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

VEN IN CT, M ARC H_l7, 1847.

Member of that House, influenced by assemblies held at Free-
masons' Hall, which settled at will important questions of which
they had no knowledge—(hlcer, hear).—and, therefore, the
King of Holland, looking only to his legal rights, did not appeal
to Europe. Rd the House think that the King of Holland, if
he were justified in so doing, would not have appealed to
Europe ? He could only expect his legal rights—he held
these rights from the Congress of Vienna, and they were embo-
died in the same stipulations which embodied 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 Vienna? 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.
G, ntleman, and shortly afterwards supported by the sanction
of the Noble 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 treaties, namely,
to exert her 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 lie was laying down urged
by his Noble Friend the Member for Lynn in that House, and
his remarks touched the Right Hon. Gentleman from the po-
sition which he nen occupied. The Right Hon. Gentleman
did rise to reply to his Noble Friend, but he had not once
alluded to the precedents which his Noble Friend had in-
stanced, or to the principles which he had laid down—pre-
cedents which were 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
which seemed really imbued with all its spirit—(Conti-
nued laughter)—had never referred to them. I will ask
(continued the Honourable Member) the Noble Lord opposite
whether he is prepared to deny his protocols ?—(Hear, hear.)
I will ask whether he will produce the secret dispatches which
were sent to Sweden ?—(Cheers.) I will ask him of his
hurried dispatches to Portugal ? 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 Lord Aberdeen, who says that of all the
infamous stipulations in the treaty, the worst was that which
had taken the army from Denmark to give it to Sweden.--
(Laughter.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had given them his
exposition, and they were called upon to attach to it an official
importance. He told them what were the intentions of the
Powers with reference to the free town of Cracow. He (Mr.
Disraeli) would be sorry to misrepresent what had
fallen from the Right Honourable Gentleman, but he believed
that he had said that Cracow should have constitutional insti-
tutions, and be established as a free and independent state.
He (Mr. Disraeli) had had no means of information; he had
had no idea of what had beem intended for the settlement of
Europe, but he presumed that it was the intention of
the great powers of Europe to erect Cracow into a sort
of Normal school—a model constitutional farm, from which,
perhaps, on account of its limited extent, they were to
regenerate Europe—(Laughter)—and prepare them for that
constitutional arrangement which Prussia had lately given
to its subjects. But the Right Honourable Gentleman
had means of information, which he (Mr. Disraeli) could not
snare. That was one great advantage that Members of the
Government had over leas fortunate 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. He thought the French people would be some what
astonished at such a declaration, coming as it did from a gen-
tleman who had been the Under-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
protests 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 was
one thing still more ridiculous—and that was, for 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,who told them that
he had been in Paris, and in a conversation he had with
M. Guiset, 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, be naturally
wished to keep it. Austria wanted it too ; but in the end a
partition took place, and Cracow was declared to be free.
Prince Metternich warned the Emperor of Russia, that Cra-
cow, if allowed to be free, would always he the fneus 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 Am-
tria.—(Hear, hear.) In the face of these solid facts
how could be believe that Cracow was made free for the pur-
pose of establisl-ing a monument of Polish independence, or
as compensation for the loss of the French empire. Such an
idea was an insult to the twenty millions of independent men
of whom the Hon. Member for Bolton had reminded them,
rather than a monument to the freedom of a great people. Great
nations, however, produced great men, and it was not by
millions that the greatness of a nation was to be estimated; and
however deeply, as an Englishman, he might regret the
political event which led to the partition of Poland, he had
no sympathy for the partitioned. Let him remind those gen-
tlemen who attended Freemasons' Hall of an event
which, no doubt, in their warmth and inspiration,
they had forgotten. One hundred years ago, it was
proposed to certain European Powers to partition
Austria, and just look 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 world. Austria had remained
faithful to England in trouble and in peace, and site 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-
verted aristocracy, who had betrayed their country, which had
led to its present situation. The Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Finsbury had expressed great sympathy for what
he was pleased to call the sufferings of Poland. Be
(Mr. Disraeli) had often supported him in mo-
tions showing a sympathy with the working population
of England. He would ask him, why had he thoughtlessly
embarked in the cause of continental liberalism ? There was
no man who felt for the millions but would hesitate before he
adopted a course, the origin of which he could not comprehend.
The remnants of a subverted aristocracy had brought about this
state of things with which so much sympathy appeared to be ex-
cited. it was all very wellforthem to come with an affectation of
sympathy for the people, and to support these men—those very
orders of men who always kept the people as serfs under them,
who never showed any spirit except in promoting the clergy
—that priesthood which, whatever be their faults, were always
more or less, its the early part of the 18th century, the
friends of liberty and of the people. The Hon. Member for
Weymouth, in a speech, that in many parts showed great abi-
lity, and which certainly entitled bins to the attention of that
House, had paid a passing tribute to the pseudo-feeling of the
politics of the day. He appeared deeply to regret the masa•
cres which had taken place in Gallicia. Massacres in 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 be 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
people rose 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. He
was unwilling to detain the Weise by 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 shelves, he hail no doubt, of every Hon. Member
—he referred to Mr. Macgreg,a's work upon the Russian em-
pire, in which it was staled that the condition of the peasants
in Russian Poland was considerably better than it was before
the dismemberment of the country took place. The Hon.
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
savour of Poland, that the inhabitants of Cracow would
not be found to rise against the present authorities.
They wore, in fact, by encouraging these feelings, endanger-
ing the peace of Europe. He thought that by preserving their
friendly relations with France, they had the best guarantee for
the security of their diplomatic arrangements ; and he re-
gretted to find from what was said by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man (Sir R.Poel) that he had no cordial understanding with
that Power. There was one other point to which he wished to
refer. His Right Hon. Friend had noticed the case in one
point, and he would now briefly allude to it. The Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Montrose called upon them to punish
one of the parties who signed that treaty, by depriv-
ing him of a sum to which he was entitled from
an arrangement connected with that treaty. In 1831 and
1836 the
Governmentpaym ent wa was broughtof that
dbaeyfor
was them,s
up-
do antl,
rted by an undisciplined mob, it had the courage to resist the
appeal notwithstanding
which was made to it for its refusal. The Noble Lord
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was then in office, and he
h
uestion of
tthhies
had the moral courage to resist with intrepidity the attempts
made on that occasion, and as he (Mr. Disraeli) understood
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
atthat time to find that the Honourable Gentleman the
f the Russian loan.—(Laughter.) The Hon. Gen-
Member for Montrose had recorded his vote in favour of the
payment o
d pence of every question, and how he could have
tleman prided himself on the attention he paid to the pounds,
shillings,
Disraeli) could not understand. He was aware that he left an
behind him of the reasons which influenced
lost sight of these considerations on that occasion he (Mr.
historical description
his vote,
but he had his doubts whether that would be considered
charge of inconsistency, to which the course
sufficient to'meet the
he now proposedon-
science subjected Hntlear.) That was the me-
orab ep
of twelve years, he had given them
and now, after the lapse
speech—(Laughter)—which he was about to
to his country. Then he voted:that black was white •
another white
confirm by a white vote, and it was to be feared that he was
also going to show the white feather.—(Laughter.) Having
b recorded his feelings on the subject in 1842, he was going to do

penance in 1847 for his juveni:e errors, and to show by a bru-
(um fu/roan that age was not so impotent as to disable him from
cancelling hie 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 clif-
f:rent means than by II udibrastic 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 PALMERSTON said, he should be sorry to damp
the disposition which the Honourable Gentleman who had
just resumed his seat had evinced; but the subject
should be discussed in a fair and temperate manner.
He promised them that, at that late hour, and after
the length to which the debate had extended, 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 hail 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 had just
heard from the Hon. Gentleman opposite, who had told them
that the extinction of Cracow was no violation of the
treaty of Vienna, be 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 Hon.
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 bind the parties to the treaty in
which the insertion was made. He could concede to the Hun.
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 signed
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, to which a certain number of parties were
guarantees, another party became guarantee for something
else, that the ethers 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 Hon. Gentleman's argument—the question was not
whether England and France were bound by any guarantee
to take steps in consequence of the extinction of
Cracow, but whetter 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 fresh
matter in a treaty did or did not invalidate that treaty, because
in the present case the treaties between Austria, Prussia, and
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 wholly unnecessary to rely solely upon the 118th article.
As the treaty itself, in other parts, contained everything ne-
cessary to bear him out in asserting that the extinction of
Cracow was a violation of the treaty.—(Hear, hear.) Let
them put aside, if they would, the 118th article altogether;
they had still the 6th, 7th, Bth, and 9th, which were far more
material. 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
were 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 bad 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 also that Lord Castlereagh, writing to Lord Liver-
pool fl.om Vienna on the 13th, says, " 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 appealed 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 in accordance with
it, without the consent of Great Britain.—( Hear.)
They had bees told that similar things bad been done by Eng-
land, and the case of Belgium was cited as an instatice of her
having acquiesced in an infraction of the treaty of Vienna. As
he understood the Hon. Gentleman, he said that the King of
the Netherlands applied to Austria and Prussia,
and that England and France came in as after parties
to the act. To meet that asserticn, 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 lion. 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 Hus•ia immediately after consented to
it ; but such was not the case, for if they looked to the treaty of
1831, 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-
dence of Cracow and its annexation to the empire of Austria
was in direct violation of the treaty of Vienna.
( Cries of " Hear, hear.") The grounds ota which he
rested his opposition 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 quiescer.t. No one
would contend that the 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
theaddress was a matter of form, and left Hon. 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 resolution which, with his sentiments and
opinions, be 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. With
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 reconstructing its interests, it was
felt by the great Powers, that as some states had made greater
exertions, 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 good Hope, Demerara. Eeequibo. and tierhiett.
The condition of Enelaed doing co seas, that. she should pay
hal the Russian loan. In order to snake this arrangement ad-
vantageous to the Netherland.. it was provided. that if at any
time Belgium separated from Holland, England and Holland
should cease to pay the debt, and the burden :could have
to fall back on Russia. The object of this was to
get the interest of Russia in maintaining the union
of Belgium with Holland, in order to procure. th:
balance of prover in Europe. Then came the revolution i— a
Belgium, with the separation of Belgium from _
separation to which this country very reluctantly consented,
but which was intended and considered to he necessary inortier
to avoid the chance of a general war in Europe. 13 Russia
having consented to that separation at the request of England,
she having been ready in the outset,
frequently in this debate, to bring as has been well stated
her 6:x,010 men to defend
Holland and re-annex Belgium, if it had entered into the
policy of the Powers of Europe to attempt to no that by force
—Russia having been ready to employ her army to re-unite
the two, but hay ng abstained from so doing st the request of
the other Powers, arid having consented, at their request, to
the separation of tee two, it would hehavtebeenmanife.staly
eventmost
s
n
unjust to have inflicted upon Russia penalty
which had not come to pass in consequence of i
fo
any aches 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 for that which was no longer appli-
cable to that state of things, which was that she bound herself
to consent to the separation of Belgium 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 new engagement with regard to Belgium without the
previo • us 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 general
engagement of the treaty of Vienna still existed. He had
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 thesacritices
she had made in co-operating with England.—(Hear, hear.)
But then it is said (continued the Noble Lord) that in the)
convention of 1831 words were inserted—in the preamble that
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 put
those words in, and why they were put in; because that con-
vention was drawn up by myself and the late Count Mastufze-
wich on the part of Russia ; and it appears frcnn 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 on which that convention had
been made with Russia—namely, that it was by the
assistance and cooperation 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 those referred to as constitut-
ing the claim of Russia to compensation, do notwithstanding
still subsist. If we read these words found inserted in the
articles of stipulation to mean, instead of the payment de•
pending on the general 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
Hen. 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 article of the treaty
of Vienna does release Great Britain from the fulfilment 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 the engagement 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 think the feeling of
every Englishman will be, that in a question which involves
the honour of this country that doubt must be given in favour
of the other party, and that it wouid not be becoming 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.—(llear, hear.) I am free to admit that if the case
were plain and palpable, if ii had been shown to demon-
stration, and to the satisfaction of every reasonable and
impartial man, that in the course of circumstances, and in a
fair interpretation of the agreement, we were released, as we
wished to be released, from our engagement, then 1 agree with
my Hon. Friend, the Member for Weymouth, that we should
not, from any feeling of chivalrous geeerosity towards other
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 tuyeselt that there is no
doubt on the subject, and seeing that the greater part of those
who have spoken on this question, however they may differ
from me on that point, all admit that there 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 payment should henceforth
cease and determine.—(Cries of "Hear, bear.") Sir,
I am sure if either powers are found to be wanting in
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 of countries is infinitely augmented
by the moral respect which is attached to them; and I
should hope, therefore, that this House will not be led, in any
case, even if doubtful, to risk the reputation of England in a
matter of good faith, and that my Honourable Friend, 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 most
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 most unfortunate if that opinion were
exposed to the danger of being misunderstood, or even a little
misunderstood elsewhere, and if my Hoe. 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 " Near. 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 maintains, 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 on 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 better 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 for
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. Hume rose at the same
moment, but ultimately
Mr. J. O'CONNELL was heard, and he said that his ob-
ject its rising was to protest, in an assembly of freemen 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 only on the debate, which had been
partaken in by Members on all sides of the He 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 Common- had declared their belief that
the suppression of Cracow was a gross violation of: the law of
nations, anti he trusted ina.t this expression of the public opi-
nion would team the despots by whom that law had been bro-
ken, that it could not 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 Hon.
Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, with feelings of admira-
tion. These sentiments and that language did the Right
Hon. Gentleman immortal honour; while the speech of the
Hon. Member for Shrewsbury—but he would leave him to the
benefits which history would confer upon his memory.—
(Laughter.) When he was taunted with having 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 Administration, 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. Bentinck ) and the Honourable 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 had 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 sides 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.
The remaining orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at a Quarter-past One o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.
(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)
TUESDAY, MAACK 16.
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
contracts with the Maryport 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 Coin-
panics, 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 lease 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 egad to.