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

THE SUNS

persons, describing the condition of the people prior to the insur.•
rect ion and outbreak in Gallicia, and the conduct of the Austrian
: •i, , t.il, Tailirisa p,...aFnrtry
1 lit 1,, ticY;
odium had been endeavoured to be affixed urn the manif,sto
of the revolutionary government. He did not-wish to defend
that document, but he thought that soma allowances should be
trade for the circumstances in which the people and'the Go-
vernment were placed. He trusted the House would excuse
him for trespassing so long on its attention, and he would con-
clude by expressing a hope that the Hon. Member would with-
draw his resolutions,. and rest satisfied with the strong expres-
sion of opinion which they had called forth.
Air. S. '!'BRIEN said, that in reply to the Noble Lord whe
.

had challenged them to give an instance of the vi,lation of treaties
on the tart of.Eng!and he would name an instance. He asked
the Noble Lctrtcdidshe not violate the treaty of i 782, which she
had entered into with Ireland—a treaty as solemnly and for-
mally entered into as that of Vienna. With regard to the
question before the House, he thought that there could be no
doubt that the northern powers had violated the treaty of
Vi,,nna. The Noble Lard ( 13entinek) attempted to defend
them on the ground that they had been guilty of former in-
fractions of that treaty, but that, in his opini,,n, rather aggra-
vated than extenuated their offence. The N Lard the
secretary for Foreign Affairs had ridiculed the idea that
the suppression of Cracow had taken its rise
from the apprehension entertained by the northern
powers that this was necessary to their security.
The effect, however, of this annexation, was to deprive the
minor states of Europe of all confidence in the stability of
present arrangements. He should like to know from the Noble
Lord the Foreign Secretary, why a diplomatic agent had not
been appointed for Cracow, agreeably to the premise given in
1836? If this had been done, the scenes that had taken place
in Gallicia and Cracow would never have occurred. The

Noble Lord, instead of taking the course which he ought to
have taken under the circumstances, had paralysed the in-
fluence which this country would have had, by em-
broiling the friendly relations which existed between
them and France. The French press had now taken
up the ease of Poland, and represented it to the Govern-
ments of Europe in its true colours, and he trusted
France and England by their co-operation, and determined
efforts, wquld endeavour to circumvent the policy by which
it was sought to keep a great nation in a condition of perpetual
degradation.
Mr. B. ESCOTT rose to support the resolutions sub-
mitted for the approval of the House, by the Hon. Member
for Montrose. Two questions had been raised during the
debate. The first, whether the suppression of Cracow, by the
three Powers, was, or was not, a violation of the treaty of
Vienna; and, secondly, whether after the treaty had been
violated, as it had been, this country ought to continue to pay
a large sum of money to one of these Powers which in the opi-
nion of many was only contingent upon the strict observance
of the treaty. He, for one, was content to leave the vindica-
tion of the honour of the country to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs, in accordance with the sentiments of the speech from
the Throne at the opening of Parliament. He was, therefore,
unwilling to enter upon the discussion of that part of the
subject; but on the record he thought they ought unhesitat-
ingly to express their opinion, especially after the speeches de-
livered that evening by the Hon. Gentlemen the Members for
Bute and Weymout h. One party in that House was in favour
of Russia receiving the money, but another party held that the
people of this country ought not to be called upon to pay the
money, unless it was clearly payable. The Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Bate, after making one of the clearest state-
ments ever made in that House, that they were not liable to pay
the money ; but he followed it up by one of the weakest argu-
ments he had ever heard, namely, that although it was not due,
lie could not vote in favour of discontinuing its payment. There
was, however, but one Member who had taken a straightfor-
ward view of the matter—he meant the Noble
Lord the Member for Lynn. If he was correct
in stating that the three Powers were consulting
their own safety and the safety of their subjects in suppressing
Cracow, and that the act was no invasion, and that we ought
to pay the money; but still he admitted that the payment of
the money doper.ded upon the observance of the treaty, and that
if it had been broken, he should, nevertheless, vote in favour of

the payment of the money. All he could make of the Noble
Lord's speech was, that one-half of it went to show that they
ought not to pay the money, and the other that they ought to
pay it. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bute laid down

two propositions—first, that the payment of the money de-
pended upon the oonstruction to be put upon the treaty of
Vienna; and, secondly, that the annexation of Cracow was a
gross violation of the treaty of Vienna; but then he pro-
ceeded to state that although the treaty had been violated, they
must still pay the money to Russia.—( Hear, hear.)
His argument was simply this, that where two eon-
diti,,tis were made between two parties, and one broke his
portion of it ; the fulfilment of the agreement was not binding
upon the other. He (Mr. Etcott) was at a loss to understand
why this country was to pay large sums of money to foreign
Powers which were not due. It simply resolved itself into a
question of pounds, shillings, and pence ; but he had remarked
that whenever that argument was brought forward it was
treated with derision—as a part of the subject with which one
ought not to deal.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. Hume.) But, in
his opinion, it was the most important question of all.—( Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Weymouth
said it was a mean thing to pay an unjust demand from fear of
a foreign Power—( Hear, hear)—that it was the very consum-
mation of meanness to do so ; and he wished Honourable
Gentlemen who differed with him would point out
how it was incumbent upon this country to pay the
money to Russia, when she had violated the
faith of treaties, and, consequently, released them from the
obligation which' the treaty of Vienna had imposed upon
them. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth
produced a great impression on the House by reading the
treaty of 1815, under which the money was formerly paid ; but
he ought to have known that the money was payable even in
1832, and that he told the Ministers then in office, that, until
they could get an indemnity from Parliament to pay it, that
they would not be justified in doing so. 'I he Act passed in
1832 repealed altogether the stipulation of 1815, and the Act
of 18!.32. showed that the Noble Lord was correct. when he

- - ---- - ....... ......_
stated that the payment of the money was dependant upon
Russia adhering to the faith of the treaty, and that the satety
of the last remnant of Poland should not be interfered with.
Lord Castlereagh, to whom history would do justice, for he
was a nobleman of great powers, had, in the
opinion of the Duke of Wellington, acted most
judiciously in his negotiations with the three Powers, as he bad
stated, •' the t it was a masterstroke of policy to bind Russia by
a pecuniary obligation to observe the faith of treaties." There.
fire he (Mr. Escort) was correct in saying that the question
simply resolved itself into one of pounds, shillings, and pence.
But now, having it in their power to act justly—having justice
on their side— to give some effect to the eloquent protest of the
Noble Lord, they were told that the House of Commons had
nothing to do with foreign affairs—" here is a protest from the
Queen's Minister—respect the Executive Government." Now,
he wanted to help the Executive Government; but if they con-
tinued, after what occurred, to pay the money, the Minister of
Russia would no doubt say,—" If this is the nature of your
pretest, I wish you would do so in a similar strain as
often as you think proper." Certainly they would not be
respected in Europe if they paid a purely unjust demand ;
if it was just, let them by all means pay it, but if it was unjust
let them manfully refuse to do so. Some seemed to think that
the question was one of war, if they refused to pay the money,
but he considered it simply a question whether the treaty had
been violated or not. It was not a war question, but the dan-
ger of war was not created by refusing to pay a demand which
was unjust. Yet if any of the three powers were disposed to
go to war with Great Britain, he thought they would hold out
a direct encouragement for them to do so, if they were to pay
the demand under such circumstances, and particularly if they
paid it—as they must if they paid it at all—in the shape of
hush money. The Noble Lord the Member for Lynn
lard made one observation for which he thanked
him. The Noble Lord seemed to think that his
opinions peculiarly fitted him for the head of the
" country party," as it was termed, but the speech which he had
delivered on this subject, clearly showed that the opinions of
the country were against the country party, which he pro-
fessed to lead, as he had declared that he would meet the
motion of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) by a decided negative.
He would have no moving of the previous qui stion, and he
honoured him for his determination, because the question was
one which ought not to be met by such a motion. Her Ma-
jesty's Ministers were of the same opinion. but the Noble
Lord ( Bentinck) said they were all wrong in their con-
clusions, as there had been no violation of the treaty ; as
the three Powers, he said, had done their duty, and there-
fore, he shouLl stand up for the payment of the money,
still, he must vote with those who supported the resolutions,
that the question should be put by the Speaker, and having
agreed to that motion, they would then come to the resolu-
tions ; but how Hon. Gentlemen who considered that the treaty
had been violated could, on the division, tgo into the other
lobby, he was quite at a loss to understand. He re, eated that
the queation•must be viewed as one of pounc's, shillings, and
pence, as the question of honour'depended upon its being
viewed in that light. They had had to borrow 8,000,000/. for
the relief of the destitute poor of Ireland ; therefore, that was
no time to continue the responsibility of a debt of 7,000,000/.
when the other parties to the treaty had broken its conditions,
and taken away their liability to pay it. The plea of honour
was nonsense, and was one which a Minister could not
avail himself of, if it was not founded in justice.
They were told that the colonies which they still held were
csrnpelled to pay this money. He should wish some Member
to get up and say that it compelled them to pay it to Russia—
for such was not the case; they were not bound to pay one
sixpence to Russia upon account of their colonies. Well then,
was the House of Commons about to vote the payment of this
money on no other grounds than those which they heard just
stated. The Noble Lord was not singular, as it had been
observed, in his opinions. He had no doubt that the Member
for Shrewsbury supported the views which he had taken, and
he had no doubt but that they should hear him gravely argue
in the same strain respecting the wisdom of the Austi ian and
Russian Cabinets, but he did not blame them, they were at least
consistent. But how was the House of Commons, who condemned
their views, to justify its own conduct. It was Letter upon
such occasions as the present to speak the simple truth.
Hear, hear.) There was one great disadvantage in that
Government which was vulgarly called Whig, namely, in any
question such as that under discussion, in anything which bore
upon its face the character and nature of a job, it was sure to
be supported by there generel opponents—( Hear, hear)—and
there was one great advantage derived from that other class
vulgarly called Tories, who were sure to be opposed by those
who in office never brought any of those buds and flowers of
patriotism which it required some other incentive to produce
than the reigns of power. The Noble Lord the First
Minister of the Crown would have the support of the former,
but he would tell him that the present was a question of great
constitutional policy, and one which the people would take up.
The late Minister had quitted office, not by reason of the great
liberal schemes which he had propounded, but because he
thought to lay his hands upon the constitutional Lberties of a
part of the United Kingdom. The House of Commons de-
feated that attempt, and the Noble Lord had scarcely been
placed in power before he showed symptoms of a similar ten-
dency—( Hear, hear)—by the introduction of an unconstitu-
tional measure. But the Noble Lord took time to consider;
he took counsel of his own reason—of his better judgment—
ansl the result was, that he threw aside the weaisass of oppres-
sion. The present was another great constitutional question,
and he would find, that on this question, he had enemies
among his own household, and that his hest friends Were not to
be found among his servile followers.—(Cheers.)
Mr. SMYTHE—As a purely financial question the subject
of our debate has been so completely disposed of in the mas-
-1
terly tracings of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark,
that I do not think any Hon. Gentleman can successfully
maintain that, as a matter of mercantile and commercial fair-
ness. we are not responsible for the performance of the obliga-
tions into which we have entered. But, Sir, though that may
be my opinion, and though I differ from the Hon. Member for
Montrose, I have many misgivings as to the opinion stated on
this question by the First Minister of the Crown. 'I he Noble
Lord laid down, with all the gravity which belongs to such a
high constitutional authority, that discussions on matters solely
of foreign policy were seldom attended with any prac-
tical advantage, and he illustrated this positien by re-
ferring to the annual protests in favour of Poland,
which had been well called mere ", sword thriests in the
water," but in which the French Chambers delighted to
indulge. It is impossible not to feel the value of this
counsel, and the warning of this example. It is impossible
not to remember how little has been done for the Polish nation,
notwithstanding such declarations of sympathy.—( Hear, hear. )
It is impossible for some of us not to call to mind that truth
wrung from the dying agonies of Poland, and which has since
grown into a I roverb, when she said, speaking of her heroic
• insurrection of :31, " God is too high, and France is too far."