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

from treaties in chief. But if it were wrong for Austria,
Russia, and Prussia to break the treaty of Vienna with
respect to Cracow, on what ground could the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government justify the conduct of
Great Britain in her efforts which she made for the
separation of Belgium from Holland ? for, by the 73d
article of the treaty of Vienna the King, of the
Netherlands was recognised as the head of the king-
dom of Belgium and the United Provinces.—(Hear.)
What, then, was the course taken when Belgium rose in
revolt against Holland? 'Were there not several poten-
tates' signatures in chief to that connexion, yet neither
Sweden, nor Spain, nor Portugal, were invited to the
conference by which the separate existence of Belgium
was recognised. France was a party to this separation,
but not by virtue of her having signed the treaty of
Vienna, but in consequence of her troops having
been then across the frontier. The Noble Lord (Pal-
merston) said that when the articles of a treaty were
signed in chief, the various articles engrafted into that
treaty were attested and ratified by that signature.
Now, he should like to know whether Austria, Russia,
Prussia, Sweden, Portugal, or Spain, concurred in the
arrangement with regard to the separation of these coun-
tries ? Instead of the Emperor of Russia concurring in
the arrangement, he offered to send 60,000 men to Bel-
gium to drive the French over the frontier again. In the
one case, then, there were three parties in chief concur-
ring, and in the case of the separation of Belgium and
the Netherlands, there was no attempt made to obtain
the assent of the parties to the original treaty, and they
did not wait for the concurrence of three out of four of
the parties, who had agreed in chief for the settlement of
the low countries. If England wished to set the example of
keeping the faith of treaties. She ought to have acted
differently with respect to that management, and she had
no pretence now for saying that Russia, Prussia, and
Austria, had violated the treaty of Vienna. Anything
more contrary to the truth had never been stated than
that the spirit of the treaty of Vienna had been violated.
They had the correspondence of Lord Castlereagh to
show that no such thing was contemplated by the treaty
of Vienna as the security of the independence of Poland
—it was to secure what had now been effected—the an-
nexation of Poland to Austria. So earnest was the
Emperor Alexander, with regard to this matter, and
so great was the desire of Prussia, France, and England
to prevent his designs, that a secret treaty was entered
into between these powers on the 3d-of February to de-
feat the intentions of the Emperor of Russia, whilst Prus-
sia refusedito give up possession of any portion of the terri-
tory. It was said, however, that though Lord Castlereagh
was not permitted to enter into the discussion with regard
to the arrangement for the settlement, yet that England
was a party to the treaty of Cracow. Now, for the satis-
faction of those who said that this treaty was for the
maintenance of the nationality of Poland, he would read
a few extracts from the correspondence of Lord Castle-
reagh and the Emperor Alexander. The Noble Lord
having read these extracts, proceeded to ask where any
anything was to be found in that correspondence to show
any desire to secure the nationality of Poland. Cracow
belonged to Austria from 1795 to 1809, and it was only
in the latter year that it was wrested from Austria by
Napoleon, and constituted into the Duchy of Warsaw by
the treaty of Reighenbach. It was the object, there-
fore, of Castlereagh, in that correspondence, to
restore things to what they were in 1809. So
far as Cracow was concerned, Austria, Russia, and
Prussia would not permit England and France to inter-
fere in the arrangement, and this he considered must be
evident to any one, from the curt reply of the Emperor
Alexander to Lord Castlereagh, on the 21st March,
1814. Now the Treaty of Cracow was not signed till
the 3d of May following, and was ingrafted into the
general treaty of Vienna in July afterwards. How
came it then that the Noble Lord, when he received that
communication from Sir Richard Gordon, did not remon-
strate ; but it was not until afterwards that he did
so when he had ascertained that Cracow was to be
absorbed in the power of Austria. having thus
shown that in this settlemen the wishes of
England had been consulted, he would inquire
how far the wishes of the Cracovians themselves had
been consulted. It would be remembered that the city
of Cracow was not represented at all in the treaty of
Vienna, although there were representatives from Ham-
burgh, and Lubeck, and Bremen, and even from the
Jews of these places ; still Cracow was not repre-
sented, because she was considered in the light of a
neutral party. The three great Powers, who were di-
vided as to which Power she should be annexed, were
obliged to throw aside their petty squabbles, to meet
the immense force of Napoleon, and they agreed to
allow Cracow, for the time being, to hold the rank of a
free city. The Hon. Member opposite, had seen fit to
tax him (Lord George Bentinck) with misrepresenting
facts, when he stated that the news of the annexation
of Cracow had been received with acclamations and il-
lumination.—(Hear.) He would show the House that
the Cracovians had reason to rejoice that they were
freed from the reign of terror which would have
been, if Poland had succeeded ; and that they were glad
to be placed under the gentler rule of Austria ; and he
would, in the first place, read the declaration of the
Emperor of Austria, to show that the Emperor did not
threaten with courts martial and with executions the
persons who had joined committees, or any societies
whatever. (The Noble Lord read at length the declara-
tion of the Emperor of Austria.) Was that not a
pleasing prospect to those persons who admired well-
regulated
.Governments ? But he would inquire how
these promises had been fulfilled, and he would quote
authorities which might be received with more confi-
dence by Hon. Gentlemen opposite than some he had
already quoted in the course of that evening. He would
quote from the correspondent of the Times newspaper,
and from the correspondent of the Republican paper of
Hamburgh. The Noble Lord proceeded to read ex-
tracts from that correspondence to show that the social
and political condition of the city and territory of Cra-
cow would be improved under the Austrian domination.
The Noble Lord then read a letter from a gentl( man in
Cracow, which stated that it was much for the advantage
of Cracow that the annexation had taken place, as the
expenditure of the republic exceeded their income, and
that the people of Cracow would free themselves from
300,000 dollars of taxation annually, and also obtain
the abolition of the import duties upon Austrian pro-
duce. The country would also be freed from the im-
mense military force which they were obliged to maintain
gratis, and a number of Austrian capitalists would settle
in the country, and render it prosperous. Prosperity
would therefore be the lot of the Cracoviennes; and he
would not consent to brand the Emperor of Russia and
the King of Prussia with having broken the faith of the
treaty of Vienna. He regretted that the First Lord of
the Treasury should have charged three crowned heads
with such paltry motives, upon such slight foundation,
and he thanked the mild paternal Government of the
King of Prussia, and of the Emperor of Russia; ho was
glad that they had given way to the mercy of decision,
and that they had smothered this den of revolutionists,
which threatened to keep the whole of Europe in hot
water. From all these considerations, he was prepared
to move a direct negative to these resolutions.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he was not aware whether the
feelings of the three crowned heads would be as warm towards
the Noble Lord as his were towards them.—( Hear, hear.)
The opinions of the Noble Lord ought to be met by a direct
vote of the House of Commons. He had a letter from a gen-
tleman, not written from Vienna, but from Cracow itself.
He had seen a gentleman who was there at the time itself, and
had remained there for three days after the revolution, and
his opinions were very different from those which they had
just heard uttered.—(Hear, hear.) That gentleman
had informed him, when the declaration was made public
it was done amidst the tears of the women, the
mursners of the men, and the thunder of the Austrian artillery.
He had heard of illuminations, and he knew of people who
would have preferred illuminations to having their windows
broken, and Cracoviennes preferred illuminations to having
their throats cut. The inhabitants of Cracow had sworn
allegiance to the Austrian Government, and he would say that
that dissatisfaction existed with regard to the Austrian Govern-
ment, when it was known. He would give an instance of the
sort of education which the Austrian Government gave to the
youth of Austria, and, of course, they would in future
extend it to the youth of Cracow. The following
was the catechism read in the schools:—Q. How ought
subjects to conduct themselves towards their sovereign ?
A. Subjects ought to behave towards their sovereign
like faithful slaves before their master. Q.—Why ought they
to behave like slaves? A.—Because the sovereign is our
master, and his power extends over our property as over our
persons. We feel the blessing God bestows on us in giving us
a good and christian king and superior.—(Laughter and
cheers.) Yes, it is one of the greatest blessings he can be-
stow upon us when he gives us a good and Christian king—
such as him under whom we have the happiness to live, and we
ought to pray to God to give a long life and reign to our be-
loved sovereign. The Polish Government, as it was to be esta-
blished, was to be absolutely answerable to the nation. He
should like to know whether the Governments of the three
Powers who had seized Cracow were answerable to the nation.
—( Hear, hear.) In the address to the Poles, it was urged,
that if the twenty millions of Poles were to unite, no Power
could subdue them. Every Pole under the new system of
Government should be made to provide for his wife
and family, and the crippled and sick should be sup-
ported by the community. It prayed the Divine bless-
ing on their arms, and concluded with a recommendation
that their arms should not be sullied or stained by plunder or
murder. An oath was also to be administered, by which each
Pole swore to devote himself, life, and property, to the. cause.
He ( Mr. Duncombe) wished that they had succeeded instead of
btheir
the
Noble
o ppr e s o s.
Lord Hetha
tdid
eveningnot
wouldthat
at the
all opinionheth
ee expressed
p resse
oppress-
ing
powers. Under such a system as the one adopted
Aus-
tria, what guarantee could be given that Saxony sor waxer-
land would preserve their liberties for six months longer, or
that they would not be taken by these benefactors of mankind?
In the present case, the ambassadors of this country must have
been duped by these powers, and that greatly aggravated the
insult to the honour of this country. The ambassador at
Berlin, the Earl of Westmoreland, in a letter to the Earl of
Aberdeen, dated the 22d of February, had stated that the oc-
cupation of Cracow was merely of a temporary nature, and
only destined to last so long as the security of the Govern-
ment required it. How would the Noble Lord explain
that? A letter from Mr. Bloomfield, at St. Peters-
burgh, to the Earl of Aberdeen, stated, that in consequence
of a rumour having reached him that it was in contemplation
to make some changes affecting the independence of Cracow
he made inquiries, and was answered that no idea of any mo-
dification was as yet entertained. A letter from Mr. Magennis,
dated Vienna, March 17, stated that Prince Metternich had
informed him that no mention had been made of any specific
points which were to be discussed in an approaching confer-
ence with referenne to Poland. but he had no reason to be-
lieve that any permanent military occupation of Cracow was
contemplated by that Cabinet, and he had further said that
that which had been consecrated by a solemn treaty, forbade
any such such supposition.—(Loud cheers.) A dispatch from
Warsaw, from a Colonel —, stated that it had been in con-
templation to occupy Cracow for the n.xt two years, and that
that idea was raised before the present disturbances in Gallicia,
or before the revolutionary manifesto at Cracow was published.
Here would show, and, indeed, here would prove, that the dis-
turbances had been got up by the Emperor of Austria and
Prince Metternich. He should like to ask why, when nearly
2,000 persons were murdered, the peasantry who committed
this murder had not in any single instance been apprehended,
while all the political insurgents had been taken, and now
awaited their tai lat Berlin? The real culprits had escaped,
and those who were comparatively innocent were taken.
Two years ago the Emperor of Russia visited her Majesty,
and subsequent to that event, her Majesty, in an address from
the throne, stated that as the Emperor of Russia had undertaken
to journey to thin country at . counderable to