The Express.
London, England, 1847-03-12 00:00:00

Lord DALMENY said he did not yield to the hon. mem-
ber who had last spoken in indignation at the grasping am-
bition of Russia and the other powers. He regarded the
absorption of Cracow as the overthrow of the last vestige of
Polish nationality and independence ; all hope of its revival
was at length extinguished. Had the hoe. gentleman who
moved these resolutions confined himself to the first, he
should have supported it ; but be would not vote in favour
of the pecuniary part of the reeslutione.
Dr. BOWRfNG said the noble lord who had just spoken,
by voting for the first resolution was not pledged to follow
up his vote by supporting the others. This war a question
of more than Cracow and the Crux...nano; it was a question
of Poland and the I'olee. At this moment the greatest
distrust prevailed betweenthedifferentrourts; and theliberty
of an petty nations, if not overthrown, was menaced. He
heartily desired that the good feeling between England and
France should be reestablished ; but he could not forget that
England had been grossly deceived by the late transactions in
Spun. (Hear.) He honoured the domestic character of the
King of the French, but deplored the evil influences by
which he had been guided. (Hear.) Everywhere the pro-
spect was alarming. In Portugal all was confusion.; who ruled
and who obeyed no one knew. Spain was also in the most
disturbed state. In Italy, the efforts of her excellent sove-
reign for advancing freedom were thwarted by the absolutist
powers. The liberties of Switzerland were menaced. In the
east, the Danubian provinces were in danger ; and though
the independence of Wallachia and Bulgaria had been
promised, it was obvious that, at the will of Rus-
sia, rulers were throned er disenthroned. (Hear.)
In all this was plainly to be seen the advent of that fearful
struggle foretold by the late Mr. Canning. And it was not
by a regard to the treaty of Vienna alone tint this was to be
averted; more regard must be paid to the liberties and in-
terests of nations themselves; for treaties unratified by public
opinion were of little =omen,. Though sharing in all the
feelings of disgust that had been expressed at the recklessness
with which the great powers had violated their engage-
ments, he rejoimd that the great question was now placed on
a new buil, that the whole structure of European policy
would have to be reconsidered, and that we should not
simply have to decide whether the protest of England should
restore Cracow,—whether a small fragment of Poland should
be saved to the Poles and Polish nationality, but that the
question which in 1772 had been first approached, and solved
with so much iniquity and folly, would come back again—
the great question of the re-organisation of Poland itself, and
the recognition of those great rights and liberties which had
been so recklessly trampled on.
Sir W. MOLES WORTH said he quite concurred in the
first resolution, and in the opinion, which had been gene-
rally expressed, that the treaty of Vienna had been violated.
Had the first resolution stood alone, he would have voted in
its favour; but he could not support the rest. In deter-
mining whether we should continue the payment of this
Russo-Dutch loan, we ought to take into consideration, not
merely the words of the convention of 1831, but the reasons
which induced us to enter into that engagement, and the
advantages we derived by it. A certain part of that sum
had been agreed to be paid for certain colonies which we
now possessed—namely, the Cape of Good Hope, and the
settlements of Demerara, Esoequibo, and Berbice ; and if
we refused to continue the payment, we were in
honour bound to restore those colonies. The papers
laid on the tattle of the house proved that we
acquired those colonies by engaging to make this payment.
These colonies originally elcoged to Holland ; we took pos-
session of them during the last war, not because we were at
war with Holland, but to save them from the Ftench, when
the French took possemion of Holland. Consequently, in
1814, when Holland wee liberated from the French domi-
nion, we were bound to restore theft colonies. A conven-
tion was entered into between Chem Britain and the
Netherlands, on the 13th of August, 1814, the first article
of which stated that " his Britannic Majesty restored to the
Netherlands the niacin possessed by Holland on the Ist of
January, 1803, with the exception of the Cape of Good
Hope, and the settlements of Demerara, Essequibo, and
Berbice, which were to be reserved by the contracting
partite, to be disposed of, by a supplementary convention to
be afterwards established, according to the Interests of the
parties, and ta-din&to certain articles referred to in the
treaty of Paris." The impplementary convention was
to be found in the additaonal articles of this con-
vention; and in the find of these additional articles,
it was stated that " the prime sovereign of the Nether-
lands agrees to cede, in fall sovereignty, to his Britannic
Majesty, the Caps of Good Hope, and the settlements of
Demerara. Emequibe, and Berb," in consideration of cer-
tain engagements stated in the first part of the article.
Those engagements were the payment of certain sums of
money. This country agreed to pay, first, a million sterling
to the government of Sweden • two millions to improve the
defences of the Low Countrie;; and also to bear, along with
Holland, certain other charges, to be agreed upon by the
high contracting parties, towards the final settlement of the
Low Countries in union with Holland; and the sum for that
Bpurpose was not to exceed three millions sterling. Thus we
agreed to pay six millions for the purchase of those
four colonies—three millions to be expended in
such a manner as to promote the union of
Holland and Belgium ; and it was to be determined
by a subsequent convention for what purpose, and in what
manner, that money should be paid. The subsequent con-
vention was signed at London, on the 19th May. 1815, be-
tween Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Rands ; and by
the third article, this country took upon itself the payment of
a portion of the debt immured by Russia, on memo* ef a loan
ratted by the house of Ho& and Co., of hotherdent. We
agreed to the intend of that mow, sad a certain
annual sum lewarda its dad liquidation; the engagement
being thee the mem should he ia risk uromir as te ro-
mote tie &el selliemor emi thipaidne( Helleml and Belgiupm,
aluprodied he hothe ad' Miele tithe movenden, to which
ques
tion
emu test th e mower in
shairethee sees dn
la the moth of Me widOW of the
two seentries ereles." He thought that that
thews& the following lbeie—ffiet, that they had
=ll to pay • sum net exceeding 6,000,0001.
far the pommies ef the colonies already named •,
and esseedly, that die Wei of the Netherlands agreed to
comporate RUMS Of likarthe king of the Netherlands'
from !noes. Inelsoi of that awn to the Nether-
lands, and the Nethmtheler=inp it over to Russia, they
agreed to pay it se NM 1111 RIBIAN or to take into their hands
a pottiest of the lesdeoththel bras, sad therefore as it
were is beam Ueda es loth en semen of the purchase
of thme edeolth emd he weld oh, if they refused to con-
tinua dr moor el lift debt, were they entitled to retain
pommies el diem sebum ? He would not d y
Amite* inarintion con metros& in the moat literal

SWUM, there might be sore loop-hole by which they might
maim from payments but when he considered that they
made this payment in return for concessions made by four
of the continental empires, he thought it would be un-
worthy of a mat empire like this to ava4 itself of a
, doubt to repudiate a debt, end at the same time to retain
the property for the possession of which that debt was in.
curled, and while they condemned the conduct of Austria,
Ramie, and Prussia in this matter, to show to the world that
they were actuated by pecuniary motives, and by a desire to
follow their example. (Cheers.)
Lord MAHON said that he rose to record his vote against
the resolution* moved by the hon. member for Montrose,
which vote he rested oa the arguments brought forward by
the noble lord the first Lord of the Treasury. He wouldoat
the same time say that his decided conviction was that the
annexation of Cracow was altogether unjustifiable.
81r ft. H. INGLIS believed that if an English minister of
the very lowest rank, recognised as a diplomatist, was resi-
dent in Cracow at the period at which this oe:urrenee took
plant, there would have been no such annexation. (Hear.)
It was in vain now to deplore that they had not en English
minister there; but he was quite sure that the principle
which justified the annexation of Cracow to Austria might
equally justify the annexation of Frankfort and Hamburg,
or any of the minor states of Germany, the freedom et
which was made sure by treaties. (Hear.) Every other
country may equally repudiate similar obligations. It was
not in vain that the representatives of England should
place on solemn record that a great political and moral
offence had been perpetrated. Looking oa war as the
greatest of all calamities, and not to be undertaken except,
he was going to say in the ease of self-defiance,
he was not prepared to go to war with these
countries in consequence of the conduct which they had
pursued ; but there was an intermediate course of conduct
which it was becoming this nation to pursue. Their lose-
reign had entered her protest against the violation of the
treaty, and he trusted that the representatives of the free
people of this country would enter on their proceedinp•
record of their sentiments on this occasion. The right hon.
gentleman concluded by stating that he would give his
cordial support to the proposition, without saying bow he
would act with regard to the others.
Lord G. BENTINCK said that the hon. member for
Montrose was good enough to inform the house that he was
perfectly ashamed of he hon. friend the member for Shrew*
bury and himself for the course which they thought fit to
penes in answer to the address proposed to the crown. He
was sorry to my that he feared that by the course he was
going to take he was not likely to restore himself to the good
opinion of the hon. member; for though he 'loaned with
great attention to his epeech, during the whole of it, there
were only three statements contained in it in which he con-
curred; the first was, that nothing could make the hon.
gentleman forget pounds, shillings, and pence ; the second
that he considered that general peace was the get atest blessing
which countries could have bestowed on them ; and the third,
that they should hare the moral courage to act honestly. With
regard to the last statement the hon. gentleman took a strange
course in endeavouring to prove that the house ought to
have a great dears to act honestly when lie proposed that on
such alight grounds aa he held forth they should cheat the
Emperor of Russia of his money. But if he could not hope
to restore himself to his good opinion, still there would be
this congratulation to the hon. gentleman that he did not
Rand as the political godfather of either his noble friend or
himself. He said the other night that if there were any
sins which he would dislike answering for more than any
others they were those of his hon. friend end himself. He
would enter his pretest against the doctrine of the right hon.
member for Oxford, when he declared that the house
had pledged itself, in answer to the address of the crown,
to the belief that Austria, Russia, and Prussia, had been
guilty of • manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna.
The hon. member for Shrewsbury, in a speech which was
unanswered entered their protest against any such declara-
tion. But the mover of the answer to the address studiously
avoided pledging the house to any such declaration; and
the house did not pledge itself one way or the other, as to
whether it was or was not a manifest violation of the treaty
of Vienna. Upon reflection, moreover, and a careful study
of all the documents laid before the house, he had come to
the conclusion that there had been no violation of the treaty
of Vienna whatever. To treat the minor gumtree, the
payment of the money, bet, he would only say, that he
concurred so entirely in the statement so ably made
by the hon. baronet the member for Southwark (Sir W.
Molesworth), that he should detain the house but a few mi-
nutes on that part of the subject. There was, however, one
point which had not been touched upon by any speaker who
had preceded him, namely, that it was admitted in the con-
vention of 1831, and also recited in the act of parliament,
that it was in consideration of Russia having given her ad-
hesion to the general provisions of the treaty of Vienna,
which were still in full force, that the convention was
signed and the act of parliament was panned. Now, It
would be recollected that the 9th article of the treaty of
Vienna, which related to Cracow, recited that 0311 M.
plete neutrality was guaranteed to Cracow, sad
that no military force was to be permitted to enter the free
state of Cracow. If it were true that any infringement
of the articles which related to Cracow, was a manifest vio-
lation of the treaty of Vienna; it was perfectly true that
no lea a violation of the treaty was committed in November,
1831 than in the present day, for at the time the convention
was signed, and the act passed, Russia was in military cam-
Mrel Cracow. The recital of the act passed in July,
stated, that in the opinion of both houses of parliament,
a military occupation of Cracow, although it was in contra-
diction to some of the articles of the treaty of Vienna, was
ao violation of the general treaty. But when hon. gentle.
men talked of treaties they seemed to forget that there were
two parties tea treaty, sad that it meat, like any other con-
tract, be kept on both sides. (Hear, hear.) Although it
was true that one condition of the treaty was that there
should be no military occupation of Cracow, and
that it should remain a free sate; it was also a
condition on the other side that Cracow should maintain
strict neutrality and give no asylum or protection to refugees
or any other persons prosecuted by the law and no state
could have been a greater delinquent in these respects than
Cracow. He could show by the correspondence that in 1831
and 1832 there were found no less than 2,000 refugees in the
free state of Cracow. And when it was stated by
the honourable gentleman who opened the debate
that evening that there was no pretence for the
interference of Austria, and when the noble lord at
the head of the government stated that he suspected the
disturbances in Cracow were far from being unacceptable
te the government of Austria, he could only say that if Mr.
Magenis was to be trusted it was certain that Austria
had dmde all in her power to maintain the peace of Cracow,
and as soon as the senate called upon her to send a force to
keep the peace, Austria sent 800 men for that purpose ; and
it was not until the Poles appeared with a force of 5,000
strong, that the force under General Collin withdrew. It
appeared that, on the 18th Feb., the Austrian troops ad-
vanced to Cracow, but, on the 22nd, Gen. Collin found it
prudent to retire ; and, on the same day, the manifesto of
the Polish revolutionary government was put forth, pro•
claiming that they were twenty millions, and that their
brethren were in arms at Posers, prepared to revenge the
wrongs of Poland. ( Hear.) They had heard that night
from the hon. member for Pontefract (Mr. Mines), of the
misconduct of the Austrian government in encouraging the
Galicians to murder the landed proprietors. He (Lord G.
Bentinck), did not, however, find anything of the kind to
bare been the cue. It appeared by the statement of Mr.
Mogen s, that the first information received by the Austrian
government, so early as the 13th of February, was
derived from no less than seventy villages in Galicia, pray-
ing for assistance against this Polish revolution. And it was
not until these landowners and others who were promoting
the insurrection had recourse to force, and shot some of the
peasantry who refused to joie in their wicked insurrection.
that the peasantry raw against them. It had been well
stated by Prince Metternich that to call upon the peasantry
of Galicia to rise upon the cry of the restoration of the king-
dom of Poland was only to remind them of the ancins regime
under which they had suffered so much ; it was only to re-
mind them that they were serfs under the enciee rigintik
and were proprietors of land under the government of
Austria. Was it therefore to be wondered at that
should rise against the tyranny of which they still p
the traditionary recollection ? And it seemed that Muni
they were unarmed they were able to kill 8013 ef *eft
pretenders. The Crewe-ens and Poles tagether, who INTO
the first to invade Austria, crossed the Vistula 5,000=
and admitted into the richest part of the territory of
towards the salt-mines, seven miles beyond Wkikeita.
Unless this treaty of Vienna deprived Austria of the dint
right of esdeee—self-preservation—he could not undesired
on whet purple it could be pretended that Austria had
not a eft to aim war into the state of Cracow, and treat
her ea • genguered nation. (Hear, beer.) With respect to
the prelease that Austria, Russia, and Prussia, had no right
to altar that part of the treaty of Vienna se to Cracow, he
could only repeat the argument of his hon. friend the
member fee Shrewsbury on a former occasion, and remind the
house that the articles relating to Cracow were not articles
of the treaty signed in chief either by Great Britain, France,
Sweden, Spain, or Portugal ; and he believed the law of
nations to be that an annexed treaty stood on very different
grounds from a treaty signed in chief. They had heard
from the noble lord—the first lord of the treasury that we
had never violated or broken any treaty to which we bad
been a party. How mold the noble lord reconcile that
statement with the fact that, in a like ease. Great Britain
favoured the separation of Belgium from Holland ? The
words of the treaty in reference to the mainte-
nance of the connexion between Belgium and Holland,
were, if possible, stronger than those relating to Cracow ;
bat when Belgium rose in revolt against -Holland, and
France marched her troops amen the frontier, were any
of the parties iavited to the conference for the separation,
who were not parties in chief to the original treaty by
which the union between Holland and Belgium was gua-
ranteed ? France it was true was a party to the conference,
but not beeause she was a party to the treaty (which she
was not), but because her troops were across the fron-
tier. The noble lord (Palmeerton) said in his note to
Prince Metternich, that no treaty could be abrogated except
with the concurrence of all the parties to it, but neither
Austria, Ruses, Prussia, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, or the
Netherlands, were celled upon to concur in the separation
of Belgium from Holland previous to the noble lord's sign.
ing the convention with France for that purpose. And
with regard to Russia, so far from concurring, she offered to
march an army of 130,000 to Belgium to drive out the French
and recover that country to the sovereignty of the King of
the Netherlands. If, then, the proceedings of Austria,
Russia, and Prussia, in respect to Cracow, were a violation
of the treaty of Cracow, what must be mid of the conduct of
England in 1831 And 1832 7 In the one case the then parties
in thief all concurred in the new arrangement, but in the ease
of Belgium no one of the chief contracting powers had con-
curred with England fa the separation. There was no earthly
pretence for laying that either Auetria, Russia, or Prussia
had violated the treaty of Vienna in its letter, so far as Cra-
cow was concerned. He now came to the ?licit of the treaty
and to examine the statements which had been made, that,
111 regard to the stipulations as to Cracow, the object one to