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

THE SUN, LONDON,_ FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 5, 1817.

tion, he would beg leave to observe, that one of the very first
things they would have to do, in order to make it
successful, would be to give a free constitution—a good
system of self government, to every colony they
might establish, towards which the recent charter given to
New Zealand, he might remark, was a step in that direction.
There was ano•her point to wli :eh he would beg leave to make
some observations. Tile Hon. Member had advised the send-
ing of agents into every parish in the country, and the cir-
culatin z of tracts and publicat ions, to excite a feeling iii favour
of emigration. That was a course which he ( Mr. Hawes)
could not consent to, for, independent of the expense of such a
plan, it would be a most dangerous and unsatisfactory pro-
ceeding. He had no desire directly to negative the motion of
the Hon. Member, whom he believed to be actuated by the
best intentions, and he would, therefore, content himself by
moving the previous question.
After a few words from Mr. FOSTER, which were inaudible
in the gallery,
Dr. BOW RING expressed himself that the system •f
emigration, hitherto carried on with our colonies, was of a
most unsatisfactory character. He hoped that in future the
Government would give full effect to the expression of the
Hon. Member (Mr. Hawes) that free constitutions would be
given to the colonies. He would ask the Hon. Member what
were the intentions of the Government in this respect? e
Mr. H A WES' excused himself from giving any answer to
the question at present. He would only remark that at the
beginning of last session a Noble Lord on the other side of
the House explained the plan which was intended to be taken
in respect to the colonies, and the first fruits of it was seen in
the charter which had been granted to New Zealand.
Mr. SMITH O'FiRIEN considered the Government had
not shown itself hitherto sufficiently impressed with the im-
portance of emigration, and hence the arrangements made in
reference to it were of the most defective character. In the
beginning of the session, he called the attention of her
Majesty's Government to the necessity of the Emigration
Board issuing information in a circular every year, at the be-
ginning of the season to intending emigrants, with regard to the
best places of location, rates of wages, &c. ; but nothing had
been done to effect such a desirable object. He quite agreed
with the Hon. Member for Northampton, respecting the ap-
poir,tment of agents, as he considered there ought not be a
single outport without an emigration agent. They were ap-
proaching a crisis in emigration, and they should he prepared
with efficient arrangements for it. Another point to which he
wished to direct the attention of the Government was, the
greater facilities which might be given to the Board of Guar-
dians to assist emigration from Ireland, and if agencies could
be formed in the colonies to transport emigrants to the places
where their labour was required, it would be a great step in
the right direction. He thought that this desirable good might
be obtained by a Government advance to the same extent as
the capital furnished by the emigrant himself.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he would endeavour to
reply to the observations of the Hon. Member. The Hon.
Gentleman had asked, in the first place, whether they could
form an estimate of the number of persons who had emigrated
into the British North American Colonies. It was impossible
to give any estimate of the kind; and it was because they
were unable to form this estimate that, after a great deal of
consideration, they hail thought it unadvisable to undertake
the payment of the passage-money for intending emigrants.
Under the operation of the former system, the great number
of the emigrants arriving in Canada were left destitute In such
towns as Montreal ; they endured a vast amount of suffering,
and were, therefore, proportionably disappointed, after having
crossed the seas to better their condition. There was also this
further evil attending the system, that it originated and kept
alive an indisposition to emigration among those left at home.
It was, therefore, in the opinion of the Government, better
that emigration should be carried out by individual exertion,
assisted as it might be by voluntary assistance from landlords,
and from other private sources. The Hon. Gentleman knew
full well that a very large sum —he believed above 200,0001.—
had been transmitted from persons resident in the colonies to
friends in this country, for the purpose of assisting them to
emigrate. This was a very satisfactory proof that great exer-
tions could be made without any aid from Government. But
the Honourable Gentleman asked further, whether it was
the opinion of the Government that the Emigration
tax should be continued. At first sight this tax was an appa-
rent obstruction to emigration. He did not think, however,
that it was a real obstruction, and, therefore, he considered
that it should be continued. The object of the tax was a praise-
worthy one. The House was aware that many emigrants ar-
rived at Quebec in a most pitiable condition, who were unable
to go up into the country either from physical inability, or the
want of funds ; while, at the same time, there was a sufficient
demand for labour in Western Canada. The tax itself did not
exceed ss. a head; and one of its objects was to give assist-
ance to such individuals ; another object was to provide hospi-
tals for the sick. The consequence had been, that the emigra-
tion reports had been very satisfactory. He found that the
emigration in the year 1846 into North America
was 125,678; into Australia, 2,347 ; into other
places, 1,786, making a total of 129,821. The Honour-
able Member was not perhaps aware that Government
voted a small sum annually for the purpose of giving assistance
to emigrants who desired to reach the interior of the country.
He did not know what the precise amount was, but it was not
proposed moreit s hould
extendeda P-
pear that
emigrationto diminish twhoeula sumy
rtohciese year, auri.a and if
dt oanincarretaisfieciiati
thdaetemifetdheeyxpecdrejealt'et
sHcealewathsasntruonsugalyl, iotfnotipgilniitonbe
stimulus in addition to the great national desire that now ex-
isted for emigration, they would run a risk of so inundating
those colonies that the residents would find it difficult to subsist.
He was informed that in the state of New York it was under
deliberation whether they should not impose a tax with the
view of putting a check on the present tide of emigration.
For these reasons he was of opinion that no assistance from
Government would be required.
Mr. HOPE thought that the Board of Emigration would
have been sufficiently active if they had had money enough, and
unless they were to institute some large and extended system
of Government emigration, assisted from, and supported by the
public funds, they would not carry out their objects to the ex-
tent so much desired by the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. CHARLES BULLER rose to observe that the re-
marks which he had made on the occasion referred to, was
simply that, with reference to the colonisation of North Ame •
rica, the association had acted on the hope that they could
rectify a great defect, and one which arose out of the fact that
its operations had been impeded by the majority of the
public lands which had passed from the hands of the Govern-
ment into the hands of private individuals. His Noble Friend
had stated before the commencement of the session, that, in
his opinion, it made not one tittle of difference as to hew
these monies were to be applied, so that they were used for the
purposes of the Commission. But a material point arose
as to how far this would affect the people of Ireland.
and he believed that if these resources had been funded
that the system might have succeeded, and that it would
be poss.ble to found British colonies in any part of the world.
Now, no one was more desirous of promoting colonisation, but
he believed, for his own part, that a great mistake was made on
this subject. There was at the present moment two great ob-
stacles to carrying out the plan of colonisation ; the first was,
that no sufficient means had been devised by the Legislature
for carrying out this system of colonisation, so as to enable
emigrants to go out ; the second was, that if they did go out,
there was no land fund in existence fur providing
resources for the emigrants. In Upper Canada, where
thee was the largest and finest block of fertile land unoccupied
in the world—but of that immense block by far the greater part
had been granted to absentee proprietor s, and out of 17,000,000
acres of the finest land in that province, not more than
6,1.00 acres remained in the possession of the Crown—
all the rest had been jobbed away. Then,
again, in Prince Edward's Island, which, from its geographical
position, for the fertility of its soil, and for the salubrity of
its climate, offered one of the very finest fields in the whole
world for extensive colonisation from its insular position as
well as its relative position with respect to Great Britain. The
United States and Canada offered the best prospects for com-
mercial intercourse. There were in the hands of the public an
extensive tract of upwards of a million of acres of excellent
land which, at the present moment, were only supporting
about a population of 12,000 inhabitants, and that 12,000 of
the most stagnant, unintellectual, and unprogressive
community in the world, and yet this extensive province that
had thus been left to stagnate had been granted to a number of
people who hail never been in America, and who never in-
tended to go there, and yet it presented the noblest opportunity
for colonisation that could possibly be conceived. But
if they wished to look at a country which possessed
the greatest opportunity for colonisation—one which was
boundless in extent, admirably situated for commercial rela•
tions, and likely in every way to strengthen the relations of
the empire, they would turn to the country of which the Cape
of Good Hope Was the boundary, but they all knew what was the
reason which prevented the occupation of that country for the
purposes of colonisation, in the proper sense of the word—that
was the savage war that was being carried on upon the frontier
of the British possessions. Then there were the colonies of
Australia and New Zealand, to which the attention of the pre-
sent commissioners had been so energetically turned, and, could
it have been carried out, colonisation and sending out emi-
grants on a grand plan would have been the rest It. But to
this there was now an obstacle. Then the only plan was, to
encourage a large emigration to the United States and Canada,
and to this matter the commissioners had directed their most
earnest attention. He owned that the Commission had been
placed in the hands of men who, he did not mean to say had
not a full knowlege of our colonial empire, or who were not
desirous of promoting the cause of colonisation, or were not
aware of its manifest importance, but he would say, that the
report of the Emigration Commissioners had not been suffi-
ciently entertained by the Colonial-office, and that no system
had been adopted by the Government worthy of the British
colonies—no system worthy of our ancestors, or such as our
ancestors had successfully carried into effect, and they must,
therefore, look in some other direction. He would, therefore,
repeat, that in the very commencement of their system they
must proceed in a different way, for they must in the first
place provide the means for the emigrant to go out ; and they
must in the second, from the disposal of lands, provide the
funds for conveying the emigrant to the most distant parts of
the world. (Cheers. )
Sir WALTER JAMES was sorry to hear that the only
sum to be voted for the purposes of emigration was the paltry
sum of 5,000/., while he saw that the sum of 8,000,000/. had
been voted for Ireland during the present year, and
the Noble Lord only intended
that country. He• hoped
10,000,0001. altogether had been granted for the relief of
to limit the amount of the grant to the present year,
for if the people were to obtain a higher description
of food, they must at the same time receive a higher set of
wages for their work, and to do this he was aware that the
for he rem oval o
great deal better expended on some system
expenss must be incurred. But would not the funds be a
subject, which he could assure the Noble Lord and the House
I of Commons that some of them detailed many grave and
startling facts well worthy of the consideration of both, for it
was his firm belief that one-half of the population will die of
famine. Under these circumstances, then, he thought that it
would be only wise in the Noble Lord to grant this miserable
sum of 5,0001. for the present year, for if he did not it would
certainly foster the notion that was now already widely spread-
ing, that the Government had not done all they could to relieve
the distresses of the Irish population.
Mr. HOPE explained that he had only desired to reduce the
expenses of emigration.
Mr. VERNON SMITH in reply said that he would not
occupy much of the attention of the House, nor would he,
under present circumstances, press his motion to a division.
He was quite ready to acknowledge the zeal and ability of his
Noble Friend, and the attention which he had paid to the
objects of the commission, but when the attention of the
Hi use laud been drawn to this subject in 1831, and again in
1836, and subsequently in 1841, it certainly was his impression
that some effectual steps would be taken for carrying out the
opinions which had been so generally expressed.
The motion was then withdrawn.
CRACOW.

Mr. HUNIE rose to m)ve the adoption of the resolutions of
which he had given notice, viz.:—l. That this House, con-
sidering the faithful observance of the General Act of Congress,%
or treaty of Vienna, on the 9th (lay of Jur.e, 1815, as the
basis of the peace and welfare of Europe views with alarm and
indignation the incorporation of the free city of Cracow, and
of its territory, into the empire of Austria, by virtue of a con-
vention entered into at Vienna, on the 6th day of .November,
1846, by Russia, Prussia, and Austria, in manifest violation
of the said treaty. 2. That it appears, by returns laid before
Parliament, that there has already been paid from the British
Treasury towards the principal and for the interest of the
debt, called Russo-Dutch Loan, between the years 1816 and
184t1, both inclusive, the sum of 40,490,750 florins, equal to
3.374,479/. sterling money ; and that the liquidation of the
principal and interest of the remaining part of the lean, as

stipulated by the Act 2d and 3d of William the Fourth,
cap. 81, will require further annual payments from the Bri-
tish Treasury until the year 1915, amounting to 47,006,250
florins, equal to 3,917,191/. sterling money—making then
the aggregate payment 7,291,666!. ; and Ihe average, fur each
of the 100 years, of 72.9101. 3. That the convention of the
16th day of November, 1931, between his Majesty the King of
Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of all the Russia=,
was made to explain the stipulations of the treaty between
Great Britain, Russia, and the Netherlands, signed at London
on the 19th day of May, 18i5, and included in the treaty of
Vienna; and by that convention it was agreed by Great
Britain " to secure to Russia the payment of a portion of her
Dutch debt in consideration of the general arrangements of the
Congress of Vienna. to which she had given her adhesion ;
arrangements which remain in full force." 4 That this
House is, therefore, of opinion, that Russia having with-
drawn that adhesion, and those arrangements being, through
her act, no longer in force, the payments from this country,
on account of that debt, should be henceforth suspended.
In moving the adoption of these resolutions, and calling the at-
tention of the House to the subject of which he had given
notice, he trusted that it would not lose any of its importance
by the feebleness of the ability which he had to brim,- to its
support. But yet, though it might in some degree suffer from
this cause, he could not consent any longer to postpone its
consideration, and from introducing it to the House, on that
account. When towards the close of the last session he drew
the attention of the House to the subject of Cracow, it would
be recollected that he had stated that at that time that free
city was held in military occupation by a Russo-Austrian
force, and that it was likely to continue to be so
held. And he had not done this for the mere
solitary instance of the occupation of which he
spoke, for in 1931 the same violation of treaties had
been committed, and military occupation of the city had been
retained for years. Again, in 1836, the same circumstance
Lad occurred, and then. also, the occupation had been retained
for years ; and yet the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign
Department had begged the House to give no cre-
dence to his statements, for that he was in possession
of better information than any which he possessed, and had
asserted that the occultation would soon cease. A Noble Duke
in another place had also made the assertion that the occupation
would be only temporary; but what was the fact? Why, that
the first information which reached this country was, that the
whole of the treaties had been violated. He had always found
that when we were parties to a treaty we always retained our
honour and kept our faith, but he found that when the three
Powers to whom he referred were parties they seldom either
kept honour or good faith. But it might be said that we were
now under different circumstances; for, respecting the occu-
pation of Cracow, they had the assertion in her Majesty's
speech at the commencement of the present session, that the
occupation of Cracow was a gross violation of the treaty
of Vienna, and that the infraction of that treaty was quite un-
justifiable on the part .of Austria, Russia, and Prus-
sia. He trusted that he should not be met by
the answer that he was limited in this inquiry by the position
of the foreign department, for here was a plain declaration of
the injustice of this annihilation of the free State of Cracow in
the speech of her Majesty, anti she bad ordered the papers and
documents respecting it to be placed on the table. He held
these papers in his hand, and if Hon. Members had perused
those papers as he had done, they would perceive that the first
alarm of this iniquity had been created as early as January or
February in last year, and that the notice that it was intended
to occupy Cracow by a military force had been given shortly
afterwards by Mr. Maeginnis, and that explanations had been
demanded by the British Government. But he did not find that
any explanation of this act of injustice had been given by the
three Powers, and from Jan. to August no information whatever
had been received, although it had been repeatedly called for
both by the Earl of Aberdeen and Lord Palmerston, and he
did think that some notice ought to have been given of the
intention of the three Powers thus to proceed. The letter of
Lord Aberdeen bore all the characteristics by which his
diplomatic correspondence was usually marked. The one he
alluded to was dated on the 25th of June, and it was distin-
guished by that coolness and caution, and prudence, which
were always prominently evident in the Noble Earl's corres-
pondence. It stated, with his usual caution, that he would
come to no sudden decision, but that he would suspend his
judgment with respect to racow, until lie had all the diplo-
matic dispatches before him. He (Mr. Hume) found that the
first letter of Lord Palmerston was dated on the 4th of
August, and it forcibly declared that this occupation of Cracow
was clearly a gross violation of the treaty of Vienna.
But these papers were valuable, in so far as they put beyond
all doubt the real nature of this transaction, and any Hon.
Member who had the patience to read two letters which the
papers contained on this subject, must be convinced that the
part Prince Metternich had taken reflected little credit upon
that nobleman. Prince Metternich, it would seem, had satis-
fied himself that Cracow was only an atom—a geographical
atom. Now when this geographical atom formed the subject
of a great negotiation, and occupied four or five articles of the
important treaty of Vienna, it did appear to him to be a laxity
of mind—a disregard of decorum—to apply such a term to it;
and the word of honour of the man who had thus con-
sented to the annexation of Cracow and its territory was
not worth a rush.—( Hear, hear.) It would be remembered
that on the 11th of November, the Austrian Government
published the declaration to the world. That declaration was
to the effect that the State of Cracow, of its own free will and
accord, had consented to the annexation. Now there was not
one word of truth in all that, and the Noble Lord at the head
of the foreign department, had shown it to be false in the able
answer he had published upon the subject ; and he must be
allowed to repeat, that there was not a man, either within or
outside the walls of that House, who could find one word of
truth in the paragraph he had just read. The declaration
went on to say that Cracow had moreover violated the conditions
upon which its freedom was based. There was in that, also,
not one word of truth ; while again, it would be seen in the
last page of the return, that the Courts of Austria, Prussia, and
Russia, had discovered conspiracies in Cracow, which had never
existed. Still the declaration concluded by stating, that the
Court, after taking these circumstances into their considera-
tion, had deliberately, in accordance, as they believed, with all
existing treaties, determined to annex Cracow to the empire of
Austria. Now the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) had, in
plain language, pointed out how totally erroneous that was.
But even supposing that it was dangerous to allow the
freedom of Cracow to continue it was not for
those, who were only three of the parties
to the general treaty, to have annihilated that State. The three
courts ought rather to have submitted their reasons for appre-
hending danger to the other States who were parties to the
treaty, and called upon them to sanction the alteration they
wished to be effected. Had they pursued that course, and
succeeded in pointing out the danger that would result to
Austria front the continuance of Cracow as a free State. He was
not prepared to say that the allies would not have been morally
nuahA
nreip
i•lnasa,ttesafwhersterohtmmoenf
telh
vt
eFoef aospops
Sovereignsuroati
en,hwy
diegi
esornteaeht:AxhaAt teusffootst:fai
Austria
annexation.
tysah, p being
compact,
very
tenra,
existence
they
gynvotieine properly
oy,cpwi
teTelthei hrsrehl
oereyeedf
pen
complained
tihaomuctebii
warranted
rtahnet eetilgbhyt
y
or
and honourably bound to make the alteration in the treaty, but
eelonaf,Lindcotearrodnad
dangers,
Cracow,
rwhkas
the
hwehilse
and over persons going to or from Cracow, it was almost
impossible that the danger could be real, and consequently the
whole of the measures which had been taken by the three
Powers were founded upon the grossest injustice. On one
occasion the Ncble Lord stated that he considered that the
territory of Cracow formed no part of the treaty of Vienna,
but he was glad to observe that the Noble Lord in his letter
of remonstrance admitted that Cracow was included in the
treaty of Vienna. Now he did hope that after that, there
would be no attempt made to repeat the allegation that there
had been no violation of the treaty of Vienna. It might have
been expected that men who owed so much to Great Britain,
who owed so much to her efforts, and to her large expenditure
of money—an expenditure amounting to six hundred millions
sterling, voluntarily spent—in order to place the con-
tinent of Europe in a state of security, would have
refrained from offering England an insult beyond any thing
he had ever read of. When he remembered that nearly every
state in Europe owed its independence to the efforts and exer-
tions of England, it did appear to him to be a strange want of
courtesy that all the three Courts should not have taken the
least. notice of her remonstrance. He asked if the declaration
of Ferdinand, dated the 1 Rh of November, did not set aside
the whole of the treaty of Viesina ? and he asked if it was not
sufficient to urge Government to take some decided steps in
the matter. He knew nothing more dishonourable than the
proceedings of the three Powers; and in order to show the
House the view he took of the question, he was disposed to
adopt not a simple protest, which they did not care for, but he
would have them show their opinion of the transaction in a
stronger manner, and he trusted the British House of
Commons would lend their support to the view he took of this
matter. He was asked that morning if he wished for war ;
his answer was no, be was a man of peace. He was not for
war, but having in his power, under a legislative enactment,
the disposal of a certain sum o: money which England intended
to guarantee and pay under certain stipulations, he intended to
mark his displeasure of this Act by withholding that money.
The stipulation under which the money was paid had been vio-
lated, and England being therefore absolved from its payment,
he proproed to submit four resolutions to the House, for
legalising the forfeiture of the money. The Treaty of Vienna
was come to for the purpose of settling the balance of power in
Europe, and to effect that object, Great Britain made many
sacrifices, plainly showing that she was disinterested in all her
proceedings. Therefore, it became important that they should
look to the grounds on which the treaty was made, with the
view of ascertaining if its stipulations had not been violated.
He was one of those who had always objected to the treaty, but
he was anxious to see peace restored, and on that ground he gave
his reluctant consent to it. But still there were stipulations
in that treaty which he had invariably objected to, and should
never cease to think that it was a stain upon the honour of
England when she consented to partitions of Poland—he meant
the partitions of 1773, 1793, and 1795. He drew up on
paper a sketch of the violations of the principles of freedom
which were committed in connexion with Poland. In 1773
there was a division of land to the extent of 3,600 miles, con-
taining a population of 6,360,000 persons. That amount of
territory was distributed between Russia, Austria, and Prussia
There was a strong feeling manifest in England against this
glaring violation of the principles of independence, and cer-
tainly the feeling slid honour to the country. In the same
manner, in 1793, there were 6,850 miles of land taken from Po-
land, having a population of 7,100,000 persons; while, in
1795, there was another division of 4,592 square
miles, with a population of six millions ant: a half, so that on
the whole there were twenty millions of people divided between
the three powers, ten millions to Austria, five and a half to
Prussia, and four and a half to Russia. That robbery and
separation was sanctioned by the assembled powers at Vienna,
and when he considered the sacrifice of honour, England made
in concurring in the partition, he could not help thinking that
if they continued to carry out the guarantee after the stipula-
tions founded upon it were violated, England would be as
bad at the robbers themselves. The treaty of Vienna ought
above all, he thought, to be carried out by those for whom
England had made so many sacrifices, but more particularly
Austria, who in the day of her trouble, when she was
nearly overwhelmed by Buonaparte, and her exchequer
was exhausted, England maintained her arms, and
advanced a loan of upwards of sixty millions, but now that
these three powers had disregarded its provisions, it ought no
longer to be respected by this country ; at least so far as the
payment of the money alluded to in his resolution was con-
act o f tyranny, a n
remonstrance
followed
thethe
con-
cerned. Austria had only paid half her debt back again to
insultßritish Government against the infraction of the treaty, lie
thought
wherever she made her appearance her features ought
to be stamped with shame, and her people ever reproved
hisc oun
to tr
Pnagrl ad n d after
of disregarding
this
for sanctioning this act of ingratitude and tyranny.
in-
fraction of the Treaty of Vienna had taken place. When he
saw that treaty, bearing the signature of France, Prussia,
He was anxious not to be met by the statement that no .
but that of Spain. This
and had, therefore, rendered ourselves parties to the crime.
Portugal Russia, Sardinia, Sweden, indeed of every state
.ountry had signed that treaty also,
guarantees to ? He hoped the
time was come when such would not be t h
ase Lest there
e c .
And was this country, then, to allow these parties to violate
the treaty, that we are one of the guaran
of the House
to support Cracow, he would call the attention
11815, declaring the
to the treaty signed on the 21st of Apri s
should be any doubt as to the mode in which they were bound
The sixth article
independence of the free City of Cracow.
stated that no person inimical to the peace of Cracow should
remain, and if found in the city they should be delivered up on
application to the Austrian Government. Now no such person
had resided in Cracow, or if they did, no such application had
been made, the parties would have been given up by the
Senate. The liberty of the person, as well as the
press of Cracow, Ville 41.9 guarrahteed by the Emperor

--
Nicholas, who, upet% his accession to the throne in
1825 took an oath, in which he swore and promised before
God to maintain and execute to the utmost of his power the
constitution of Cracow. Had he performed his oath? Mem-
bers of the Diet had been imprisoned for uttering opinions in
their official character, and numbers of the inhabitants had
also buen unjustly imprisoned. The liberty of the press did
not exist for a single day after the possession of that city by
Russia; the liberty of the press was trodden under foot. The
nakedness and unkindness of this mode of procedure ought to
be exposed to the public; this country should learn a lesson by
experience, and it should divest itself of all connection with
such faithless men, and maintain their honour unsullied instead
of being dragged along with them to the commission of
such crimes. The right of public representation was to be
given, and an annual budget was to be submitted
to the people ; but during these last t. fteen years, no budget
had ever been submitted to the people, no representation of the
public had been effected. The two charters were to be open to
the public. Had this promise been kept? No. The Emperor
Nicholas had issued an ordinance, directing the doors of the
chambers to be closed. The Russian troops were curly to be
admitted into Poland under certain circumstances, and then to
be supported by Russia. Had that stipulation been attended
to ? The first thing done by the Emperor was to send a
standing army, which were supported by the inhabitants of
Cracow, under every form of oppression and injustice. Anti
yet England stood by and submitted to all this patiently and
quietly. In the year 1832 the constitution of Peland was en-
tirely destroyed. Since that time thousands of Polish chil-
dren have been taken awe-, and sent to Russia, for the osten-
sible purpose of educating-them, but in reality for the purpose
of destroying their love for the mother country ; they had
ground the people down by oppressive taxation, and universal
spoliation, by the suppression of the public universities, anti
the abolition of the bishoprics. What would the Right Hon.
Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford sac
to that ?—( Hear, hear.) The Emperor had also appropri-
ated the revenues of th 3 national church, and applied them to
the purpose of propagating another and a totally distinct creed.
Surely his Right Hon. Friend would support him in his
motion, if for no other reason than the shameful attacks upon
the Church of ruined Poland. He (Mr. Flume) was perfectly
ignorant of the amount of atrocities inflicted upon the Pole;
until he had looked narrowly into the subject, and became im-
pressed with the utter magnitude] of the violation. No na-
tional representation had been granted to the Polish subjects
by Russia. Prussia had granted a representative diet to her
subjects, including among its members the Polish portion of
them. Austria had in some degree done the same. Russia
had alone refused it. The Poles had been forbidden by Russia
their own language; their system of religion had been
abolished.—(Hear.) Surely this was a subject calling for
interference on the part of the British Government. Lord
Castlereagh had said, when speaking of Russia to the Minister
of that country, that Russia having penetrated almost to the
very heart of Prussia, and having obtained upon the south-
east Moldavia, Wallachia, and Pomerania, should be careful
not to excite jealousy among the o her countries of Europe,
and further stated that the whole object of the treaty
of Vienna was permanently to settle the peace of Europe.
When such conduct in Powers,:who were parties to a s ilemn
treaty was evinced, he asked what was the use of haying any-
thing to do with treaties at all ? Why should not England
stand aloof altogether, and thereby keep ourselves free from
the calumny which must attend on such violations? But
there was now a change—an epoch had occurred ; the legal
sanction conferred by the Treaty of Vienna to the division of
Poland was gone ; every obligation was destroyed, and every
nation in Europe was now free to act, if they thought proper,
to restore that country to the people. He knew not why the
same law should not prevail on the Rhine and the Danube, and
the property of that oppressed people to be restored to its proper
owners. When rogues quarrelled, the saying was that honest
men got their own.—(Laughter.) He said those rogues had
quarrelled—(Great laughter)—and he knew no reason why
the kingdom of Poland should not be again set up. He begged
to ask whether her Majesty's Ministers had confidence in those
contracting Powers ? he asked whether the people of Austria
and Prussia had confidence in their Governments.
An HON. MEMBER, near the Hon. Gentlemen (as we un-
derstood) asked him whether he advised a revolution in those
countries?
M. H UME said he did not advise that ; but, beyond what
he had said already, he went much further. He must say
that the people of those countries were absolved from obliga-
tion to their Governments, and the day might come when they
would be roused probably to resistance. If he could look at
the horizon at all, his opinion on these events was, that what
had taken place, took away all security from every small state
in Europe ; it had made physical force the rule of the day, and
if physical force should become the rule, he asked the House to
consider what would be the consequences ? The suppression of
the independence of Cracow destroyed all pretext for European
international law. The faith of treaties was gone. If any
man believed otherwise, he called upon him to assert his
opinion, and when he had made the assertion, to prove it.—
( Hear, hear.) He emphatically said the peace of Europe was
gone. He felt he must refer the House to the correspondence
which had occurred between one of those powers and Switzer-
land. The Hon. Member, after reminding the House of the
change which had taken place among the States of Switzerland,
FreeadderaalpGornteioentnornf hetnte
nlefttser from
witzeriatnhe d, Coin uwrt of Austria
hieh
itwas to he
statedh
that that Court, always respecting international treaties
and good faith, would continue to respect her relation
with the States of Switzerland, so long as the power
of the Federal Government, was not virtually invaded, for
that federal Government was recognised and satisfied in the
treaty of 1815. The Hon. Member could not conceive how
that Court could be so impudent, for he knew no worse word
—(Laughter)—by which to charact( rise her conduct. In his
opinion, a less warrantable statement than that which he had
just quoted, had never been made before a criminal judge. He
must say that proceedings as these were only the commence-
ment of violations; it led necessarily to more iminent risk of a
breach upon the peace of Europe, which was now deprived of all
security. Notwithstanding the sacrifices at which that peace
had been gained, and security to Poland guaranteed, the vio-
lations of these had now been such that her Majesty was under
the necessity of emphatically marking her opinion of them
from the throne. It became this country then to express their
ahhorence of the deed. The time was now come when matters
so serious, must be viewed in a proper light, anti he hoped her
Majesty's Ministers would be moved to exert their
utmost power to express their abhorrence of the
act ; he hoped the House would do the same,
and that the House had it in their power
to exhibit their indignation emphatically, as he hoped to show.
Ile must, however, notice in passing the representation given
by the Noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) of the situation of
Cracow. That Noble Lord stated that tire Polish inhabitants
of Cracow, on the occasion of the entry of foreign troops into
their country, had danced and made bonfires, and exhibited
other demonstrations of joy. He knew not what might be the
source of the Noble Lord's information, but he (Mr. Hume)
had a document in his hand, the genuineness of which he did
not doubt for a moment, giving a picture the very opposite of
that drawn by the Noble Lord; and he must think that the
Noble Lord's description applied to the oppressors and not to
the oppressed. He said he had yet to show that money had
tbeenreat
which ought not to be paid.
treaty
and was being paid, to one of the contracting powers,aid. B the fourth article of the
of 'Vienna, a treaty between Englaßndu,sso-RDunsstieah,
,rid Holland, was set forth respecting the
year 1815 to the year Loan, which was payable on two contingencies.
One of these was the allegiance of Belgium
to the King of the Netherlands. England bound herself for
the interest, 25
Act was passed in that House to enable the Government
then
make that payment. But in 1831 there was a change.
the
year 1830, Belgium was separated by a revolution from
Crown of Netherlands. England sanctioned the separation, and.e
25,0011,000 florins, u
satt
olnpee rcent
hundred., payyeaabil.
se ; from
and thet
yet continued to pay the money stipulated in the treaty. H
thought they were then p what they had no right to pay,
aid he in his placea3' statedng then that he thought
they were wrong. The Government on that occasion were ntnt
convinced, but on second thoughts they afterwards brought ion
an
andteri ng
thatth the
convention,tr treaty o f 1815
afterto
sstujipttiltahteingchiadne
an Act to sanction the payment. In the year 1831ittusesce,
aal_s
a new convention negotiated between England and i
of
conduct
s ect of
be-
tween the courts of London and St. Petersburgh,
bit?inrdeinp
and
Belgium, re-organised the treaty of Vienna as
stipulated its observance. An Act ratifying
was brought in and passed in the 2d and 3d of of that Act
c. 81 If such, then, was the express declaration
former
Act
and that convention, equally binding as was the
that Act as
changeyf circurnstarr ces.
rod treaty, he asked the house now to set asidetb
them to
they had set aside the treaty of 1815. If he
?elvCdolinavingen'ltvio.n,
asked
consider it
do that because it was his own opinion, they
of very little value, but a learned civilian,
said that in
petent to form a correct judgment on the subject'
the loan for
vernment of England was absolved from pa
continued to pay
which they had stipulated. If they c
necessary according to
it another Act of Parliament would be
ot do so by the Act
consequence o f the infraction of the treaty by Russia the
this gentleman's gentleman's views, for they _could
Indebted to the Hon.
under which they paid it now. H wh() might
as very corn-
right to pay the money. That Hon. Gentle to the effect, that
Member for Kinsale for the opinion
his hand an extract from Vatel, which
w s could not be consi.
the several articles composing one treaty
ld be no doubt but
dered as several distinct treaties. There
and. it was also equally
the treaty of Vienna had been violated,
true that while in the ratification of that treaty
.there were some
others objected to. It
of the articles agreed to, and there were
broken there was
thniattlemthaeny haTsdo pnuotleingtaol
one part, therefore, of the obligation was r.
'" Law of
tracts from Grotius and from Martins
them
Let
Nations" to support the same view.
Russian-Dutch loan had
now see how the payments of the
nothing obligatory in the remainder. Wn had also ex-
-000/. in interest,
principal of this loan paid off, and
' -sum that for a coun-
try a total of 3,374,0001. A pretty
of the Exchequer said would not
try which the Chancellor
revenue for the pre-
sentproceeded. From 1616 to 1846 there2h7eldb,een 645,933/. of
have more than 60,000/. as the surplus
The Hon. Member then read over the third reso
year l
lution which he intended to move, and proceeded to say that he
yearHe had shown the
been considered by al;
had now progressed, step by step, in unfolding the various pro-
ceedingsasis of the future
atkwtplhuelhetetpohi
ptlpcoaelrohlerolulieo:
events
v.e
Englande
whichn ts h ihdahetwtoohpi o,irebnfodep
tophs
parties
etosoutsoe theta,ot hfi
Cs he had shown
1815-he hail
sacrificese
snwhahetoiwonnawtlhe
that
eot
arrangementshntinhpe cehacr tttEeiredengwtlyai
ttnohodf that
madevite
of Europe
Vienna
sanfErvouhetmhnra
oetdpi convention.
be.
that several articles in that treaty had been
agreed to by the contracting parties, and that the independ-
ence of Cracow was expressly guaranteed:owreiiotuhna
unanimously
nnui it.nm doeursHtl
yheechsoeanded
iesrhmeounwmenii.
that the proceedings of Austria were a manifest violation of
1 the Northern Powers—he had shown that
cltieueesselsoiiannlightesbad°ed broken her treaties, England had strictly
that solemn engagement—he had shown that Lord Palmerston:
concurred in this opinionkt.:etahHteiereeshad read extracts from several
Commons
nnu
mds notanns
would
op ue
Irdm degradation.ni t
not,
, thea
s
stances the Ministry ought to have the moral courage to take
far as they were concerned, suffer such an infraction of the
most solemn treaties without pronouncing against it their
strongest condemnation. The Hon. Member concluded by
moving
• the resolutions, which will be found at the commence-
ment of this speech.
Lord SANDON seconded the motion, and thought himselt
fully warranted in doing so. The most remarkable part of the
transaction appeared to him to be the undisguised manner in
which these Powers carried out their intentions. The Noble
Lord proceeded to draw the attention of the House to the
correspondence that passed betwee n the Charge des Affairesat
France, the Earl of Westmorland, and the Minister
Foreign Affaires in Prussia, from the Ist of April, when the
movements of the great powers became suspected
till the 25th June, when the Itarl of Aberdeen wrote
his dispatch to the British consul at Warsaw.
After a silence of three months a formidable dispatch ap-
peared, to which the name of Prince Metternich was attached.
setting forth, first, that Cracow had forfeited all title to be an
independent state ; and, secondly, that no other • pow ers ha.l
any right to be consulted as to any proceedings which the
three powers might think proper to adopt with respect to it.
But to enter into a controversy on all the points, after they hat:
been so fully dealt with by the Ministers of France and England.
would be a work of supererogation, yet it seemed but nature
that the House should express its concurrence in the course
taken by the Government of this country with respect to the
conduct of these powers. He was one of those who utterl
repudiated the doctrine, that the question h
ong t to s h e con
sidered as a domestic one in which the other powers o
Europe ought not to be consulted ; it was a mos'
extraordinary argument ; perhaps the most extraordinary thing
in the whole proceeding. Clearly the distinct stipulation be'
peen Austria, litts:is, and England was, that the eafetyot

Cracow should be guaranteed; certainly such an assertion at
once destroyed the argument that this was a domestic question,
with which this country had no right to deal. The correspon-
dence between Lord Castles as,h and the late Emperor Alexan-
der of Russia, showed as clearly that the matter was considered
by both Russia and England, as a question of the utmost im-
portance. No one of tae States who were party to the treaty
of Vienna, had a right to pick out one part of a transaction,
and to say, " That is of no importance ; we will take what
steps we think proper respecting it, without consulting any of
the parties to the treaty."—(Hear, hear.) Those who fa-
voureil the conduct of the three powers, urged in support of
their proceedings, that the treaty had not been strictly
adhered to, and that material changes had taken place—namely,
the separation of Belgium from Holland ; that certainly was a
material alteration, but then it should be borne in mind that
that separation was not considered valid until the whole of the
powers had ratified this departure from the strict letter of the
treaty. In looking at the suppression of Cracow, they must
not simply view the number of souls which it contained, nor
the number of acres it covered, but as a great transaction the
object of which was to put a stop to the nationality of Poland—
( Hear.) There was no pretence for saying that any under-
standing was come to at the time of framing the treaty with
the three powers, that an advantage was afterwards taken of it
for the purpose of destroying the last remnant of Polish inde-
pendence, and it was ridiculous to say that the securing
of a proper arrangement of police oa the frontier
was any pretence at all for violating a solemn treaty.
He hoped that within those walls there would be no more dif-
ference of opinion than there was out of them, namely, that
for the sake of a minor policy, the great principle upon which
the peace of Europe Was based, was sacrificed. He desired to
express his hopes that the Emperor of Russia would recall the
noble sentiments which animated his distinguished predecessor,
and give security to his empire by the extension of fresh liber-
ties to his subjec:s. With the expsession of this hope, lie
would sit down, trusting that the first resolution would meet
with a hearty concurrence.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, without entering into the
general argument of my lion. and Noble Friend, I will shortly
state to the House the view which I take of the motion which
has been laid upon the table of the House. With regard to
the argument which tas been stated, that the three powers
were not justified by treaty—by the treaty of Vienna, in con-
cluding for themselves whether the constitution of the free state
of Cracow should be maintained or not; with regard to that
argument, I cannot but concur in the view taken by my Ho-
nourable Friend who made, and my Honourable Friend who
seconded the motion. I think it is clear, from the words of
the treaty of Vienna, that a violation of it has taken place.
I think it is clear from the articles of the treaty itself, that
the words which gave a constitution to Cracow, were not an
immaterial part of the treaty, but evinced one of the prin-
cipal relations under which it was made at the conclusion of
a bloody and destrustive war. Nor can I think that the
arrangements which placed the Duchy of Warsaw under the
dominion of the Emperor: of Russia, the stipulations of
which formed the basis of a long and singular correspondence
between the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this country and
the Emperor of Russia, I cannot think that these arrangements,
which left one single particle of the country free and inde-
pendent, were immaterial and insignificant. It cannot but
appear, I think, that however small the territory may be—
however small the population of that place may be—yet the
treaty formed at first between these three powers, and then
by all the powers who were concurring parties to the treaty
of Vienna, by which that city should be free and independent
—meant that that freedom and independence should leave
to Poland—should leave to some part of the Polish
nation a separate existence.—( Hear.) And that, giving
up much—admitting much to the Emperor of Russia, it was
yet a confirmation of the principle that some part of the Polish
nation should retain its independence and separate existence.
For these reasons, therefore, I think that if its existence, as a
city, has been secured by a general treaty. whatever com-
plaints the three powers had to make, that Cracow was the
focus of disturbance and revolution, and that intrigues there
found a centre and a means of organization ; and that by the
rise from that small city, of insurrections against the three
surrounding powers, it was impossible to preserve those powers
from those insurrections; that if these reasons were good and
valid ones, they ought to have been stated to England and
France—( Hear, hear)—and that England and France should
have been invited to a congress, or some species of conference,
in which their consent should have been asked, to put an end
to that state of things which these three powers declare to
be intolerable, and which they could no longer per-
mit with safety to themselves. So much, I think
Sir, is clear from the papers which record the
general transactions of the treaty of Vienna; and so much I
think is clear from the passage which my Noble Friend oppo-
site read from a statement of the Prussian Minister of Foreign
Affairs, and in which he admits that if the arrangement of the
treaty of Vienna were to be altered, a correspondence with
England and France ought to be the necessary consequence.
In the next place, I think with regard to the reasons
which are given by these three powers, and which
are stated more especially by Prince Metternich on
behalf of the Court of Austria, that these reasons appear
to me not sufficient for', their violent proceedings.—(Cheers )
I cannot myself imagine that then: could not have been pre-
cautions taken which, however they confined and limited the
actions of the free and independent city of Cracow, could yet
have secured that its name and its independence should be
maintained, and that all danger from refugees, and from its
being made a place where strangers from all parts of the
land planned conspiracies, could have been avoided and pre-
vented. It does seem to me most extraordinary that this
little state—this mere atom— surrounded by Russia, by Aus-
tria, and by Prussia—by these great and mighty monarchies—
each with vast military forces—each with abundant means of
having the command of all the roads leading to Cracow, and
having the power to march troops at any moment into the
city of Cracow, having themselves certain rights, which were
constituted and ;assigned to them by the treaty of Vienna—
that they should find themselves so powerless as to be unable to
prevent Cracow from being dangerous to their power and se
citrity. I cannot think that these three powers slid earnestly,
vigilantly and sincerely, use all the powers which they had, in
order to prevent Cracow from becoming the means of disturb-
ance; arid it cannot but be suspected, especially in the latter
part of the transaction, that when the Government was dis-
solved in Cracow, and disorganisation had taken place, it was
to them not an unwelcome circumstance—(Cheers)—that is,
not altog,thher unpalateable to these three powers—that they
were able to see that all the moans of good were gone in Cra-
eow—that it was in a state of anarchy and disorder—and that
nothing remained but the title of independence. I think,
therefore, Sir—both on the grounds of the treaty of Vienna,
and the importance of the stipulation with regard to Cracow,
and with regard to the reasons urged for its extinc-
tion—that, in the first place, it was a manifest violation of the
treaty of Vienna, and I think that if the question had been
discussed in a congress, or in a conference among the powers,
there is no sufficient proof, as far as we have hitherto seen,
that these three powers would have been able to persuade the
minds of England and France that there were sufficient rea-
sons for the course they adopted. Neither, Sir, am I con-
vinced, by the instances which are given by the Alinister of
Austria, that the various stipulations of the treaty of Vienna,
which have been altered by mutual arrangement of the princi-
pals concerned, and whose territories were affected by that
treaty—(such as Coburg and others, and which have been
transferred in consideration of some increase of authority to the
principals, or in mutual convenience with regard to their
territories, for the purpose of giving a fair equivalent
to each, and, at the same time, making a more con-
venient arrangement for all)—are breaches of that treaty.
They are natural and easy alterations of the treaty, which might '
take place, without any person being able to call them infrac-
tions of the treaty, and they bear in my mind no resemblance
to the one great and leading matter of stipulation in which all
the great powers of Europe are interested. How can it be
said with regard to this great nation—supposing that some
arrangement is made between Austria and Prussia for the ex-
tinction of Saxony—that it is not to be consulted ? These
great powers are asked "How can you, only two parties to
the treaty of Vienna, agree to extinguish that state ?" And
what answer would it be to say that some petty territory had
been divided between two or three principals, and that no pro-
test was made with respect to that ? Sir, I again say, that I
consider the:extinction of this free state a violation of one of the
main and leading parts of this treaty. But, Sir, my Hon. Friend
is not satisfied with the protest which my Noble Friend the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has directed to be de-
livered to the Courts of the three powers principally con-
cerned, he wishes this House to agree to certain reso-
lutions. With regard to the first of these resolutions, my
Noble Frierd opposite, who seconded the resolution, is in com-
plete accordance with the motion, but with regard to the last
of these resolutions, he is not so far agreed to it, and he
doubted if that House ought to adopt it. Now, Sir, with re-
grd to the first resolution—" That this House views with

alarm and indignation the incorporation of the free city of
Cracow to the dominions of the Emperor of Austria, to the
manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna." I should
t
beg the house to consider that there is a very great
difference between that which s been done by my
Noble Friend in obedience to her Majesty's commands, and that
which is proposed to this House in this resolution. It is the
prerogative of the Crown to make treaties, and to carry on the
correspondence and relations of this country with all foreign
Powers. Every treaty, every engagement, is carried on in the
name of the Sovereign, and by the command of
the SovereiA l
.m. treaty had been signed and re-
vised, as this treaty has been signed and revised, by the Minis-
ters of England, in the name of George the Third
and the Prince Regent, and any violation or contra •
vention of the treaty should take place, the person on whom it
devolves to make any representation
ofh
te
with regard to any
protest is obviously the Minister Sovereigntl of England,
who had, in the first place, made arrangement.
With regard to the functions of this House, it is entirely of a
different nature. When a treaty of importance: smad eor con-
firmed, it is usual for the Minister of the Crowni to come to
this House and to ask for its concurrence. If a treaty of sub-
sidy or commerce is signed, and the interference of Parliament
is thought necessary, then the course is for the Minister of the
Crown to come before the House for its sanction and concur-
rence to the same. But to affirm resolutions expressive. of an
opinion on the subject-matter of a treaty, this is not the usual,
nor is it the regular course of roce ,d. It is not advisable
that the House of Commons shouldP affilrng.the resolutionsrespecting
our relations with foreign Powers, unlemss intendbe to follow
those resolutions up with measures which are they
effect
to by the Executive. The usual course is for the giveneeretary of
State for Foreign Affairs to advise her Majesty as to the course
to be taken in regard to the violation of any treaty with
foreign Powers.--( Hear, bear.) For my part, I have never
advised nor decided that the House should take upon
itself the functions to which I have referred to, or that
it
should imitate the conduct GI the French Chambers with regard
to Poland.—(Hear, hear.) It is usual for the French Chamber
of Deputies, at the commencement of each session, to protest
against the acts of the Emperor Nicholas, and declare the na-
tionality of Poland. I think a cause loses force by bringing it
continually under notice without following up whatever decla-
ration may be made by other measures. ( Hear, hear.) It
therefore leads to no practical good to bring such a question
under the notice of a representative assembly without following
the matter further.—( Hear, hear.) But how great is the dif-
ficulty in which this country is at present placed in relation to
this treaty ? It has been said that by the letter of the treaty
of Vienna that we are freed from the obligations which it im-
poses. Now, for my own part, I can see no advantage
in departing from the usual course, or in bringing
the subject before the House for its consideration and the de-
claration of its opinion. I think the House should respect the
usual custom in affairs of this kind, and it is on this reason
mainly that I oppose the present motion. While I have no
objection to urge against the resolution under consideration—for
I gave my opinion formerly, as I give it now, against the sup-
pression of Cracow—still I cannot consent to the course pro-
posed by the Hon. Member for Montrose. Upon the grounds
I have stated, therefore, I am disposed to move the previous
question. With the resolution that follows I purpose to do
the same. But with regard to the last resolution, which de-
clares that this ceuntry " secures to Russia the payment of a:por-
tion of her old Dutch debt, on condition of the general arrange-
ments of the Congress of Vienna, to which she gave her
adhesion—arrangements which remain in full force," I
must demur. Sir, that is another and a different question. This
arrangement was made at the time of the union of Belgium
with Holland, when it was agreed that the debt which Holland
owed to Russia should be taken to by Great Britain, and that
this country should pay the interest on it. Russia was a party to
this arrangement, and consented to it. When afterwards, and
after a lapse of time, the two countries separated, Russia,
according to the letter of the treaty, was no longer entitled to
the benefit of this arrangement, and therefore, if the letter of
the treaty was to be adhered to, you were freed from its
obligations ; Belgium had separated from Holland, and the
treaty might have been declared Aan end. But though you