The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-12 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH 12, 1817.

inspection of the papers relating to this subject, was to
have an establishment of, the independency of the
kingdom of Poland. The Emperor of Austrie, agreed
to so laudable an object ; but the Emperor of Russia
insisted upon an absolute connexion between the king-
doms of Poland and Russia. To this Austria and
England objected, and that so strongly that there was
every expectation of the breaking up of the Congress,
and the recommencement of war. A committee was
then appointed of Russia, Prussia, France, Austria, and
England, and called the Committee of Saxony, to whom
was intrusted the arrangement of the matter. On the
31st of December the Emperor Alexander laid before
the committee his proposition for the partition of the
Duchy of Warsaw, and it was in that proposition
that it was offered to allow Cracow to be a
free, independent, and neutral city. After many
modifications, that was agreed to, and that was the foun-
dation of the independence of the city of Cracow. It
was therefore clear that when the final arrangement of
the Duchy of Warsaw was made, England and France
were parties to it, for shortly afterwards the independ-
ence of Cracow was declared. How, in the face of
these simple facts, could the Austrians declare that Cra-
cow became a political body by the will of the three
protecting Powers alone, surprised him; for it was one
of the most extraordinary assertions which was ever
made, The Emperor Alexander afterwards declared the
independence of Cracow to the Poles themselves, and
stated that it had been agreed upon, that in those por-
tions of Poland submitted to the authority of other
powers, they should be .governed and regulated by their
own magistrates, elected by themselves. How little was
to be trusted to such a promise was shortly after shown,
and how little the Polish people might calculate
upon the fulfilment of that part of it which related
to the independence of Cracow, was demonstrated.
It was impossible to read the documents of those times
without being convinced of the truth of what he had
stated ; that Cracow had all along maintained the
greatest moderation in regard to whatever was going
forward in Poland. But from the moment that Warsaw I
fell, it srae clear that the three powers would lose no op-
portunity of annihilating the independence of this small
state whenever a chance occurte d. At a convention
held some time subsequent to the fall of Warsaw, this
determination was fully shown in the deliberations of
the three powers. With regard to the disturbances in
Gallicia, and the entry of Cracow by the Austrian
troops, from first to last every endeavour had been mace
to irritate the inhabitants of that city, and to induce
them to commit excesses. No one could read the regu-
lations of General Collin, the Austrian commander,
without being convinced of this fact. Cracow was in
consequence suppressed ; a step which he was persuaded
would never have been resorted to if France and England
had but acted in concert in the matter. A joint protest
from the Governments of these two countries, would
have prevented this melancholy catastrophe. K" was
also firmly persuaded, that had the Noble Lord then at
the head of the Foreign Department sent a consul to
Cracow to watch over British interests there, that state
would have been independent now. But the Govern-
ment which succeeded had shown itself no more active
than the one before; nothing was done whatever to
avert the fall of the unfortunate republic. Russia,
Prussia, and Austria, determined that Cracow should
be suppressed, and it was done, the reason assigned for
it being the disturbances in Gallicia, and the allega-
tion that no peace could be secured till Cracow ceased
to be the focus of insurrectionary intrigues. The real
circumstances, however, were well known, from the dis-
cussions last year th tt to- lc place in Parliament on the
subject. It appe :red that the Austrian troops had
vacated Cracow, tehing with them all the local autho-
rities, on which an insurgent democratic force entered,
and eiteblished a provisional Government. This force
was alleged to have mede itself the moving cause of all
the rebellious proceedings that then took place
exterior to Cracow, and hence the violent proceedings
that took place in Gallicia. In the latter province the
greatest cruelties were practised ; the peasantry, insti-
gated by the Austrian authorities, rising up, and in
every direction destroying all the landed proprietors and
gentry supposed to be friendly to the cause of the in
sureents. These were the causes which had been
assigned for the suppression of the free State of Cracow.
fhe Hon. Member here read extracts from certain docu
meats of the Austrian authorities in illustration of the
matters to which he had referred ; also some corres-
pondence from the diplomatic agent of the British Go-
vernment at the Austrian Court, to the effect that at the
time of the disturbances, no intimation bail been given
by Austria of any intention to suppress Cracow, with
the an :veers of the British Government, expressing a
hope that whatever was done, the independence of Cra-
cow would be maintained inviolate. In reviewing the
whole case, he much regretted that, among the three
Powers, he found one, Prussia, from which he
had hoped better things, and to whom he had looked
for the progress of constitutional freedom in Ger-
many. Having said thus much, he would, in the
remaining observations he had to make, confine himself
to the question before the House—the Russia-Dutch
loan. After giving
his best consideration to the ques-
tion, ho found there were two distinct conditions in the
convention of 1832—one, that England would agree to
pay Russia the interest of the Dutch loan, and that
Russia on that condition agreed to the general arrange-
ments of the Treaty of Vienna. If the House agreed
with him that the stipulation with the duchy of Warsaw
was an important part of the treaty, they could not fail
with him to be ofopinion that Russia had clearly violated
the Treaty of Vienna.—(Bear.) The treaty was an Act
of Parliament as it were, and must therefore be inter
preted as one, and certainly considered as solemn and
as binding.—(Hear, hear.) They might look upon
Cracow as a mere " geographical atom," but the small-
ness of her dominions was no argument in favour of her
annexation in opposition to the treaty ; it was not, in
his opinion, a small question, and he could not agree
with the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Shrewsbury
(Mr. Disraeli), that it was a matter of small diplomacy,
because he saw on one hand a small weak state, and on
the other three powerful oppressors—Russia, Austria,
and Prussia—its powerful executioners. He did say, on
looking at the whole transaction, that there was great
cause for blame; because if this spirit of aggression was
to be tolerated, there would be no safety for weak states
who had powerful neighbours.. —(Haar, hear.) If it was
to be tolerated, what security was there for the safety of
Switzerland, and for the awakening liberty of Italy.—
(Hear, hear.) Certainly, when solemn treaties were
thus violated, there was little security for the safety of
the countries of Europe. Yet, looking at the whole
proceedings, he might justly exclaim with the great
Roman moralist, there was still hope for Poland—" Ale-
quando dormit jus, moriter nunquam I"—(Hear, hear.)
Lord DALMENY concurred in the observations of
the Hon. Gentleman, that the annexation of Cracow
was one of the greatest cases of oppression that had oc-
curred for years. If the Hon. Gentleman, who had
proposed the three resolutions, had adhered simply to
the first, which would confirm, if it were acceded to,
that, in the opinion of that House, the three Power,
had committed a gross breach of faith, in violating a
solemn treaty, to which they were parties ; but when
he asked them to deal with it as a mere matter of
pounds, shillings, and pence, he considered that he was
asking them -to do that which would lower their high
national character. Let them protect the oppressed,
and do their best to reinstate them in their former post-
Lion ; but do not let them so desecrate the character
of that House, by lowering the question tothias m eerre;
e
matter of economy. If they ad
of his proposition, foreigners woulddopecelare by tthhaet
petty
ileitetyy
were not actuated by philanthropy, but
spirit of self-interest. He trusted the Hon.Gentlen
the
the Member for Montrose would withdrawportion
of his motion to which he objected, because it would be
wrong if he divided the House upon such a proposition.
Dr. BOWRING explained that the Noble Lord (Lord
Dalmeny) would not pledge himselhfotvoottehde pfoavrtthoef
acneresolutions to which he objected if
timent of the resolution of which
ly one
he approved. The
of money, but of "Poland an
question which the resolutiodnthreairseodieves.ts....n(%:aimvs
it
was
o thoughtf
polan
Poland
thathen it Cracowspared
to fr o
remainmt h generalliving wvreeme k.
would was
continue
nant of the nationality of Poland-, but At u,scirviaae,
oPwruhsasidah,aenedn
Russia, having violated a solemn tree y
Cracow w s
destroyed, and the last vestige of Poland daelivtoerheed
tohvuesr
to universal darkness. But if
quietly destroyed, the safety an.d pea lieth
wis
peace between England and France, buthhe
dcoueld not
help thinking that the King of the French a behead)
advised as to, his conduct in this matter.—(eaThe promises made have all been forfeited.
been violated,
parnod-
mises made to Bessarabia have all
princes are seated, or are deposed, and in those countries
there is an universal feeling of discontent. He saw that
that crisis which Mr. Canning had predicted—that
struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed, must
be brought to a conclusion, and though he was ono who
shared in the disgust this violation of treaties had ex-
cited,yet one of those who was glad that the
question
he was
bad been brought to an issue—not the question
as to whether Cracow was to be restored, but as is
whether the nationality of Poland was to be restored.
Sir W HOLDSWORTH said that there were two
questions before the House. The first was, whether the
payment of 48,0001. was to be continued; andre the
tpolitical
se o
second,
whether they were to take part in the great
revolutions of Europe. He shared in the opinion of the
Noble Lord the Member for the city of London, that it
rested on the question as to whether the colonies which
had been taken from the Dutch should be restored to
them or not, by the convention of the 15th of August,
1814. By that convention the colonies of Essequibo
and Berbice were to be restored in the event of our
failing in these payments to the Dutch. This was
the engagement, and the result was, that we should
pay not exceeding 1,000,0001. sterling. This was
guaranteed by the convention of 1803, or, at least,
that we should pay not exceeding 6,000,0001. for
the defences of Holland and in satisfaction of the
engagements between the Netherlands and Russia. That
was the origin of the Russian Dutch loan, and this
country made it a debt, or, in the event of our not paying
this money, we should restore the colonies of the Caps
of Good Hope, Essequibo, and Berhice. This engage-
ment was made with the understanding that Holland and
Belgium should be considered as one country, and well
the understanding., also, that Russia should be a perry
the two treaties. This was male
to the combination of
under the convention in 1801 ; but a different arrange-
ment was made at the Congress of Vienna ; but
ho did not see that this made any difference,
for if we iteeteleel to deviate from that engage-
ment there ought to have been some clause to the
effect, that we repudiated this engagement, or she
we ought to have restored those colonies to the Dutch,
and if we did either one or the other we ought to have
acted differently, or we should be acting on the same
principles as those by which Russia, Austria, and
Prussia had been guided.
Lord MAHON had listened with the greatest atten-
tion to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for
fee-elope teat rPtiaf.;iit•ti •:1,, ;)
no one was more anxious to express his feeling for the

high character of the Minister who had for so many
years directed the measures of Austria, he need hardly ;
say that he alluded to Prince Metternich, yet he looked ;
upon the Convention of Vienna as a guarantee for
European security, and if one clause was to be taken
out of the treaty of Vienna, why not take all out. Than ,
convention hal been agreed upon by five of the great I
Powers, and he did not see why three of those Powers
should act independently. The motion brought forward
by the Hon. Member for Montrose was merely an ab-
stract motion, and although no one was more anx;oui
to sui,port the independence of Cracow than he was, yet
he felt bound to support the Ministry on the first reso-
lution which had been proposed by him. It was true
that the law officers of the Crown had given their
opinions in favour of this payment, but nevertheless he
could not assent to the principle which they had ad-
vanced. He did hope that the words that had been
uttered in that House would not be lost upon the three
Powers, but that they would convince them that the
time had arrived when they must respect the rights and
liberties of their neighbours.
Sir R. H. INGLIS thought that this country ought to
unite with other powers iu restiricg that State, which
he hoped was not altogether extinct, but only suspended.
The Noble Lord at the head of the Government said he
was prepared to support any abstract resolution upon
the subject. Now, was not the resolution which had
been placed in the hands of the Speaker sufficiently ab-
stract. It was merely a respectful echo of the speech
from the throne upon this manifest violation of the
Treaty of Vienna,and without troubling the House upon
the pounds, shillings, and pence of the matter, it merely
went to affirm that the extinction of Cracow, as a free
State, was an unjustifiable act. The House unanimously
passed the speech from the throne, and he could not un-
derstand upon what ground a resolution, echoing a por-
tion of it in a substantive form was to be rejected. The
principle. which justified the annexation of Cracow
would equally justify the extinction of Frankfort,tbe ex•
tinction of Harnburgh, or any of the German States,
whose freedom had long been conceded and respected.—
(Hear.) Until a treaty should cease to be an obliga-
tion between two nations or a charter existing between
two great Powers, and become simply a piece of parch-
ment with a piece of sealing -wax dangling from it, ha
would never scruple to denounce acts of the kind under
discussion in the strongest possible language, or formally
to place his opinion with regard to it on record.—(Hear,
hear.) Every individual from her Majesty on the
throne down to individual Members of that House con-
curred in reprehending this act, and he trusted
Government and the House would do themselves
the honour, and Poland the justice, to pass these
resolutions unanimously without one dissentient voice,
—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord at the head of the
Governasent seemed to concur in its spirit, and as no
member of, the: Government had moved any amend-
ment, he would sit down expressing a fervent hope that
her Majesty's advisers would still, for the sake of prin-
ciple and justice, see the necessity of allowing the House
to pass the first part of the resolution as a renewed ex-
pression of their opinion upon this all-important sub-
ject, connected, as it was, with the rights and privileges
of freedom.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord G. BENTINCK said the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose .was good enough to inform the House that he was
perfectly ashamed of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Shrewsbury for the course he had taken on the motion for
the address is answer to the speech from the Crown
and he was sorry to say that the course he was going
to-take to-night would not enhance him in the estima-
tion of the Hon. Member for Montrose. He had list
ened with- great attention to the speech of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, but it contained only three sen-
timents he agreed with. The first was, that they must
not forget pounds, shillings, and pence ; the second was,
that peace was the greatest blessing that could befal a
nation ; and the third was, that they ought to have the
moral courage to be honest. Now, with regard to the
last, he thought the Hon. Member took a strange
course in his endeavour to prove to the House that he
had a great desire to act honestly when he proposed that
on the slight grounds he had stated they
should deny the Emperor of Russia his due.
His Hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr.
Disraeli), in a speech unanswered. as well as other Hon.
Members who agreed with him, had entered their pro-
test against the declaration that had been made from the
Throne. But, still further, the mover of the address, in
answer to the speech from the Throne, avoided pledging
the House to any opinion upon that section of the speech;
he only went so far as to pledge them to thanks to her
Majesty for the information which she had given them,
namely. that she had ordered a protest to be wade to the
Emperors of Russia and Austria, and the King of Prussia,
against that which appeared to her to be a manifest vio-
lation of the treaty of Vienna; and her Majesty at the
same time informed the House that papers would be laid
before the House which would elucidate the matter.
They had not been called upon to pledge themselves
either the one way or the other, to say that it was a mani-
fest violation of the treaty of Vienna. But he (Lord
George Bentinck) after the most patient study
of the papers which had been laid before
the House, had come to the conclusion that
there was no violation of the treaty of Vienna whatever.
—(Hear, hear.) In treating of what he must call the
minor question, the payment of the money, be concurred
so entirely with the Hon. Member for Southwark (Sir
W. Molesworth) that he should detain the House for a
very few minutes on that point. But he must be allowed
to observe on one point which had not been noticed by
any preceding speaker, viz., that it was admitted in the
convention of 1831, and it was also recited in the Act passed
by the House, that it was in consideration of Russia having
given her adhesion to the general provisions of the treaty
of Vienna, which were still in force, that the convention
was signed and the Act of Parliament passed. Now it
would bo recollected that the 9th article of the treaty of
Vienna, which related to Cracow, recited that complete
neutrality was guaranteed to Cracow, and that
'no military force, on any pretence whatever, was
to be permitted to enter the free state of Cracow.
Now no infringement of the article relating to Cracow
could be taken as a manifest violation of the treaty of
Vienna, unless it was clear that a violation of the treaty
of Vienna had been committed in the year 1831, for at
the very time that that convention was signed, and the
Act of Parliament passed by the House, Russia was in
military occupation of Cracow. The military occupation
of Cracow, though in contradiction to some of the articles
of the treaty of Vienna, was no violation of the general
treaty of Vienna, which then continued in full force.
When Honourable Gentlemen talked of treaties they
seemed to forget that there were two parties to a
treaty, and that treaties, like other contracts, must
be kept on both sides. Although it was quite
true that one of the conditions of the treaty of
Vienna was that no military force should occupy
the free state of Cracow, it was also a condition of the
treaty of Vienna that Cracow should observe a strict
neutrality, and that she should give no asylum or pro-
tection to any refugees or other persons hostile to the
Government. If they were to believe the statements
made upon this point, there was no State which was a
greater delinquent in this respect than was the free
State of Cracow. In the year 1831, there were no less
than 2,000 refugees in that State. It had been said that

there was no just cause for interference on the part o
Anstria,•and the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern.
4nent had said, on a former occasion, that he thought the
disturbances of Cracow might not have been altogether
unacceptable to that ceuntry. Never was a charge so
%% holly without foundation as that. It Mr.
Magenis were to be trusted, it would ap-
pear, that Austria had done all in her
power to maintain the peace of Cracow, acd so soon as
the Senate of Cracow called upon the Emperor of
Austria for assistance, be sent a force of 800 strong,
and it was not till the Polish emigrants appeared in
a force of 5,000 strong that General Collin thought
it prudent to retire. It appeared that upon the 18th of
February the Austrian troops advanced to Cracow, and
upon the 224 General Collin retired. Upon the same
day the manifesto of the Polish Government was put
forth, in which they stated that their brethren in Posen
were in arms, and prepared to avenge the wrongs of
Poland, and called upon the people of Poland to unite
and take an oath swearing fidelity to their country.
He hoped that Hon. Gentlemen who seemed to connect
the idea of the Polish Government with that of liberty,
would look a little closely at tee constitution of the re-
volutionary Government of Poland. What were the
articles of that Government.? They first made the
Government, so far as Poland was concerned, universal
and absolute. The second article imposed the penalty
of death upon any person who should refuse to occupy
the place under the Government, which might be as-
signed to them. The third compelled every person ca-
pable of bearing arms, to assemble within twenty-four
hours after the manifesto of the national Government
was put forth, and place themselves at the disposal of
the authorities of the place near which they resided,
and in the event of their not doing so, they were to be
treated as deserters, and punished us such. The fourth
article, punished with death all who did not submit
themselves to the revolutionary Government. The fifth
punished with death also every person who should be-
long to any committee or society, without the sanction
of the Government. The sixth, punished with death
any person who should destroy the signals of the coun-
try or interrupt any officer in the execution of that duty.
j Some Hon. Member had spoken rather severely of the
conduct of the Austrian Government in encouraging the
Giallicians to murder the landed proprietors of the court-
! try. But how did that matter stand ? It appeased
from the statement of Mr. Magenis that upwards of 70
deputations from the Gallician peasantry waited upon
the Austrian Government, praying for assistance against
the Polish emigrants, and it was not until the landlords
had shot down some of the peasantry who had refus,d to
join in the insurrection, that the peasantry of Gallicia
rose in self-defence against their persecutors and mut-
tiered upwards of 600 of them. Well, did Prince
'Metternich say that the peasantry of Gallicia
dreaded the restoration of the Polish Govern-
ment, which only reminded them of their former
oppression, and the time when they were nothing but
serfs, while, under the favourable rule of the house 0'
Austria, they were nearly all proprietors of land. Was
it, then, to be wondered at, that the Gallicians should
rise as one man against the Polish emigrants? It had
also been said that Austria had no just ground for
breaking the treaty with Cracow. The Poles, or the
Cracovians and Poles together, were the first to invade
Austria; they crossed the Vistula with a force of 5,000
strong, and proceeded to the salt mines—the richest'
ps
taarnt d onfp
nAn uws thrsi at —a
ragnd uni
ehnet eiot u
couldld not ,
netherefore,l e
du n dt
he
ar-t
Austria had no right to carry the war into the heart of
the city ofiv iCthracroewsp,enatndtntothtereaptrehteenrneasthaatcoqAnuusetrricd
a,
nation.llus
ia
and Prussia, ha 1 no right to alter
that part of the treaty of Vienna com-
prisedidthe artielerelantsiendgnntoa Cforramcoerw,nchnaesiicmouby
h onlyisaHdrotehnpi
e.ne Flt r
Houseitehned argumentsthe
that Membert
hn
articles for
relating. tn andcra
nroew-
dl
dBn,Potatr. 't7e'od7jailn'llef chief Fry
1 .tb:: treaties roai :3f
rill td;l4i:ft.fr::::::nel 'he.;

from treaties in chief. But if it were wrong for Austria,
Russia, and Prussia to break the tre ity of Vienna with
respect to Cracow, on what ground could the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government justify the conduct of
Great Britain in her efforts winch she made for the
separation of Belgium from Holland ? for, by the 733
article of the treaty of Vienna the King of the
Netherlands was recognised as the head of the king-
dom of Belgium and the United Provinces.—(Hear.)
What, then, was the course taken when Belgium rose in
revolt against Holland? Were there not several poten-
tates' signatures in chief to that connexion, yet, neither
Sweden, nor Spain, nor Portugal, were invited to the
conference by which the separate existence of Belgium
was recognised. France was a party to this separation,
but not by virtue of her having signed the treaty of
Vienna, but in consequence of her troops having
been then across the frontier. The Noble Lord (Pal-
merston) said that when the articles of a treaty were
signed in chief, the various attieles engrafted into that
treaty were attested and ratified by that signature.
Now, he should like to know whether Austria, Russia,
Prussia, Sweden, Portugal, or Split), concurred in the '
arrangement with regard to the separation of these coun-
tries ? Instead of the Emperor of Russia concurring in
the arrangement, he offered to send 60,000 men to Bel-
gium to drive the French over the frontier again. In the
one case, then, there were three parties in chief concur-
ring, and in the case of the separation of Belgium and
the Netherlands, there was no attempt made to obtain
the assent of the parties to the original treaty, and they
did not wait for tile concurrence of three out of four of
the parties, who had agreed in chief for the settlement ot"
the low countries. If England wished to set the example of
keeping the faith of treaties. She ought to have act:ei
differently with respect to that management, and she had
no pretence now for saying that Russia, Prussia, and
Austria, had violated the treaty of Vienna. Anything
more contrary to the truth had never been stated than
that the spirit of the treaty of Vienna had been violated.
They had the correspondence of Lord Castlereagh to
show that no such thing was contemplated by the treaty
of Vienna as the security of the independence of Poland
—it was to secure what had now been effected—the an-
nexation of Poland to Austria. So earnest was the
Emperor Alexander, with regard to this matter, and
so great was the desire of Prussia, France, and England
to prevent his designs, that a secret treaty was entered
into between these powers on the 3d of February to de-
feat the intentions of the Emperor of Russia, whilst Prus
site refusedito give up possession of any portion ot the terri-
tory. It was said, however, that though Lord Castlereagh
was not permitted to enter into the discussion with regard
to the arrangement for the settlement, yet that England
was a party to the treaty of Cracow. Now, for the satia
faction of those who said that this treaty was for the
maintenance of the nationality of Poland, he would re al
a few extracts from the correspondence of Lord Castle-
reagh and the Emperor Alexander. The Noble Lord
having read these extracts, proceeded to ask where any-
anything was to be found in that correspondence to show
any desire to secure the nationa'ity of Poland. Cracow
belonged to Austria from 1795 to 1809, and it was only
in the latter year that it was wrested from Austria by
Napoleon, and constituted into the Duchy of Warsaw by
the treaty of Reighenbach. It was the object, there-
fore, of Castlereagh, in that correspondence, to
restore things to what they were in 1809. So
far as Cracow was concerned, Austria, Russia, and
Prussia would not permit England and France to inter-
fere in the arrangement, and this he considered must be
evident to any one, from the curt reply of •the Emperor
Alexander to Lord Castlereagh, on the 21st March,
1814. Now the Treaty of Cracow was not signed till
the 3d of May following, and was ingratted into the
general treaty of Vienna in July afterwards. How
came it then that the Noble Lord, when he received that
communication from S.r Richard G ,rdon, did not remon-
strate ; but it was not until a'terwards that he did
so when he had ascertained that Cracow was to be
absorbed in the power or Austria Having thus
shown that in this settlement the wishes of
E:.gland had been consulted, he would inquire
how far the wishes of the Cracuvians themselves had
been consulted. It would be remembered that the city
of Cracow was not represented at all in the treaty of
Vienna, although there were representatives from Ham-
burgh, and Lubeck, and Bremen, and even from the
Jews of these places ; still Cracow was not repre-
sented, because she was considered in the light of a
neutral party. The three great Powers, who were di-
vided as to which Power she should be annexed, were
obliged to throw aside their petty squabbles, to meet
the immense force of Napoleon, and they agreed to
allow Cracow, for the time being, to hold the rank of a
free city. The Hon. Member opposite, had seen fit to
tax him (Lord George Bentinck) with misrepresenting
facts, ashen he stated that the news of the aunexation
of Cracow had been received with acclamations and il-
lumination.—(Hear.) He would show the House that
the Cracoviens had reason to rejoice that they were
freed from the reign of terror which would have
been, if Poland hal succeeded ; and that they were glad
to be placed under the gentler rule of Austria ; and he
would, in the first place, read the declaration of the
Emperor of Austria, to show that the Emperor did not
threaten with courts martial and with executions the
persons who had joined committees, or any societies
whatever. (The Noble Lord read at length the declara-
tion of the Emperor of Austria.) Was that not a
pleasing prospect to those persons who admired well-
regulated Governments ? But he would inquire how
these promises had been fulfilled, and he would quote
authorities which might be received with more confi-
dence by Hon. Gentlemen opposite than some he had
already quoted in the course of that evening. lie would
quote from the correspondent of the Times newspaper,
and from the correspondent of the Republican paper of
llamburgli. The Noble Lord proceeded to read ex-
tracts from that correspondence to show that the social
and political condit'on of the city and territory of Cra-
cow would be improeed under the Austrian domination.
The Noble Lord then read a letter from a gentleman in
Cracow, which stated that it was much fur the advantage
of Cracow that the annexation had taken place, as the
expenditure of the republic exceeded their income, and
that the people of Cracow would free themselves from
:300,000 dollars of taxation annually, and also obtain
the abolition of the import duties upon Austrian pro
duce. The country would also be freed from the im-
mense military force which they were obliged to maintain
gratis, and a number of Austrian capitalists would settle
in the country, arid render it prosperous. Prosperity
would therefore Lei the lot of the Cracoviennes; and he
would not consent to brand the Emperor of Russia and
the King of Prussia with having broken the faith of the
treaty of Vienna. He regretted that the First Lord of
the Treasury should have charged three crowned heads
with such paltry motives, upon such slight foundation,
and he thanked the mild paternal Government of the
Kitig of Prussia, and of the Emperor of Russia; he was
glad that they had given way to the mercy of decision,
and that they had smothered this deo of revolutionists,
which threatened to keep the whole of Europe in hot
water. From al these considerations, he was prepared
to move a direct negative to these resolutions.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he was not aware whether the
feelings of the three crowned heads would be as warm towards
the Noble Lord as his were towards them.—(Hear, hear.)
The opinions of the Noble Lead ought to be met by a direct
vote of the House of Commons. He had a letter from a gen-
tleman, not written from Vienna, but from Cracow itself.
He hart seen a gentleman who was there at the time itself, and'
had remained there for three days after the revolution, and
his opinions were very different from those which they had
just heard uttered.—( Hear, hear.) That gentleman
had informed him, when the declaration was made public
it was done amidst the tears of the women, the
murmers of the men, and the thunder of the Austrian artillery.
He ha,l heard of illuminations, and he knew of people who
would have preferred illuminations to having their windows
broken, and Cracoviennes preferred illuminations to havisig
their throats cut. The inhabitants of Cracow had sworn
allegiance to the Austrian Government, and he would say that
that dissatisfaction existed with regard to the Austrian Govern •
merit, when it was known. He would give an instance of the
sort of education which the Austrian Government gave to the
youth of Austria, and, of course, they would in future
extend it to the youth of Cracow. The following
was the catechism read in the schools:—Q. How ought
subjects to conduct themselves towards their sovereign ?
A. Subjects ought to behave towards their sovereign
like faithful slaves before their master. Q.—Why ought they
to behave like slaves? A.—Because the sovereign is our
master, and his power extends over our property as over oui.
persons. We feel the blessing God bestows on us in giving u,
a good and Christian king and superior.—(Laughter and
cheers.) Yes, it is one of the greatest blessings he can be-
stow upon us when he gives us a good and Christian king—
such as him under whom we have the happiness to live, and we
ought to pray to God to give a long life and reign to our be-
loved
sovereign. The Polish Government, as it was to be esta-
blished, was to be absolutely answerable to the nation. He
should like to know whether the Governments of the three
Powers who had seized Cracow were answerable to the nation.
—(Hear, hear.) In the address to the Poles, it was urged,
that if the twenty millions of Poles were to unite, no Power
could subdue them. Every Pole under the new system of
Government should be made to provide for his wife
and family, and the crippled sad sick should be sup-
ported by the community. It prayed the Divine bless-
ing on their arms, and concluded with a recommendation
that their arms should not be sullied or stained by plunder or
murder. An oath was also to be administered, by which each
Pole swore to devote himself, life, and property, to the cause.
1
He (Mr. Duncombe) wished that they had succeeded instead of
their oppressors. He did not think that the opinion
h expressed
by the Noble Lord that evening would at all help
oppress-
ing powers. Under such a system as the one adoptedhy
Aus-
tria, what guarantee could be given that Saxony
months longer, or
Saxony or Switzer-
land would preserve their liberties for s'
that they would not be taken by these ene bfactors of mankind?
have
been the present case, the ambassadors of this country must
been duped by these powers, and that
,le ambassador greatlyat aggravated the
insult to the honour of this count
.ry. I
Berlin, the Earl of Westmoreland, in a I eter to the Earl o
Aberdeen, dated the 22d of February, had stated that the oc- f
cupation of Cracow was _ merely
1
of a temporary nature, and
only destined to last so
required it. How woongaus the security of the Govern-
mentld the Noble Lord exulaii,
that ? A letter from Mr. Bloomfield, at St. Peters-
burgh, to the Earl of Aberdeen, stated, that in consequence
of a rumour having reached him that it was in contemplation.
to make some changes affecting the independence of Cracow
he made inquiries, and wa- answered that no idea of any !no-
e
dification was as yet entertained. A letter from .t i‘a
dated Vienna, March 17, stated that Prince r et ern!nnis,
mlr
h had-
informed him that no mention had been made of any specific
points which were to be discussed in an approaching confer-
ence with referen .0 to Poland, but he had no reason to be-
lieve that any permanent military occupation of Cracow was
contemplated by that Cabinet , and he had further said that
that which had been consecrated by a solemn treaty, forbade
any sine, such supposition.—( Loud cheers.) A dispatch from
Warsaw, from a Colonel —, stated that it had been in eons
temptation to occupy Craccw for the next two years, and that
that idea was rai ed before the present disturbances in Gallicia,
or befoie the revolutionary manifesto at Cracow was published.
Here would show, and, indeed, here would prove, that the dis-
turbances had been got up by the Emperor of Austria and
Prince Metternich. He should like to ask why, when nearly
2,000 persons were murdered, the peasantry who committed
this murder had not in any single instance been apprehended,
while all the political insurgents had been taken, and now
awaited their tri,l at Berlin? The real culprits had escaped,
and those who were comparatively innocent were taken.
Two years ago the Emperor of Russia visited her Majesty,
and seb-eigneni 1 'hat event, her Majesty, in an address from
the throne, state.. that an the Eroserer ef Rue,ia had unarias.rn
a journey to this country at considerable inconvenience to hhu-

self, that she had great hope that this event would into rove
the amicable feelings between this country and Russia. To
that he would only say, if the result of his visits was to be
such acts as the suppression of Cracow, he hoped he won Id not
put himself to any personal inconvenience in visiting this a %nen-
try, or in gracing them with his presence.—(Laughter end
cheers.) He begged, however, to thank the Hon. Mem 'bee
for Montrose. in the name of his constituents, for bringing the
question before the House, so that he had given the No ble
Lord, who aspired to be the future Chancellor of t lie
Exchequer, an opportunity of expressing his sentiments on
the subject. The money part of the question he (Mr. Du is.
combe ) thought the least important, but the opinion of the
House ought in be expressed in the most decided terms, in
order to strengthen the hands of the Government should it ever
be required.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, if the views of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, in proposing his resolutions, were just
and right, be would at once admit the consistency of proposing
a series of resolutions in relieving themselves from the obliga-
tions which the Conventions of 1815 and 1831 imposed, in
taking on themselves the payment of the debt contxacted by
Russia with the subjects of Holland. He thougrSt the Hon.
Gentleman has pursued a Parliamentary and consistent course
in proposing the practical resolution by the circumstances on
which that motion was based, and if they agreed to the 4th
resolution there would be, no great difficulty in affirming the
resolutions, if not in their present form, at least in substance.
But he had the greatest doubt as to the right of this country
to relieve itself of the obligations of the Convention of 1815
and of 1831, and if there was any question as to the right, be
doubted the policy of construing the convention in favour of
such a course.—( Hear, hear.) By the convention of 1815,
this country assumed the obligation of the debt on two grounds.
The first was on account of the exertions made by the Powers
who were party to the treaty of Chamount, inducing Belgium.
to part from France, and to annex herself to Holland ; and the
second, which was one that affected the honour and character
of England, was not because peace had been concluded, but
because Holland had consented to give up to this country the
valuable possessions of the Cape of Good Hope, Essequibo,
and Berbice. He thought the letter of the Marquis
of Londonderry, which had been recently published,
decided this question. That Noble Lord said that the prin-
ciple of the. convention was such as he had described, and that
while it contained the obligation that the payment of the inte-
rest on the debt to Russia should be transferred to England,
while the latter, as an equivalent for this pecuniary payment,
should take possession of the colonies in question. But what
else did the treaty stipulate? It expressed the stipulation
which had been recognised by an Act of Parliament, and this
was a matter not before referred to in the debate. It expressed
the stipulation that this obligation should endure—that thepay-
ment of the half of the interest of the Russia-Dutch loan should.
continue even in the event of war between Russia and
this country.—( Hear, hear.) Supposing, then, with the
Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montrose, that the treaty
had been violated in so flagrant a manner as he had described,
and even were a war to arise, he (Sir Robert Peel) con-
tended they were bound to continue the payment. While it
was expressly stipulated that Russia. should be bound to the
arrangements in relation to Belgium, so would England be
bound, in consideration of the colonies which had been ceded
to her, even in the ease of a war with Russia, to pay the in-
terest on the debt.
Mr. HUM E.—Was there not another condition—the an-
nexation of Holland to Belgium ?
Sir ROBERT PEEL said there was no such ob-
ligation, though against England, in the event of
hostilities with Russia, there was a distinct and enduring ob-
ligation to continue the payment of the debt. It was because
he doubted the right of England to relieve herself, that he op•
posed the resolutions. Consistently and equitably he main-
tained that the spirit of the convention imposed on this country
the payment of the debt, and they had no moral right to
relieve themselves. Whatever pretext they might
have at any other time to relieve themselves,
at the present time such a course could only lead to suspect
their motives, and it would be said that the object they had in
view was to gain a pecuniary advantage. He was more
anxious than ever that they should honourably and equitably
fulfil their engagements, because of the different sentiments
of the Minister of France in relation to this transactitsn. M.
Guisot said in his protest, " No power could free itself from
the obligation of treaties eithout freeing others that were also
parties to it. France had not forgot the fearful sacrifices
imposed on her by the treaty of 1815, and such a violation
of a treaty as had-
now taken place would be made a precedent
for the regulation of the conduct of otber powers." He
(Sir Robert Peel) protested against the language of the
Prime Minister of France. He totally denied that the mis-
deeds of certain powers—if misdeeds they were to be considered
—could sanction the violation of a treaty by those powers,
because he believed the present state of Europe was such as to
make such a proceeding dangerous. By adhering to trea-
ties, was the best mode of securing peace. If they
stood alone they ought to furnish an honourable example
in the face of the world of maintaining inviolate the
obligations they entered into with other nations.
On these grounds—on grounds connected with the name and
honour of England—he could not concur with the Hon. Gen-
tleman in taking the first step towards relieving themselves
from this liability. He found that there were gentlemen who
concurred as ith him in thinking that the obligations of the con-
vention were still binding, and although they dissented from
some of the resolutions of the Hon. Gentleman, thsy con-
curred with him thus far in believing that the three Powers
had violated the treaty. Now he (Sir R. Peel) thought the
resolutions of the Hon. Gentleman consistent, if a practical
conclusion could be arrived at; but if no conclusion was in-
tended to follow, the three first resolutions were without support
or foundation. The Hon. Gentleman wished them to declare
that they viewed the proceedings of the three Powers with
alarm and indignation. On the part of the Hon. Gentleman,
this resolution might be very proper, and with his opinions it
comprised everything. After a solemn declaration in the face
of Europe, were they to view the conduct of the three powers
with alarm and indignation ? What did the Hon. Gentleman
propose that they should do ? He did not think that for a po-
pular assembly for the representation of England a proceeding
like that recommended by the Hon. Gentleman would be a
very dignified one, unless they were prepared to follow that
proceeding up by some practical and determined step. He
considered the Noble Lord was justified in the distinction which
he drew between the executive Government and a popular as-
sembly. The Crown had entered its protest against the annihi-
lation of Cracow as a free and independent State. It was the
duty of the Crown to make such a protest on the part of this
great empire ; it was the duty of the Crown to make a repre-
sentation of that nature. The Crown was the channel through
which the embodied opinions of this country should be made,
but he confessed that as they were not prepared to take any
practical step on these resolutions, he felt the difficulty of ac-
ceding to them, although they themselves abstractedly consi-
dered might appear fair and reasonable. He could not see the
necessity of coming to any of the resolutions brought forward
by the -Hon. Member. He thought that the House should
rather leave the matter in the hands of the Government ; he

thought that they should rather leave it in the diecretion of
Ministers, and refer it to the responsibility of the executive.
On these grounds, he could not agree with the Hon. Gentle-
man in supposing that any practical conclusions could be founded
on his resolutions, anti therefore he was not prepared
to accede to them. At the same time, although it was
his opinion that to assent to these resolutions would lead to no
practic.-,l result, at the same time that he deprecated any mere
declaration of opinion on the subject, he felt it his duty to ac-
company these expressions of opinion with the distinct declar-
ation that he (Sir R. Peel) adhered to the opinion which he
had expressed on the first day of the Session—that the Act of
the three Powers, extinguishing the independence of Cracow—
in annihilating its existence as a free state—was equally con-
trary to the stipulations of the treaty, as it was inimical to the
confidence which ought to exist between the great Powers of
Europe; and, therefore, while he retained his opinion that,
while it was of the utmost importance that they should main-
tain friendly relations with these three great Powers, he, for
one viewed with the utmost satisfaction the amicable under-
standing that for some years past had existed with the neigh-
bouring country—an understanding only interrupted by
what had taken place with respect to the Spanish
marriages. He perceived with satisfaction the cordial relations
wench existed between this country and France, because these
relations were of the greatest importance to the cause of
civili-
zation and the peace of the world, and it was with pain that he
had seen that interruption ; but while he was strenuous for the
cultivation of friendly relations with France, he Lever wished
to cultivate these relations by any secret understanding with
France that should give cause of suspicion or j. alousy to the
other Powers with whom it was expedieet that they should
maintain similar relations with those three Powers, as would be
honorable to the parties concerned— serviceabie to the cause
of civilisation—to the general interests of humanity—and eon-
ducive to the peace of Europe. He must sac, that in his ex-
perience the cordial relation which England had maintained
with Prussia, Austria, and Russia, was justified by their ac-
iions towards Great Britain, and the just confidence they
had placed in this country's peliey. He thought that the
inaintenance of their friendly relations with France was per-
fectly consistent with their iiiaintaining similar relations with
:he other powers. He thought, as he had already stated, that
these three powers, during the five years of which he had had
experience, had justified the confidence which had been placed
in them, and therefore it was that from a feeling of this kind,
;hat he was obliged to express his regret that he could not
concur in the opinion which the Noble Lord had just expressed
chat these countries were entitled to a public acknowledgment
on the part of England. He could not find in the elaborate
argument of Prince Metternich a justification for tee conduct
of these Powers—for if he took the general treaty of the
Congress of Vienna, he was told that the liberty which was
given to Cracow was given by some separate and independent
act to which England was not a party. He was told that the
;hree Powers consented among themselves—consented to give
Cracow her independence—and that France and England were
merely passive and registering parties to the policy pursued by
these three Powers. When he read that treaty, he found that
the contracting parties had, on the 30th of May, 1814, in
pursuance of the 32e1 article of that treaty, met at Paris for
the purpose of embracing as one common transaction the
various results of that negotiation. They united in one gene-
ral act the various treaties which had been signed by the
different powers. If he were not to assume that these several
acts were to form one treaty—if the language did not convey
that these separate ereaties were not to form portion of this
one act—what, he asked, could be the meaning of the term
that the separate treaties would have the same force as the
e not intended to be so ? Did it
general act, if they
mean that a partwer of the treaty had a bearing on
some of the states of Europe, and that other
of the treaty had not such a bearing ?
PrahretsMinisters had met together for the purpose of confirming
these treaties, and after they had been confirmed, was it pes_
sible to maintain that they had not the same ferce when united
into one general treaty, as if the Ministers of every country had
been at the framing of each separate treaty ? He found that
the parties met at Vienna. He would not speak of the several
conventions of Cracow and of Warsaw, but he would refer to
the sixth article of the treaty of Vienna, and he did not see that
any circumstances could arise that would in any way
invalidate the substance of that article. By that
sixth article, it was expressly guaranteed that. the
independence of Cracow should be supported, and he
diet not see that anything had occured to invalidate
the terms of that treaty, or that the terms of the eix.h article
was in any way to effectuate the destruction of the terms of
that sixth article. He did not rich to invalidate in any way
the terms of the general treaty. Far from it. He could well
consider hat events might well take place, which would render
the continuance of its existence an intolerable grievance to
the neighbouring powers, and prove it 3 to their interests.
On this ground, he felt that just cornplaintmight be made of
the interference with their interests. Ile Jul not say that just
com.laints might not be made upon this point, nor did he
intend to deny that, discussions might be raised on this subject.
Far from him, to deny that every Government had a right to
regulate its own proceedings. that was a doctrine which
he had never advocated, and on the same ground he
distinctly denied, and totally denied that the geographical
position at all affected the question before the Huuse. He
would net speak of the position of the Government. But they
had to settle the matter on another account ; but there was ono
question that was alike of importance to this country as to all
countries, and that was the principle of defending the strong
against the weak. In this country, if a complaint was made by
a pauper it was taken up by the parties, but much more espe-
cially in proportion as the poor man was able to keep his posi-
tion is the State.— (Loud cheers) He deeply I egretted that
this measure had been viewed as it had been by the Govern.
ments of Wirtemburg and Russia, for both were vitally intea
rested in the preservation of the independence of Cracow. •
urrounded as it eas by powerful states It was, therefore.
doubly unwise to take this question as it afiected the geogrs.
phical position of Cracow.—(Load cheers.) Then, with re.