rule of the House with respect to treaties. He could not agree that o o f se t I , a e an l ido thats sltihoeul first v p i r o i l t a i t e c li d le f a or o f tl g ie en s e a r k a e l and d nt for the infrac tion et h el f tle irrita tion Th e Right Hon. ttthfeagfertin)imetirtanwlghr u:exlheiso‘ Baronet the Member for Tamworth had pointed out this law s heuld be s acrificed in order to meet the fee l i ng w we have suffered so much. ques tion as the foundation of a triumphant expression of popular feeling, and the means by which it was to be regulated and im proved.—( Cheers') lie would ask whether the opinion of the etaotybewmmaitnotbaienseudffi, of a general treaty. It was very evident that there had been an infraction of the general treaty, and if it was not, t here was sufficient opportunity for correcting the report. The qu estion ' in fractionß i o h t Hoofna Baronet particular tr had been discussed over and over again, but it as yet had nerv y b e en settled. Th e Right lion. Bettina qu estion as put th e as if the treaty h ad 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 lathe-I,f others. That was the question to which Austria, Prussia,antt France were parties; and if they did n 3tria, Russia, the principle which they had laid down, they would lose their article, still none could be entertained as to the principles particular the original treaty. And if that were to be principles of signors of that abrogation ought to give • notice to the abrogated, the • - to the orginal treaty, He would not refer to parties precedent was altogether opposed t s ti i , precedent, for infra of a treaty and yet retaining the principles of th e l. whole agree • ral treaty, and the whole series of the corms oardinte the gene one dot of a vowel of thht agreement aloud beri ence, whether whether any forsign interposition should he net aside, or Gentlemen might choose to make an exeibtti:uffered ? • lion. Hall, and prostitute the influence of the British rt at Freemasons' he trusted that, for the ci edit of the country Senate, but the Noble Lord, they would not carry this and the character of Well, this had been laid down as the rule u nder to a division. stances, that when a superior instrument t these cireum repetition of its clauses was to be looked vat Present the mere tat. They were merely the machine by upon as a mere reel the original treaty were allowed to inter which the signors of of questions whieh might arise under the i n'e in the settlement would hesitate very much, although he particular treaty. He Wish his opinions by reference to very might be alfe to esta blish hesitate very much—he would feel h e grave autherity—he diffi cult to encounter in referring to the s had a great but he establish his position by reference to l i ' s , s • ceuld nell ferring to the experience of statesmen in thating ei l inerse f___ by „- say, however, that nothing had more amazed House. He must speech which the House had heard trom Rightth him than the tleman (Sir Robert Peel) on this question Hon. Gen the Right lion. Gentleman, or he would ask . the He would t sle •opes,se. le, - tilt r I:, i a e t, .•!, ,; it. 01, , , Noble Leta How had the King of Holland acted ? - We ' :: i" g iu '" ? of the King of Holland ? He had as the conduct n intimate knowledge of the law of nations ; but then he was a not a mem ber of the House of Commons.—(Laughter.) __ tie 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 lie were justified in so doing, would not have appealed to Europe ? He could only expect his legal rights—Le held these rights from the Congress of Vienna, and they were embo died in the same stipulations which embodied the rights of Cracow and of Poland. But they were stipulations subsidiary to the general instrument, and were expected to demand only from the signing Powers a moral interference for the preserva tion of their integrity. But did the King of Holland appeal to Europe against the violation of the treaty of VI. nna ? No, he looked to the original treaty, and he appealed to the Plenipotentiaries who had represented the Powers of Europe in Vienna. The Right Hon. Gentleman, although he did not occupy the position which the Noble Lord then held at the head of the Government, was a distinguished Member of the then Ministry ; he was the leader in that House, and therefore, from his position, doubly responsible to the House and to the country. The King of Holland then appealed to the two Im perial Courts of PI ussia and England, the Powers which had made him King of the Netherlands. A conference was called in consequence of that appeal, sanctioned by the Right Hon. Gentleman, and shortly afterwards supported by the sanction of the Nol.le Lord opposite. If they would peruse that prece dent—if they would peruse only that—they would find ample authority for the proposition he had laid down—a proposition which he would be greatly surprised to find damaged. It was of great importance that France should have been present at the conference on this appeal ; and what was done ? It was dis covered that, according to the principle of general law, France, as a signing party to the general treaty, might be appealed to. France was then called on to attend to the duties which were recognised by nations as demanded from the Powers signing general trezties, namely, to exert het friendly interference in bringing about the peace of Europe. It was in consequence of signing the general treaty that France was called upon to interfere in this case. He had heard the principle which he was layin g down urged by his Noble F r i en d th e M em b e r for Lynn in that House, and his remarks touched the Right Hon. Gentleman from the po sition which he then 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 clown—pre cedents which were notorious in Europe—which were acted upon by all nations, yet the Right Hon. Gentleman—a prac tised debater—in a speech which might be characterised as perhaps, too classic for Freemasons' Hall—(Laughter)---but hich seemed ready imbued with all its spirit—( Conti nued laughter)—had never referred to them. I will a-k (continued the Honourable Member) the Neale Lord opposite whether he is prepared to deny his protocols?—(Hear, hear. ) I will ask whether he will produce the secret dispatches which were sent to Sweden ?—(Cheers. ) I will ask him of his hurried dispatches to Portugal ? I will ask him of the vessels sent to Spain ? Will the Noble Lord give the names of the Plenipotentiaries of the powers which assisted at this con ference, and who advised him in that agony of European politics ?--( Cheers. ) I never heard their names, but I suppose we must ask them from Loi d Aberdeen, who says that of all the ii famous stipulations in the treaty, the worst was that which had taken the army from Denmark to give it to Sweden.— (Laughter.) T he 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; ho had had no idea of what had beam 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, p. chaps, 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 lie (Mr. Disraeli) could nut share. That was one great advantage that Members of the Government had over lets f rrtunate Gentlemen in that House.—( Hear, and laughter.) But he was reminded by his Noble Friend that Lord Castlereagh had offered to Europe in conjunction with Austria, Prussia, and Russia, that the nationality of Poland should be respected and held inviolate —( Hear, hear)—and that the independence of that country should be revived. He (Mr. Disraeli) did remember to have read that correspondence, but it had seemed to him that the sarcasm was so clear, the irony so transparent, that it needed not to have deceived the acute understanding of the Right Hon. Gentleman. The Noble Lord, the Member for Hert ford had told them that the real reason why Cracow was made a free town was on account of principles of compensation, be cause at the time the town was declared free it was considered that some compensation was owing to France for the loss of her empire, and also some little compensation to England for her colonies. Ile thought the French people would be some what astonished at such a declaration, coming es it did from a gen tleman who had been the 'leder- Secretary of State of no less a personage than the Duke of Wellington. It was considered by some to be extremely ridiculous for France to make annual pretests about the independence of Poland ; but after what they had heard on this subject, he should not be surprised if some Deputies rose in the Chambers to declare that there eas one thing still more ridiculous—arid that was, fur a Member of Parliament to attempt to explain the making Cracow a free town on the score of compensation. But the opinions and conduct of Cabinets and nations could be better ascertained from public documents than from private conversations, and he hoped no attention would be pail to gentlemen who said the treaty of Vienna was all very well, but he knew Prince Metternich's opi nion did not coincide with it ; or a gentleman,w ho told them that he had been in Paris, and in a conversation he had with M. Guizot, 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, lie 'literally wished to keep it. Austria wanted it too; but in the end a partition took place, and Cracow was declared to be free. Prince Metternich warned the Emperor of Russia, that Cra cow, if allowed to be free, would always be the focus of po litical disturbances, and the centre of sedition. Thirty years' experience had proved the accuracy and foresight of Prince Metternich's opinion, and Cracow had once more, with the consent of Russia, become a part of 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 parti•roned. Let him remind those gen tlemen who attended Freemasons' Hall of an event which, no doubt, in their warmth and inspiration, they had fo-gotten. One hundred years ago, it was proposed to certain European Powers to partition Austria. and just hook to the circumstances under which it was proposed to divide that empire. It was at the time governed by an unprotected girl, who had just mounted her throne. She was the Empress Maria Theresa, a military genius. Now, at the head of the conspiracy was the King of the republic of Po land ; but it failed, and why was Austria not partitioned ? Why, because her people, who at the time by no means num bered so many as twenty millions, were brave soldiers, and their prowess had ever astonished the word. Austria had remained faithful to England in trouble and in peace, and she ought not to be denounced for acts done to a town said to be in a state of political decrepitude. It was the pampered lusts of a sub sorted aristocracy, who had betrayed their country, which had led to its present situation. The lion. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury had expressed great sympathy for what he was pleased to call the sufferings of Poland. lie (Mr. Disraeli) had often supported him in mo tions showing a sympathy with the working population cif England. He would ask him, why had he thoughtlessly s embarked in the cause of continental p,lpbonftmeeryot l iitt: l pTnthha b lhatehee e reph r ietiya a seo l slfla i no man who felt for the millions but would hesitate before he T d o 1 t was all very well . f tpr i e n o w: edy r raehi t ma tpptt a l state ‘m\}‘,. hh sympathy u orheypera r moais et friendstf e m ohoortovutryh. ref tmii a hreflnl n i see), things priesthood nt owowh o t oaiw f eiyht dt a ephiapde s nwt a yo u hdlehap l hwes speech, o v i cheayef e ehy, ,h r as:at t adopted a course, the origin of which he could not comprehend. y rgy s amBs'iPmhusMotolehlon,etetrwi.sfan:_recgel‘ude the ehd i t t mru o eee r es rrrbeab3ace, Member be hwevex cited.nyr abi li'y,o and which certainly entitled him to the attention of that House, had paid a passing tribute to the pseudo-feeling of the r t f h or i politics of the day. He appeared deeply to regret the masse ores which had taken place in Gallicia. Massacres in p i o r teti u e a i eeno s s e tt o r,: t ui h t:m o eciepe t e re s oi o a. " come Inhea d with an n brought affectation about this f Galli cia? From what newspaper, or from what coterie of pampered and subverted nobles did he derive his account of the massacres of Gallicia. The House had heard to night many marvellous statements:of a sovereign denounced because he freed his people, and actually vindicated his right. He (Mr. Disraeli) had never been in Gallicia, but there were none of the provinces of Austria in Italy which he had not visited, and there were also few of the provinces of other powers which he had not at one time or other found himself in; and this he would venture to state upon his credit, that whenever there were disturbances of this kind in Europe, you would find that in every case the peop l e ros e against a subverted aristocracy ; and, for his part, he should be glad to find every aristocracy which had forgotten or neglected its trust, meet the same fate.—( Cheers.) These were the kinds of movements which had agitated Europe, and called into existence the morbid sympathy of the people. lie was unwilling to detain the II use try extracts at any length ; he would, however, call the attention of ,he House to the work of a great political economist—a work which was to be found on the shelve, he had no doubt, of every lion. Member —he referred to Mr. Maegreg,t's work upon the Russian em pire, in which it was stated that the condition of the peasants in Russian Poland was considerably better than it was before the dismemberment of the country took place. The lion. Member then proceeded to read a number of extracts from different works, all of them tending to show that a marked im provement had taken place in the condition of the people under the government of the great Powers. The Hon. Member then went on to say, that despite all the gatherings in Freemason's hall, where morbid speeches had so lately been delivered in favour of Poland, that the inhabitants of Cracow would not be found to rise against the present authorities. They were, in fret, by encouraging these feelines, endanger.. ing the pea , •e of Europe. Ile thaught that by preserving their friendly relations with France, they had the best guarantee for the security of their diplomatic ar. angements ; and he re gretted to find from what was said by the Right lion. Gentle man (Sir R. Peel) that he had no cordial understanding w i t h that Power. There was one other point to which he wished to refer. His Right lion. Friend had noticed the case in one t point, n al h 3 e , e would o o brie rw :Montrosell y. allude called e tt do upon. T t t h w e H mt o o n u Gn n e ie h one of the parties who signed that treaty, by depriv ingappeal • courage • made • resist • for with refusal,intrepidity him of a sum to which he was entitled from h an arrangement connected with that treaty. In 1831 and 1836 the question of this payment was brought before them, in G ,l v , er i n t in h e a n d t th o e f eo tl o sa r t ag d e a t y o svveassistsuthiere idiTtyhethNeobatleteLmoprtds made haedSeeocnr e t t h a a r t y o f c o c r a, Foreign n and Affairs as he ( was :\i r then i s i r n ael o i ffi)ee, understoodan d h o that he was about to act in a similar manner that night, he would give him his support. He was very much surprised, however, on looking over the list of voters at that time to find that the Honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose hail recorded his vote in favour of the payment of the Russian loan.—( Laughter. ) The Hon. Gen tlemantfoot n. everythe . a q t t o t e r s o t i h o a n i he „n ( p i w t to thee couldp o u l n „, d v s, . illat occasion he ( Mr. lost sight of these considerations on , could not understand . lie was aware that he left on Disraeli) his vote, but he had his doubts a p , ri a dn , d d h pe im ne s e e enc to which the course sufficient to meet the charge of inconsist y, sed subjected him.— (Hear.) That was the me lte now propo Gentleman sacrificed his con historical clescripti 0 4 behindl,im wh o e f tthheerttehaasto,n,sosothche considerediriaenced hiai ilia Then Hon. h he voted that black was white ; efee Ile' lapse of t ‘,‘‘ ear - , lie Lad given 11P m another white s peech—(Lsughter)—which he was about to con6rrn by a white vote, and it was to be feared that he was •e to show the white feather.—( Laughter.) Having also going recorded his feelings on the subject in 1z. , 42, he was going to do ; s ilo . rabic oochcais.siroonnwnbveyn. enance in 1847 for his juvenile errors, and to show by a lim bo/1 futhvn that age was not so impotent as to disable him from cancelling his offence and vindicating his reputation. An Hon. Gentleman who had addressed the House that evening talked of their influence on Europe. He was aware of the peculiar character of that influence, and he hoped they would long con tinue to exercise it, but moral influence, though one of the most in estimable functions they possessed, must be preserved by far dif ferent means than by Hudibrastic speeches and grotesque resolu tions. When they did exercise the power which they possessed in matters of foreign policy, let it be done in a way that would prove beneficial to Europe, and which would protect the glorious reputation of this country.—(Cheers ) Lord PALNIERSTON said, he should be sorry to damp the disposition which the Honourable Gentleman who had just resumed his scat had evinced; but the subject should be discussed in a fair and temperaso manner. He promised them that, at that late hour, and after the length to which the debate had extende.f, that he should confine himself as closely as he could to the particular subject under the consideration of the House. The subject divided itself into two points—first, whether the sup pression of the city and state of Cracow had been a violation of the treaty of Vienna ; and, secondly, whether, under the cir cumstances of the case, that extinction absolved this country from continuing the payment of the Russian-Dutch loan. Now, notwithstanding the ingenious argument which they h id just heard from the Hon. Gentleman opposite, who had told them that the extinction of Cracow was no violation of the treaty of Vienna, he thought there would be no diffi culty in satisfying the House that the opinion expressed in the Speech from the Throne, was participated in by almost every Member in that House, with the exception of that Hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) who sat by him, namely, that the extinction of Cracow was a gross violation of the treaty of Vienna.—(Cheers.) The lion. Gentleman had gone into an ingenious argument, and had shown by ancient transactions in Europe, and partly by the aid of Government authorities, that a treaty inserted in another treaty did not necessarily hind the parties to the treaty in which the insertion was made. fie could concede to the Hon. Gentleman everything which he understood him to contend for, and yet maintain that the ground taken was in no degree shaken by such concession. The argument of the Hon. Gen tleman was this—that if a treaty signed by two parties was in serted in another treaty, signed by other parties, the obliga tion of the former treaty was not necessarily binding on the parties contracting the second treaty, and the examples he adduced went to the question whether the parties who sighed the treaty included were or not bound by the guarantee con tained in the other. Undoubtedly he (Lord Palmerston) was ready to acknowledge that that position was in that respect indisputable; nay more, he would go further, and say that if in a single treaty, t.i which a certain number of parties were guarantees, another party became guarantee for something else, that the others were to be considered wholly absolved from the allegations which they might contract. But the question on the present occasion was not the one which was involved in the lion. Gentleman's argument—the question was rot whether England and France were bound by any guarantee to take steps in consequence of the extinction of Cracow, but whether that treaty by which Cracow was constituted an independent state, and to which England was a party, had been broken ; and also whether, under such circumstances, they had a right to object to the extinction of that state.—( Hear, hear.) He threw aside altogether that point which turned upon the question, whether the insertion of . fre,h matter in a treaty did or did not invalidate that treaty, because in the present case the treaties between Austria, Prussia, end Russia relating to Cracow were annexed to the treaty of Vienna, and were by the 118th article of that treaty declared to have the same force and value as if they had been made articles of the treaty. Fortunately for the argument which he was advancing, it was whoily unnecessary to rely solely upon the 1 lSth article. As the treaty itself, in other parts, contained everything ne cesary to bear him out in asserting that the extinction of Cracow was a vinlatioß of the treaty.—(Hear, hear.) Let them put aide, if they would, the 118th article altogether; they had still the 6th, ith, Bth, and 9th, which were far more mat,?.rial. The parts of the treaty to which the three Powers were contracting parties, justified him in saying that the ex tinction of the republic of Cracow was a violation of these articles of the general treaty itself.—(Hear, hear.) It was said that England and France were not parties to the record to which he had referred,—( Hear, hear.) Now he denied that altogether. The documents to which he had al ready referred that evening, namely, the records of the proceed ings of the Congress of the different Powers, at Vienna, which ware to be found amongst the state papers, in the library of the House, proved that England was a party to all the negotiations which directed the general treaty, and all those arrangements which had subsequently taken place between the different Powers of Europe, and which formed portions not only of the general treaty, but of the whole treaty and especially with regard to the arrangement with respect to Cracow—in fact, in regard to that State, England, by her representatives, was present, and took her part in the discus sions that took place. It will be seen in the third protocol of the conferences of the Congress of Vienna, dated the Bth February, that a commission was appointed to prepare a draftof the articles which related to the agreement between the Powers, and the heads of which had been agreed to by the Congress. Each nation was represented, and on the 10th of February the report of the commission was read to Congress, in which it was stipu lated that Cracow should remain a free and independent state. It appeared alsa that Lord Castlereagh, writing to Lord Liver pool from Vienna on the 13th, say s, " Your Lordship will receive inclosed the territorial arrangements for Poland and Prussia, including Saxony,Holland, and Hanover; they have been re duced into articles, and having been formally agreed to by Austria, Prussia, France, Russia, and Great Britain, they have been inserted in the protocol till they find their place in the general treaty." It appeat ed by this that not only did a general treaty, to which England and France were parties, contain conditions with regard to the city of Cracow ; but it appeared that those arrange ments were settled afterwards at the conference, to which England was a party, and that they took place anterior to the time when the general instrument was drawn up.—( Hear, hear.) Well, then, it was perfectly plain that an arrangement respecting Cracow formed a portion of the conditions to which England was a party ; and he therefore held it to be a viola tion of the treaty to do any act not iu accordance with it, 'without the consent of Great Britain.—( Hear.) They had bees' told that similar things had been done by Eng land, and the case of Belgium was cited as an instance of her having acquiesced in an infraction of the treaty of Vienna. As he understood the lion. Gentleman, he said that the King of -.. the - Netherlands applied to Austria and Prussia, and that England and Fr?.nce came in as after parties to the act. To meet that as,erticn, he had read ome of the protocols of the Earl of Aberdeen, who recorded the manner in which the subject was brought before , he five Powers on the 4th of November, 1830. The Noble Lord then read a document to show that the King of Prussia had invited the five Powers as signing parties to the treaties of Paris, and that what was agreed to at that meeting was agreed upon by all. The Hon. Gent. seemed to him to imagine that the five Powers did not immediately agree to the arrangement for the separation between Belgium and Holland, and that England and France entered into some separate arrangement, and that Russia immediately after consented to it; but such was not the case, for if they looked to the treaty of 131, they would find that the five Powers agreed, one as soon as the other, and signed at the same time the arrangement. It therefore appeared to him perfectly plain, from the docu ments to which he referred, that the extinction of the indepen deace of Cracow and its annexation to the empire of Austria was in direct •iolation of the treaty of Vienna. ( Cries of " Hear, hear.") The grounds on which he rested his oppo , it ion to the resolutions were the same as those of his Noble Friend—namely, that it was not fitting that they should pass, unless they were followed up by something more active and decisive, for it was not consistent with the character of this country that the House of Commons should pass strong resolutions, and then remain quiescent. No one would contend that address of the House in answer to the Speech from the Throne was an expression of concur rence with the opinion given in the latter. The agreement to the address was a 'natter of form, and left lion. Members still unfettered. But though this was undoubtedly true, it had been justly remarked that the silence with which this subject had been passed over in the address was suffi cient to meet the view of the Honourable Member for Montrose as to the sense of Parliament on the question of the suppression of Cracow ; but having heard this view expressed in the progress of this debate, it was his intention, before sitting down, to move the previous question to the first resolution as it was not a reiolutioß which, with his sentiments and opinions, he could meet with a negative.— ( Loud cheers.) He would do so because he believed that it was inexpedient and unnecessary for the house to express an opinion under the circumstances. Now the second question had reference to the violation of a treaty which was alleged to release this country from the payment of the Russo-Dutch loan. He did not think that the violation of the treaty would so release them. If they looked to the conventions of 1831 and 1815, he thought it would be shown to the satisfac tion of any man that the extinction of the state of Cracow did not justify the non-payment of the interest of the debt. Wi;li the view of making this apparent, it would be necessary for him to go into the origin of this engagement. It was shortly this : At the end of the war, when Europe was delivered, and ar rangements were making for recon‘tructin 7, its interests, it was felt by the great Powers, that as some states had made greater exertion:, and gone to greater expense than others to bring about this peace, that they should be recom pensed in some degree by the Powers which had been benefited. Now, no sovereign had been benefited more than the Sove reign Prince of the Netherlands, as not only had his estates and kingdom been restored, but considerably enlarged, while an engagement was made that the allies should come to his assist ance should he require them, at any time to maintain his power. A recompense was agreed to he paid to Prussia, Austria, and Russia. Prussia and Austria waved their claim in favour of Russia, and the result was an engagement in which Holland agreed to take upon itself the payment of the Russian loan, which had previously been raised by the latter power in the Netherlands. At the same time another negotiation was going forward, in which England was to retain the colonies of the Cape of 'inn I Hope, Demerara. Esequiho, and Berbice. The condition of England doing so was, that she should pay half the Russian loan. In order to make this arrangement ad vantageous to the Netherlands, it was provided, that if at any time Belgium separated from Holland, England and Holland should cease to pay the debt, and the burden would have to fall bask on Russia. The object of this was to get the interest of Russia in maintaining the unthe ion of Belgium with Holland, in o rder to procure balance of po ver in Europe. Then came the revolution in Belgium, with the separation of Belgium from Holland—a separation to which this country very reluctantly consented, but which was intended and considered ne to he cessary in order to avoid the chance of a general war in Europe. But Russia having consented to that s eparation at the ',quest of England, she having been ready in the outset as has been well seated frequently in this debate, to bring her 63,030 men to defend Holland and re-annex Belgium, if it had entered into the policy of the Powers of Europe to attempt to do that by force --Russia having been ready to employ her army to re-uilite the two, but havrig abstained from so doing st the request of the other Powers, and having consented, at their request, to the separation of the two, it would have been manifestly most unjust to have inflicted upon Russia the penalty for an event which had not comets pass in consequence of any ladies on her part, but which she had consented to at the special request of the, other Powers on whose behalf the contract was made. A new convention was then made to back the engagement be tween England and Holland ; England took one engagement and Russia took another. The engagement taken by England was that, notwithstanding the separation of Belgium from Hol land by the agency of England, that the English should con tinue the payment of the Russo-Dutch loan. Russia substi tuted a new engagement far that which was no longer appli cable to that state of things, which was that she bound bersel to consent to the separation of Be!gium from Holland, and that afterwards, if by the course of events, its inde pendence and neutrality should be put in danger,she should not make any yew engagement with regard to Belgium without the previous consent of England. They were, therefore, in ex actly the same position as before, but the terms of the en gagement were altered. It was stated that in the Convention of 1831, words were inserted in the preamble, stating that it was founded on the Convention of 1818, and that the hageneral engagement of the treaty of Vienna still existed. helped to frame that Convention, and he could tell why these words were inserted. It was to keep up the great original principle upon which the Convention was originally formed, and to benefit Russia, in consideration of the sacritices she had made In co-operating with England.—( Rear, hear.) Noble Bat then it is said (continued the Lthoerdp)reathmabtlientthhaet convention of 1831 words were inserted — in is—not found in the convention of 1815. In that preamble it is recorded that the general arrangements of the treaty of Vienna still subsist. Now, I can state to the House who pat those words in, and why they were put in ; because that con vention was drawn up by myself and the late Count Mastutzee wich on the part of Russia ; and it appears from the papers which I have laid on the table that those words were inserted by the Russian Plenipotentiary. And why ? To keep on record the original principle oh which that convention had been made with Russia—namely, that it was by the assistance and co-operation of Russia that those general ar rangements of Europe had been framed, in consequence of which, in 1815, the Government of this country con sented that pecuniary compensation should be made to Russia, to make good to her one portion, at least, of the great sacrifices and exertions she had made.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, I say that the general arrangements of the treaty of Vienna, and more especially these referred to as constitut itig the claim of Russia to compensation, do notwithstanding still subsist. If we read these words found inserted in the articles of stipulation to mean, iestead of the payment de rending on the gem ral arrangement of the treaty of Vienna, that the continuance of the payments had been made to depend on the continued existence of every one of the stipulations of the treaty of Vienna, then I should admit, with my Hon. Friend, that no doubt could exist as to the fact that England was released from the obligation which followed on that convention.—( Hear.) But I cannot certainly bring my self to think that, under these words put into the preamble, the single violation which has been made of one art ic'e of the treaty of Viennadoes release Great Britain from the fulfilmt nt of her en gagement.—( Hear, hear.) I state therefore that, in my own opinion —called upon as I am to say what that opinion is upon a solemn treaty and engagement contracted by this country—l am bound to tell this House that I cannot think we are in ho nour released from tire engageme n t we entered into. But even if there were a doubt in any man's mind on this point, if in the mind of any man in this House there was a doubt whether we are or are not bound to that engagement, I ihir the feeling of every Englishman will be, that in a question which involves the honour of this country that eoubt must be given in favour of the other party, and that it wouol not be becomine in this House to interpret the doubt in our own behalf without know ing first whether the other party consented to our view of the subject.—( Hear, hear.) I am free to admit. that if the case were plain and ;palpable, had been shown to demon stration, and to the satisfaction of every reasonable and impartial man, that in the course of co - cumstances, and in a fair interpretation of the agreement, we were released; as we wished to be released, from nur engagement, then I agree with my Him. Friend, the Member fir Weymouth, that we should not, from any feeling of chivalrous gesierosity towards oilier nations, continue to burden the people of this country with a payment they were not strictly and properly obliged to contri bute.—( Hear, hear.) But believing myself that there is no doubt on the subject, anti seeing that the greater part of those who have spoken on this question, however they may (lifer float me on that point, all admit that these is a doubt; I think, under these circumstances it would be little becoming in this House to agree to the concluding resolution of my Hon. Friend, and to decide that this pays,. tit should henceforth cease and determine.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Sir, I am sure if either powers are found to be wanting in 1 their engagements. it is no satisfaction to this country to fol low their example, and to break our engagements with them in return.—( Hear, hear. ) It cannot be contended that ex amples of breach of faith in one party justify the violation of engagements on the part of others; and if there is one foundation on which the political strength of this country de pends more than another, it is on that moral strength which it derives from its faithful and honourable fulfilment of every en gagement it has contracted.--( Hear, hear. ) Sir, we know that the physical power cf countries is infinitely augmented by the moral respect which is attached to them ; and I should hone, therefore, that this House will not he led, in any case, even if doubtful, to risk the reputation of England in a matter of good faith, and that my Honourable Filend, seeing that the majority of the House do not concur with him in the opinion which he entertains, will be disposed on the fourth resolution, as I hope he may, perhaps, be on the preceding ones also, not to press the House to an expression of its opinion by a division. On the first resolution it will be roost desirable that we should abstain from dividing. There is, I think, with very few exceptions, a general unanimity of opinion as to the transaction which has taken place at Cracow. —(Hear.) It would be moss unfortunate if that opinion were exposed to the danger of being misunderstood, or even a little misunderstood elsewhere, and if my Hot . Friend were to press this House to a division on the previous question, though we would here understand what that division means, yet, I am sure, he will see it would be treated by others as a division of opinion on a question on which hardly any division of opinion exists.—(Loud cries of " Hear. hear.") I am sure my Honourable Friend, with that Parliamentary judgment which he possesses— ( Loud laughter)—and wishing—sincerely wishing—as I know he does, to carry out the opinion which he maintain, will see the propriety of not taking a division which would be sure to be misunderstood by others, and will not think it necessary to divide the House on an occasion on which the opinions of the House are with him. —( Hear, hear.) I should also hope that my Hen. Friend will. not press the House to a division en the last question ; be cause, unless he had a fair chance of carrying into effect the opinion which he entertains, I think, for many reasons which the House will at once see, it is bettor for the character of this country that it should not appear that any attempt was made in the House of Commons to effect a cessation fcr which there is no clear and adequate justification.—(The Noble Lord resumed his seat amidst loud and general ap plause, but immediately after rose and moved the previous question.) Mr. J. O'CoNNELL and Mr. llustE rose at the same moment, but ultimately Mr. J. O'CONNELL was heard, anal he said that his ob ject ie rising was to proses', in an assembly of freem n who represented the British constituency, against the cruelties which had beer. practised in Galicia. Mr. HUME would trouble the House with only a few re marks, and those would bear onl on the debate, which had been partaken in by Members on all sides of the tin use. Whether he referred to the present or to the late Ministers of her Ma jesty, the result was still the same. A triumph, a complete triumph had been obtained, for, with few exceptions, the whole of the British House of Commons had declared their belief that the suppression of Cracow was a gross violation of: the law of nations, and he trusted that this expression ot the public opi nion would teach the despots by whom that law had been bro ken, that it could net be set aside with impunity. The ques tion had received great attention, but not more than it deserved. He (Mr. Hume) had heard the language of the Right lion. Baronet, the Member or Tarnworth, with feelings of admira tion. These sentiments and that latiguase did the Right Hon. Gentleman immortal honour; while the speech of the Hoe. Member for Shrewsbury —but he would leave him to the benefits which history would c !titer upon his memory.— ( Laughter.) When he was taunted with Laving voted black was white, he need only remind the House that the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury had done the same without having the moral courage to avow it.—(Cheers.) At the period re ferred to, he was under the necessity either of voting as he did, or of helping to bring in a Tory AdmiListration, and he chose the least of two evils. Then said the same Hon. Member he had continued twelve years without bringing on this question. Why, how could he properly bring it on until there had been a breach of treaty ? Discretion, he would remind the Noble Lord (Lord G. Bentitick ) and the Honoureble Member (Mr. Disraeli) was the better part of valour—( A laugh )—and there fore he should not take their counsel, but act upon his own judgment. The Hon. Member for Bute bad proved in the most clear and satisfactory manner the violation of the treaty, Considering that his motion had completely triumphed, and had met with a warm response from all stiles except the few mis chief-makers opposite ; he would take the advice of the Noble Lord and not press it to a division. The motion was accordingly withdrawn. Time remaining orders of the slay were then disposed of . and the House adjourned at a Quarter-past One o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS, From the Votes and Proceedings or the Hulse of Commons.) TUESDAY, MARCH IC. The following Railway Bills were read a second time, com mitted, and referred to the Committee of Selection : Waterford and Limerick. Edinburgh and Glasgow, Monkland and Kirkintilloch, Bal lochney and Slamannan Railways Amalgamation, Sale, or Lease. STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE. The following Resolutions were reported from the above Committee:- 1. That in the case of the North British Railway (No. 2) petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with:— That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, with the exception of such part as enables them to enter into any Gntracts with the Dlaryport and Carlisle Railway Company, and with the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Company, for a permanent interest or right to the use of their station and the. works connected therewith, and for the passage of their traffic over and along the Railways belonging to such Com panies, And to refer any dispute with such Companies to the Commissioners of Railways. 2. That in the case of the Coventry, Banbury, and Oxford Junction Railway petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, with the exception of those parts which enable them to lerse the proposed Railway to the Great. Western Railway Company, or any other Railway Company.. That the Committees on the two preceding Bills do exa mine, in the first place, how far such orders have been com plied with ; and do report the same to the House on the re port of the Bill—Resolutions agreed to. RAILWAYS COMMITTEE (1846). Select Committee appointed, "to consiler the circum stances under which a certain document was printed by order Of this House. purporting to be the report of the Select Com mittee of last session, appointed to iiquire whether, witifbut discouraging legitimate enterprise. ct,nditions insy not be embodied in Railw-ty Acts better fitted than those hitherto inserted in them. to promote and secure the interests of the public :"—Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Goulburn, Lord John Russell, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Hudson, Sir George Grey, Sir George Clerk, ..11_ r. fatten, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Labouchcre Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. George liamiVon, Mr. Parker, Mr., Hume, Mr. Charles Russell, Sir John Easthope, and Mr. Boring. IRELAND. REPEAL ASSOCIATION. DUBLIN. llillaacit 15.—At the usual meeting of the Repeal Association to-day, a letter was read from Sir. John O'Con nell, in which he states that hi. lather is ordered to the soutti of Europe by his physicians, and he adds that they pr.anisft hint restored health and constitution by next autumn. Th e repeal rent for the week was declared to be 301. IY OF DUBLIN REGISTRY. The sessions closed on Saturday. The following are the results:— Registered. Rejected. Conservatives 493 ... 9 Repeaters IS7 ... 20 —306 majority for Conservatives- DESTRUCTIVE FIRE IN ATIILONE.-- - -A destructive fire broke out in Athlone yesterday (Sunday), owing to a chimney having taken fire in a populous part of the town, which is chiefly inhabited by poor persons. Upwards of 30 cabins have been burned, and were it not for the unexampled exer tions of the military of the garrison the result might have been dreadful to contemplate, as a violent gale of wind pre vailed during the whole time. FIRE IN WATERFORD.—On Saturday morning the hemp and flax stores of Messrs. White, in Waterford, were de stroyed by fire. A detachment of the 15th Regiment were in attendance with the barrack fire-engine, and they suc ceeded in saving the adjoining buildings. MR. DISRAELI'S N are requested to state, t F h Av at D\i‘oß r r .ecdbu , r 4 T nha d K, - ANCRED:'—We h- M.P., author o f " Conino•sb lished " ra nere d, or the :dew Crusade," 3 tis Disraeli, ay pu B. Esq , Svc,.; in three vo l umes post which can nowle Y b i ad all bookseller, and at all the libraries in the kingdom. HER MAJESTY'S TusAinE.—There were present at her Majesty's Theatre yesterday et-ening, the Earl and Cmntess of Sheffield and Lady Susan Holrovd, who occu pied her Majesty Queen Adelaide'; box ; his txcellency the Russian Minister, the Baroness Brunnow, and Mademoiselle Olga de Lechner ; the Marquis and Marchioness of Ailsbnry, the Marquis of Clanticarde, the Harquis of Huntley, the Earl of Munster, the Earl of Falmouth, the CounZess de Jarnac, the Baron Rehausen, the Viscount S. Maynard, Lord Gard ner, Lady Seymour, Lady Howard, the Count Koudriaffsky, Sir 11. Willoughby, Bart., Sir G. Wombwell, Bart., Sir li. Webb, Bart., Mr. Trelawney, Mr. Herbert de Burgh, Mrs. Packs ReMing, Colonel Wlldman, Mr. C. W. Packe, Major Buckley. ~.~~ ,~ `,"