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

—( Hear, hear.) But if France is too far, England, morally
and politically, is not so. Unlike France, she is not bound to
P .1,:e) batik' ,Ilianeet. nor by a lone cen'raternity. now of
e.f. iriu, .2, t^:,,n: :I.c the V:•!,,,'
the days of Napoleon. It ever any country Iva,: bound to another,
it was France to Poland ; if ever any country was bound to strive
for the national.ty of another, it was France for Poland ; and
it ever there was a country aban !coed by another, it was Po-
land by France.— (Cheers. ) It is a chapter in a contemporary
history, and as old as the story of Athens and Platma. But if
England has not the same interest as France in the inde-
pendence of Cracow, I yet—with all deference to the Noble
Lord—am persuaded that this is no disqualification for our
considering the question in this House; for, if I understand
the spirit of the Hon. Gentleman's resolutions, he does not
propose to interfere with or embarrass the Executive, but to
corroborate, confirm, and enforce the views of the Government
—to give effect and sanction to the protest of the Noble Lord
the Minister for Foreign Affairs, especially when that protest
has been so long neglected and disregarded. —(Hear, hear,
from Mr. Hume.) And if the Noble 1111 mber for London had
brought the whole weight of his authority ii: favour of the posi-
tion that such questions are not within the immediate province
of this House, there is another constitutional authority, scarcely
second to the Noble Lord, Mr. Hallam, who has said in a
noble image," that the pulse of Europe beats according to the
impulse it receives from the Parliament of England."—
( Hear. hear, and cheers.) And I think we should
be wanting in our duty—we should ill represent
the feelings of this country, if we failed to express, not per•
haps our indignation, but at least our regretful
sorrow at so inauspicious and untoward an event.—(Cheers. )
And if anything could enhance our regret at the act, it would
be the manner in which is was defended. It is surely a melan-
choly thought that Prince Metternich, whose name for nearly
half a century has been a synonyme for good faith—whose po-
licy of wise adjustment and honourable compromise has stamped
itself on this country—that he at the close of a long and glo-
rious career should have connected himself with that immo-
derate policy, with that Cadman conquest, if I may say so,
where the gain is so inconsiderable and the loss so ge-
neral—where the gain is a geographical atom, and the
loss the unsettlement of Europe.—(Much cheering ) There
is not any one of the arrangements and stipulations of the
treaty of 1815—not that as to the Germanic Confederation,
not that as to the Italian dominions of the house of Austria,
not that as to Venice, or Genoa, or Prussia—which has
gained more by peace than she ever did by war—nor that as
to Hanover or the Netherlands, more distinctly secured
than the stipulation for the independence of Cracow. Nay
Sir, as if by a prescience that that small State would become
the battle-field between might and right, between liberty
and force, its independence was guaranteed by a greater
number of articles than those applied to any other states
which formed the subject of that arrangement.—(Cheers).
Now, Sir, one word about the manner. Was there ever any-
thing more rude, more abrupt, more unlike the diplomatic
usage so familiar to Prince Metternich, than the mode in
which that violence was consummated ?—(Cheers.) On
the 17th of April Count Dietrichatein expressed an alarm
as to Polish emigration, but no alarm as to Cracow. From
the 17th of April to the 6th of November the three Powers
made no sign. On the 6th of November Count Dietrich-
stein communicated the intention of the three Powers that
Cracow should cease to exist as an independent state. And
what was the excuse for so dolorous and precipitate a ra-
pacity ? From the dispatch of the 6th of Nov. amber down
to the speech of the Noble Member for Lynn, we can find
no other pretext for such a proceeding than the accusation,
repeated in every shape, form, and phrase, that Cracow
had become the focus of a conspiracy. 1 think the advance-
ment of this accusation by the three Powers has over-proved
their case • because, Sir, if Cracow was " morally and materially
a city of buccaneers"—if it was the retreat of every kind of
brigandage, the question naturally arises, what were the three
Powers about—why did not they sooner interfere to prevent
this decoy, and resist this depravity ? What otherwise is the
meaning of the word " protectorate ?" Would it, for example,
be borne that we should now come forward in the face of Eu-
rope, after a lapse of 30 years, and say that the inhabitants of
the lonian Islands were morally and materially a people of buc-
caneeers—that these islands were full of misery, the retreat of
every brigandage, and that, therefore, their liberties should be
extingnished ? And yet that would not be a more monstrous
violation of the treaty of Paris than was the annexation of
Cracow of the treaty of Vienna.—( Hear, hear.) Remember
too the promises of that period—remember the protest of the
Emperor Alexander, already referred to by the Honourable
Member for Pontefract. "This state," said the Czar,
" shall enjoy tranquillity and peace, by consecrating itself to
the arts and sciences, to industry and commerce. And she
shall terrain as a monument of the magnanimous policy which
linerty has established 011 the very spot where the ashes of her
best sovereigns repose." Well, then, of the two—between" the
magnanimous policy," which I will not say connived at, but
which at the end of thirty years permitted that misery, that
brigandage, and emigration which Prince Metternich so elo-
quently paints, and " the mercy of decision" for which the
Noble Member for Lynn thanks the three Powers—l am in-
clined to favour the conclusion of the Noble Member for Lynn,
bat this I will say, that the two combined—the "magnanimous
policy" and " the mercy of decision "—find no parallel in his-.
tory, not even in the example of that prince whom I am afraid
other princes have imitated.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
But it is in vain to look to history for the precedent of such
a proceeding. It is only to be found in the story of
Semiramis and Ninyas. She first nursed and then de-
bauched him. The three Powers first nursed Cracow and
then destroyed it.— (Hear, hear.) It was not the events that
took place in Cracow that led to its dissolution; it was the
events in London, Paris and Vienna. History will record
the fact, that all the pains, and penalties, and persecutions
which this small state has undergone has been the consequence
of that spirit of absolutism which has gone abroad whenever
any coldness has arisen between the two great constitutional
states of the world. For example, at the end of 1835 differences
arose between England and France on the subject of Spain ; at
the beginning of 1836 those differences came to a crisis when
M. Thiers refused all intervention. The " three Powers" were,
however, beforehand with us ; they seized on their prey of
Cracow, all treaties of neutrality were violated, and the
rights and independence of that state were outraged. With
such lights and such reminiscences, I must state as my be-
lief, that if the entente cordiule now existed—if there was an
intimate understanding between these two great constitutional
countries, the independence of Cracow would have been re-
spected.—( Hear, hear.) I believe not less that the three
Powers would have obtained the legitimate end of their alliance,
the security of their own borders. I will endeavour shortly to
explain my meaning. It has been said that the art of absolute
government is taught in a stable by a centaur—a cross between
a man and a horse. And the meaning of the myth I take to
be this—that when you cannot employ address you must apply
force ; where you cannot use your hands, then you must use
your hoofs. Now, Sir, I believe that if there was an intimate
understanding between the constitutional states of Europe, the
three Powers would have employed their hands, and not
their hoofs.—( Hear, hear.) The inference, then, is obvious.
I would venture to implore the Noble Secretary for Foreign
Affairs to use every effort to bring again about the entente
cordiale, and to resume our intimate alliance with France,
and I venture so to call on him by what is due to the in-
terests of civilization and humanity, of public order and
European peace.—( Cheers.) And not only, Sir, for the
prevention of acts such as this, but for the prevention of that
re-action which is their formidable consequence ; of that
re-action which is now smouldering wherever there has been
or is misgovernment ; which has flashed forth along the
whole line of the Appenines, fiom Genoa to Calabria, and
which may there or elsewhere burst into a more serious
conflagration.—.(Much cheering.) But this I will say, that
the knowledge that the two great constitutional Govern-
ments of Europe were really acting together would be a
better protest against so untoward an event than the refusal
to pay the interest of the Russo-Dutch Loan. If the three
Powers, in their notions of a mimetic morality, have thought
right to sanction the annexation of Cracow, that is no reason
why England should repudiate her debt to Russia. I think
with the Noble Lord the Member for London, that we shall
act a far nobler part by saying to:them, " You have broken a
solemn compact: we respect a doubtful engagement. You
have broken a most important treaty that universal Europe has
ratified ; we will respect a constructive understanding, on the
merits and obligations of which even publicists have differed."—
( The Hon. Gentleman withdrew amid cheers, which lasted a
considerable time. )

Mr. B. DISRAELI, in rising to address the House, said he
could only appeal to them now on the present subje..t, as he
could not pretend, as was the case with usual questions of do-
mestic or municipal policy to bring feelings of passion or pre-
judice to bear upon it. On questions like the present, which
were rarely brought under the consideration of Parliament, he
could only address himself with only one sentiment, which was
how far the question now before the House concerned the in-
terests and honour of this country ? He thought this was not
a difficult question. At present, while many indulged in a
blaze of philanthropy, which was easily illumined, and to which
he objected; he was equally averse to contrary principle, which
might be supposed to arise from some turbid feeling, that they
should become the champions of arbitrary and despotic Govern-
ments. He did not mean to take either course. He had been
given to understand that a treaty of the greatest importance had
been violated; a treaty, which, for the interests of this country,
ought to have been observed ? Now, before going into this
question, he thought they should first agree as to the subject
which was not before them ; and in offering that suggestion,
he would submit that they had not before them the question of ,
the partition of Poland.—( Hear, hear.) He had heard great
bursts of eloquence about the treaty of 1772, which redounded
to the credit of the House He trusted that they all lamented
that the independence of Poland had ceased to be. He re-
gretied the fall of Poland, mainly because he believed it was
for the interest of England that Poland should have remained
an independent Power. He could easily understand how the
lion. Member for Pontefract ( Mr. Milnes) and the Hon. Mem-
ber for Canterbury (Mr. Smythe), should state that it was still
more for the interestof France than of England that Poland should
be independent. Put while he stated this—while he believed
that both France and England were interested in Polish na-
tionalities, he submitted that the last parties which should ob-
ject to the partition of Poland, was an English Parliament.
Before the partition of Poland, the English Minister for
Foreign Affairs, when he was made aware of what was going
forward, communicated with the Minister of France, offering
to unite with the Government of that country in a protest
against the proceedings of the three Northern Powers. And
what did the English Parliament do? At this very time they
turned the Minister out of office. Poland was consequently
partitioned, and France became our inveterate foe in taking
the side of the North American colonies. Thus the same
vote which turned out this Minister, resulted in the partition
of Poland, and the loss of our colonies. The question, therefore,
which was not before the House, was the partition of Poland.
Let them then see what was the real question. It was said
that an important treaty had been violated. Now, in dealing
with this matter, he would premise his observations by stating
that it appeared, that prior to the struggle which ended in the
treaty of Vienna, Cracow was an Austrian town—for the cause
of the struggle it became a Saxon town—subsequently it was
made a Polish town; and was placed under aPi oteetorate. It
had been at various times occupied by military forces, and its
constitution often changed. The result was, that after half a
century Cracow had again become an Austrian town. This
of
hesPde
eortmlhaa
saen
tdds .t
pI It e was
n t
was really the historic statement which they had to decide to
night, and not the question of the partition
easy to talk like the Hon. Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring)
about the injured rights and liberties of twenty millions of peo-
ple ; but to that he (Mr. Disraeli) would ask, did these
twenty millions live in Cracow or occupy its suburbs ?
t(rlaetayr,ofhveaire.n)o a rdLtehteitrhetimtletadkeeedawtoayfrteheediormsydme7antdhyonfrtehme
waslt
Po l a n
nearlyd , an de i the
gh t question
eighty
ceoanrsatis. soon
constituting
teiengpaowsi sahunamtd emhdai
gdah beenl different
calledren partitioned, t aspect.the
epocht
intervening period
oe
colonies,
l modernes,
France history,
had a periodhee n
legislative
sduhra idngo revolutionised,bwt
iinchd
IrelandE
seatsng England ni
ndu
tnhihadtet
dl lost
ot
House.herth ia
ththearet
had
country,wwhhioe
heou
manyl a(intdi e
Hon.ntyh att
h great
aNti,e under
nhdeerr
such
uc h
politicale circumstances,
uamenagstteaasnt
catastrophe,
oe ps,h
eth.ea accomplishedpartition
driuobsnyt
of Poland had ceased to be a
enb
been
etwhn
the greatest
euvrcilanatsteiidsotenrie,oodi permanently
wtherissi
n Eimportantarepe
Austrian-Polish town.
the quasi independent existence of t
treaty,
he termination of
the basis of their diplomatic settle effected?
ml iaedh itpr owbthyelistet.
This town which was Austrian at the m
and which had become again Austrian was theo m
subjecteetedn em
in " tof
dis-
pute.
EnglandEnglandand France, by the mouthsce to settle,
of two most c
those struggles, which the Convention affected
tahbelethlireiej3
Gentleman, a
the total destinies of Europe. And one Hon.
ct eornat, ha
ea de t pa
lr opt e
owedr
at hoaft tah
terreeaht
ya had bhei
eehn
sahvooiokla:inionfacbty,
oNfletmbe
heser of the
twoii Hniostuesrea,oefaClloedmmapoenns,threesHpooundointgo tor the proteste-eehotheir