The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-18 00:00:00

torly tracings of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark,
that I do not think any Hon. Gentleman can successfully
maintain that, as a matter of mercantile and commercial fair-
' ness, we are not responsible for the performance of the oblige-
tions into which we have entered. But, Sir, though that may
be my opinion, and though I differ from the Hon. slember for
i Montrose, I have mine misgivings as to the opinion stated on
this question by the Fiitst Minister of the Crown. The Noble
Lord laid down, with all the gravity which belongs to such a
t high constitutional authority, that discussions on matters solely
of foreign policy were seldom attended with any prac-
I tical adv_ntage, and he illustrated this position by re-
I ferring to the annual protests in favour of Poland,
; which had been well called mere " sword thrusts in the
I o
water, but in which the French Chambers deltghted to
I indulge. It is impossible not to feel the value of this
counsel, and the warning of this example. It is impossible
not to remember how little has been done tor the Polish nation,
notwithstanding such declarations of sympathy.—( Hear, hear. )
It is impossible for some of us not to call to mind that truth
wrung from the dying agonies of Poland, and which has since
grown into a i roverb, when she said, speaking of her heroin
insurrection of '3l, " God is too high, and France is too far."
—( Hear, hear.) But if France is too far, England, morally
and politically, is not so. Unlike France, he is not bound to
Poland by family alliances, nor by a long confraternity now of
triumph and now of misfortuae, from the days of the Valois to
the days of Napoleon. It ever any country was bound to another,
it was France to Poiand ; it ever any country was bound to strive
for the nationality of another, it was France fir Bland ; and
it ever there was a country aban lolled by another, it was Po-
land by France.—(Cheers.) It is a chewer in a contemporary
history, and as old as the story of others and Plasma. But if
England has not the same interest as France in the int:e-
pendence of Cracow, I yet—with all deference to the Noble
Lord—am persuaded that this is no disqu ilification for our
considering the question in this Htiuse; for, if I understand
the spirit of the Hen. Gentleman's resolutions, he does not
propose to intertcre with or embarrass the Executive, but to
corrob.etate, confirm, and enforce the views of the Government
—to give effect and sanction to the protest of the Noble Lord
the Minister for Foreign :Weirs, especially when that protest
has been so lung neglected anti disregarded.—( Hear, hear,
from Mr. Hume.) And if the Noble Mi mber for London had
brought the whole weight of his authority lit favour of the posi-
tion that such questions are not within the immediate provinee
of this House, there is another constitutional authority, scare%ly
second to the Node Lord, Mr. Hall on, 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 oar duty—we 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
belt 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 couquest, if I may say so,
where the gain is so inconsiderable and the loss so ge-
neral—where the gain is a geographical atom, and the
loss the unsettlement of Europe.—(i'sluch cheering ) There
is not any one of the are angements 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,
nut 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, mote ifistinctly secured
then 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 Once, 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).
Nuw, Sir, one word about the manner. Was 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 2—(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 6th of November the three Powers
in ;de no sign. On the 6th of November Count Dietrich-
stein communicated the intention of the three Powers that
Cracew should cease to exist as an independent state. And
what was the excuse fur so dolorous and precipitate a ra-
pacity ? From the dispatch of the 6th of Nov. sober down
to the speech of the Noble Member for Lynn, we can find
nu u her pretext for such a proceeding than the accusation,
repeated in every shape, form, and phrase, that Cracow
had b come the focus of a conspiracy. 1 think the advance-
ment of this accusation by the three Powers has over-proved
their case ; beeatiee, Sir, if Cracow is as " morally and materially
a city of b..ecaneeis"—if it was the retreat of every kind of
brigandage, tne question naturally arises, what were the three
Neer- about—why did not they Beerier interfere to prevent
this decoy, and resist this depravity ? Whet 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.
roee after a lepse of 30 years, anti say that the inhabitants of
the lonian let tads were me ally and materially a people of buc-
canecers—that there islands were full of misery, the retreat of
every brigandage, and that, therefore, their liberties should be
extingnisheo ? 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—remeinher the prole t of the
Emperor Alex:inter, already referred to by the Honourable
Member for Pontefract. "This state," said the Cztr,
‘• sha,l enjoy tranquillity and peace, by censecretrig itself to
the arts and sciences, to industry and commerce. And she
shall teinain as a monument of the neignaninious policy which
lite.ety has established on the very spot where the ashes of her
best sovereigns rep !se." Weil, 'he e of the two—between" the
rnaeriar.imous policy." welch 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 51e.r.ber for Lynn thanks the three Powers—l am in-
clined to favour .he cony lesion of the Noble Member for Lynn,
bat this I will say, that the two combined—the ' magnanimous
Nei icy" and " the mercy of decision "—find no paraliel in his-
tory, not even in the exampte of that prince whom I am afraid
other princes have imitated.—(Hear, hear, mot 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 Nin3as. She first nursed and then de-
bauched him. The three Powers first nursed Cracow and
then destroyed it.— (Hear, hear.) It was net the events that
took Alice in Craw, that led to i s dissolution ; it was the
events in Lienion, Paris and Vienna. History will motel
the ic:t, that all the pains, and penalties, and persecutions
which this swath state has undergone has been the consequence
of that spirit of absolutism which has gone abroad whe.ever
any co dness has arisen between the two great constitutional
states of the world. For example, at the end of 1635 differences
arose between England and France on the subj• ct of Spain ; at I
the beginning of
e.,,,1 -4.36 those dill rences came to a crisis when
M. Thiess refused. intervention. The " three Powers" were,
however, la•forehand with us ; they seized on their prey of
Cracow, all treaties i 4 neutrality were violated, and the
rights and independence of that state were outraged. With
south lights anti such reminiscences, I must state as my be-
lief, that if the cutente cordiat now exis-ed—lf there was ae
intim ire enderstaneing bstween these two great constitutional
countries., the independence of Crac :w would have been re-
spected.—( tier, 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 meahing. 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. And the meaning of tee myth I take to
be this—that when you cannot employ address you must apply
force ; where you cannot us, your hands, then you must use
your hoots. Now, Sir, I believe that if there was an intimate
understanding between the consteutional statecof Europe, the
three Powers would have employe i their hands, and not
their hoofs.—( Hear, hear.) Toe inference, then, is obvious.
I would venture to implore ths Noble Secretary for Foreign
Affairs to use ever% effort to bring again about the ex:eletc
cord; le, 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 civ,lizition and humane r, of public order and
European peace.—( Cheers.) And not only, Sir, for the
prevention of acts such Si this but or the prevention of that
re-act:oil is filch is their formidable conssqu nce ; of that

r,?-action which is now sm.tulderit.g wherever there has been
or is nris,,overnment ; which has Qished forth alonz the
whole litre of :he Appenices, from Genoa to Calabria, and
which may there or elsewhere burst into a more serious
ennitgration.—(Much cheering.) But this I w.ll say, that
the know'etige 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 Du.c4 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 Alember tor Loud, n, that we shall
act a far nobler part by saying to.them, " You have broken a
solemn compact we respect a doubtful engagement. You
hare broken a intirt important treaty that universal Europe has
ratified ; we wil reap titt a construelve understanding, on the
merits and tiblig,atioos of w hied evenimbhcists have differed."—
( The Hon. Gentleman withdrew amid cheers, which lasted a
tamsiderable time.)
Lord PA LNIERSTON said, he should be sorry to damp
the disposition which he Honourable Gentleman who Lad
lust resumed his seat had evinced; but the subject
should be discussed in a fair anti temperate manner.
He promised tneni that, at that late hour, and after
tire length Si which the debate had extilatied, 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 co Awning the payment of tile Russian-Datch loan. Now,
notwithstanding the in,,eninua argument which they had just
heard from the Hon. Gentleman opposite, who haul 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 tnai • 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, i amely, that the extinction of Cracow was a
gross violation of the treaty of Vienna.— (Cheers.) The Hon.
Gentleman had gone into an ingenious argument, and had shown
by ancient transactions in Europe, and partly by the aid of
buvernment authorities, that a treaty inserted in another
trea y did not necessarily bind 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 tnat the ground taken was in no degree
shaken by awl concession. The argument of the Hon. Gen•
tleman was this—that it a treaty signed by two parties was in-
serted in another treaty, signed by other parties, the obliga-
ti n of the former treaty was riot necessarily binding on the
parties contracting the second treaty, and the examples he
adduced went to the question whether the parties fortso signed
the treaty included were or not, bound by the guarantee c.in •
tained in the other. Undoubtedly he (Lord Palmerston)
was ready to acknowledge that that poition was in that respect
indisputable; nay more, he would go further, and say that it
in a single treaty, to which a certain nnmb:•r of parties were
guarantees, ano her party became guarantee for something
else, that the others were to be considered wholly absolved from
the allegations which :hey might contract. Hut the question
on the present occasion was not the one which was involved in
the Hon. Gentleman's argument—the question was no'
whether England and France were bound by any guarantee
to take steps in conseq rence of the extinction of
Cracow, but whether that treaty by which Cracow
Watt 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
• in the present
which tiliirn.—ed upon the question, whether the insertion of fresh
Russia relating to matter
and were by ntget did or did not invalidate that treaty, because
case the treaties between Austi ia, Prussia, and
the same force and
oiracow were annexed to the treaty ot Vienna,
Bvtlltuaerticle of that treaty declared to have
thetreaty. Fortunately fatale they
had been made articles of
to
raetguml ent which he wits advancing,
it was wholly unnecessary
the IlBth article.
yo.itititaa,:led
it..-lf, ni Other las°rtselycnpon
everything
__the extinction of
As the treat:.
ne-
cessary to bear him out in assert:n
(Rear, hear.) Let
Cracow was a violation of the treaf ..
them put aside, if they would, the 1181 snide atosethol.

they had still the 6th, 7th, Bth, and 9th, which were far more
material. The parts of the treaty to which the three Powers
were contratiting 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 Er:glans' and France were not patties 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 P.,wers, at Vienna, which
were to be found amongst the state papers, in the library of the
House, proved that England was a party to all the negotiations
which directed the general treaty, and all those arrangements
which bad subsequently taken place between the different
Powers of Europe, and which formed portions not only
of the general treaty, but of the whole treaty and
especially with regard to the arrangement with respect
to Cracow—in fact, in regard to that Sate, England, by her
representatives, was present, and took her part in the discus-
sions that batik place. It will be seen in the third protocol of the
conferences of the Congress of Vienna. dated the Sth 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 als a that Lerd Castlereagh, writing to Lord Liver-
pool from Vienna on the 13:h, says, " Your Lordship vs ill 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 fled their place in the
general treaty." It appeal ed by this that not only slid
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 i,nterior to the
time when the general instrument was drawn up.—( Hear,
hear.) Well. then, it was perfectly 'lain 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 nut in accordance with
it, without the consent of Great Britain.—( Hear. )
They had been told that similar things had ben 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 Hon. Gentleman, he said that. the King of
the Netherlands applied to • Austria and Prussia,
and that England and France came in as after parties
to the act. To meet that assert icn, he had read
some 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 it they looked to the treaty of
1831, they would find that the five Powers agreed, one as soon
as the other, and signed at the lime time the arrangement.
It therefore appeared to him perfectly plain, from the docu-
ments eo which he referred, that the extinction of the indepen-
fleece of Cracow and its annexation to the empire of Austria
was in direct violation of the treaty of Vienna,
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The grounds on which he
rested his opposition to the resolutions were the samea. those
of his Noble Friend—namely, that it was not fitting that they
should pass, unless they were followed up by something mere
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 the address of the House in answer
to the Speech from the Throne was an expression of concur-
rence with the opinion given in the latter. The agreement to
the address was a matter of form, and left Hon. Members still
unfettered. But though this was urelouhtedly 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
Alontrcee as to the sense of Parliament on the question of the
suppression of Cramer ; 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 resolutiosi 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-Deteh loan. lie
did not think that the violation of the treaty
would so release them. If they looked to the conventions of
lea 1 and 1815, he thought it would be shown to the satisfac-
tion of any man that the extinction of the state of Cracow did
not justify the non-payment of the interest of the debt. With
the view of maki g this apparent, it would be necessa- y 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 tor reconstructing its irperests, it was
felt by the great Powers, that as some a aces had mode greater
exertions, and gone to greater expense than others to
bring about this peace, that they should be recom-
pensed in some degree by the Powers which had been benefited.
Now, no sovereign had been benefited more than the Sove-
reign Prince of the Netherlands, as not only had his estates and
kingdom been restored, but considerably enlarged, while an
engagement was made that the allies should curiae 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 sametime another negotiation
was going forward, in which England was to retain the colonies
of the Cape of `3ond Hope, Demerara, Esequibo, and Berbice.
The condition of F.ngland doing so was, that she should pay
half the Russian loan. Its 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
slam!) cease to pay the debt, and the burden would have
to fall ba k on Russia. The object of this was to
I get the interest of Russia in maintaining the union
of Belgium with Holland, in order to procure the
balance of veer in Europe. Then came the revolution in
Belgium, with the separation of Belgium from Holland—a
separation to which this country very reluctimtly consented,
but which was intended and considered to be necessary in order
to avoid the chance of a general war in Europe. But Russia
having consented to that separation at the request of England,
she having been ready in the. outset, as has been well stated
frequently in this debate, to bring her 61,0)0 men to defend
Holland and re-annex Belgium, if it had entered into the
policy of the Powers of Europe to attempt to an that by force -
-Russia having been ready to employ her army to re-unite
the two, hut hay no abstained from so doing at the request of
the other Powers, and haring consented, at their request, to
the separation of the two, it would have been manifestly most
=jest to have ir.fiteted upon Russia the penalty for an event
which had not comets pass in consequence of any !aches on her
part, but which she bad consented to at the special request of
the oilier Powers on whose behalf the contract was made.
A new reinvention was then made to back the engagement be-
tween England and Holland ; England took one engagement
anti Russia took another. The eneageinent taken by England
was that, notwithstanding the separation of Belgium from Hol-
land lay the agency of England, that the English should con-
tinue the payment of the Russo-Dutch loan. Russia substi-
tuted a new engagement fur that which was no longer appli-
cable to that state of thiues, which was that she bound herself
to consent to the separation of Belgium from Holland, and
that afterwards, if by the course of events, its inde-
pent!, nee a :d neutrality should be put in danger, she should not
make any new engagement with regard to Belgium without the
previous consent of England. They were. therefore, in ex-
actly the Lime 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, sating that it
was founded on the Convention of 1818, and that the general
engagement of the treaty of Vienna still existed. Ile had
helped ro frame that Convention, and he could tell why these
words were inserted. It was to keep up the great original
principle upon which the Cunvention was originally formed,
and to benefit Russia, in consideration of the sacrifices
the hail made in co• operating with England.—( Hear, hear.)
Bat then it is said (continued the Noble Lord) that in the
convention of 1831 words were inserted—in the preamble that
is—not foupd 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 wl o put
those words in. and why they were put in ; because that con-
ventien was drawn up by, ny.self and the late Count Mastu•se-
wich on the part of Russia; ansi 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 on which that convention had
been matte with Russia—tamely, that it was by the
est-Ist:ince 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 cenipensation should be made to
Rus.ia, to make good to her one portion, at least, of the
great sacrifices and exertions she had made.—( Hear, bear.)
Well, then, I say that the general arrangemen's of the treaty
of Vienna, and more especially those referred to as constitut-
ing the c'airn of Russia to compensation. do notwithstanding
still subsist. If we read these words found inserted in the
articles of stipulation to mean, instead of the payment de-
pending on the general arrangement of the treaty of Vienna,
that the continuance of the payments hai been made to depend
on the continued existence of every one of the stipulations
of the treaty of Vienna, then I should admit, with my
Hen. Friend, that nu doubt could exist as to the fact that
England was released from the obligation which followed on
that convention.—( Hear.) But I cannot certain, y bring my-
self to think that, under these words put into the preamble, the
single violation which hasbeen made of one article of the treaty
of Viennadoes release Great Britain from the fulfilment of her en-

gagement.-- ( clear, bear.) I state therefore that, in my own
opinion—called up!) as I am to say what that opinion is upon
a solemn treaty and engagement contracted by this country—l
am bound to tell this House that I cannot think we are in ho-
nour released from the engagement we entered into. But even
if there were a doubt in any man's mind on this point, it in the
mind of any man in this House there was a doubt whether we
are or are not hound to that engagement, I think the feeling of
.
every Englishman will be, that in a question which involves
the honour of this country that doubt must be given in favour
of the other party, and that it would not be becoming in this
House to interpret the doubt in our own behalf without know_
ing tint whether the other party consented to our view of the
subject —( 'fear, hear.) I am free to admit, that if the case
were plain and palpable, if i had been shown to demon-
stration, and to the satisfaction of every reasonable and
impartial man, that in the courie of circumstances, and in a
fair interpretation of the agreement, we were released, as we
wished to be released, from i.ur engagement, then 1 agree with
my Hoe. Friend, the Member fur Weymouth, that we should
not, from any feeling of chivaltous generosity towards other
nations, continue to burden the people of this country with a
payment they were not strictly and properly obliged to contri-
bute.—( Hear, hear.) But believing myself that there is no
doubt on the subject, and seeing that the greater part of those
who have spoken on this question, however they may differ
from me on that point, all admit that there is a dont,' ; I
think, under these circumstances it would be little becoming in
this Howe to agree to the concluding resolution of my Hon.
Friend, and to decide that this pay:ro nt should henceforth
cease and determinr.—(t:ries of " Hear, hear.") Ste,
I am sure it either powers are found to be wanting in
their engagetriet ts, it is no satisfaction to th:s 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 it 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 fuifihnent of every en-
gagement it has contracted.--t Hear, hear ) Sir, vie know
that the physical power of countries is infinitely augmented
by the motel respect which is attached o them ; and I
should hope. therefore, that this House will not be led, in any
Case, even if doubtful, to risk the reputation of England in a
matter of good faith, and that my Honourable Friend, seeing
that the majority of the House do not concur with him in the
opinion which he entertains, will be disposed on the fourth
as _1 hope be nub Perhaps;
be on the preceding