The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-05 00:00:00

Cracow should be guaranteed; certainly such an assertion at
once destroyed the argument that this was a domestic question,
with which this country had no right to deal. The cor
Arilispea.
n
dence between Lord Castles, ash and the late Emperor exn
•
der of Russia, showed as clearly that the matter wasuctomnossitdered
by both Russia and England, as a question of the
im-
portance. No one of the States who were party
a tatotrathnesatnrteinanty,
of Vienna, had a right to pick out one part u
and to say, " That is of no importancehut o; we will take what
consulting any of
steps we think proper respecting it
the parties to the treaty.
tm(e_ate'arvrit, hear.) Those who fa-
voured the conduct of the three powers, urged in support of
their proceedings, that the treaty had not been strictly
ogielasnhdad; tathkaetn
npelrateaei—n
lynawmaeslya,
adhered to, and that materialfro chanties
the separation of Belgium from
material alteration, but thneanirtesdhovualldid
untilbeb theorne in
imliendof thatthe
that separation was not considered
powers had ratified this departure from the strict letter of the
treaty. In looking at the suppression of Cracow, they must
not simply view the number of souls which it contained, ner
the number of acres it covered, but as a great transaction the
object of which was to put a stop to the nationality of Poland—
( Hear. ) There was no pretence for saying that any under-
standing was come to at the time of framing the treaty with
the three powers, that an advantage was afterwards taken of it
for the purpose of destroying the last remnant of Polish inde-
pendence, and it was ridiculous to say that the securing
of a proper arrangement of police oa the frontier
was any pretence at all for violating a solemn treaty.
He hoped that within those walls there would be no more dif-
ference of opinion than there was out of them, namely, that
for the sake of a minor policy, the great principle upon which
the peace of Europe was based, was sacrificed. He desired to
express his hopes that the Emperor of Russia would recall the
noble sentiments which animated his distinguished predecessor,
and give security to his empire by the extension of fresh liber-
ties to his subjects. With the expression of this hope, he
would sit down, trusting that the first resolution would meet
with a hearty concurrence.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, without entering into the
general argument of my Hon. and Noble Friend, I will shortly
state to the House the view which I take of the motion which
has been laid upon the table of the House. With regard to
the argument which has been stated, that the three powers
were not justified by treaty—by the treaty of Vienna, in con-
cluding for themselves whether the constitution of the free state
of Cracow should be maintained or not ; with regard to that
argument, I cannot but concur in the view taken by my Ho-
nourable Friend who made, and my Honourable Friend who
seconded the motion. I think it is clear, from the words of
the treaty of Vienna, that a violation of it has taken place.
I think it is clear from the articles of the treaty itself, that
the words which gave a constitution to Cracow, were not an
immaterial part of the treaty, but evinced one of the prin-
cipal relations under which it was made at the conclusion of
a bloody and destructive war. Nor can I think that the
arrangements which planed the Duchy of Warsaw under the
dominion of the Emperor; of Russia, the stipulations of
• which formed the basis of a long and singular correspondence
between the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this country and
the Emperor of Russia, I cannot think that these arrangements,
which left one single particle of the country free and inde-
pendent, were immaterial and insignificant. It cannot but
appear, I think, that however small the territory may be—
however small the population of that place may be—yet the
treaty formed at first between these three powers, and then
by all the powers who were concurring parties to the treaty
of Vienna, by which that city should be free arid independent
—meant that that freedom and independence should leave
to Poland—should leave to some part of the Polish
nation a separate existenee.—( Hear.) And that, giving
up much—admitting much to the Emperor of Russia, it was
yet a confirmation of the principle that some part of the Polish
nation should retain its independence and separate existence.
For these reasons. therefore, I think that if its existence, as a
city, has been secured by a general treaty. whatever com-
plaints the three powers had to make, that Cracow was the
focus of disturbance and revolution, and that intrigues there
found a centre and a means of organization ; and that by the
rise from that small city, of insurrections against the three
surrounding powers, it was impossible to preserve those powers
from those insurrections; that if these reasons were good and
valid ones, they ought to have been stated to England and
France—( Hear, hear)—and that England and France should
have been invited to a conzress, or some species of conference,
in which their consent should have been asked, to put an end
to that state of things which these three powers declare to
be intolerable, and which they could no longer per-
mit with safety to themselves. So much, I think
Sir, is clear from the papers which record the
general transactions of the treaty of Vienna; and so much I
think is clear from the passage which my Noble Friend oppo- •
site read from a statement of the Prussian Minister of Foreign
Affairs, and in which he admits that if the arrangement of the
treaty of Vienna were to be altered, a correspondence with
England and France ought to be the necessary consequence.
In the next place, I think with regard to the reasons
which are given by these three powers, and which
are stated more especially by Prince Metternich on
behalf of the Court of Austria, that these reasons appear
to me not sufficient for! their violent proceedings.--(Cheers )
I cannot myself imagine that then s could not have been pre-
cautions talc •n which, however they confined and limited the
actions of the free and independent city of Cracow, could yet
have secured that its name and its independence should be
maintained, and that all danger from refugees, and from its
being made a place where strangers from all parts of the
land planned conspiracies, could have been avoided and pre-
vented. It does seem to me most extraordinary that this
little state—this mere atom - surrounded by Russia, by Aus-
tria, and by Prussia—by these great and mighty monarchies--
each with vast military forces—each with abundant means of
having the command of all the roads leading to Cracow, and
having the power to march troops at any moment into the
city of Cracow, having themselves certain rights, which were
constituted and "assigned to them by the treaty of Vienna--
that they should find themselves so powerless as to be unable to
prevent Cracow from being dangerous to their power and se
eurity. I cannot think that these three powers did earnestly,
vigilamly and sincerely, use all the powers which they had, in
order to prevent Cracow from becoming the means of disturb-
ance; and it cannot but be suspected, especially in the latter
part of the transaction, that when the Government was dis-
solved in Cracow, and disorganisation had taken place, it was
to them not an unwelcome eircumstance—(Cheers)—tha.t is,
not altogether unealateable to these three powers—that they
were able to see that all the means of good were gone in Cra-
eow—that it was in a state of anarchy and disorder—and that
nothing remained but the title of independence. I think,
therefore, Sir—both on the grounds of the treaty of Vienna,
and the importance of the stipulation with regard to Cracow,
and with regard to the reasons urged for its extinc-
tion—that, in the first place, it was a manifest violation of the
treaty of Vienna, and I think that if the question hail been
discussed in a congress, or in a conference aiming the powers,
there is no sufficient proof, as far as tee have hitherto seen,
that these three powers would have been able to persuade the
minds of England and France that there were sufficient rea-
sons for the course they adopted. Neither, Sir, am I con-
vinced, be the instances which are given by the Minister of
Austria, that the various stipulations of the treaty of-Vienna,
which have been altered by mutual arrangement of the princi-
pals concerned, and whose territories were affected by that
treaty—(such as Coburg and others, and which have been
transferred in consideration of some increase of authority to the
prnscipale, or in mutual convenience with regard to their
territories, for the purpose o! giving a fair equivalent
to each, and, at the same time, making a more con-
venient arranwernent for all)—are breaches of that treaty.
They are natural and easy alterations of the treaty, which might
take place, without any p• r on bsing able to call them infrac-
tions of the treaty, and they bear in my mind no resemblance
to the one great and leading matter of stipulation in which all
the great powers of Europe are irrer, steel. How can it be
said with regard to this great nation—supposing that some
arrangement is made between Austria and Prussia for the ex-
tinction of Saxony—that it is not to be consulted ? These
great powers are asked " How can you only two parties to
the treaty of Vienna, agree to extinguish that state ?" And
what answer would it be to say that some petty territory had
bi en divided between two or three principals, and that no pro-
test tvas made with respect to that ? Sir, I again say, that I
consider the:extinction of this free state a violation of one of the
main and leadine parts of this treaty. But, Sir, my Hon. Friend
is not satisfied with the protest which my Noble Friend the
Secretary of State for Foreign siffiirs has directed to be de-
livered to the Courts of the three powers print pally con-
cerned, he wishes this House to agree to certain reso-
lutions. With regard to the first of these resolutions, my
Noble Frit!, d opposite, tsho seconded the resolution, is in com-
plete accordance with the motion, but with regard to the last
of these resolutions, he is not so far agr ed to it, and he
doubted if that House ought to adopt it. Now, Sir, with re-
gard to the first resolution—" That this House views with
alarm and indignation the incorporation of the free city of
Cracow to the dominions of the Emperor of Austria, to the
manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna." I should
bee the House to consider that there is a very great
difference between that which has been done by my
Noble Frieud in obedience to her Majesty's commands, and that
which is pi °posed to this House in this resolution. It is the
prerogative of the Crown to make treaties, and to carry on the
correspondence and relations of this country with all f !reign
Powers. Every treaty, every engagement, is carried on in the
name of the Sovereign, and by the command of
the Sovereign. If a treaty had been signed and re-
vised, as this treaty has been signed and revised, by the Minis-
ters of England, in the name ofGeorge the Third
and the Prince Regent, and any
violation or contra-
vention of the treaty should take place,
with
person on whom it
devolves to make any representation' the
regarfd to any
protest is obviously the Minister of the Sovereign
ao England,
With regard to the functions of this House, it is rernatrirgeelTellf t.
different nature. When a treaty of importance is made or con_
firmed, it is usual for the Minister of the Crown to come to
this House and to ask for its concurrence. If a treaty of sub-
sidy or commerce is signed, and the interference of Parliament
is thought necessary, then the course is for the Minister of the
Crown to come before the House for its sanction and concur..
rence to the same. But to affirm resolutions expressive of an
opinion on the subject-matter of a treaty, this is not the usual,
nor is it the regular course of proce >ding. It is not advisable
that the House of Commons should affirm resolutions respecting
our relations with foreign Powers, unless they intend to follow
those resolutions up with measares which are to be given effect
to by the Executive. The usual course is for the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs to advise her Majesty as to the course
to be taken in regard to the violation of arty treaty with
foreign Powers.—( hear, hear. ) For my part, I have never
advised nor decided that the House should take upon
itself the functions to which I have referred to, or that it
should imitate the conduct cf the French Chambers with regard
shown
to Puisnd.—(Hear, hear.) It is usual for the French Chamber
of Deputies, at the commencement of each session, to protest AUSTRIAN DESPOTI SiViadiy
against the acts of the Emperor Nicholas, and declare the na- The blighting tractf Austrian despotism is s
tonality of Poland. I think a cause loses force by bringing it in the following e—
continually under notice without following up whatever decla- "Every man in Austria pays an income-tax of sevnteen
ration may be made by other measures.— ( Hear, hear.) It per cent., which must all come from the industry of the
therefore leads to no practical good to bring such a question country, and go lute the pocket of the Emperor. Fore what
under the notice of a representative assembly without following purpose? To enable him to establish schools, and provide
the matter further.—( hear, hear.) But how great i the slit- the people with the means mmial and intellectual culture?
ficulty in which this country is at present placed in relation to To build railways and canals, and-to furnish the people with
this treaty ? It has been said that by the letter of the treaty facilities for cheap and speesay intercourse and trade? No
of Vienna that we are freed from the obligations which it im- but chiefly for the maintienancis of an arms', for their de-
s° Now, for my own part, can see no advantage structiota the they attempt to improve their &audition, by re-
in departing from the usual course, or in bringing modelling tir social institutions • and for the support of
the suleect before the
-I
infokr
tihtes iiin:stisdeearhatniuolndarneds theeet de-ole agents, who enter their social and 'domestic circles, to listen
claration of its hpinieen.l (lut'he
p to their most secret words, and watch their most secret
usual custom
mainly that In affairs of this kind, and it is on this reason actions.
on the present motion. While I have no "No, trade can be carried on in Austria without a license
• object ion tour ge againstopinionormerly, ae
the resolution under consideretion—for from Government for which from five to ten shillings per an-
I gave my
give it now, against the sup-. num arc paid, according, to the nature of the trade and the
preseion of Cracow_ y'
(I!ontrose.
efannot consent to the course pro- advantagesr, oflotle,e situations. If to-day a man take out a
posed by the Hon. Memberaz
issed to move Upon thethe
igrounds eats
kes
I have stated, therefore,
h that fol lows h r
.ai -r s license to work in Freiwaldan, and, in a
question. With the elutionl3 wee , e hnds a better opening in Liudewiesse, and deter-
But with reoned t
wohseichtoddeo- [nines to remove thither, he must take outsiesse,
a new license for
Russia thepayment of a:por-
the same. . ot e law resolution
latter piece which is but two miles distant, at the sauce
dares that this country "secures to
rate at before
latht
ioosne
olfi licenses
localt be n hadag tar
at all
[ion of her old Dutch debt, on condition of thhieogeneral arrange.. without the recolninntanst
menus
the
of the Congress of Vienna, ,
these ten thousand pehty tools of despotism, for there are
ten thousand of them
adhesion—arrangements which remain in full e tgave her
ot
rwaedree d
force '»
must demur. Sir, that is another and a different question.'mei-
okiallnda
y may work.,
aatreeaenmhp
At t°
mdaeneidcaennwoht
how man
arrangement was made at the time of the union of B 1
e glum lamb f
with Holland, when it was agreed that the debt which Holland or la's acighbeur without *
owed to Russia should be taken to by Great Britain, and that earnshas a patient t.O Graefenbea license-or, and A poor tailor, who
this country should pey the interest on it. Russia was a party tepasearn the exPeneeee wished to workg aandhad not the means to
his trade, in order to
this arrangement, and consented to it. When afterwards, and tondo. ant' of eupporti One of title
after a lapse of time, the two countries separated, Russia, But
poor fellow was delig t guests gave him erne
entitled to • the tailors in hed to have something
according to the letter of the treaty, was no longer was exercising Isis Freiwaldan • -
the benefit of this arrangement, and therefore, if the letter of fered, and tear t trade without a •
'hearing teat the man
ea ened to have • icense, instantly inter-
the treaty was to be adhered to, he
were freed from its desist. He dared not set him arrested if he did
obligations ; Belgians had separated from Holland, and the afterwarde a colleetion-plateasnyoath.er stitch, and many tf not
treaty might have been declared at an end. But though you the loon Ott 141 belsoda—&‘ni
Ihinded round to the times
Aro
4.43 GL, %in/len/Mr g"43

Mr. GREENE brought up the report, which was ordered
to be further considered on the 18th of March.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Half-past Twelve.

might have been fie a ccording t o the letter of the treaty,
that would not have been acting in consistency
with the justice of the -ase, because the power which
had separated, Belgium was favoured by England. For
England, therefore, to say, though she had favoured and en-
couraged the separating party, that, as the union between the
two countries was not at an end, she would declare herself free
from the obligaticn and arrangement she had made with Russia
—for England to act thus would have be: n to make a dangerous
evasion of that which is just and right, and I would have had
no part in it.—(Hear, hear.) But she had not done so.
Though she was free according to the letter of the old agree-
ment, she made a new one, and agreed to continue the pay-
ment of the interest on the debt. The real ground for con-
tinuing the payment was, that Russia had been guaranteed
the payment of the debt by England at the time of
the union between Belgium and Holland ; but the
union not being maintained, and England being
a party to the separation, she considered she was
in justice still bound to pay the interest of the debt. But un-
doubtedly, at the same time, the words of the convention were
the same as those contained in the resolution, and it was stipu-
lated in it that the payment of the interest on the debt should
be on condition of the general arrangements of the treaty of
Vienna being adhered to. Now, these words certainly were
introduced at the request of Russia to this country, in order to
show, that while Russia had departed in one respect from the
agreement, she was not, therefore, to be accused of bad faith in
the matter referred to. Russia wanted the words inserted in
the treaty for the reason I have stated, and though England did
not desire their insertion, she agreed to them ; and, as a mat-
ter of good faith, under the circumstances, she conceived it
was her duty to continua the payment of the interest
of the debt.--( Hear, hear.) I must say, that with
regard to the spirit of the agreement, it would not be just to
take advantage of these words, Russia having faithfully ob-
served its stipulations. Ido think, however, that according
to these words, if we were disposed to proceed upon their close
construction, we might say---" We made this agreement with
your sanction, you were a party to its provision, we will, there-
fore, take advantage of it, and refuse the payment of this
debt."—(Hear, hear.) Sir, that would be, as I have said,
conforming to the only interpretation of this treaty. Those
who have examined into the nature of national conventions--
the highest authorities that we could consult with regard to the
interpretation of Acts of Parliament, and the bearing of
treaties those authorities who are usually con-
sulted on those subjects, have told us that they
think that, according to the spirit of the arrange-
ment—according to the spirit of the convention—this
sum ought to be paid.—( Hear, hear.) State it as favourably
as you can for the Hon. Gentleman's motion, it is even then a
doubtful point on which, if you wish to take advantage, you
may claim that advantage from the words inserted in that con-
vention. According to my opinion, you would be acting
against the spirit of that convention, in order to take advan-
tage of a plea which, in a court of law, may be urged against
that construction, but which in the communications between
nations must not be used. In the consideration of this question,
I think we should only lower our position—l think we should
only deprive ourselves of that advantage which we now have if
we were to reduce this question to a transactiin of pounds,
shillings, and pence.--(Cheers.) I consider that in the late
transactions of Europe, although on more than one oc-
casion our wishes and opinions may not have been
complied with—our desires may not have been lis-
tened to—our protests may have been disregarded,
yet there does- remain with us our moral strength,
which no power has been able to weaken, our national honour,
which no country has been able to tarnish. —( Great cheering.)
There are no treaties, either ancient or modern, in which it
can be imputed to England that she violated their spirit in
maintaining the letter of thn it laws.—(Cheers.) We are
ready in the face of Europe, however inconvenient some of
these settlements may be, to hold ourselves bound by all our
engagements ; to keep the fame, and the name, and the
honour of the Crown of England unsullied—(Cheers)—to
hold that unsullied honour as our brightest jewel, and to take
measures that it be not tarnished. With that sentiment, Sir,
if I should ask my Noble Friend to go to the Court of Russia,
and to say, "To be sure you have violated the treaty ; to be
sure you have extinguished an independent State ; we
have allowed this to be done ; you will have no breath of war
from England; we will not arm for the purpose of restoring
Cracow; we will admit that State to be extinguished, we will
admit her inhabitants to be reduced to subjection, we will
admit that their land of freedom shall be lost to them for ever;
but this we will do, we have a claim against you of some
thousands of pounds, which we shall throw upon your shoul-
ders, and we think that way we shall revenge ourselves on you
for the infraction of this convention." I say we shall be thus
using language which dues not become the position which
England has hitherto held, and which she shall in future
hold in the eyes of the world.—( Cheers.) I a•k you
therefore having thus stated, as shortly as I could, my opinion
of this transaction, I ask yon not to come in this House of
Commons—which does not usually, without great provocation,
interfere in the foreign relations of this country-1 ask you
not to come to any idle resolution, on which you do not intend
to act.—( Cheers.) I ask you not to lower this question down
to a mere question of money. I ask you not to estimate how
much this Russian stock is worth in the market. I ask you to
allow, as this House has hitherto allowed by its silent ac-
quiescence, the protest which the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs has delivered, to remain in full force, as a declaration
on our part—a declaration which will have its full value, de-
pend upon it, with regard to future transactions, as showing that
we respect the faith of our treaties. Let us have it to say that
we have not studied only the interests of England in this mat-
ter—let us have it to say that we have looked to nn interest,
either large or petty, concerning ourselves—let us Pave it to
say that we have only regarded the great interests of Europe;
that we have observed that that settlement which put an end
to a protracted, expansive, and bloody war—that that settle-
ment should remain in its full force and vigour --(Cheers. ) We
have declared that sentiment to the world, and we trust that
the reputation which this transaction will meet with in future,
will induce all powers, however disposed to violate treaties, to
consider that they may meet with the deserved remonstrances
and protests of England, whose character shall stand before the
world untarnished by any act of ours. —( Cheers.)
MONCKTON MILN ES moved the adjournment of
the debate. The Hon. Member trusted that the Noble Lord
would allow the debate to take precedence to-morrow.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that as only two days in the
week were allowed for Government business, he hoped the
Ron. Gentleman would not ask him to give up to-morrow.
He did not think. however, that there was any motion of great
importance on the paper for Tuesday, and he would be very
willing to allow the adjourned debate to conic on upon that day.
On the motion that the debate Le adjourned till this day
week,

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE expressed his surprise that the
Noble Lord should propi,se tho adjournment till this day week,
when it had always been the custedi of the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) during last session when a debate
was adjourned to take it on the next night in preference to the
order of the day. The other night the Government had taken
the pains to prevent the formation of a House, and he thought
it would, on all accounts, be advisable to take the debate, for,
in his opinion, no question could be brought forward in which
the honour of the country was so much at stake than the prin-
ciple which was involved in the resolutions of his Honoura,le
Friend.
Mr. M. NIILNES could bear testimony to the fact, that the
Government had prevented the formation of a House when this
question should have been brought forward.
Dr. BOWRING asked whether there was any objection to
take the debate to morrow, if the money was voted ?
Lord G. BENTINCK said, that when this motion was
brought on, the lion. Member himself was not in the House.
Mr. H ME said that it was true that when the clock
struck four he was opposite the church—(A laugh)—but he
himself could not make a House, and he hoped the Noble Lord
would allow the debate to come on to-morrow night, as he
wished to get the matter off his hands—(Laughter)—as he had other thins which required his attention.
Mr. FERRAND said that as the question was whether the
debate should be adjourned till this day (Friday) or this day
week, he would move the adjournment of !he House instead.
Atter a few words from Mr. J. FIELDEN, deitrecatory of
this resolution,
Sir R. PEEL said that on many accounts it was advisable to
continue the debate to-morrow, but as the Government had
only ta-o days in the week to bring forward pubic measures, he
thought that it was cut proper that a diseretionary power should
be left in their hands to regulate the business of the House,
especially nn their own nights. And this was the more
necessary, as they had now in hand great and important
measures, which largely affected the welfare of Ireland. Of
course if Government intended to bring forward its Irish
measure to-day, he should be quite ready to vote for the ad-
journment till Thursday next.
Mr. HUME said be should have no objection to adjourning
the debate till Tuesday next.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had not any objection what-
ever to Tuesday. He hoped the Hon. Member would not
persist in the amendment, because it would bring the debate
to an irregular termination. He proposed to-day to take the
ordnance arid navy estimates, and on Monday he should call
the attention of the House to a proposal of the Government
with regard to Ireland.
Alter a few words from Sir R. PEEL, who seemed to ob-
ject to the debate being adjourned to Tuasday.
Mr. FERRAND wit'edrew his amendment.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the Right 'Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth had not answered his question, whether
while he was Minister the debate was adjourned as it was pro-
posed to adjourn this. Ministers were shirking from the
discussion of this question, but they ought not to shrink from
it because public opinion was hi favour of the first part of the
Noble Lord's apeech, while he denied altogether the proposition
contained in the latter part of the Noble Lord's speech, that
the House ought not to come to any resolution upon the foreign
policy of the Government.
Sir ANDREW LEITiI HAY considered that this was an
important question, connected not only with the
finances of this
country, but with the liberties of Europe, and it was his im-
pression, that the sooner this debate was concluded the better.
lie should, therefore, propose that the debate be resumed this.
day (Friday).
Mr. DUNCOMBE seconded the amendment.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. No division,
however, took place, it having been arranged that the debate
should stand adjourned till Thursday next.
FACTORIES BILL.
This Bill went through Committee pro forma,
The House resumed.