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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING-, MARCH 17, 1847.

fro
at Mr. Al3gennis, that General Sobieski, who was so die-
, itaillai.shed for his gallantry in the contest of 1830, had
bqether abstained from taking part in the late insurrection
°f Crems.. and had, as stem as he had received information
Itlm. the outbreak, not only refused the senctien of his great
ii's'it.eic%tinheantelerde.moved into the territories of Austria ae soon
!
The Hon. Member for Finsbury charged
? on. Friend I Lord George Bentinek) with wily partially
cad's the manifesto of the erovisional Government of Poland
is'ueo at the breaking out of the revolution. If the Heuse
,
, permit him, h' would read the document in full, which
I,..,'_gct be called the Magna Charta Puland.— ( Hear ) (The
iT,tl. 'Member here read the various articles of tne manifesto.)
Isere penalty of death was also to be enforced upon spies, and all
:912,_.44r°rrning, clubs against the new Government were to be
(:-esett traitors to the country.
punish interference with the
tin4to established was also to be ed with death. The
,article regulated the national colours very minutely, and it
;_that system of contemptible trifling and sanguinary tyranny
d„ ''n was to guide the future destinies f
ly Poland. The con-
;.ict of Cracow must be deemed as invoing its own safety.
e Could not conceive that when a small state like Cracow was
eitetiPied by a military force that it could be other than imbe-
t ',and weak, or that it subjected itself willingly to •uish mili-
4') occupation. M. Guizot had very much urged upon the
i'Zin'ideration of the three Powers the possibility of their adopt-
se4nt!ithout destroying the independence of Cracow, such pre-
re measures as would check the progress of teese conti-
starinsurrections. Such a course could nut be adopted without
east and general system of epionage, which, even to
e-t"', It of Cracow itsslf, would berm
ost objectionable. Craeoy;-
the
btc'ti'd have been placed a false position, and instead of being
? befitted by‘ such an arrangen; era it would hare been ma-
rtat 'riallY injured, Was the state of Europe such as would war
--(tll in directing to the three Powers such a feeble show
remonstrance and hostility, which would not have the
iltilliest effect upon the independence of Cracow ? So great a
te :4 as England could never have recourse to a little war, or
`woulda anti inefficient measere. Let the House consider
ei,
pr'eeted to these three Powers—it would lead te innumerable
-°„to4,e(tits and declarations on the part of Russia, that this
tst),,"„`r}' had been guilty of a gross breach of faith, while it
w-`il be productive of no effect, but that ot contempt. He
Pra't aware that warm feelings existed in this country towards
fe4eei but he knew, from his own experience, that the same
ihatnits did not exist in France. France was, he believed, at
(to. niement the only nation of Europe which had a desire
ear, and a desire of aegrandisement by conquest. The
tinlez"ner names g
of Maren o'r Austerlitz, and Jena are still re-
tpi,
t'atnitbered in that country, and kept alive that warlike
hi., He hoped that the powers of Europe would be
ti;;'w to arrange the present difficulty without
that fearful feeling. Ile felt convinced that in
'tent of any disturbance of the peace of Europe
ti'"' would not be a safe ally for this country. How many
4 bt' d'iring the last seven years had they been on the verge of
"th of their treaty with thi3 country? It was only the
st isr night that they were called upon to increase the navy
tst,„,sl", because they were assured tat the whole seats ard
asst °f France was arming. He did nit know for what pur-
fsrt tne 127 furnaces were burning at Brest, but of this he
tieticiassured, that they did not burn there. to restore the inde-
i.f."ce of Cracow. Under these circumstances, he felt
4,?tlY willing to vote with the Noble Lord on the previous
ok,-;"Oni and he did not feel inclined to interfere with the
tai.t"s with reapect to Cracow by any such inefficient
sense,
4.0 e
h'n, ,r' HARRY VANE had not heard an argument to induce
Lo agree with the object of the present motion. He hall
I;;L'ed with the utmost attention to the statements of the Hen.
aolt-il'irr (Sir J. Walsh) to a certain extent he agreed
lee h Itns that the treaty of 18'31 was a subsequent and a
th Neal treaty ; but still he could not ,eparate that tree y from
T:trea'Y of 1815, and from that of the 14th of August, 1814.
tba,c•ertaiti extent he coincided with the Right Hon. Baronet,
tae iActhber for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) that there had been
ti.,eiraetion of those treaties ; but yet, at the same time he
te'ilet acceded to the proposition of the Noble Lord at the head
tek Government, that it was unbecoming in this country to
end to the monetary consideration of a great political ques-
ts:'ardi that it was sufficient that a protest had been entered
limp'tthe proceedings ot the three Powers. Yet he, at the same
thces Must say that the three Powers saw reason to believe that
do-nl.4pendence of Cracow occasioned disturbances in their
Of t)lini°,ls that they might not do away with the sixth article
tloi, ',treaty of Vienna. But although he was far from saying
to thtue independence of Cracow was of the great importance
es ;0' Peace of Europe which it had been represented to be, he
tight at the same time assert that the three Powers had no
; 'st to des, • cif Cracow without consult-
th . • aoy the ini epere enee s
1;54 eir allies. After goine, through the several political rela-
tleli,', which had arisen out t.if ihe treaty of Vienna, but while
ir ~-"inss which it was utterly impossible to give the details
ap,l"seeeence of the peculiar tone ir. which the Noble Lord
i he proceeded to say that, reviewing all these circum-
-"eto h
acknowledg—
e
1.4 concurrence of France and England. He would not
e upon the alliance of France, although lie felt
1.4
tpthe Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir
1.4 eel), had hardly done jesticts to the worth of that alliance.
„.a tluite agreed with M. Guizot, that it was no justification
ever for one party to lore sight of Isis engagements, be-
va" t
'to another hail altogether overlooked them. He had stated
Eery
shortly what his opinions were, but he could not
reat all with the opinion expressed by the Right Hon.
net the other night, that th ere was no sufficient justifica-
o
Areal for the protest, and he sincerely trusted that the tierce
is Powers would take warning from the observations of the
*use on the coarse which they were pursuing, anti that this
ty y might take advantage of the legal construction of this
,
th Mr. J. WORTLEY felt himself in a great dilemma as to
e question which was before the House. He would express
ds plainly and as forcibly as he was able, his total disapprobation
of the suppression of the independence of Cracow.
Lot he could not forget ththere political.
st were
eonsiderations well worthy of attention, and which induced
him to hope that the Honourable Member for Montrose
rood not force the House to a decision on the question.
'le did not wish to dwell upon topics which tended to create a
spirit of hostility in that House, but he could not help re-
'riarking that, on the first partition of Poland in 17%, the
tame excuses were put forward by Catherine that had been
Ile advanced by the existing Sovereign of the same country.
the reminded the House that in the year 1814 it was one of
Ke„first articles of the
tonconvetion of Paris that the throne of
t?'"tlnd should be restored the house of Orange, and Great
t,ltthatt voluntarily gave up the colonies which had belonged
right ot country (and particularly Java), which they had every
ot fatal the laws of conquest to retain ; and therefore, in point
frieoritt the restoration of these colonies depended only on the
tre„'shiP of the King for the house of Orange. By the
pov—Yi of Paris it was determined that Great Britain should
t Sweden, , for he -construc-
gof the 00fortifications of Hollanod onr. t the sidere of France,
alle, to give en equal amount, with Holland, to the other
*hcs; such sum not to exceed 3,0(10100/. Among the subjects
ienehr, ame under the consideration of the convention of
liso,'‘) Was the consideration of the losses sustained by
tchett —the destruction of her ancient capital—the ravaging
....iv' Country in a greater degree than suffered by her allies
lisle it was agreed upon that England should waive her
es,,,l° compensation in favour c f Russia! And why ? Be-
sstiT °f the facility which the latter country had given to the
14N:tient. of Holland. But they did not undertake to pay an
%lee, 'it, of money to Russia as security for Holland. Their
11,,,Za,ti°11 to then
was a distinct and independent one. The
to 4,lo'leenher then read the stipulations of the treaty of 1831,
old w that Russia was guaranteed the repayment of her
nost.l
; ;I)ilieh debt, on cendition of her maintaining
Ti).ate the treaty of Vienna.—( Cries of Hear, hear.)
14"n‘ideration ot the treaty of 1815, arid subsequently of
audit' was the general arrangements of the Congress of Vienna,
teat he facilities Russia had afforded towards carrying them
th, Had that consideration failed? If it had on one side,
ritt"irr had a right to take advantage of it. What was the
Case °f things in the time of Lord Castlereagh? Why Lord
p "eaeb, assisted by France wished to restore the freedom
tntl oland, while Russia wishe'd to have the whole of Poland
li4x; 'd to Warsasv; and the contest was brought to an end by
11,t'als contracting to secure the freedom of Cracow. Upon
understanding the loan under discussion was taken u; by
thetl and ; but as Russia hail broken one of the conditions of
truoti'Areement, England clearly had a right to chi-
tlf ',tit," its payment. But then, did not matters
itator'icy suggest to them that it would be in-
ef tic°lls to pursue such a course ? England was in possession
sho colonies, which were part of the consideration for which
tro-titt°;°lt upon herself the loan, while in times of danger arid
onr-1.:7 now gone by, Russia had observed—and with the excep-
l'reh this single instance, still observed the conditions of the
4441ittlY of Vienna. Was it prudent, then, for England now to
alt loan, in consequence of the confiscation of a geogra-
tee atom? Could she do it without coming to some new
HesstliZernent with Russia as to the possession of the colonies?
etet7prehended not, and therefore be was so far opposed to the
till 4, of the Hon. Member for Montrose.— (Hear, hear.)
Vies however, there could be no doubt that the Treaty of
setitetia had been violated; for Russia reluctantly con-
to only to that part of the treaty which related
enns the freedom of Poland, but still she did
the sent to it, and there could not be a shadow of a doubt that
annexation of this geographical atom to Austria was a
manifest violation of the treaty. In the Convention of Austria
tuaa's'iand, the real contracting parties in this matter, Itussia
eile certain proposals, upon which was ultimately founded the
b tram-
, y which settled the balance of power to be exercised
is3:tl,le various nations of Europe. Now in those very pre-
oia there was an article expresslv providing for the freedom
Lint fact
of the town and state of C'racow, and in the face of
la'" fact it was impossible to deny that Russia and the two other
°wers of Austria and Prussia ha ! violated the treaty of Vienna
2, the parts they had taken with regard to Cracow.
the time that treaty was come to, it was admitted on all
hands, that Cracow was of the utmost importance to England,
?II even now it was a commercial station of no mean character.
Was thought at that time that Cracow was a city of too
11. t,
kerb importance to be given to either party. It was quite
clear that a violation of the treaty had taken place. The
:9°,ltict of the annexing parties would also show that they cons
tkiered it themselves that they were taking a course contrary
° the treaty of Vienna. They had acted in the matter alto-
tathee without the knowledge and consent of Eng-
e-•( Hear, hear.) Thie country would, he hoped, not de-
rtilled to avenge the violation of the treaty by inflicting
ese,i,' Pecuniary punishment. lie hoped that the House
adept the dignified course recommended by the Noble
4,, at the heath of the Government, and set thereby an ex-
iPte to the other states of Europe and to the world. Ile
eer'iati therefore, if the motion were pressed to a division,
1Y IYdivide with him Olson the first resolution, but against
Pa :4 the last resolutien, recommending a suspension of the
Air'nt of the, interest on the Russo-Dutch loan.
the • CHRISTIE said that the real facts of the history of
by Ll' apeared e, tat a should hade
the • Igise nd top Russiato ofb a sl
um of moanyn equal in amount to
Loalnoterest on what has since been known as the Russo-Dutch
epee oh Thy portion of the Hun. and Learned Gentleman's
av`,.,,lne.n might be deemed historic, had not, in his opi-
rtreet
tilleeteil or altered the position of the question, and with
he did eference to that Hon. Gentleman's legal acquirements,
,eeenti not think that words introduced into the preamble of a
'kaki convention fifteen sears after the date of the first, anti
th nF, in a very general and vague manner with respect
or at!
tnk;ongress of Vienna, could be considered as binding on
of vi,;ig the general interests of the parties to the treaty
Hear, hear.) It had been said, that even if a
'till burtt. of the treaty haul taken place, this country would
into riand to fulfil the engagements which she had entered
tikt: did not, however, agree in that opinion, he thought
tee, .1• provisions of the treaty were violated, all the par-
k thr',that treaty would be released from their engagements.
fro, 4. the infraction of the treaty had absolved England
'hould)'aYinß the interest on the Russo- Dutch 1,-,an, England
the y, are to pay it, anti it would not be shabby for
Srlq (e,ou,ntry take advantage of that violation.
a Freatte "v"or to inflict sortie punishment. bows-wee small, upon
c'toer viand, for the infliction of a great injury, lf, the
Inset antis this country was tart absolved from paying the
the ',.,3nfue
Y'itbe,ll "shabby„ would not express in proper terms
gets , of the country withholding the same. He
of that ilOnwever, that it was incensisttnt with the lune:ions
t!lation„ °°,e to pa-s resolutions on the subject of the foreign
ghoul' • "f other countries. He thought that this debate
ties ot 110 t conclude without Come remark to the cruel-
and the barbatities of Gallicia, especially as
I;:ttie, 5.,:?„1.--;ord the Member for Lynn had, in a most extrava-
Zoter ot 'Otirh was it, .:iv;,
1111 erms way to pass a high-flown eulog,iwn en what he
nesei, ,ec mild arid paternal Governments of Austria and
trot,
4the Hon. Member then proceeded to read extracts
Inbar of letters written by Mr. Alagennis and other

r persons, describing the condition of the people prior to the incur.
reel ion and outbreak in Gallicia, and the conduct of the Austrian
Government during the insurrection of the Gallician peasantry.
The lion. Member then went on to say that a great deal of
odium had bean endeavoured to be affixed upon the manif•sto
of the revolutionary government. He did not wish to defend
' that document, but he thought that some allowances should be
made for the circumstances in which the peo;le and the Go-
vernment were placed. He trusted the House would excuse
him for trespassing so long on its atteniion, and he would con-
clude by expressing a hope that the lion. Member would with-
draw his resolutions, and rest satisfied with the strong expres-
sion of opinion which they had called forth.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said, that in reply to the Noble Lord whe
had challenged them to give an instance of the violation of treaties
on the part of Eng!and he would name an instance. Ile asked
the Noble Lord, did she not violate the treaty of 1782, 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
Vienna. The Noble Lord ( Bentinck) attempted to defend
them on the ground that they had been guilty of former in-
fractions of that treaty, but that, in Isis opinion, rather aggra-
vated than extenuated their offence. The Noble Lord 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. lie should like to know from the Noble
Lord the Foreign Secretary, why a diplomatic agent had not
been appointed for Cracow, agreeably to the promise 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, hail paralysed the in-
fluence which this country would have had, by cm-
broiling the friendly relations which existed between
them and ;France. The French press had now taken
up the eaie of Poland, and represented it to the Govern-
ments of Europe in its true colours, and he trusted
France and England be their co-operation, and determined
efforts, would 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 app-oval 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 treat v 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 opt-
T1:011 of many was only contingent upon the strict observance
of the treaty. Ile, for one, was content to leave the vindica-
tion of the honour of the country to the Minis•er 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. espec,ally after the seeeches de-
livered that. evening by the lion. Gentlemen the Members for
Bute and Weymou. 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 lion. Gentleman
the Member for Bute, 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,
be 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 fur 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 depereied 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 lion. 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-
eded to state that although the treaty had been violated, they
must still pay the money to itusitia.—( Hear, hear.)
His argument was simply this, that where two con-
ditiens were made between two parties, and one broke his
portion of it ; the fulfilment of the agreement was not binding
upon the other. He (:Ur. Escott) 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 ltussia, 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 eaen in
1.83.2, 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. The Act passed in
1832 repealed altogether the stipulation of 1815, anti the Act.
of 1832 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 sa•ety
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 rowers, had, in the
opinion of the Duke of Wellington, acted most
judiciously in his negotiations with the three Powers, as he had
stated," that it was a masterstroke of policy to bind Russia by
a pecuniary obligation to observe the faith of treaties." There.
fire he (Mr. Eseott) 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 d eiht say,—" If this is the nature of your
protest, I wish you would do so in a similar strain as
often as you think proper." Cci tainly 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 it it. was unjust
let them manfuily 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 power,. 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
h: d 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 part y;' 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 question, 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 should 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, lie re, eated that
the question must be viewed as one of pounds, shillings, and
pence, as the question of honour depended upon its brine
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 le sponsibility of a debt of 7,000,000/.
when the other parties to the treaty hail broken its conditions,
and taken away their liability to pay it, 'file 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
compelled 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 these which they heard just
stated. The Noble Lord was hot singular, as it had been
observed, in his opinions. He had no itoubt 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 Austrian 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 batter upon
such occasions as the. present to speak the simple truth.
j Hear, hear.) There was one great disadvantage in that
Government which was vulgarly called Whig, nameiy, 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 gener,l 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
thethan
Minister
f
reigns t
he r Crownwould have the support of po er.
The Nobie,orLtoordf
thteheforlmi torsrt,
but he would tell him that the present was a question of great
s
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 hail propounded, but because he
thought to lay his hands upon the constitutional liberties of a
part of the United Kingdom. The House of Cumulous de-
feated that attempt, anti the Noble Lord had scarcely been
placed in power before he showed symptoms of a similar ten-
dency'—(Hear, hear)—by the introduction of en unconstitu-
tional mensure. But the Noble Lord took time to consider;
he took counsel of his own reason—of Ilia better judgment—
ani the result was, that he threw aside the weapons 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 best 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-
terly tracings of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark,
nmeasisn,aionatrheant,oatsreasmpoantsteibrlooffomretrbcoanyteiilefoarmndaLoomomf
that I do not think any lion. Gentleman can successfully
ce
therci
obliga-
tionsal fair-
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 miseiviegs as to the opinion stated on
this quastion by the First M mister of the Crowe. 'I he Neble
Lord laid down, with all the gravity which belongs to such a
high constitutional authority, that discus ions on matters solely
of foreign policy were seldom atterdcd with any prim-
Goal ailvsotaga, and he illustrated this pesititel by re.
ferring to the annual protests in favour of Polarrti,
which had been well called mere " sword thrusts in the
',eater," 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 i; impossible
not to remember how little has been done for the Polish nation,
eat with: 'aniline such deelerations of ssrapathy.—( Hear. hear. )
It is impossible for some of us not to cell to mind that truth
wrung from the dying agonies of Poland, and which Iras since
grown into a roverb, when she said, speaking of her heroic
insurrection of :31, " God is too high, and France is too far."

—( Hear, hear.) But if France is too far, England, morally i
and politically, is not so. Unlike France, she is not bound to
Poland by family alliances, nor by a long confraternity. now of
triumph and now of misfortune, from the days of the Valois to
the days of Napoleon. If ever any country was bound to another,
it was France to Poland ; if ever any country was bound to strive
for the nationality of another, it was France for Poland ; and
it ever there was a country aban,loned by another, it was Po-
land by Ft ance.— (Cheers. ) It is a chapter in a contemporary
history, and as old as the story of Athens and Platen. But if
England has not the same interest as France in the inde-
penitence of Cracow, I yet—with all deference to the Noble
! Lord—am persuaded that this is no disqualification for our
r 1 considering the question in this House; for, if I understand
the spirit of the lion. Gentleman's resolutions, he does not
propose to interfere with er embarrass the Executive, but to
corroborate, confirm, and enforce the views of the Government
—to give effort and sanction to the protest of the Noble Lord
the Minister for Foreign Affairs, especially when that protest
has been so long neglected and disregarded.—(Hear, hear,
from Mr. Hume.) And if the Noble Member for London hail
brought the whole weight of his authority in favour of the posi-
tion that. such questions are not within the immediate province
of this House, there is another constitutional authority, scarce ly
second to the Noble Lord, Mr. Hallam, who has said in a
noble image, " that the pulse of Europe beats according to the
impulse it receives from the Parliament of England."—
( Hear, hear, and cheers. ) And I think we should
be wanting in our duty—;re should ill represent
the feelings of this country, if we failed to express, not per•
haps our indignation, but at least our regretful
sorrow at so inauspicious and untoward an event.—(Cheers. )
And if anything could enhance our regret at the act, it would
be the manner in which is was defended. It is surely a melan-
choly thought that Prince Metternich, whose name for nearly
half a century has been a synonyme for good faith—whose po-
licy of wise adjustment and honourable compromise has stamped
itself on this country—that he at the close of a long and glo-
rious career should have connected himself with that immo-
derate policy, with that Cadman conquest, if I may say so,
where the gain is so inconsiderable and the loss so ge-
neral—whore the gain is a geographical atom, and the
loss the unsettlement of Europe.—(Much cheering ) There
is not any one of the arrangements and stipulations of the
treaty of 1815—not that as to the Germanic Confederation,
not that as to the Italian dominions of the house of Austria,
not that as to Venice, or Genoa, or Prussia—which has
gained more by peace than she ever did by war—nor that as
to Hanover or the Netherlands, more gistinctly secured
than the stipulation for the independence of Cracow. Nay
Sir, as if by a prescience that that small State would become
the battle-field between might and right, between liberty
and force, its independence was guaranteed by a greater
number of articles than those applied to any other states
which formed the subject of that arrangement.—(Cheers).
Now, Sir, one word about the manner. Vas there ever any-
thing more rude, more abrupt, more unlike the diplomatic
usage so familiar to Prince Metternich, than the mode in
which that violence was consummated ?—(Cheers.) On
the 17th of April Count Dietrichstein expressed an alarm
as to Polish emigration, but no alarm as to Cracow. From
the 17th of April to the 6ih of November the three Powers
made no sign. On the 6th of November Count Dietrich-
stein communicated the intention of the three Powers that
Cracow should cease to exist as an independent state. And
what. was the excuse for so dolorous and precipitate a ra-
pacity ? From the dispatch of the 6th of Nov Faber down
to the speech of the Noble Member for Lynn, we can find
no other pretext for such a proceeding than the accusation,
repeated in every shape, form, and phrase, that Cracow
had become the focus of a conspiracy. 1 think the advance-
ment of this accusation by the three Powers has over-proved
their case ; because, Sir, if Cracow was " morally and mat erially
a city of buccaneers"—if it was the retreat of every kind of
brigandage, the question naturally arises, what were the three
Powers about—why did not they sooner interfere to prevent
this decoy, and resist this depravity ? What otherwise is the
meaning of the word " protectorate ?" 'Would it, for example,
be borne that we should now come forward in the face of Eu-
rope. after a lapse of 30 years, and say that the inhabitants of
the lonian Islands were morally and materially a people of bue-
caneeers—that these islands were full of misery, the retreat of
every brigandage, and that, therefore, their liberties should be
extingnished ? And yet that would not be a more monstrous
violation of the treaty of Paris than was the annexation of
Cracow of the treaty of Vienna.—( Hear, hear.) Remember
too the promises of that period—remember the prote t of the
Emperor Alexander, already referred to by the Honourable
Member for Pontefract. " This state," said the Czar,
" shall enjoy tranquillity and peace, by consecrating itself to
the arts and sciences, to industry and commerce. And she
shall remain as a monument of the magnanimous policy which
liberty has established on the very spot where the ashes of her
best sovereigns repose." Well, then, of the two—between'' the
, magnanimous policy," which I will not say connived at, but
which at the end of thirty years permitted that misery, that
brigandage, and emigration which Prince Metternich so elo-
quently paints, and "the mercy of decision" for which the
Noble Member for Lynn thanks the three Powers—l am in-
clined to favour the conclusion of the Noble Member for Lynn,
bat this I will say, that the two combined—the "magnanimous
poley" and " the mercy of decision "—find no parallel in his-
tory, r.ot even in the example of that prince whom I am afraid
other princes have imitated.--( Hear, hear, and cheers.)
But it is in vain to look to history for the precedent of such
a proceeding. It is only to be found in the story of
Semiramis and Ninyas. She first nursed and then de-
bauched him. The three Powers first nursed Cracow and
then destroyed it.— (Hear, hear. ) It was not the events that
took place in Cracow that ltd to its dissolution ; it was the
events in London, Paris and Vienna. History will record
the fact, that all the pains, and penalties, and persecutions
which this small state has undergone has been the consequence
of that spirit of absolutism which has gone abroad whenever
any coldness has arisen between the two great constitutional
states of the world. For example, at the end of 1835 differences
arose between England and France on the subj. ct of Spain ; at
the beginning of 1836 those differences came to a crisis when
M. Thiers refused all intervention. The " three Powers" were,
however, beforehand with us ; they seized on their prey of
Cracow, all treaeies of neutrality were violalcd, and the
rights and independence of that state were outraged. With
such lights and such reminiscences, I must state as my be-
lief, that if the entente cordiale now existed—if there was an
intimate understanding between those two great constitutional
countries, the independence of Cracow would have been re-
spected.—( Hear, hear.) I believe not less that the three
Powers would have obtained the legitimate end of their alliance,
the security of their own borders. I will endeavour shortly to
explain my meaning. It has been said that the art of absolute
government is taught in a stable by a centaur—a cross between
a man and a horse. Arid the meaning of tie myth I take to
be this—that when you cannot employ address you must apply
force ; where you caunot use your hands, thee you must use
your hoofs. Now, Sir, I believe that if there was an intimate
understanding between the•consti:utional states of Europe, the
three Powers would have employed their hands, and not
their houfs.—( Hear, hear.) The inference, then, is obvious.
I would venture to implore the Noble Secretary for Foreign
Affairs to use every effort to bring again about the entente
Tallith., and to resume our intimate alliance with France,
and I venture so to call on him by what is due to the in-
terests of civilization and humanity, of public order and
European peace.—(Cheers.) And not only, Sir, for the
prevention of acts such as this, but'`or the prevention of that
re-action which is their formidable consequence ; of that
re-action which is now smouldering wherever there liar been
or is misgovernment ; which has flashed forth along the
whole line of the Appenines, from Genoa to Calabria, and
which may there or elsewhere burst into a more serious
confiagration.—(Much cheering.) But this I will say, that
the knowledge that the two great constitutional Govern-
ments of Europe were really acting together would be a
better protest against so untoward an event than the refusal
to pay the interest of the Russo-Dutch Loan. If the three
Powers, in their notions of a mimetic morality, have thought
right to sanction the annexation of Cracow, that is no reason
why England should repudiate her debt to Russia. I think
with the Noble Lord the Member for London, that we shall
act a far nobler part by saying to,them, " You have broken a
solemn compact we respect a doubtful engagement. You
have broken a most important treaty that universal Europe has
ratified ; we will respect a constructive understanding, on the
merits and obligations of which even publicists have differed."—
( The Hon. Gentleman withdrew amid cheers, which lasted a
considerable time. )

Mr. B. Disanhu, in rising to address the Howe, said he
could only appeal to them now on the present subje,.t, as he
eJuld not pretend, as was the case with usual questions of do-

mestic or municipal policy to bring feelings of passion or pre-
judice to bear upon it. On questions like the present, which
were rarely brought under the consideration of Parliament, he

could only address himself with only one sentiment, which was
how far the question now before the House conceined the in-
terests and honour of this country? He thought this was not
a difficult question. At present, while many indulged in a
blaze of phdanihropy, which was easily illumined, and to which
he objected; he was equally averse to contrary principle, which
might be supposed to arise from some turbid feeling, that they
should become the champions of arbitrary and despotic Govern-
ments. He did not mean to take either course. He had been

given to understand that a treaty of the greatest importance had
been violated; a treaty, which, for the interests of this country,
ought to have been observed ? Now, before going into this
question, he thought they should first agree as to the subject
which was not before them ; and in offering that suggestion,
he would submit that they had not before them the question of
the partition of Poland.—( Hear, hear.) He had heard great
bursts of eloquence about the treaty of 1772, which redounded
to the credit of the House He trusted that they all lamented
that the independence of Poland had ceased to be. He re-
gretted the fall of Poland, mainly because he believed it was
for the interest of England that Poland should have remained
an independent Power. Ile could easily understand how the
floe. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Milnes) and the Hon. Mem-
ber for Canterbury (Mr. Smythe), should state that it was still
more fur the interestof France than of England that Poland should
be independent. l'ut while he stated this—while he believed
that both France and England were interested in Polish na.
tionalities, he submitted that the last parties which should ob-
ject to the partition of Poland, was an English Parliament.
Before the partition of Poland, the English Minister for
Foreign Affairs, when he was made aware of what way going
forward, communicated with the Minister of France, offering
to unite with the Government of that country in a protest
against the proceedings of the three Northern Powers. And
what (lid the English Parliament do? At this very time they
turned the Minister out of office. Poland was consequently
partitioned, and France became our inveterate foe in taking
the side of the North American colonies. Thus th- same
vote which turned out this Minister, resulted in the partition
of Poland, and the loss of our colonies. The question. therefore,
which was not before the House, was the partition of Poland.
Let them then see what was the real question. It was said
that an important treaty had been violated. Now, in dealing
:with this matter, he would premise his observations by stating
that it appeared, that prior to the struggle which ended in the
treaty of Vienna, Cracow was an Austrian town—tor the cause
of the struggle it became a Saxon town—subsequently it was
made a Polish town ; and was placed under a Pi otectorate. It
had been at various times occupied by military forces, and its
constitution often changed. '1 he result was, that after half a
century Cracow had again become an Austrian town. This
was really the historic statement which they had to decide to
night, and not the question of the partition of Poland. It was
easy to talk like the Hon. Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring)
about ured rights and liberties of twenty millions of peo-
ple; to that he (Mr. Disraeli) would ask, did these
twenty'r e
thu eltn injillions live in CracowCracowor occupy its suburbs ?
a
h r ) Did their title deed to freedom depend on the
treaty of ienna .
Let them take away their sympathy from
Poland, arid the V
partitioned, thelt
intervening period co
e
questionsi
since
soonpaosisauomd assumed
been(liffe different
iat
was nearly
years
constituting what might be called the epoch
of, m
al
h pd
revolutionised, Ireland united to this
iod during which England had lost her
t legislative change accomplished by
country, and that great
s had obtained seats in that House.
vs many flon. Member
(o io:iiele,r,n France history,h
(>I,6M catastrophe, and :oust
of Poland had ceased to be al p
It seemed that two
now be c msidered pe, rnanen, effected?tyhad
t ' cl that there had
pro es e
of the greatest Powers in Luropetrea.
present
Who could deny that, snider such circumstances, the partition
the basis of their diplomatic sett
of
‘b'hyictlhie‘t'earsmienat ion of
the quasi independent existence
t the commencement of
brut a violation of this importanti
This town, which was Austrian a
affected to settle,
those struggles, which the Convention.
and which ha-t become again Austrian ssfs the subject in dis-
pute.mouths England ant France, by the ir
aisle Mieistere, hadride 'left that there had been
r
the three continental Powers of a treaty whichin fact,l
the total destinies of Europe. And one Ho• Gentleman, a
Member of the House of Commons, responding to the protest
of these two Ministers, called upon the Hours to re-echO their

protest—to respond to them—and taking advantage of certain
other treaties which were in existence, to punish
one of the violators of this stipulation. The
Horse would perhaps admit that he had fairly
stated the case which was before them. On tho first night of
the sessions, although there was a general feeling in the House
—at least very much so on the side on which ho had the honour
of sitting—that they should not enter into ail discussion on
foreign affair ; although he thought, though it st emed mis-
takingly, that the y were nut at all bound by the address which
svai voted to the gracious speech of her Majesty, still, from
some observations which unexpectedly fell from the Noble Lord
the First Minister, he felt hound, though he did it very im-
perfectly, to warn that House not too suddenly to adroit that
there had been a manifest violation of the treaty before them.
He did not speak upon the subject as a question of policy, but
as a question of public law ; that they were urge precipitately
to admit that there had been a violation of a treaty which was
for the interest of this country, and which, as he then observed,
and as he now believed, had not been infringed on. He had
always understood that whatever might have been the language
in answer to the address from the throne, that the House was
not pledged to the language of that address, however decided
might have been the words in which it was couched. On a
late occasion it was to be remarked that her Majesty's Ministers
did not attempt even formally to pledge the House upon that
question, because, although on a previous occasion they might
have agreed with her Majesty's Ministers that there had been
a manifest violation of the Treaty of Vienna in answer
to the address, he thought it only a matter of
statement, and that they had to thank her Majesty
for the information which had been given to them upon the
subject. lie had thought himself, therefore, perfectly safo in
receiving the information upon the first evening without any
comment. He was therefore very much astonished when the
first Minister of the Crown rose, and in adverting to the Roy al
Speech, stated that there was Re human being who could doubt
that there had been a manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna.
It was that observation which had made him (Mr. Disraeli)
observe as he did to his Noble Friend near him, that he
thought it rather a suspicious assertion on the part of the Noble
Lord. Now, what was the result ? The Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for the University, who was a great authority upon
all subjects, but especially upon Parliamentary reform —( A
laugh)—rose the other night and said that every gentleman
was pledged by the answer to the Speech from the 'hhrone, to
be of the opinion that there had been a manifest violation of the
treaty of Vienna ; and the Noble Lord the first
Minister, in his speech, to which he (Mr. Disraeli)
might be permitted to say he had listened with
great pleasure, but he had more admired his powers
of declamation than the effect of his observations upon publ c
law, had stated with admirable coolness, that every gentleman

who was present had, by his silence, signified his acquiescence
in the ornions of the Government, that there had been a viola-
tion of the treaty of Vienna. Ile must appeal to the House
whether, under any circumstances, their silence would have
been an acquiescence ; but, under the existing circumstances—
looking to the language of ,the address in answer to the Royal
Speech, lie would ask, if all the Members present had been
silent, and went to the question of a division to vote in silence,
and had appeared even favourably disposed towards the opinion,
whether they would have been bound by the language of the ad-
dress ? He was decidedly of opinion—and he laid it down with-
out equivocation or evasion, and he had the judgment of some
of the principal judges of public law with him in his opinion
—that no one could call the violation of a particular treaty
inserted in a general treaty, a violation of that general ireaty.
He put the p:inciple as broadly as words would permit him,
because he was unaware of any exception, and he should listen
with great respect to any one who could furnish him with any
exception to this principle, which he believed to be of the
gravest importance. He had addressed the Reuse very im-
perfectly, but he hoped not in any dogmatical tone, and he
advised it to look well to the ease of the peace of Westphalia,
which had been detailed by a great authority—the Noble Lord
the Member for Hertford—and who had reminded the House
that in that instance a treaty had been inserted in the
general treaty, and that that treaty, clothed in one of the
most remarkable and stringent guarantees on their diplomatic
records, hail b.!en violated. The parties to that political
of thealtreaty
had, on a subsequent occasion, applied to the signators
general treaty, and it had been decided, after grave discussion,
and alter the case had been referred to the first judges in
Europe, that the violation of a treaty inserted in a general
treats, at Congress was not a violation of that general treaty.
There was another case similar almost to the case before the
House. The free states of Germany had been guaranteed by
the treaty of Osnahreck political rights. The treaty of Osna-
breck was inserted in the treaty of Alinster, and the free
states of Germany were deprived of their political rights. They
applied to the signators of the treaty of Minster, and they
called upon them, in consequence of the guarantee with which
the treaty of Osnabreck terminated they called upon
the great Powers, the signators to the general
treaty, to do them right, and fulfil that guarantee.
It was decided, after the most weighty argument, by a man
second to none, and who had interfered with the great trans-
actionbDeiLrauese Disraeli) said
was that
sure it
that. was d
thee
-
of Vienna, that the violation of a political treaty in-
serted inn the treaty achieved in Westphalia was not a violation
et
et hdehv a generalnlauo setreaty.
cdto He
none,(Air
great Chancellor of Austria, st. Oxenstern, to whom his Hon.
Friend the Member for Canterbury had referred, could scarcely
consi ler himself inferior to the great Chancellor i'ilazerin, who
had given the opinion; and he (Mr. Disraeli) believed, that if
Talleyrand had lived, he would have been insulted to have been
compared to him in political dexterity, and yet those two great
statesmen, equally interested in the adverse decision, because
Sweden, being a German state, had exercised all its influence
to secure the political rights of the independent states of Orr-
, treaty of Minter opposed to
them, these two great statesmen decided that the viola-
many, and with the
tion of an inserted treaty was not a violation of a
general treaty of Congress. Ile would put the case before
the house, not by the number of precedents, because, in
his opinion, precedents were only important when th -y
were connected in detail, and almost touched the
subject, and upon the authority of persons implicated
in the transactions to which they had reference. Under
such circumstances three ix four precedents would be as EA-
.

eient as hundreds at another time, and under different eireum-

stances. He would put the case as one of public law so
clearly, that he defied any man to disprove it—at least he de-
fied any man, a member of the present Government, or a
member of the late Government, to do so, for he would show,
even to their prejudices, the opinions of one who might, with-
out any offence to the gentlemen on either side of the House,
be considered as not inferior to any leading statesmen, and who
had sKrupulously, discreetly. and wisely always followed the
precedent of which he would remind them. Louis XIV.
had given his decision in favour of his view of the case, and
white France was compelled to give up the Palatinate, it was
stipulated that it should retain its religion. The religion
of the Palatinate under France was the Roman Catholic.
The German princes murmured very much that
the seat of the Protestant Reformation should
be thus converted into a Roman Catholic country.
After the peace which followed the war of thirty years, the
whole of the Governments of Europe were placed in a state of
controversy, and the question was, what would have been the
course of this country if there had been no such rights in exist-
ence ? Ile would then refer to the treaty made with France
and the. other Powers. They now came to the trea'y of Osna-
burgh, and he would find that the decision then entered upon
had been discredited, and it was ultimately referred to the
Diet of Germany. That Diet was decidedly opposed to the
decision which had previously been come to, and it was referred
to the consideration of William 111., the first opponent of
Louis XIV. That monarch had refused to dee,de upon his own
authority, and had de' ermined to decide it upon the general
law of Europe.—(Cheers.) They could not call in the ex-
pression of kindness of the several Powers, for they had all
assented to the proposition that it must depend upon the con-
struction which those Powers placed upon the treaty, and they
could not therefore rely upon the construction which had been
made in their favour, or on the friendly interposition of the
Powers who were patties to this treaty. He would beg to put
these several treaties before the House, and remind them of
what had occurred at the commencement of the present ses-
sion. lhe Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamvrorth
sequences of the treaty, had expressed his
(Sir R. Peel), after a series of observations on the reel con-
o imago
p that,
this was but an annexed treaty to the treaty of Vienna.
—(Loud cheers.) Put what did the Right Ilonrabf
these
le Gen-
tleman say? He asked, what was the use eu
o
treaties, and had designated them, as if in contempt, as n-
nexed treaties; and had asked what etas the use of those treaa-
ties. He should be sorry to misrepresent those treaties, but
he believed that the effect of the whole of them was to give
nationality to Poland. And he did not believe that the treaty of
Vienna at all interfered with the objects of that treaty.—
(Cheers.) What, indeed, was the use or the meaning of
Go-
these propositions, if they were not to he backed by the Ge.
vernment ? Quite sure he was that the HOW would never
sanetlon the tulfilmt nt of the treaty if it were not sanetirthed
by public opinion. What, in fact, was the meaning of those
terms, or the use of them, if they did not mean at the same
time to sanction the expression of public opi"1"11? (Hear,
hear.) What was the meaning of these terms if they
were not to sanction the proceedings of the several Powence
ers ?
—( Hear, hear.) Was there a human being in exist
who did not believe that the same faults would be committed
if the same faults were to be observed at every trifling change?
He was not aware of the mischief which might arise, but;no c,ne
could read the 118th clause of the convention of Poland with-
out being aware that it was a pert of the meeaty. If they
tsahey would find that
read the whole of that treaty through,
nothing to inculpate the several members of the Catholic
Chords was in existence, except that which would best bind
men's eonsciences and their acts. The question was not as to
whether the treaty of Vienna should be broken, or whether it
should stand; and in blio, log that the treaty of Vienna ought
to be observed, he would rely not only on what had been said
on his own side of the House, but also on the plain principle
of justice. arid which was conformable to the general rule of
the House with respect to treaties. He could not agree that
oofset I,a eanl ido
thats sltihoeul
first vpiroiltaiteclidlefaoro f tlgieensearkael
and
dnt for the infrac-
tion et h elf tle irrita-
tion The Right Hon.
ttthfeagfertin)imetirtanwlghr u:exlheiso‘
Baronet the Member for Tamworth had pointed out this
law sheuld be sacrificed in order to meet the feelingw
we have suffered so much.
ques-
tion as the foundation of a triumphant expression of popular
feeling, and the means by which it was to be regulated and im-
proved.—( Cheers') lie would ask whether the opinion of the
etaotybewmmaitnotbaienseudffi,
of a general treaty. It was very evident that there had
been an infraction of the general treaty, and if it was not, there
was sufficient opportunity for correcting the report. The question'
in-
fractionß i o h t Hoofna Baronet
particular
tr
had been discussed over and over again, but it as yet had nervy
been settled. The Right lion. Bettina question
as put the
as if the treaty had never been violated. In this
case, the
treaty was evidently violated, and the consideration was, whether
the violation of one article was sufficient to justify
the viola-
lathe-I,f others. That was the question to which Austria,
Prussia,antt France were parties; and
if
they did
n3tria, Russia,
the principle which they had laid down, they would lose their
article, still none could be entertained as to the principles particular
the original treaty. And if that were to be principles of
signors of that abrogation ought to give •
notice to the
abrogated, the
• -
to the orginal treaty, He would not refer to parties
precedent was altogether opposed t s tii, precedent, for
infra
of a treaty and yet retaining the principles of the
l. whole agree •
ral treaty, and the whole series of the corms oardinte the gene-
one dot of a vowel of thht agreement aloud beri ence, whether
whether any forsign interposition should he net aside, or
Gentlemen might choose to make an exeibtti:uffered ? • lion.
Hall, and prostitute the influence of the British rt at Freemasons'
he trusted that, for the ci edit of the country Senate, but
the Noble Lord, they would not carry this and the character of
Well, this had been laid down as the rule under to a division.
stances, that when a superior instrument t these cireum-
repetition of its clauses was to be looked vat
Present the mere
tat. They were merely the machine by upon as a mere reel-
the original treaty were allowed to inter which the signors of
of questions whieh might arise under thei n'e
in the settlement
would hesitate very much, although he particular treaty. He
Wish his opinions by reference to
very might be alfe to esta-
blish
hesitate very much—he would feel he
grave autherity—he
diffi-
cult to encounter in referring to the s had a great
but he
establish his position by reference to li's,s• ceuld nell
ferring to the experience of statesmen in
thating eilinerse
f___ by
„-
say, however, that nothing had more amazed House. He must
speech which the House had heard trom Rightth him than the
tleman (Sir Robert Peel) on this question Hon. Gen
the Right lion. Gentleman, or he would ask. theHe
would t sle
•opes,se. le,- tilt r I:, i a et, .•!, ,; it. 01, , , Noble Leta
How had the King of Holland acted ? - We':: i"giu'" ?
of the King of Holland ? He had as the conduct
n
intimate
knowledge of the law of nations ; but then he wasa not a mem-
ber of the House of Commons.—(Laughter.) __
tie was not a

Member of that House, influenced by assemblies held at Free-
masons' Hall, which settled at will important questions of which
they had no knowledge--(Hear. hear)—and, therefore, the
King of Holland, looking only to his legal rights, did not appeal
to Europe. Did the House think that the King of Holland, if
lie were justified in so doing, would not have appealed to
Europe ? He could only expect his legal rights—Le 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 VI. nna ? 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.
Gentleman, and shortly afterwards supported by the sanction
of the Nol.le 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 trezties, namely,
to exert het 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 he 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 then 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 clown—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
hich seemed ready imbued with all its spirit—( Conti-
nued laughter)—had never referred to them. I will a-k
(continued the Honourable Member) the Neale 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 Loi d Aberdeen, who says that of all the
ii famous 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; ho had
had no idea of what had beam 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,
p. chaps, 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 lie (Mr. Disraeli) could nut
share. That was one great advantage that Members of the
Government had over lets f rrtunate 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. Ile thought the French people would be some what
astonished at such a declaration, coming es it did from a gen-
tleman who had been the 'leder- 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
pretests 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 eas
one thing still more ridiculous—arid that was, fur 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,w ho told them that
he had been in Paris, and in a conversation he had with
M. Guizot, 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, lie 'literally
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 be the focus 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 Aus-
tria.— (Hear, hear.) In the face of these solid facts
how could he 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 parti•roned. Let him remind those gen-
tlemen who attended Freemasons' Hall of an event
which, no doubt, in their warmth and inspiration,
they had fo-gotten. One hundred years ago, it was
proposed to certain European Powers to partition
Austria. and just hook 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 word. Austria had remained
faithful to England in trouble and in peace, and she 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-
sorted aristocracy, who had betrayed their country, which had
led to its present situation. The lion. Gentleman the
Member for Finsbury had expressed great sympathy for what
he was pleased to call the sufferings of Poland. lie
(Mr. Disraeli) had often supported him in mo-
tions showing a sympathy with the working population
cif England. He would ask him, why had he thoughtlessly
s
embarked in the cause of continental
p,lpbonftmeeryotliitt:lpTnthhablhateheeerephrietiyaaseolslflai
no man who felt for the millions but would hesitate before he
T
d
o
1 t was all very well. ftprienow:
edyrraehitmatpptt
al
state‘m\}‘,. hh sympathy
uorheyperarmoais et
friendstf
emohoortovutryh. ref
tmii ahreflnl ni
see),
things
priesthood
nt
owowhot
oaiwfeiyht
dt aephiapdesnwt a
youhdlehapl
hwes
speech,
ovi
cheayefeehy,
,hr
as:att
adopted a course, the origin of which he could not comprehend.
y
rgy
s
amBs'iPmhusMotolehlon,etetrwi.sfan:_recgel‘ude
the
ehditt
mruoeeeres
rrrbeab3ace,
Member
be
hwevex-
cited.nyr
abi-
li'y,o and which certainly entitled him to the attention of that
House, had paid a passing tribute to the pseudo-feeling of the
rtfhori
politics of the day. He appeared deeply to regret the masse-
ores which had taken place in Gallicia. Massacres in piortetiueaieenossettor,:tuiht:moeciepeteresoioa."
come
Inhea d
with
an
n brought
affectation about this f
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 he 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. lie
was unwilling to detain the II use try 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 shelve, he had no doubt, of every lion. Member
—he referred to Mr. Maegreg,t's work upon the Russian em-
pire, in which it was stated that the condition of the peasants
in Russian Poland was considerably better than it was before
the dismemberment of the country took place. The lion.
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
favour of Poland, that the inhabitants of Cracow would
not be found to rise against the present authorities.
They were, in fret, by encouraging these feelines, endanger..
ing the pea,•e of Europe. Ile thaught that by preserving their
friendly relations with France, they had the best guarantee for
the security of their diplomatic ar. angements ; and he re-
gretted to find from what was said by the Right lion. Gentle-
man (Sir R. Peel) that he had no cordial understanding with
that Power. There was one other point to which he wished to
refer. His Right lion. Friend had noticed the case in one
tpoint, n al h3e,
ewould
oo brie
rw
:Montrosell y. allude
called
ett
do
upon. Tt
thwe Hmtoon
uGnneie
h-
one of the parties who signed that treaty, by depriv-
ingappeal
• courage
• made•
resist• forwith
refusal,intrepidity
him of a sum to which he was entitled from
h
an arrangement connected with that treaty. In 1831 and
1836 the question of this payment was brought before them,
inG,lv,erintinheandtthoefeotlosartagdeatyo svveassistsuthiere-
idiTtyhethNeobatleteLmoprtds
made
haedSeeocnr etthaarty
ofcocra, Foreignn and Affairsas
he
(was:\i
rthen i
sirnaeloi ffi)ee,
understoodan d h o
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
at that time to find that the Honourable Gentleman the
Member for Montrose hail recorded his vote in favour of the
payment of the Russian loan.—( Laughter. ) The Hon. Gen-
tlemantfoot n.
everythe.aqt totersot
ihoani he„n
(pi
wt to thee
couldp o uln„,dvs,
.
illat occasion he ( Mr.
lost sight of these considerations on ,
could not understand. lie was aware that he left on
Disraeli)
his vote, but he had his doubts
ap,riadn,dd hpeimnesee
enc to which the course
sufficient to meet the charge of inconsist y,
sed subjected him.— (Hear.) That was the me-
lte now propo
Gentleman sacrificed his con-
historical clescripti 0 4 behindl,imwhoef
tthheerttehaasto,n,sosothche
considerediriaenced
hiai
ilia Then Hon.
h he voted
that
black was white ;
efee Ile' lapse of t ‘,‘‘ ear - , lie Lad given 11P m
another white speech—(Lsughter)—which he was about to
con6rrn by a white vote, and it was to be feared that he was
•e to show the white feather.—( Laughter.) Having
also going
recorded his feelings on the subject in 1z.,42, he was going to do
;silo. rabic oochcais.siroonnwnbveyn.

enance in 1847 for his juvenile errors, and to show by a lim-
bo/1 futhvn that age was not so impotent as to disable him from
cancelling his 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 dif-
ferent means than by Hudibrastic 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 PALNIERSTON said, he should be sorry to damp
the disposition which the Honourable Gentleman who had
just resumed his scat had evinced; but the subject
should be discussed in a fair and temperaso manner.
He promised them that, at that late hour, and after
the length to which the debate had extende.f, 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 had 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 h id just
heard from the Hon. Gentleman opposite, who had told them
that the extinction of Cracow was no violation of the

treaty of Vienna, he 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 lion.
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 hind the parties to the treaty in
which the insertion was made. fie could concede to the Hon.
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 sighed
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, t.i which a certain number of parties were
guarantees, another party became guarantee for something
else, that the others 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 lion. Gentleman's argument—the question was rot

whether England and France were bound by any guarantee
to take steps in consequence of the extinction of
Cracow, but whether 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 .fre,h
matter in a treaty did or did not invalidate that treaty, because
in the present case the treaties between Austria, Prussia, end
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 whoily unnecessary to rely solely upon the 1 lSth article.
As the treaty itself, in other parts, contained everything ne-
cesary to bear him out in asserting that the extinction of
Cracow was a vinlatioß of the treaty.—(Hear, hear.) Let
them put aide, if they would, the 118th article altogether;
they had still the 6th, ith, Bth, and 9th, which were far more
mat,?.rial. 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
ware 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 had 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 alsa that Lord Castlereagh, writing to Lord Liver-
pool from Vienna on the 13th, say s, " 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 appeat ed 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 iu accordance with
it, 'without the consent of Great Britain.—( Hear.)
They had bees' told that similar things had been done by Eng-
land, and the case of Belgium was cited as an instance of her
having acquiesced in an infraction of the treaty of Vienna. As
he understood the lion. Gentleman, he said that the King of

-..
the - Netherlands applied to Austria and Prussia,
and that England and Fr?.nce came in as after parties
to the act. To meet that as,erticn, 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 Hon. 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 Russia immediately after consented to
it; but such was not the case, for if they looked to the treaty of
131, 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-
deace of Cracow and its annexation to the empire of Austria
was in direct •iolation of the treaty of Vienna.
( Cries of " Hear, hear.") The grounds on which he
rested his oppo,it ion 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 quiescent. No one
would contend that 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
the address was a 'natter of form, and left lion. 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 reiolutioß which, with his sentiments and
opinions, he 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. Wi;li
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 recon‘tructin 7, its interests, it was
felt by the great Powers, that as some states had made greater
exertion:, 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 'inn I Hope, Demerara. Esequiho, and Berbice.
The condition of England doing so was, that she should pay
half the Russian loan. In order to make this arrangement ad-
vantageous to the Netherlands, it was provided, that if at any
time Belgium separated from Holland, England and Holland
should cease to pay the debt, and the burden would have
to fall bask on Russia. The object of this was to
get the interest of Russia in maintaining the unthe
ion
of Belgium with Holland, in order to procure
balance of po ver in Europe. Then came the revolution in
Belgium, with the separation of Belgium from Holland—a
separation to which this country very reluctantly consented,
but which was intended and considered ne
to he cessary in order
to avoid the chance of a general war in Europe. But Russia
having consented to that separation at the ',quest of England,
she having been ready in the outset as has been well seated
frequently in this debate, to bring her 63,030 men to defend
Holland and re-annex Belgium, if it had entered into the
policy of the Powers of Europe to attempt to do that by force
--Russia having been ready to employ her army to re-uilite
the two, but havrig abstained from so doing st the request of
the other Powers, and having consented, at their request, to
the separation of the two, it would have been manifestly most
unjust to have inflicted upon Russia the penalty for an event
which had not comets pass in consequence of any ladies 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 far that which was no longer appli-
cable to that state of things, which was that she bound bersel
to consent to the separation of Be!gium 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 yew engagement with regard to Belgium without the
previous 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
hageneral
engagement of the treaty of Vienna still existed.
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 the sacritices
she had made In co-operating with England.—( Rear, hear.)
Noble
Bat then it is said (continued the Lthoerdp)reathmabtlientthhaet
convention of 1831 words were inserted—in 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 pat
those words in, and why they were put in ; because that con-
vention was drawn up by myself and the late Count Mastutzee
wich on the part of Russia ; and it appears from 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 oh which that convention had
been made with Russia—namely, that it was by the
assistance and co-operation 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 these referred to as constitut-
itig the claim of Russia to compensation, do notwithstanding
still subsist. If we read these words found inserted in the
articles of stipulation to mean, iestead of the payment de-
rending on the gem ral 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
Hon. 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 art ic'e of the treaty
of Viennadoes release Great Britain from the fulfilmt nt 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 tire 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 ihir the feeling of
every Englishman will be, that in a question which involves
the honour of this country that eoubt must be given in favour
of the other party, and that it wouol not be becomine 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.—( Hear, hear.) I am free to admit. that if the case
were plain and ;palpable, had been shown to demon-
stration, and to the satisfaction of every reasonable and
impartial man, that in the course of co-cumstances, and in a
fair interpretation of the agreement, we were released; as we
wished to be released, from nur engagement, then I agree with
my Him. Friend, the Member fir Weymouth, that we should
not, from any feeling of chivalrous gesierosity towards oilier
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 myself that there is no
doubt on the subject, anti seeing that the greater part of those
who have spoken on this question, however they may (lifer
float me on that point, all admit that these 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 pays,. tit should henceforth
cease and determine.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Sir,
I am sure if either powers are found to be wanting in
1 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 cf countries is infinitely augmented
by the moral respect which is attached to them ; and I
should hone, therefore, that this House will not he led, in any
case, even if doubtful, to risk the reputation of England in a
matter of good faith, and that my Honourable Filend, 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 roost
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 moss unfortunate if that opinion were
exposed to the danger of being misunderstood, or even a little
misunderstood elsewhere, and if my Hot . 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 " Hear. 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 maintain, 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 en 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 bettor 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 fcr
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. llustE rose at the same
moment, but ultimately
Mr. J. O'CONNELL was heard, anal he said that his ob-
ject ie rising was to proses', in an assembly of freem n 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 onl on the debate, which had been
partaken in by Members on all sides of the tin 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 Commons had declared their belief that
the suppression of Cracow was a gross violation of: the law of
nations, and he trusted that this expression ot the public opi-
nion would teach the despots by whom that law had been bro-
ken, that it could net 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 lion.
Baronet, the Member or Tarnworth, with feelings of admira-
tion. These sentiments and that latiguase did the Right
Hon. Gentleman immortal honour; while the speech of the
Hoe. Member for Shrewsbury —but he would leave him to the
benefits which history would c !titer upon his memory.—
( Laughter.) When he was taunted with Laving 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 AdmiListration, 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. Bentitick ) and the Honoureble 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 bad 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 stiles 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.
Time remaining orders of the slay were then disposed of. and
the House adjourned at a Quarter-past One o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS,
From the Votes and Proceedings or the Hulse of Commons.)

TUESDAY, MARCH IC.

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
Gntracts with the Dlaryport 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 Com-
panies, 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 lerse 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 agreed to.

RAILWAYS COMMITTEE (1846).
Select Committee appointed, "to consiler the circum-
stances under which a certain document was printed by order
Of this House. purporting to be the report of the Select Com-
mittee of last session, appointed to iiquire whether, witifbut
discouraging legitimate enterprise. ct,nditions insy not be
embodied in Railw-ty Acts better fitted than those hitherto
inserted in them. to promote and secure the interests of the
public :"—Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Goulburn, Lord John
Russell, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Hudson, Sir George Grey, Sir
George Clerk, ..11_ r. fatten, Mr. Warburton, Mr.
Labouchcre Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. George liamiVon, Mr.
Parker, Mr., Hume, Mr. Charles Russell, Sir John Easthope,
and Mr. Boring.

IRELAND.
REPEAL ASSOCIATION.
DUBLIN. llillaacit 15.—At the usual meeting of the Repeal
Association to-day, a letter was read from Sir. John O'Con-
nell, in which he states that hi. lather is ordered to the soutti
of Europe by his physicians, and he adds that they pr.anisft
hint restored health and constitution by next autumn. The
repeal rent for the week was declared to be 301.
IY OF DUBLIN REGISTRY.
The sessions closed on Saturday. The following are the
results:— Registered. Rejected.
Conservatives 493 ... 9
Repeaters IS7 ... 20
—306 majority for Conservatives-

DESTRUCTIVE FIRE IN ATIILONE.----A destructive fire broke
out in Athlone yesterday (Sunday), owing to a chimney
having taken fire in a populous part of the town, which is
chiefly inhabited by poor persons. Upwards of 30 cabins
have been burned, and were it not for the unexampled exer-
tions of the military of the garrison the result might have
been dreadful to contemplate, as a violent gale of wind pre-
vailed during the whole time.
FIRE IN WATERFORD.—On Saturday morning the hemp
and flax stores of Messrs. White, in Waterford, were de-
stroyed by fire. A detachment of the 15th Regiment were
in attendance with the barrack fire-engine, and they suc-
ceeded in saving the adjoining buildings.

MR. DISRAELI'S N
are requested to state, tFhAvat D\i‘oßrr.ecdbu,r4 Tnha d
K, - ANCRED:'—We
h-
M.P., author of " Conino•sb
lished " ranered, or the :dew Crusade," 3 tis
Disraeli, ay pu
B. Esq ,
Svc,.; in three volumes
post which can nowleYbiad all bookseller, and at all
the libraries in the kingdom.
HER MAJESTY'S TusAinE.—There were present
at her Majesty's Theatre yesterday et-ening, the Earl and
Cmntess of Sheffield and Lady Susan Holrovd, who occu-
pied her Majesty Queen Adelaide'; box ; his txcellency the
Russian Minister, the Baroness Brunnow, and Mademoiselle
Olga de Lechner ; the Marquis and Marchioness of Ailsbnry,
the Marquis of Clanticarde, the Harquis of Huntley, the Earl
of Munster, the Earl of Falmouth, the CounZess de Jarnac,
the Baron Rehausen, the Viscount S. Maynard, Lord Gard-
ner, Lady Seymour, Lady Howard, the Count Koudriaffsky,
Sir 11. Willoughby, Bart., Sir G. Wombwell, Bart., Sir li.
Webb, Bart., Mr. Trelawney, Mr. Herbert de Burgh, Mrs.
Packs ReMing, Colonel Wlldman, Mr. C. W. Packe, Major
Buckley.