The Express.
London, England, 1847-03-17 00:00:00

tr = the argment of the eigist has. gentleman the Isote kw %Newer*, sal the groestd was cut from under
Washy the hut that Aare weasSl covenants about
CeacowmadPviendleithegeneral independent ofin-
anted treaties. Itewoeld settle could he bring idea
forward a lie& resedeat ist whisk the general signers of a
treat had been celled *pea to gin their reciprocal ratifies-
lion (as Hen did is the general treaty of Vienna) to parti-
cular treaties, in which the same form had not been fol-
lowed. The principle of public law upon which it depended,
was ',lsar, stringent, mid intelligible. Upon their own ad-
Walton the particular treaty was part of the general treaty.
That was the foundation of the argument of the right hon.
gentleman. When you read the general treaty of Vienna,
you read the treaty upon Poland ; and he asked the
noble lord to tell him when he had a general treaty
placed before him, in which there were two series of
covenants upon the Fame subject, end coached in precisely
the same words, what was the rule of law upon which he
would decide, if called upon to interpret that treaty. The
rule had been settled, and was this—that for an interpre-
tation you must look to the original and authentic lustre-
meat. If by the principal act of the treaty of Vienna you
were called upon to decide upon the rights of Cracow, or the
duties of the three Polish powers, would you not go to the
original stipulation in the superior instrument embodied is
that treaty 1 (" No!") Some bon. gentlemen might come
down there to Tote, after punt= resolutions at the Free-
masons' Tavern calculated to lead the country into a war.
(Cheers.) But let him tell them, that unless their
opinions were founded upon knowledge, and expressed in
more decorous language than some phrases he had heard in
that house, they would not be assisting their clients, or
maintaining the honour and integrity of the country.
(Hear, hear.) He was prepared to establish his point by
living witnesses, by statesmen in that house, and by the in-
strument under discussion. (Hear, hear.) He would ask
how the noble lord and the right hon. baronet the member
for Tamworth had both acted in the ease of Belgium
(Hear, hear.) What was the conduct of the King of Hol-
land 1 He bad some knowledge of the law of nations ;
but he was not a member of the House of Commons;
nor liable to be influenced by meetings at the Free-
mesons' Tavera, where subjects were discussed by per-
sons who were wholly ignorant of them. (A laugh.)
He looked to his legal rights. He did not appeal to Europe
and say that the treaty of Vienna had been violated. He
knew very well that he was in a position to gain his legal
rights, but that equitable assistance he could not look for.
He held his kingdom by the final act of the congress of
Vienna. All the stipulations were inserted in that es re-
spected Cracow and Poland; but they were stipulations
merely quoted from the original instrument to obtain the
' moral interference of the signataries of the general
treaty. The King of Holland- did not appeal to the
treaty of Vienna, but looked to his original treaty—
to the authentic instrument—to the inverted treaty.
What did they do ? The Kiog of Holland appealed to the
two courts of Prussia and England, the powers which had
made him King of the Netherlands, and a conference was
called with the sanction and advice of the right hon. gentle-
man, as also of the noble lord opposite. What was the next
step ? It was immediately discovered that, according to the
principles of publie law France must be appealed to, and
she was called on to fulfil the duty devolving on those powers
which had signed the general treaty, namely, to give her
advice and mediation, and to do everything in her power to
bring about an adjustment. It was in that character
that France interfered in the affairs of Belgium. His
noble friend near him had noticed that precedent, which
touched the right hon. member for Tamworth so closely.
and yet the right hon. gentleman took not the slightest no-
tice of it in the course of his speech. He never once alluded
to the use of Belgium. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Disraeli)
would ask the noble lord opposite, did he mean to adopt the
same course ? Would he deny his protocols ? (Hear,
hear.) Would the noble lord have recourse to the archives
of the Foreign-office, and bring out the secret despatches to
Sweden, the hurried meassges to Portugal or would he name
the plenipotentiaries who had assisted him in this agony of
European politica ? (Hear, hear.) Was the treaty of Vienna
more infamous than that which gave Norway to Sweden?—
and yet nobody alluded to the latter. The righthon. member
for Tamworth, following up his definition of what be
considered to be the intentions of the annexed treaty, had
favoured them with his views as to what was intended in
creating the free town of Cracow. The right hon. gentleman
had said " he believed that the intention of the treaty of
Vienna was, that Cracow should have liberal institutions, and
be a free and independent state." He (Mr. Disraeli) had no
idea that the object of the great settlement of Vienna was to
raise up a sort of normal political state, which, by its exam-
ple, limited as it was to nineteen square miles, should re-
generate Europe and prepare them for the constitutional
privileges which the King of PruWa was at last about to con-
fer on his subjects. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentle-
man had also said that Lord Castlereagh recommended that
the independence of Poland shouldhe preserved. Why,
who could see anything but the most transparent irony in
the observations of Lord Castlereagh on this point ? (Hear,
hear.) The right hon. gentleman had also said that there
was in the treaty of Vienna an attempt to secure the :inde-
pendence of Poland. He (Mr. Disraeli) had always under-
rood the Emperor of Russia himself morbidly anxious
to make Poland a kingdom. The language of Lord Castle-
reagh confirmed that opinion, but he mustbow to the autho-
rity of the right honourable gentleman. They had
also been favoured with the opinions of the noble
lord the member for Hertford ; and his account of the
creation of Cracow as a free state was, that it was established
on a principle of compensation: it was intended to compen-
sate France for the loss of empire, and England for the loss
of some of her colonies. Certainly, it did seem to him that
if the French people, when in the midst of their triumphs'
had been told that, although they would ultimately be
driven back to the Seine, they would still receive compensa-
tion in the establishment of a free state, 19 miles square,
on a branch of the Vistala, they would have been very
much astonished. This, too, from a noble lord who had been
been Under-Secretary of State to no less a person than the
Duke of Wellington. (Hear, bear.) The document* should
be their guide in considering the matter, but, instead of
them, they had been favoured with much diplomatic gossip.
One gentleman bad said, " Never mind the treaties ; mind
what was said behind the curtain. What did Prince Met-
ternich think of the treaty ?" Another gentleman had told
them that he had been recently in Paris, and that IL Outset
had informed him Prince Tslleyrand said so and so. That
was not the way in which they should arrive at a conclu-
sion • they should look to the documents, and not pin their
faith to what diplomatists said after dinner. He would remind
the house of what was the rationale of the creation of Cracow.
The Emperor Alexander was in military occupation of Wareaw
and wished to keep it. The other powers of Europe were
afraid he would be too powerful if he did so. Austria wished
to keep Cracow, while Russia wished to preserve it indepen-
dent. The result was, as in many similar cases, a metro
tensing, the Emperor of Russia himself proposing that it
should be a free, that was to say a protected, town. It was
accordingly made a free town. Thera remained a protected
town, and Mayence a confederated garrison. Prince Met-
ternich was opposed to this arrangement, because he feared
that the town would become a focus of disturbance to the ooun-
try, but the Emperor, his master, preferred a middle course.
The end of thirty years' experience had proved the foresight
of Prince Metternich, and Cracow had become an Austrian
town, Russia having yielded to Austria that which had been
the subject of so much hostile controversy in the Congress of
Vienna—and yet they were told that this wu but evidence
that the history of Poland was ended ; they were told that
Cracow was a normal farm of political liberty ; end the noble
lord, the member for Hertford, told them that she was so
established as a compensation for the loos of part of the
French empire. These were the specious improbabilities
with which every man rose to spuk on a subject about
which he would not speak the truth: some in the warmth of
their feelings for Poland persisting in cohfeunding
this city with Poland which had ceased to exist
eighty years ago, and thou who were cognisant
with diplomatic affairs would not meet the morbid feeling
of that assembly, but agreed that the suppression of Cracow
as vi:free city was the lest homage to Poland, and that by
her extinction a blow had been struck at the liberties of
Europe. Of all the insults ever offered to that unha
land, and to that 20,000,1000 f men of whom the hon.stambr
for Bolton reminded them, there was no insult so flagrant,
or no contempt so bitter, as to say that the suppremion et a
patty town by the three great powers was a homage to the
1111111ory of a great people. (Cheers.) He knew the died-
ventage he and others had to encounter when they expressed
their opinions, owing to the conforion of ideas which existed
as this subject. If he could divest the too fervid linagine-
den of the hon. baronet the member for Oxford of his fuel.
by towards Poland, and persuade him, when he
rose in that hone, that he was not the NOW
panion of Kosciusko, he might take the same trugusalle
part in this ens which he usually did. But this so**,
socersiesd a •ong influence upon him, and he could net be
made to believe that they were not adding another weed le
the expired corpse of Poland. He (Mr. Disraeli) told the
hon. baronet and those around him, who rose in that hones
or on the brawling hustings of a tavern, not for the purposes
of dimension, but to outdo each other in language most
violent and policy most perilous, when they talked of those
20 millions of men, they cast a slur on that numerous race
that had met a doom which they all acknowledged. They
had heard of great nations, 20 minions in number ; but a
rest nation was one which produced great men. It weasel
by millions of population that you proved magnitudeefeimda
end when he heard of the partition of Poland, though le
Englishman he regretted it, because it was injurious to hie
own country, he had no sympathy with the nee
that was partitioned. Let him remind those who
were so loud at Freemasons' Hall that it wee
jest one hundred years ago that it was proposed in Europe=
partition another empire. Let them look at the eireene-
'Maces of that nation of many races and many i
and governed by a girl who, unprotected, had justm=
the throne. Let them look at the conspiracy of Freaddirt te
dethrone Maria Theresa, let them read the list of re ireh-
conspirators, at the head of which was the King of P.
(Hear, bear.) Why was not Austria then partakes* end
that young female dethroned 1 He was speeldng of that
Austria which they had reviled, with the Malinke of whisk
they were so unacquainted, and white they lmd se de-
twinned. He was speaking of that analog empire which
they said was in a state of political decrepitude, but which
he said was possessed of resources which in any exigency
would astonish Europe and bails aU her advesseries.
At that time of which he wee speaking, law was
in a sere difficult position then in which she
was now pissed. He asked why was ehe not then
partitioned when Pelead was et the bead of a conspi-
racy to sever her demimiees. Let them answer that
before they delivered themselves of sash rags of superficial
rhetoric. He asked what preserved an ancient dynasty but
her faithful population end her national character ? She
was not then twenty =aliens, and yet this was she who baf-
fled Frederick of Prussia end France, and when that Poland
which was always talked of as a victim in Europe, entered
into a treaty with ecempirators who pampered the loot of
that aristocracy that ultimately betrayed her he would
ay to those who sympathised with Poland, he would say to

tpl:tehr. member for Finsbury, 'tie who bad se often rep-
that hos. member in inot,osu in which he showed his
sympathy for the working population of England, he would
ask him why be had rase thoughtlessly embarked
in the cause of continental liberalism. No one
who felt for the million but would hesitate to
embark in a Mae the origin of which be
did not comprehend„ eeen if he exhibited the same zeal as
the hon. member for Finabury. What was the cause of this
movement ? Was it the suffering people in Italy and is
Spain that were the moving parties ? In every one of those
countries there were relics of a subverted aristocracy, sub-
verted because they did not place themselves at the head of
the people. Those were the men who were the real cane of
the fall of Poland, and sot the great powers they denounced;
those were the men who never supported the people, and
who never showed any spirit except in opposing the clergy,
who, in the very worst of times, were ...twigs the friends of
the multitude; it was this subverted aristocracy that had
raised this false cry in Europe and had appealed to its morbid
punons. He had heard in the speech of the hon. member
for Weymouth, in a passing comment on the pusedo.political
feeling of the ilay, an expression of his regret at the massacre
in Gallicia. What was the cause of it ? From what news-
paper did this hon. member gain his intelligence, from what
agent of the expelled nobles hid be obtained his information ?
They had been taught the most marvellous statements ;
they had heard a sovereign denounced who had thanked his
people for advocating his rights. He (Mr. D'lsraeli) had
never been in Oallicia, but he had visited the Austrian States
of Italy and others, and he could say that wherever there
was that mysterious movement conducted by committees us
foreign capitals, they would fiud that the people were rising
against a subverted aristocracy, and he should be glad if
every aristocracy that neglected its duty met with the same
fate. It was these movements which agitated Europe. lie
had before him a plunge in a work written on the Russian
Empire by a great authority, Mr. Macgregor. (The hon.
gentleman then read an extract from the work in question,
to the effect that Posen and Galicia remained with addi-
tional privileges from Austria and Russia, and the popu-
lation and peasantry possessed many advantages. In
Ruesian-Poland their condition wan more easy than it was
under independent Poland) What was that condition?
He would quote a passage which illustrated it from the work
of a German liberal. (The hon. gentleman then read the
passage in question, to the following effect, " that, in the
year 1804, the Emperor Alexander issued edicts for the
improvement of Livonia, and the serfs, although
they were not to be immediately set at liberty,
were to have fourteen yeas. to prepare for their
emancipation. All the enslaved population was divided
into classes, and one-fourteenth was emancipated every year.
The punishment inflicted, and the labour allotted by the
masters was fixed, and tribunals of the peasants themselves
were established.") Could they he surprised to find that
those who were thus made freemen instead of serfs should
cling to that constitution, and flee from the aristocracies that
were now thus patronized by some gentleman. Could they
believe that a population which possessed its own tribunals
would rise because there was a talk in Freemasons'-hall
about the partition of Poland ? It was a movement of this
kind which produced the affair of Cracow. He admitted that
in his opinion the making Cracow a free town was a mistake
That it wan a violation of a solemn treaty was an utter de-
lusion, and it was precisely those that encouraged this
delusion who were endangering the peace of 'Europe.
(" Hear, hear," from Lord George Bentinck.) He would
now make an observation with reference to the proposition
before the house. (Hear, hear.) The question brought
forward by the hon. member for Montrose had already he, n
several times before the house. In 1831 and 1832, it was
more than once diacussed, and the government of that day,
though pressed by an undisciplined mob of supporters,
the slaves of economy—though pressed 'oy a no very
scrupulous opposition—had the courage to resist the
appeal made to it, and the then, as sow !Secretary for Foreign
Affairs exhibitedtin resisting it, moral courage very habitual
with him, and which, it was to be hoped, he would again
display on the present oecisaion. Among the number of
those who then supported the noble lord in his resistance,
was the hon. member for Montrose—(" hear, hear," from
Lord G. Bentiack)—who, at that time, gave his hearty
vote in favour of continuing the payment to Russia. How
the hon. gentleman could reconcile it to his conscience to
have permitted so much money to have been paid away
in the course of the fifteen years since elapses], with
the views he had declared on the subject, was
quits inexplicable. On the particular occasion itself, the
hon. gentleman admitted that he sacrificed his conscience
to his country—that he was ready to vote black white.
(" Hear, hear," from Lord George Bentinck.) Now, how-
ever, the hon. gentleman had made a white speech, and was
about to do penance for his juvenile error. The hon.
gentleman, in conclusion, observed that none could be more
ready or more rejoiced than he to admit the moral in-
fluence of that house upon the proceedings of other
countries; but he would remind honourable gentle-
men that this influence was held by a delicate
and refined tenure, and that its efficacy would never be in-
creased by Hudibrastic speeches and grotesque motions. If
the counsels of that house were to be heeded elsewhere, they
must be founded on knowledge and expressed in dignified
language. (" Hear, hear," from Lord G. Bentinck.) Fulfil
these conditions, and they might retain and exercise their
moral influence ; but let it be ever exercised for the true
benefit of Europe and the glory and reputation of England.
Viscount PALMERf3TON—I shall, in the observations I
have to make, confine myself to the particular subject
of the discussion to which we have been called. This dis-
elusion divides itself into two points; first of all, whether
the suppression of the free city and state of Cracow was a
violation of the treaty of Vienna • and next, whether, under
the circumstances of the case, Na extinction absolves this
country from continuing the payment of the Rueao-
Dutch loan. Notwithstanding the ingenuous argument
which we havejust heard from the hon. member opposite,
tending to show that this extinction of Cracow is no violation
of the treaty of Vienna, I think I can have no difficulty in
satisfying the house that the opinion expressed in the speech
from the throne, and which is partaken by almost everybody
in this house, with the exception of the hon. gentleman op-
posite and the noble lord who sits near him, is correct,
namely, that this extinction wan a violation of the treaty of
Vienna. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman who has just
sat down has gone into a very ingenuous argument to thew,
by reference to ancient transactions in Europe, and fortify.
ing himself with grave authorities, that a treaty which
inserted in another treaty does not necessarily bind the
perdu to the treaty in which the insertion is made. I can
concede to the hon. gentleman everything in this respect
which I understand him to have contended for, and maintain
that the ground on which we stand is in no degree shaken
by that concession. I might go further than this,
and acknowledge that, u to a single treaty, of
which a number of parties ate guarantees, the
failure of one party to execute his guarantee is held to ab-
solve the others from the obligation which has been created
in that raped ; but the question here is,;not that which is
dealt with in the hon. gentleman's argument, The question
here is, not whether England or France is bound by any
guarantee to take steps in consequence of the occu-
pation of Cracow,. but whether, in virtue of the
treaty by which Cracow, was constituted a free state,
and to which England was • party, we are not entitled
to abject to the extinction of that city. (Hear, hear.)
The question is, whether the extinction of Cracow is a vio-
lation of the articles of that treaty, and not whether such a
violation binds the parties to the treaty to take any steps in
consequence of its infraction. I put aside all the questions
which have been nixed in the course of the debate, and
because, in the present case, there was a separate
treaty to which Russia, Austria, and Prussia were parties,
and which was annexed to the general treaty of Vienna, the
118th article of which declares that the annexed treaty should
have the same force and value as if it was an integral part of
the general treaty. But fortunately for my argument it is
unnecessary for me to rely on the 118th article of the general
treaty, because the 6th, 7th, Bth, and 9th articles of
the general treaty itself contain everything that is
essential to justify my assertion that the extinc-
tion of the state of Cracow is a violation of the stipu-
lations of that treaty. Expunge, if you like, the 118th
article, but you cannot get rid of the 6th, 7th, Bth, and 9th
article", to which all the contracting powers were parties,
and upon these provisions I reassert that the extinction of
the republic of Cracow is a violation of the articles, not of
the annexed, but of the general treaty. (Hear,
hear.) But it is said that this is only the
record of a transaction which was independent of
the general treaty, and to which England and Franca
not parties. Thu I deny. (Hear, hear.) I say that
the document to which I alluded in the early part of this
evening, in reply to the question put to me by my noble
friend opposite, records the whole proceedings of the Con-
of Vienna, and is contained among the state papers to
, be found in the library of this house. (Hear, hear.) This
document proves that England was a party to all the nee-
tiations and all those arrangements, of Europe which
afterwards formed portions, not only of the general,
but the annexed treaties, and especially in regard to
Cracow. At the arrangements with respect to that state,
England was duly represented, and had been a party to
them. It will be seen, on reference to the third protocol of
the conference at the congress of Vienna, dated the Bth
February, that a commission was appointed to prepare a draft
of the articles which related to the arrangements consented
to and agreed upon by the and that communion oom-
prised the Earl of Clancarty, Barn Humboldt, and in short
the representatives of all the five great powers. It appears
further, from protocol No. 4, agreed to by the five powers on
the 10th February, that the report of the commissioners was
, read, and among the articles so drawn up by them was one
constituting Cracow a free state, with a surrounding district.
It appears also that Lord Castlereagh, writing to Lord Liver-
' pool from Vienna, on the 13th February says this "Your
lordship will receive inclosed the territorialarrangements fur
Poland, Prussia (including Saxony), Holland, an Honorer.
reduced into articles having been finally agreed to, and
• signed by the five principal powers, and recerded in a pro-
tocol until they can find their place in a general treaty. I
say, therefore, it appear.not only that the general treat to
which England and France were parties contain stipulations
with regard to the free state of Cracow, but from the docu-
ments to which I have referred it is shown that these ar-
rangements were settledat a conference to which England was
• party, and that this conference and arrangements took place
' anterior to the conclusion of the separate trades which are
considered as the instruments which determined that matter.
I It is, therefore, I submit, perfectly plain that Cracow formed
part of the stipulations to which England was a party, and
it is a violation of the treaty that those arrangements should
• he altered without the consent of the oontracting parties.
(Hear, hear.) But we are told that similar things have
before been done in instances in which England has been
partly concerned. The hon. member for Bhrewebury had
stated that, with regard to Belgium, the arrangementsof
• the treaty of Vienna had been departed from, and that Bee-
t land had been a party to that infraction. Now I am net
quite sure if I understood correctly the observations of the
r hon. member as to that point. I understood the hon. mem-
ber to stasnted that
only
gy
for
adofce ui
the Nedthasii.erlantandscea, and that to applied,
Austria