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

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 12, 1847.

maintain inviolate the 111litiOnalibleof Poland. Anything
more contrary to the evidence them or to the truth,
never was asserted in that house. The correspondence of
Lord Castlereagh showed that that was not the °eject, but,
on the contrary, it was to do that which Russia had at length
acceded to—restore Cracow to the dominion of Austria.
And so earnest was the Emperor Alexander, on the one side,
to obtain this key, as it was considered, to the empire of
Austria; and no earnest were Great Britain, Austria,
and France, that Russia should not be permitted to
advanoe her military outposts from the Vistula towards
Germany, that those three powers actually stetted, on the 3d
of February, a secret article of offence and defence to defect
what were considered to be the ambitious designs of Russia.
The object of Lord Castlereagh was to carry out the treaty
of Reichenbacb, of June, 1813, by which Austria, in consi-
deration of her stipulating to loin the Russian end allied
forces, was guaranteed the restoration of her powers in the
duchy of Wines, which bed been wrested from her lry
Napoleon, and to re-establish her in the pu-ition she
held up to 1809. There was no sentiment in Lord Castle-
reagh's correspondence which showed that there was any
intention or any desire on the part of Cracow to renew the
nationality of Poland in maintaining the independence
of Cracow--in fact, the whole course of Lord Castlereagh's
government e as opposed to such • supposition—it was only
net:emery to quote the answer of the Emperor Alexander to
one of Lord Cattlereagh'm private communications on the
subject, to chow how little the north, rn powers admitted the
interference of Great Britain in respect to Cracow. In the
last letter the Emperor requests that that communication
may close the private correepondence, and Count Neeselrode
in a note of Nov., 1814, declined to be the agent of England.
From thin time to the conclusion of the treaty no other com-
munication took place between Lord Castlereagh and the
three powers. That treaty was signed by the three powers
in May, 1816--the general treaty being dated the
9th of June following. When, then, the three
powers sought to undo the treaty of Cracow without the
assistance of the parties to the general treaty, they were
only untying the knot as they had themselves made it. Sir
Robert Gordon' so far beck as the 22nd of August last, gave
notice to the noble lord (Palmerston) that the three powers
would not permit the interference of the other parties to the
general treaty as to 'the settlement of the affairs of Cracow.
Why did not the noble lord then remonstrate, and my to
Austria, Russia, and Prussia, you have no right to settle the
affairs of Cracow by absorbing it into the dominions of
Austria, without first inviting us to a conference on the sub-
ject and obtaining our consent The noble lord, however.
made no remonstrance until the 6th of Nov., when he found
the annexation was • jail areonspli. Haying thewn by the ex-
, ample of the noble lord's owe conduct in the ease of the
Netherlands and Belgium, that Austria, Russia, and Prussia,
in this absorption .1 Cracow, had proceeded only in accord-
ance with the course this country had itself adopted in
another case—having shown that the treaty had been undone
in the way and by the parties by whom it was made, and
that as to the spirit of the treaty, there was no violation so
far as the original wishes and object of England were con-
cerned,—he would now proceed to consider how far the
welfare and substantial interests of the Cracovians them-
selves had been consulted. Originally, the Cracovians were
not admitted to any of the conferences which took place pre-
paratory to the treaty of 1815: 47 empires, kingdoms, repub-
lics, cantons, free rine., and states were represented at the
general congress, and ninety other corporate bodies end indi-
viduals were also represented there. The Jews of Ham-
burgh and Lubeck, the Lady Abbess of Thorne, and the
duchy of Bouillon, were represented, but Cracow was not
represented at all. And the question was settled at last, not
because of the feelings and wishes of the Cracovians, but
because,—when, happily for the peace of Europe, at a time
when Russia, having 200,000 men marched into Poland,
refused to resign her intention of advancing her military
territory, when Prussia had armed her contingent of
173,000 men, to side with Russia, and when the Anglo-
Belgian army was colleeting,—because, when happily for the
general peace Napoleon mistook his moment, the then
great powers, roused by the fear of their common enemy
to their common danger, not being able to settle the ques-
tion of which should occupy the military poet of Cracow,
agreed to leave it to the joint protection of the three. With
regard to the feeling of the Cracovians, when the Russian
troops marched out of Cracow they were accompanied for
seven miles by thousands of the inhabitants of all deuce,
who at parting greeted them with the most enthueiestic
cheers in honour of the Emperor Nicholas ; this showed how
far the feeling of the Cracovians was in favour of Polish
nationality. Then, with regard to Austria, he had shown
that the Poles bad good cause to rejoice at the contrast
which the government of Austria afforded to the reign of
terror which would have been established had the revolu-
tionary party succeeded. Cracow had at all events reason
to rejoice at the change. Contrast the manifesto of the
national government of Poland with the declaration of the
Emperor of Austria, in which he unites Cracow, end pro-
mises that henceforth it should be incorporated as part of the
empire. (" Hese, hear," and • laugh.) This was what was
to be substituted for trials by courts-martial and death. The
Emperor promised the people of Craaow to maintain and
protect them in the exercise of their religion—to administer
justice impartially—to apportion equitably the public bur-
dens—to watch over and uphold the general security ; and,
to all who, by their submission, should show their attach-
ment to him, and prove themselves worthy of his favour,
he promised that they should find in him • pa-
ternal sovereign and • clement emperor. (Hear, hear.)
Was not that • pleating contrast to the threat that every
man capable of bearing arms, who did not, within four-and-
i hours, put himself at the disposal of the revolution-
ary authorities, should be tried before a court-martial as a
deserter, and that every one who should, without the sanc-
tion of the revolutionary government, become a member of
any club or committee, should be declared* traitor to his coun-
try. He now came to the evidence as to how these promisee
on the part of Aastriahad been folflled. Every one acquainted
with the local history of Cracow knew that from 1795 to 1809,
while Cracow belonged to Austria, the prosperity of the dis-
trict greatly increased. The expenditure had lately in-
creased from 100,000 to 300,000 dollars; the district had been
(attacking in material wealth ; and out of 279 wholesale mer-
chants not more than 87 remained in 1845. It was also stated
that all the landed property had been mortgaged; and that the
debts, amounting to three million dollen, Austria had un-
dertaken to pay, without charging the community with the
interest due on them. Such was the impartial opinion of a
gentleman who never dreamt that his letter would see the
light, and upon whose statements, therefore, more reliance
might be placed than on the anonymous communications
read by the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Hume). Under
these circumstances, seeing that it was not easy for
this country, without condemning herself, to make out
that there had been • manifest violation of the treaty of
Vienna; seeing that justice had been done to all parties, and
that the interests of general peace had been consulted ; see-
ing that those objects which the British government in 1814
and 1815 earnestly desired, had been carried out by the mag-
nanimous concession—(laughter)—of the Emperor Nicholas,
without an y compensation being made to him; seeing that
the interests of Cracow had been so greatly consulted, and
that, instead of tyranay and despotism, freedom and promo.
city were likely to be the lot of Cracow. (" Hear, hear,"
from Mr. T. Buncombe.) Yes (continued the noble lord,
addressing the hon. member), well regulated freedom, pros-
perity, wealth, and security, instead of the tyranny to be
found in your revolutionary constitution. (Laughter from
Mr. T. Buncombe.) The hon. gentleman did not
like it to go forth to his constituents that the freedom which
he professed to admire was tyranny in reality, and that real
i despotism was to be found arrayed on the side of republican
rather then monarchical government ; seeing all these things,
he (Lord 0. Bentick) would not consent to brand the Em-
peror of Austria, the Emperor of Russia, or the King of
Prussia with the charge of having been guilty of a manifest
violation of the treaty of Vienna. (Hear, hear.)
He had beard with deep regret and pain from
the noble lord at the head of the government, a de-
claration ascribing, on mere suspicion, mean, paltry,
and unworthy feelings to those sovereigns. It was the
first time that those three crowned heads had been charged
with such unworthy and dishonourable motives by any
minister of England on ground. so trifling. Upon these
grounds (continued the noble lord), far from condemning,
I thank the mild, clement, and paternal sovereign of 1
Austria—(greatlaughter)—yes,l thank him, and I thank
the mild and just king of Peru, and I thank the emperor
of Russia. (Ironical cheers.) Well, let those who cheer
ironically show me by argument and by evidence that
they have justice on their side. (Hear, bear.)
I have brought evidence to back my assertion.
There was no evidence adduced in the two hours' speech of
the hon. gentlemen who quoted law, and said that if the
Emperor of Russia had inserted Certain words in a conven-
tion, in all probability England would have inserted some
other winds. That is a description of law which I never
heard quoted before. I prove my ease by evidence which
the hon. member for Pontefract could not bring forward.
Far from censuring, I thank these northern powers that
their too long forbearance has, at last, given way to the
mercy of derision, and that they have put down and sour
thared this den of revolutioniate—(laughter)—who promised
to keep Europe in hot water whilst they were ruining their
country and disturbing their neighbours ; and with these
feelings, Sir, I will move a direct negative to the resolutions.
Mr. T. BUNCOMBE said it was impossible for him to
say whether the feelings of the noble lord towards the
northern powers would be reciprocated by that house.
(" Hear, hear," and laughter). He really believed, how-
ever, that after the speech which they had just heard, her
Majesty's ministers would be too happy to withdraw their
opposition to the motion. (Hear, hear.) Whatever might be
the opinion of the Protectionist party generally, he felt
quite satisfied that not one man in one hundred in this
country would be found to concur in the opinions which
had just been expressed. (Hoer, hear.) Such opinions
should be met by a direct vote; and he extremely regretted
that the noble lord at the head of the government bad not
assented, at all events, to the first resolution. That noble
lord admitted that this country had been insulted by the
three northern powers • yet he said, " Pay your money,
and think no more about it." (Laughter.) The noble
lord (Lord 0. Bentiuck) said the people of Craoow were,
and ought to be, most grateful for the favours be-
stowed by Austria. He (Mr. T. Buncombe) entirely
denied that Ruch was the case. He could assure
the noble lord (Lord 0. Bentinek) that the Austrian go-
vernment was detested in every part of Europe where it was
known. He would just give an illustration of the eon of
education which that government gave to the South of Aus-
tria. In a sort of catechises taught to the scholars he
found the following:—" How ought subjects to conduct
themselves towards their sovereign?" "Subjects ought
to behave towards their sovereign like faithful slaves
towards their master." (Laughter.) " Why ought they
to behave like slaves ?" •• Because the sovereign
is their master, and his power extends over their
property as over their persons. It is a blessing
that God bestows in giving us good and Christian kings and
superiors—(laughter)—yes, it is one of the greatest blessings
he can bestow, when he gives us good and Christian king'
and superiors such as him under whom we have the hap-
pinata to dwell. We ought to pray God He will grant a

long life and a long reign to our beloved sovereign."
(" Hear, beer," and laughter.) What he had read enurele
with the sentiments expressed by the noble lord.
re
(Lasghter.) The noble lord had contrasted the advantages
conferred by Austria with the revolationary manifesto pub-
lished at Cracow on the 22nd of February, but he
had omitted to state that the latter was dirocteu
against the Austrians, Russians, and Prussians who
would not consent to the new order of things. The
manifesto of Cracow declared that the government was
" responsible to the nation;" was any such declaration ever
made by either of the three northern powers? (Hear, hear.)
Extremely did he regret that the revolutionary government
had not succeeded. There were great principles at issue on
the continent of Europe—the principles of absolutism, and
those of constitutional government. How could Frankfort,
Hamburg, and Switzerland, say that their liberties were
worth six months' purchase, if the act in question were not
only sanctioned, but actually admired its the British
House of Commons. Supposing the act to be so necessary fur
the peace of Europe, would the noble lord explain why it
had been committed in such an insulting manner ? Any one
who read the papers on the subject must oome to the eon-
elusion either that our ambassadors at the three courts had
been negligent of their duty, or that they had been grossly
imposed upon by thes, benefactors of mankind. (Bear,
hear.) On February the 23rd, after the occupation of
Cracow, our ambassador at Berlin, the Earl of
Westmoreland, wrote to Lord Aberdeen, " The oc-
cupation of Cracow is ectirely of a temporary nature."
He would go next to St. Petersburg, and there our ambas-
sador was informed that no change in the state of Cracow
was then proposed. Similar declarations bad been received
from the ministers of the other powers concerned. He be-
lieved that the annexation of Cracow had been projected
long before the disturbances, and that time wouldpreve that
the insurrection in Galatia had been got up by the noble
lord's particular friend, tne Emperor of Austria. In that
*thresh, 2,000 persons were murdered, and not one of the
Peasants who committed the murders had been brought to
justice, while it appeared that all the political partizans were
to be tried at Berlin. (Hear, hear.) It was just
two Tears since the Queen had informed parliament
that the Emperor of Russia had, at great personal inconve-
nience, honoured her with a visit. If such were to be the
results of intercourse between crowned heads, he hoped that
his Imperial Majesty would not swain put himself to per-
sonal inconvenience, or disgrace this country with his pre-
sence, at least, so long as Cracow should remain in slavery.
(Cheers.) He thanked his hon. friend the member for
Montrose, for having brought the question under the con-
sideration of the house, and he trusted that such an infrac-
tion of public faith would not remain uncensored by a
British Home of Commons. (Hear, hear.)

Sir R. PEEL: Sir, if I thought that the vivre of the hon.
member who proposed these resolutions were just or right, I
should at once admit that he had proposed a series of con-
sistent resolutions. If we are justified in relieving ourselves
from the obligations which the conventions of 1815 and 1831
imposed upon us, of taking upon ourselves the payment of a
portion of the debt contracted by !twain from the subjects of
Holland, I think the hon. member has pursued a parlia-
mentary and consistent course in prefacing practical resolu-
tions by an emaciation of the =rives on which those tiso-
lutions are founded. And if I agreed in the conclusione to
which he has come in his 4th resolution, I should have no
great difficulty in affirming a proposition, if not identical in
form with those he has proposed, at least corresponding
in substance. But I have the greatest doubt as to the
right of this country to relieve itself from the obligations'
contracted by the conventions of 1815 and 1831, and if
there be any question as to the right, I greatly doubt the
policy of our pointing out that doubt, and deciding it in our
own favour. (Hear, hear.) On thane grounds I differ from
the practical conclusion to which the hon. member has
come. I find that in 1815 we assumed these obligations in
respect to pecuniary matters on two grounds. First, on
account of the exertions which had been made by the
powers who were parties to the treaty of Saumur, in releas-
ing Belgium from France, and annexing it to Holland ; but
secondly, and most materially, as affecting the honour of
England, because, on the conclusion of the peace with Hol-
land we reserved to ourselves those valuable possessions of
Holland, the Cape of Good Hope, Demerara, Essequibo and
Berbies. I think that Lord Castlereagh's letter is almost
decisive on this point, He, who was so conversant with
these transactions, distinctly says: "It appears to me impos-
sible, after the principle laid down in our negotiations with
Holland, that Great Britain should retain the Cape, Deme-
rara, Essequibo, and Berbice, that we could remain without
, some such charge, either to increase funds or as applicable to
fortifications." We net only, therefore, contracted a pecu-
niary obligation for exertions made in a common cause, but
it is also manifest that we received en equivalent for our
pecuniary payment, and, what is mere, at the general con-
gress we reserved in absolute cession, to he held in perpe-
tuity, in consideration of our payment of the Russo-Dutch
loan, the valuable colony to which I have before alluded.
But what further does the treaty say ? There is an express
stipulation that the pecuniary obligation shall endure ; that
the paymentof half the interest of the Russo-Dutch loan shall
continue even in the event of war between the contracting
powers. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, supposing the hon.
member for Montrose to be correct, supposing there to have
been a violation of the treaty of Vienna by Russia, even so
flagrant as to justify our going to war, I contend that, even
after a declaration of war, you are bound to continue this
payment. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME— With another condition, the annexation of
Belgium to Holland.
Sir R. PEEL—No, there was a distinct obligation on the
part of England, even iu the event of hostilities with
Russia, to continue the payment of this debt. It seems odd
then, that if we choose to remain at peace, we should
attempt to violate conditions held binding even in erne of
war. (Hear, hear.) For these reasons I doubt the right of
England to relieve herself from this obligation. Certainly
it is possible, as the noble lord has observed, that a court of
law might give judgment in our favour, but construing the
matter equitably, as to the intentions of the parties at the
time when the treaty was concluded, I deny that morally
or equitably we have a right to relieve ourselves from this
obligation. (Hear, hear. ) And if we have not, I protest at
any time, but more particularly at the present, against
seeking any pecuniary advantage, and thou disen-
titling us to hold the language we wish to ' hold
on this important question. (Hear, hear, hear.) I
am the more anxious that we should equitably and honour-
ably fulfil our engagements, because I differ from the lan-
guage used by the minister of France as to the result of these
transactions. M. Guizot says in his protest: "No power
can free itself from this treaty without at the same time
freeing ethers. France has not given the example of such
attempts 'on the policy of conservatism snd peace; France
has not forgotten the painful sacrifices forced on her in 1815,
and must rejoice at the opportunity now afforded to con-
sult nothing but a provident estimate of her own interest."
I protest against the conduct of the three powers, and also
against the language held by the Minister of France. (Hear,
hear.) I cannot admit that either this country or France is
entitled to consult nothing but a provident estimate of its
own interest. I totally deny that the failure of other
parties justifies us morally or legally in violating a treaty.
(Hear.) And it is because I believe that in the present state
of Europe the strict and honourable adherence to treaties is
the best foundation of peace, and affords the best prospect of
solving the difficulties presented by the aspect of affairs ; it
is because I differ from the minister of France as to his con-
struing of this treaty ; because I differ from him as to our right
to relieve ourselves from =obligation by following the example
against which he protests ; it is on these accounts, that I feel
doubly anxious, that if such language be held by other
powers we should not participate in it, and that if we stand
alone, we shall stand alone an honourable example in the
face of Europe of a strict and honourable adherence to our
obligations. (Cheers.) On these grounds, on grounds of
equity and high policy, on grounds connected with the name
end honour of England, I cannot concur with the hon.
member in taking the first step, or any step, towards reliev-
ing ourselves from this debt. I find that there are some
hon. members whe, concurring with me as to the continued
obligation of the eoavention, still are prepared, while dissent-
ing from the fourth resolution, to concur in the first. Now,
asl said before, I think the resolutions are consistent, pro-
viding that the practical conclusion is correct ; but if the
conclusion be not correct, then the three first resolutions
'tend without any foundation. The hon. member invites us
to declare that we view the conduct of the three powers with
alarm and indignation. I do not think that, as we are not
prepared to take any practical step, we should
judified in coming to such a preliminary resolution.
After a solemn declaration that we viewed the conduct of
the three powers with alarm and indignation, what does the
hon. member praises* that we should do ? I cannot say
that I think that for a popular assembly, the represestative
body of England, it would be dignified after a resolution of
that nature, to remain unprepared to follow it up with
some practical step. The honourable member says
that be deprecates war, and is not prepared to follow up
his resolutions with any practical step. (Hear, hear.) I
think that the noble lord at the head of the government
is fully justified in the distinction he has drawn between the
executive government and a popular assembly. The crown
has entered its protest against the annihilation of Cracow as
a free state. It was the duty of the crown on the part of
this empire to make such representations. The crown is the
legitimate channel through which should be conveyed the
opinion of the country, but I confess I very much doubt,
if we are not prepared to take some practical step,
the policy of the House of Commons agreeing to these
resolutions. I cannot consent, therefore, to vote for them
when we are not prepared to follow them up by some prac-
tical proceeding. Leaving, therefore, this question in the
hands of the crown, on whose part the prime minister has
entered his protest, leaving it on the responsibility of the
executive government, I must dissent from the hon. mem-
bers conclusion, and therefore must negative his resolutions.
At the same time I feel it to be my duty to accompany that
expression of my opinion on these particular points with the
distinct declaration, that I adhere to the conviction I ex-
pressed oa the first day of the session, that the act of the
three powers in extinguishing the independence of Cracow,
in annihilating its existence as a free state, is as opposed to
the stipulations of the treaty of Vienna as it ia to the main-
tenance of public confidence in trestles. (Hear, hear.) I
repeat this opinion with great rehictenee,Theasuse, while I
express it, I retain my opinion also that it is of the utmost
th:e:eaecont:dtenaatr:AlPcrarYtee.teUt..l7l:l: wofiththedeesPraP&o:::mthe'rrillf:::
importance for us to maintain friendly relations with
these three great powers. (Hear, hear.) I. for
one, have viewed with the utmost satisfaction
that amicable understanding which for some years past has
prevailed between this country and France, as fraught with
pro-
as
calculated to tenedatranintghaqtotuig.
uth.thmt huoeig;;r:ihviionthluodi f hue
ir,
d
ing,
but while I rejoiced at our cultivaticg these friendly rela •
times with France, I never wished to cultivate them in any
way that should impair our maintenance also of friendly re-
lawns with the three powers. (Hear, hear.) I never d. sired
to have any such secret understanding with France as should

Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN explained, that he understood the
motion for adjournment to be to Tuesday next, and oat Is
th►t day—the business of which he did not wish to interim* ,
wit b.
After same further explanationii,the debate, on the .sdm
of Sir J. WALSH, was adjourned to Tuesday.

LANDED PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion foe the further consideration of the repvt
on this bill,
The Earl of LINCOLN moved the omiwion of a part et
the 4th clause, relative to the appropriation of the mosey 10.
be lent for improvements.
A collimation ensued as to the objects for which it wadi
be best that loans should be made. Ultimately,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
would accede to the amendment, under the impresdos *m
suflicient powers for all practical improvement. were i
under the bill, without the rc'ention of the word. objededels
Afier some verbal amendments, the report was received.
The bill, as amended, was ordered to be printed, and tad
a third time on Monday, the 22nd instant.
The house adjourned at one o'c:ock.

afford cause of jealpusy to the three p 0,,,„.
with whom for many years we have maintained relatiead
honouiable:to all parties, and most beneficial to Romp. at
large. (Hear, hear.) My own experience teaches me, teed,
our friendly relations with these three powers have been ed..
tirely justified by their conduct towards us—by the hcootir_
able confidence which they Lave, up t this point, exhibited
towards us. It is, therefore, with deep regret lan
bound to state that I cannot concur in the 00.
nion -which the noble lord who spoke just beton
me has expressed, to the effect that the three pun
are entitled to • public acknowledgment of thanks on the
part of this country. (Hear, hear.) I cannot find in the
elaborate arguments of Prince Metternich any justification
of the course which the three powers have pursued. (Hear.)
I take this general treaty of Vienna: I am told that the
liberty which was given to Cracow, was given it by *ma
separate and independent act to which England was not s
party ; that the three powers consented to give to Cracow an
independence which it did Out posirss before, and that
England and France merely stood by, in the humble caps.
city of registering powers, to put their names as witnesses
to a consent, but having no authority confix.d on them to
interfere in the event of any violation of it. Now the 324
article of the Treaty of Paris of May, 1814, under
which the congress of Vienna was held, set e„,e that
the congress of Vienna should be hold for the per.
pose of collecting into one general act all the various
negotiations, en,,;agemeute, couventioas, and stipulations
of the various contracting powers, and giving a Kellen' elu-
tion to them, and a general uniformity to all regulations of
superior and permanent interest. The Gth article of the
general treaty of Vienna sets forth, that the Liven of Cracow
is declared to be • free, independent, and strictly neutral
state, under the protection of Austria, Prussia, and Russia
This is one of the distinct and leading articles of
the treaty, and from its position, we may fsed,
regard it as one of those articles of super 4
mid permanent interest, which were to be Ppecifiully
united in one general act. To this general treaty we find
the name of the minister of England attached, and I cannot
understand how it should be contended that three of the
contracting powers have a right to abrogate this 6th article;
and incorporate Cracow with Austria, without communicat-
ieg with the other parties to the treaty. (Hear, hear)
I can well conceive that Cracow may have broken
it particular engagements; and I at once admit that
Cracow has no right whatever to disturb the peace of the
countries around it. I can imagine that if Cracow be made
the focus of insurrections, by which the peace of the three
powers is affected, the result may become so intolerable ea
to justify the turee powers in looking to some decisive
measure as the only remedy for the evil ; but I contend that
no such step should have been taken wittiest
• previous understanding having been come to
with the other powers. (Hear, hear.) The three
powers, however, have had recourse to no such preliminary
sanction on the part of France and Eugland ; but have
sacrificed the independence of Cracow on grounds even more
dangerous in their tendency than the act itself. (Hear,
hoar). The claim to deal with the convention regarding
Cracow u a separate convention, without reference to all the
parties by whose common ratification the treaty of Vienna was
confirmed, is one which I consider most perilous to the peace
of Europe, is its tendency to shako the public opinion of
Europe as to the validity of great European engagements.
(Hear hear.) Again, it is urged that Cracow is only a
geographical atom ; very true; and on that very account do
I consider that the engagements respecting it should be
most religiously adhered to, that not one stipulation regard.
ing it, made by the five powers, 'head be even modified
without the consent of the five powers. Humbug
is only a geographical atoms Frankfurt is only a geo-
graphical atom, yet will it be said that became
they are only atoms geographically, they are to be aanif
Need to the next strong power which shall choose
to assail them, or either of them) (Hear, hear.) As in this
country there would be far more danger, constitutionally, SO
an attack upon the freedom of a pauper than on that of a
peer, so is Continental Europe, while I do not few
that Austria will attack Russia, or Wurtemberg or
Bavaria Prussia, I do look with apprehension at the
attack of a great state upon • small city, or a small state,
on the plea that the latter is only a geographical atom,
(Hear, hear.) With reference to this country in the matia
I must say, that, looking back to the position which she has
maintained since the commencement of the revolution/ay
war, at the sacrifices she has made, at the disinterested reefs.
tutiona she made upon the settlement of the affairs
of Europe, at the subsidies she paid, at the
manner in which elle alone stood the brunt
of the stupendous efforts of Napoleon, I must say that I
think the treatment to which she has been subjected in this
matter of Cracow has been wholly unmerited on her part.
(Hear, hear.) This was the feeling which evidently pre-
vailed with the Prussian minister. As to the policy 41
the act itself, I think it very questionable. It is • shock
to the public feeling of Europe. That public feeling is in
intelligent feeling. It has no desire to inter-
fere usith the independent action of other states.
The French revolution has read us • useful lesson. It boa
taught us the policy of early reforms--of relinquishing unjust
exemptions, and special privileges held by particular classes.
It has, on the other hand, calmed the wild aspirations after
impossibilities, and taught us to distrust the magni-
ficent premises either of demagogues or of sincere enthusima.
But there did, at the same time, pervade the intelligent and
reflecting classes of the community a sincere desire to witness
the progress of sober, well-considered. and rational reforms,
and there was a feeling of sympathy to be formed for such a
course of proceeding, with one from whom liberal measures
were not generally expected—from him who presided over
the spiritual concerns of a great state. (Loud cheery.) With
respect to Cracow, if the power of these three states had
been absolute and complete—if Cracow had not been placed
in some respect under the guarantee of other powers, an its.
willingness to interfere with the free action of independent,
authorities would, he believed, hare induced that intellie
gent opinion to which be referred to remain quiescent,
and not interfere with the free discretion of those powers,
which were entitled to exercise an absolute authority;
But it was felt that by the treaty of Vienna there was a
public assurance given.—(hear, hear,) —that the city of Cra-
cow should form an example of free institutions and inde-
pendence. The noble lord said that tl:e nationality of Mad
was never dreamed of by those concerned in that treaty. Rs
begged to remind the noble lord that in the correspoadsmied
Lord Castlereagh he would find a distinct suggestion W the
Emperor of Russia that his moral duties compelled Ida
to ameliorate the condition of his Polish subjects, and diet
that object was to be effected by restoring to Poland her
rights as an independent nation. Lard Castlereagh, 1110...
over, did convey to the Emperor of Russia, on the pent 4
Austria and Prussia, that those powers would readily else
quiesce in inch an establishment, The noble lordesesK
find, that in the first article of the Treaty of Vienna, it UlllO
distinctly declared that the Poles, who an respective satiate.
of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, shall obtain a tepemenfin•
tion and national institutions regulated according le Ihe
degree of political consideration that each of the gennea•
ments to which they belong shall judge expedient ad.
proper to grant them." Whether or no the conduct d
Poles in 1831 justified the withholding of those instiaeline
was quite another matter. What he contended was raise
that treaty of Vienna hopes were held out that there waddle
given to Cracow not only a tree government, but With
spect to other Poles, subjects of Austris, Prussia, and
that there would be given that degree of national
separate existence which was implied by reprennatiee en
semblies and national institutions. Again, he repaid
the course which had been adopted; sad again be and
smart that he could not fled any sufficient vindicable it
it, and that the arguments by which it was attempts& it r
justify it were at least as dangerous as the course feel&
(Hear, hear.) He approved of the protest which had bee
~
entered into by the noble lord opposite. He thought tad
that noble lord had acted wisely in determining, la the coda.
tien in which he stood to France, to enter the protest sepa-
rately, and independently upou the part of this country—.
(hear, hear,)—and as he (Sir R. Peel) concurred in the Ma
of it, he felt it his duty to give to the government seek Nap .
port, small as It might he, u the expression of his opi
favour of the courts they had pursued, could give to *ea •
(Loud cheers.)
Sir J. WALSH having moved the adjournmeat of the
debate,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he mill not too strongly a
press his unwillingness to see the debate adjourned. (Load
cheers.) If adjourned to that day, it would greatly sad
injuriously interfere with important government bemuse,
which affected the welfare and safety of one portion of the
kingdom. (Hear, hear.) He had observed that the greatest
inconvenience had been occasioned in past WIDOW by
having bills of importance deferred to • period of the ,
session when the number of members attend* ,
the house was greatly diminished. Still more
did he feel that it was not jut thwart
other house of parliament that queeteons of importune
should be sent before it when there was not a sufficient ,
number of peers in town to deliberate upon the proposed •
legislation. He, therefore, on public grounds must object* .
having the order days for government business interfered with
by motions of lion. members. On the other bank
if they adjourned the debate again to a motion loser •
he felt they would he doing away with the impression vrim
it was likely to produce. He, therefore, hoped the beam
would consent to bring the debate to a close. (Ilea)
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN said that justice could not be dame
to so important a subject without another adjournment. •
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought that the hon. member,
after his attacks on the government for their neglect aim- ,
land, would have been the last in that house to wish to pot-
pone Irish business, in order to give room for the diseemies
of the affairs of Poland, however important they raga SIP
pear to him. (Loud cheers.) The right hon. peadems
then urged with much earnestness the necemityof advisable
without delay the Irish measures before the house. •