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

OTHERS.

Dr. BOWRING called the attention of the House to
the petition of Sir Thomas Brisbane and others, with a
view to the redress of the grievance of which it com-
plained. The petitioners were the executors of a gen-
tleman who died a short while ago in India leaving per-
sonal property, to the amount of 150,0001., and the
executors retained -a considerable amount in their
hands- -in anticipation of being called upon to
pay the legacy duty upon the residue.. In the
year 1839, the probate of , the will was granted.
Subsequently the legacy duty was demanded of the
executors, and paid, though they protested against the
claim as altogether illegal. The Ron. and Learned
Member having stated the particulars of the matter,
cited two cases in 1537 and 1838, in which, under ana-
logous circumstances, the legacy duty was not exacted.
The opinion of the late Sir William Follett was, that
the legacy duty could not be claimed under the
circumstances. This, he submitted, settled the question.
Ultimately the authorities in Scotland, probably acting
under the influence of menaces from the Government,
paidL 9,2841. 6s. 4d. on the 19th of January,
180,-, the Scotch judges having decided that the
legacy duty was payable. An appeal against their
decision was carried to the House of Lords in the same

year; considerable delay took place, which was not,
however, attributable to the petitioner; but in
February, 1845, it appeared so clear to the
House of Lords, and to the judges there as-
sembled, that they came to the opinion that the legacy
duty was not payable in this case, and declared that the
payment of the duty entirely depended upon the testator
at the time of his death. The Government had thus
appropriated about 9,2001. which did not belong to it.
He hoped that after the statement which had been made
the House would allow his motion for a Select Com-
mittee to inquire into the subject.
.4)AltircE4 dlc.l'tiot' dis-
-I*te`ihnf6ntrat'faefajtOedby.,l44 :Honourable Friend,
nor tiCt; attempt - too- controvert .any 'fact stated
by him, with one exception. The reasons on
whkilthe4-overriinent liaa Acted Were .sound ones,
'apd,lokc N 604
,the - An Act was
401;Slied in the year, -17915. and a rinCiplii had I?p'eo est',
.!dished untler;that-40t,M011 .had "continued do*n to
theVegerit,itime. Thk practice `was that Whereier let.,
tars, of administration I were -She'll out, legacy duty was
payable upon the bequeits. That prineiple had not
allfred in Any way from the year 1796 doivn to that time.
Thtic,24l#6lotima of the law since 1845 was somewhat
diffeaent frjom that which had ruled since 1796, for it
hadybeenlaid down by the judges that domicile was
the t•st of exemption from legacy duty, and that
ad e.r4stration on property in India was liable to legacy
duty.
He did not think that the Hon. and Learned
Member had made out any case to call for
the intervention of that House. It was in the
power of the House of Lords to pronounce a reversal.—
(Hear, hear.) It was in their power, and there might
be circumstances to warrant a decision not accordant

with general rules ; but until that supreme court
did pronounce such an opinion, he thought that there
was no case made out by the Hon. and Learned Member.

Mr. WARBURTON said it did not appear to him
that the Crown were prepared to refund the money,
and by this rule, if the Crown did wrongfully possess
itself of the money of a subject, they would never return
it. Was it a reason that, because the money had been taken
by a misconstruction of the law, the Crown should not
return that money ? A distinction had been attempted
to be drawn in this case between the law as laid
down by the House of Lords in the cases of
the Attorney-General v. Jackson and Arnold v.
Arnold, because the property in this case was
partly in India and partly in England.
Was he to take the law as laid down by the Lord
Chancellor, or was he to take the law as declared by
the Secretary to the Treasury? That seemed to him to
be the simple question to be decided.
Sir R. H. INGLIS contended that at the time the
money was paid the law justified the Crown's receiving it,
and therefore the parties had no right to have it refunded.
He concurred with the Hon. Member for Sheffield, and
would resist the motion.
Mr. HUME said that in 1838, when a similar claim
for legacy duty was made on the property of a party that
died in Jamaica, the payment was resisted, and the Go-
vernment did not enforce the claim.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the Hon. Member
who had spoken in favour of the resolution misappre-
hended the qUestion. In 1845 an alteration had been
made in the law regarding the legacy duty, and since
then it had not been enforced against the estates of those
who died abroad. With regard to the opinion of the
late Sir William Follett, that was an opinion founded
on a private case submitted to him, and was
not to, be taken as any authority on the point. In 1795
two of the most eminent lawyers that had ever held
office in this country under the Crown, Lord Eldon and
Lord Redesdale, gave their decision that legacy duty was
payable in every case where the probate duty was
claimed in this country. From that time up till 1845 the
first lawyers in the country concurred in this decision.
In the case of Arnold v. Arnold, which, however, had
na bearing at all on the present case, Lord Cottenham
decided that the parties were not liable to pay the le-
gacy duty in England, as they had done so in India. In
the case of the Attorney-General v. Thompson, it was
decided that legacy duty was payable, and Mr. Thomp-
son accordingly paid it.
Dr. BOWRING said Mr. Thompson denied that he
had paid it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted that
the decision was appealed against, but Lord
Campbell, Lord Brougham, and Lord Lynd-
hurst decided that the payment of the legacy
duty was governed by "domicile." If this case
had occurred before 1845, the duty would not have been
payable ; but if the principle of the Hon. Gentleman was
to be adopted, every shilling levied since 1796
would have been an illegal act. It was a prin-
ciple in law, that all money paid through
the decision of juries, or by mistake, was not
recoverable.—(Cries of " Ob, oh, and laughter.) He
repeated that was a principle in law. On these grounds
he fett:it. his: duty to oppose the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman.
Mr.SCOTT said that it appeared that Mr. Douglas
had aid a legacy duty upon certain moneys to
the amount of 9,2001. The Attorney-General had
stated that the case was one perfectly similar
to that which might happen between private parties,
inasmuch as the money had been paid with the belief
that the just interpretation of the law required it.
Now he took the strongest exceptions to the arguments
of his Learned Friend, for the law had not been decided,
and at the very moment when the Crown demanded the
money the Crown was aware that the law was contested
in the case of the Attorney-General v. Thompson.—
(Hear.) Now, if the case was similar to that of private
partieS, he ventured to say that any man would
blast his character for ever as a man of honour, if he
refused to pay the money, and what was more, he would
affirm that there was not a mercantile house in the
whole Of "the city of London that would act
in the manner the Crown had acted in this case.
He believed that domicile, instead of governing the law
of legacy duty for only the last two years, had been the
rule tor the.last twenty years. The Government, there-
fore, in calling upon the administrators to pay 9,2841. at
that time were acting against the principle of the law
as then existing, and as acted upon by the judges. The
Hon. Member then referred to precedents in support of
this position, and concluded by expressing his determi-
nation: to support the motion of the Hon. and Learned
Menatiel- kr' Bolton.
Sir te.IIIESIGER said, that after the very clear
statemeit of 'his Hon. Friend, the Attorney-General,
there {detained very little to state on this subject. The
only question the House had to consider was, whether
it would grant a Select Committee, which would be con-
sidered to be equivalent ordering the money to be re-
funded. It seemed strange to him, that persons
who had saved money under the law as it
then stood, should afterwards, on a change taking
place in:the law, call upon the Government to refund that
mone
Hon. E
Hemoney. wrioeund.ld certainly vote against the proposition
of his
Mr. BERNAL said that the Right Hon. Gentleman
Gtheenctlaserednu
who had. last spoken had omitted one important point in
his view of this question. He (Mr. Bernal) maintained, if
the facts contained in the petition were correct, the money
had been paid under a protest, and. that at once took
.
thoadf t of vast ini-
portance,,and it was iery, necessary that points involving
construction sattrur6:tito.according to the then
considerations like the present should. be permanently
phleacneadrriot.w clirtcrileaTsaeghuicetisttihond Right
n°lloltdunder the law itself,
and the motion could not therefore b 3 objected to on
that ground.
Dr. BOWRING replied, and asked leave to withdraw
n "The
ei money
iw, andwa s
his motion, Promising at the same time, at a future
period to bring the subject forward
in another shape.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.

FLOGGING IN-THE NAVY.
Mr. HUME postponed his motion for a return of the
number ,of persons flogged in the British navy till after
the othei;,Orders of the day.
DEATHS IN IRELAND.
Lord G. BENTINCK moved for a comparative return
of the number of deaths which have occurred in each
parish of Ireland in each of the three last periods of airs

months, commencing the Ist day of September, and
ending the Ist day of March respectively with a summary
tor each period. It was important that they should
know whether the proper course had been taken, in
order to save human life. There had been two
systems in operation. One, the last year, which
provided food and maintenance for the people ; and this
year a system of political economy in which all the
previous precautions were treated as of no use. It was
for this purpose that he moved for these returns.
Mr. LABOUCHERE could assure the Noble Lord
and the House that whatever difficulty there might
exist in meeting the present motion, he had no
wish but to furnish the fullest information
of the destruction of human life which had taken place.
He regretted it as much as any man could do, and he
believed it was going on, and would continue to do so to
a fearful extent. The Government had already supplied
two returns ; one was the number of coroners' inquests
at which verdicts of death by starvation was given ; and
the other was that to which he consented the other
night, supplied through the constabulary force. The
real difficulty of acceding to the Noble Lord's motion
was, that he did not know how accurate information was
to be obtained. There were but two ways of getting in-
formation. With regard to the first plan, he regretted
there was not, as in England, a register of births, mar-
riages, and deaths, owing principally, he believed, to re-
ligious differences. He -vas not without hope that this
difficulty would be got over, but at the present moment
there was no such system in operation as could furnish
correct returns to the Noble Lord. Nothing could be
more inexpedient than inaccurate information, as it was
only calculated to mislead the public mind. The other
objection was, that the returns, if made out at all, would
be entirely voluntary on the part of those alone who
could give any information on the subject, as there were
no public functionaries in Ireland whose duty it was to
furnish the information sought by the Noble Lord. The
Noble Lord proposed that the clergy, of all denominations,
should be required to furnish the information; but as they
did not keep returns of the numbers who died in their
respective localities ; neither Protestant nor Roman
Catholic clergymen were expected to keep lists of the
deaths that occurred in their parishes, so that in 'many
instances they could only assume the numbers. Thus
the information would be most fallacious. All he could
say was, that he would write to Ireland to inquire
whether there existed any means whatever of affording
information which, being accurate, could be relied on.
He feared that there were no accurate means, and if
there were not, he thought the House would derive no
good by having information of a vague character before
them. These were the only objections he entertained
to the motion, for he concurred with the Noble Lord, in
thinking thut it was the duty of the Government, and
he was sure it was their desire, to afford the fullest
information on the subject. The Noble Lord had
alluded to a statement made by the Hon. Member for
Limerick (Mr. S. O'Brien) that 240,000 had recently
died from starvation, or from diseases closely connected
with it. Now he must say that he was quite
ignorant of the source from which the
Hon. Gentleman had derived his information. Ho (Mr.
Labouchore) was totally ignorant that any such possible
accounts had reached the Irish Government. But he
had written to Ireland, and he could not help protesting,
in the name of the Government, against the statement of
the Noble Lord, that the Government, acting upon the
principles of political economy, had not devised proper
remedies, and that, in consequence, starvation and
death had increased. The Noble Lord stated that the
present Government had not acted so benevolently or so
wisely as their predecessors; but he (Mr. Labouchere)
was at a loss to know in what respect the conduct of the
two Governments differed? He stated that they had not
provided food for the people like their predecessors, but
if he would look at the returns of the quantity of food
that had been exported for the people of Ireland, he
would find that the quantity of food very much exceeded
the quantity exported by the late Government. The dis-
tress, it was true, had increased, but the
Government had done all in their power to
meet the increasing wants of the people. Nothing
could be more dangerous to the Government than to
make these vague and unjust accusations against it un-
less Gentlemen were prepared to prove them by facts.
The Government had done all in its power to relieve the
present calamities ; but there was unfortunately pre-
valent in Ireland a notion that the Government could
prevent these calamities, and the motion of the Noble
Lord was much calculated to give force to that idea. He
thought it rather hard that the Noble Lord, without
giving proof, should state in the face of the House and
the country that the Government had sacrificed the lives
of thousands of their fellow-beings at the shrine of poli-
tical economy.-
Captain HARRIS considered that things were con-
tinuing in a most objectionable state. He would suggest
that the duty might devolve upon the relief committees
to ascertain the number of deaths which occurred. He
considered that it was this continual compromise which
rendered their legislation upon Irish subjects such a
matter of int:rminable difficulty. . _

➢ir. SHAW said that he did not consider that the
clergymen in the different districts kept registers of the
deaths which occurred.

' Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Government
would make inquiries, but they would not undertake to
furnish any vague information they might receive. In
consequence of the many reproaches which had been
cast upon the Government, he considered it right
to make some statement to the House next Monday
night, cn going into Committee on the Poor Relief Bill,
with regard to what had been done and what was then
doing, and why he thought it necessary that out-door
relief' should be administered.
Lord G. BENTINCK said that the increased mor-
tality in the workhouses, throughout all Ireland, was
nine-fold. Last year the deaths were 162, while this
year they were 1,493 per week ; and within the last
three weeks there were only 218,000 quarters of wheat
sent into the country. He blamed the Government for
not making earlier and more stringent exertions to avoid
the calamity which had befallen the country. He would
beg leave to withdraw the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the estimates of the deaths, which the Noble Lord
had made, were just as much exaggerated as those esti-
mates he had made when making his late proposition
to the House. The French Government bad only sup-
plied food to the army in Algiers.
Mr. DISRAELI contended that his Noble Friend had
not exaggerated his estimates ; he had founded them
upon the very documents before the House. And with
respect to the statement of the Chancellor, respecting
the French Government, the reason they only purchased
corn for their army was because they had exhausted a
three years' store of provisions in first feeding the people.
The motion was then withdrawn.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the consideration of
the Lords' amendments to the Labouring Poor Bill.
They were agreed to.
RUSSIA LOAN.

Mr. B. ESCOTT desired to know if a new Act would
be necessary in order to pay the interest on the Russia
loan ?

Lord PALMERSTON said that a new convention
would not by any means be required.

NAVAL ESTIMATES.

Captain PECIIELL asked if the Government in-
tended to take the naval estimates upon Monday or
Friday.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was not the intention of
the Government to take the consideration of them till
Friday week.
CRACOW.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

On the motion for resuming the adjourned debate
upon Cracow,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a numerously signed
petition, adopted at a meeting held in the Tottenham-
court-road, against the annexation of Cracow to Austria.
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES said that the Noble
Lord on the former evening propounded a doctrine which
he (Mr. Manes) did not think was very tenable. He
implied that the House were not warranted in going
into the question at all. It was a matter of fact that
their foreign affairs were generally too much
locked up in the bosom of their Foreign Secretary.
The subject of the absorption of Cracow was made a
matter of a moral, distinct, and solemn protest, and he
thought that the House was in no degree derogating
from its dignity by taking that opportunity of confirm-
ing that act of her Majesty's Government. He had re-
joiced to hear the protest which had been delivered
against that act by the Duke of Bedford, and he had
been glad to see a letter on the subject by that distin-
guished diplomatist Sir Stratford Canning. He believed
that by the consent of the House to the resolution pro-
posed by the Hon. Member for Montrose, the Govern-
ment would give effect to the protest which had already
been made. If, however, the Noble Lord at the head of
her Majesty's Government refused to give the assent of
the Government to the resolution, it would encou-
rage a notion upon the Continent that the Government
of the country was not glad to have an opportunity of
declaring itself against this act of incorporation. The
general feeling of the people of this country was so
strongly marked against the wrong which had been
done to Poland, and it was not because the Poles in this
country were emigrants or strangers that that feeling
was shown by large contributions to their assistance, but
because it was deeply felt that they were suffering from
injustice and oppression. In the papers relating to the
suppression of the free city of Cracow, laid before the
House, the last ten or twelve pages were taken up by
an elaborate argument—he supposed by some Austrian
author—to show that Russia, Prussia, and Austria had
at their disposal and sole control the independence of
the city of Cracow. It stated that the independent
existence of that city was granted solely by those
three Powers, as, in 1815, when the treaty
was concluded, the assent of no other courts
beside those of these three powers was demanded. He
should be enabled to show that the assertion was wholly
destitute of foundation. In the Congresses held at
Utrecht and Aix la Chapelle, treaties were entered into
solely between England and France, to which the other
nations were merely assenting powers. The treaty of
Vienna was, however, au agreement between all the
powers cf Europe. A distinguished statesman had said
that the final ant of the treaty of Vienna was now the
fundamental law in Europe with reference to European
States; for it was a law framed by all the States com-
prising the system, and obligatory upon all. It was not
in the power of the Congress of Vienna to arrange all
the affairs of Europe, but one of the principal objects was
the disposition of the territory which had become vacant
by the peace of Paris. This was divided into two bodies,
one relating to Poland, and the other to Saxony. There
had been previously made arrangements with regard to
part of this territory, and there were several articles in
the treaty of Paris by which the allied powers were to have
the disposition of the territory relinquished by France.
The first arrangement made with regard to the Duchy
of Warsaw was made between Russia, Prussia, Austria,
nl called
OanndtnEandgvlaisned,
b;
natnwdeFreratoncneavaendnoSppaairnt
werein th et porobceeeeda
committee, many important arrangements were Intrusted'.
and to agents of each of the four powers
_forming a
The object of England, as would be found upon an

inspection of the papers relating to this suhject, wasthf to
it
have an establishment of the independency of
kingdom of Poland. The Emperor of Austria agreed
to so laudahle an object ; but the Emperor of Russia
insisted upon an absolute connexion between the king-
dome 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 Congres!
and the recommencement of war. A committee will
then appointed of Russia, Prussia, France, Austria, ail"
England, and called the Committee of Saxony, to whe°l
was intrusted the arrangement of the matter. On the
31st of December the Emperor Alexander laid hefo.re
the committee his proposition for the partition of t.htet
Duchy of Warsaw, and it was in that proposietios
that it was offered to allow Cracow t° manyl9
free, independent, and neutral city. After
modifications, that was agreed to, and that was the feat
dation of the ind, pendence of the city of Cracow.
01
was therefore clear that when the final arranecin'htnoe
the Duchy of Warsaw was made, England :1;1 v n
were parties to it, for shortly afterwards the inderef.
ence of Cracow was declared. How in the face .
these simple facts, could the Austrians 'declare that one
cow became a political body by the will of the t ooe
protecting Powers alone, surprised him; for it was
seer
of the most extraordinary assertions which was be
made, The Emperor Alexander afterwards declared t
independence of Cracow to the Poles themselves'
stated that it had been agreed upon, that in thosee Pther
Lions of Poland submitted to the authority 0' eboir
powers, they should be governed and regulated 19S,ets,i-0
own magistrates, elected by themselves. How littLfia,
to be trusted to such a promise was shortly after snot,
and how little the Polish people might irttLeitlated
upon the fulfilment of that part of it which
to the independence of Cracow, was dernonet%ees
It was impossible to read the documents of there 'lllO
without being convinced of the truth of what 11 the
stated ; that Cracow had all alone. maintained
°jog
greatest moderation in regard to whatever a'sefol.l
forward in Poland. But from the moment that 00.
fell, it was clear that the three powers would lose f1°4.0
portunity of annihilating the independence of this pea
state whenever a chance occurre el. At c°llvethis
held some time subsequent to the fall of Warsaiv, sof
determination was fully shown in the deliberation, ill
the three powers. With regard to the disturbanrerio
Gallicia, and the entry of Cracow by the Au't ,de
troops, from first to last every endeavour had been '
tads
to irritate the inhabitants of that city, and t°,
them to commit excesses. No one could read the Let
lations of General Collin, the Austrian coleeal-sg it;
without being convinced of this fact. Cracow ",,-sdeti
consequence suppressed ; a step which he was Perns-,103
would never have been resorted to if' France and taiist
had but acted in concert in the matter. A joint P';',old
from the Governments of these two countries, etoos
have prevented this melancholy catastrophe. 11 ait
also firmly persuaded, that had the Noble Lord theei to
the head of the Foreign Department sent a c°l39 Stets
Cracow to watch over British interests there, that ate
would have been independent now. But the Gel',ate
went which succeeded had shown itself no more ee'r,to
than the one before; nothing was done whatengosillt,
avert the fall of the unfortunate republic. "00
Prussia, and Austria, determined that crsow sed for
be suppressed, and it was done, the reason aseigrj
it being the disturbances in Gallicia, and the 11,4
tion that no peace could be secured till Cracow
be t
to be the focus of insurrectionary intrigues. .be die
circumstances, however, were well known, from 0 ths
cussions last year that took place in Parliament
subject. It appeared that the Austrian tree, Ptiatbr
vacated Cracow, taking with them all the local ntoredt
rides, on which an insurgent dunocratin •forc,ol forel
cr i
ca
and eatabliehelWovisional G-Overnnient. of all
was alleged to have made itself the moving ll.' lie!
the rebellious proceedings thut then took
_,sings
exterior to Cracow, and hence the eiolent pro
.acer,
that took place in Gallicia. .the latterid
greatest cruelties were practisedlethe peasantrPod
gated by the Austrian authorities, rising upt
every direction destroying all the landed proPtlerthe
gentry supposed to be friendly to the cause e'to
surgents. These were the causes which horoolt.
assigned for the suppression of the free State of, &eV
The Hon. Member here read extracts from certio,4 the
ments of the Austrian anthorities in illustretio° "ortes•
matters to which he had referred ; also some ;C,h Gc"
pondence from the diplomatic agent of the 13r21;-at th.e
.
vernment at the Austrian Court, to the effect tes• gifee
time of the disturbances, no intimation had been Witt:
by Austria of any intention to suppress Crac°o-;sief;
the answers of the British Government, “Pr-;,fCre..:
hope that whatever was done, the independence ;rig tail
cow would be maintained inviolate. In refiet tbre"„
whole case, he much regretted that, among I",:ieti
Powers, he found one, Prussia, from been
had hoped better things, and to whom ho btnr, Geri
for the progress of constitutional freedom '7O
many. Having said thus much, he would, 11'001
remaining observations he had to make, confine pitch
to the question before the House—the Ruoi,e. quer
loan. After giving his best consideration to tueia thetion, he found there were two distinct conditions
re, to
convention of 1832—one, that England would_tt,,gd that
pay Russia the interest of the Dutch loan, s"raege.
Russia on that condition agreed to the general at „lei
ments of the Treaty of Vienna. If the I-roust:V:ost!
with him that the stipulation with the ducbY d not
was an important part of the treaty, they cow
violet
with him to be ofopinion thatßussia had clearlyoAcg
the Treaty of Vienna.—(Hear.) The treaty was
pofre
tParliament aasnidt
certainly
nal
3n.
consideredd.,tu. lst th.e raesfo:(11:01:
0:;01:11,
as binding.—e Hear, hear.) They might Pl,„ sotso
Cracow as a mere " geographical atom," but t"' her
news of her dominions was no argument in favour o'f t ja
annexation in opposition to the treaty ; it was he„,;tea
his opinion, a small question, and he could not 71d
with the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Shrove $O.,
(Mr. Disraeli), that it was a matter of small dini°llld oft
because he saw on one hand a small weak state, aettis,
the other three powerful oppressors—Russia, MS 00
and Prussia—its powerful executioners. He did osir'eat
looking at the whole transaction, that there walos
cause for blame; because if this spirit of aggte"°atates
to be tolerated, there would be no safety for we'll ht iess
who had powerful neighbours. —(iver, hear.) 11
Switzerland, and for the awakening fiber treaties were.
to be tolerated, what security was there fortythnefsiatfa
(Hear, hear.) Certainly, when solenin tr,evte safety is
thus violated, there was little security fbr the wb°lB
the countries of Europe. Yet., looking at
the g
proceedings, he might justly exclaim with
Roman moralist, there was still hope for 'eland
Roman
,:5,,,0avr.5)0f
quando dormit jus, moriter nunquam !”--(
Lord DALMENY concurred in the observarctooof
the Hon. Gentleman, that the annexation of 4d oc;
was one of the greatest cases of oppression that b"(t fie;
curred for years. If the Hon. Gentleman, rfrolf t
proposed the three resolutions, had adhered Si jej t. 40,
the first, which would confirm, if it were acceroo.
that, in the opinion of that House, the three %sting
had committed a gross breach of faith, in vt(jolt woof
solemn treaty, to which they were parties ; after
he asked them to deal with it as a mere hotes,
pounds, shillings, and pence, he considered tbst ir
asking them to do that which would lower the roe?
national character. Let them protect the °ll,r pesi;
and do their best to reinstate them in their fort argot
tion ; but do not let them so desecrate the c a fser4
of that House, by lowering the question t°,.„ he
matter of economy. If they adopted that
of his proposition, foreigners would declare the pet 'll
were not actuated by philanthropy, but bYrlt. iattetsso
spirit of self-interest. He trusted the Hon. `e-per,Vba
the Member for Montrose would withdraw the o'ul° -
of his motion to which he objected, because it vr-itiol)
wrong if he divided the House upon such a Pr°ll°,ls(lic,re
Dr. BO WRING explained that the Noble Lori-of frn
Dalmeny) would not pledge himself to the Pftr`the se';
resolutions to which he objected if he voted ford . The
timent of the resolution of which he approve °llO
question which the resolution raised was not
of money, but of "Poland and the Poles."—(ffeit..„tifte,c
thought when Cracow was spared from the gent'ier„i
of Poland that it would continue to remain a bv,-s7e,fraa
nant of the nationality of Poland; but Austria, I";,,Lihret
Russia, having violated a solemn treaty, Cracow Pa-ci
destroyed, and the last vestige of Poland deliferb-e chuer
to universal darkness. But if Cracow was t°ll., etbo
quietly destroyed, the safety and peace of "oi to eot
countries of Europe was jeopardised. He wi5":00
peace between England and France, but be ;waif)
help thinking that the King of the French had
advised as to his conduct in this matter.—(lll.he
The promises made have all been forfeited. „tech 5;0
raises made to Bessarabia have all been vie
-,,,Limner
princes are seated, or are deposed, and in thosie that
there is an universal feeling of discontent. be
w
that crisis which Mr. Canning had peedi:itd, 02111:0
struggle between the oppressor and the 0perc55:11,0,%.
be brought to a conclusion, and though he wss bed 'o
shared in the disgust this violation of treaticsti tot !oa
cited, he was yet one of those who was gi3 aussoto
question had been brought to an issue—not thehal
as to whether Cracow was to be restored, "‘„tore:a. 0
whether the nationality of Poland was to be r—,ete
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said that there ,s's Leer
questions before the House. The first was, woe toil
payment of 48,0001. was to be continued; sod t,h e s
whether they were to take part in the gre,e,o it
revolutions of Europe. He shared in the seinnt that. 13
Noble Lord the Member for the city of Londells "Wet,"
rested on the question as to whether the colont_torecl
had been taken from the Dutch should be re: joglie„
them or not, by the convention of the 15th °,,sseatilyi,
1814. By that convention the colonies of of 0u...
and Berbice were to be restored in the evel;rbia ivrj
failing in these payments to the Dutch. shoo!,
the engagement, and the result was, that
pay not exceeding 1,000,000/. sterling.o_, -Let plot
guaranteed by the convention of 1803, 1-„p000/. .ba
that we should pay not exceeding 6,00(? of t t
the defences of Holland and in satisfaeelo° ergo
.
engagements between the Netherlands and Russofe_d t. 11019.
was the origin of the Russian Dutch loan,noy,,loa
country made it a debt, or, in the event of our_
,e cap,
this money, we should restore the colonies of
ment was made with the understanding that et
of Good Hope, Essequibo, and Berbice. Tglicifeuts'ord' anal°
the understanding, also, that Russia se. .g was O3
tr.
Belgium should be considered as one. couonutrkinbra pssratio
to the combination of the two treaties. This
t arrang
under the convention in 1801 ; but a different u
ha'
ment was made at the Congress of -V
ledifferelice'
he did not see that this made art
engage 7
for if we intended to deviate from Ve
ment there ought to have been some I n or e
he Putc
effect, that we repudiated this en
bt to
w© ought to have restored those colonies
and if we did either one or the other wo o gn
the st'—a
legseEnct:it have
acted differently, or we should be acting
Principles as those by which Russia
Prussia had been guided. attel3‘
reates. - for
Lord MAHON had listened with theg
maaber
tion to the speech of the Noble Lord theo_
an, oug •
London, but still he remained unconviii.c
no ono was more anxious to express Austria, su