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

IRISH EMIGRANTS.

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK desired to know if the
Government had received information of any intention
on the part of the Government of the United
States or New York to impose a duty of 51. per head
upon immigrants to that country. He also desired to
know what were those other documents to which the
Noble Lord referred upon a previous occasion when they
were discussine the subject of Cracow.
Lord PALMERSTON said that, with reference to
the first question, he did not understand that any
decided step had been taken. The subject had
be,n'mentioned in Congress, but no intimation
had been conveyed to him respecting it. In
answer to the second part of the N-ble Lord's ques-
tion, he would say that his eye was quicker than
his ear, for he (Lord Palmerston) only smiled
and the interpretation of that smile was not that there
were other documents, but that the Noble Lord would
find, by reference to the library of the House, that the
British Government, at the Congress of Vienna, were
party to all protocols and treaties made at that C. ogress.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.—ANNEXATION OF

CRACOW.
On the order of the day for the adjourned deblte on
Cracow being read,
Sir JOHN WALSH rose and said in addressing the
House he would apply himself first to the particulars
of the question arising out of the motion of the Hon.
Member tor Montrose, and inquire what was the practi-
cal and immediate question before the Rouse. Tht) first
question for them to consider would be whether they bad
any legal right to free themselves from the obligation
of that treaty to continue the payment to Russia—
whether it would be consistent with the faith of
treaties, or wirh their own character, to con-
tinue that payment. The second question was,
whether, the other being assumed, it would be wise,
whether it would be politic, whether it would be con-
sistent with their national status in the pre-
sent condition of Europe, to pursue such a course?
When he entered upon this question, he must
say that he felt considerable dissatisfaction at
the mode in which the Honourable Member
'or Montrose had introduced his motion, not that he
had stated what was not literally true, but any person
who was not acquainted with the whole question, would
is, led into a very erroneous conclusion. The conven-
tion of the 19th of November, 1831, was merely a supple-
mental measure, to supply a Parliamentary deficiency. It
was contended that, in equity, England could not avail itself
of the treaty of Vienna. It was, however, subsequently ad-
mitted that Parliamentary sanction was requisite. That
treaty bore date May, 1815, and the treaty of 1831 was
merely a subsequent and technical treaty, calculated to give
effect to the former one. What was that treaty, then, of
1815, and what were the obligations by which England was
bound under that treaty ? The treaty to which the treaty of
1815 referred was one between Holland and Russia, and, by
the treaty of 1831, England rendered herself responsible for
the obligations into which Holland had entered with Russia.
In order to show what the nature of that treaty was, the Hon.
Baronet read the preamble of the treaty of 1815, by which it
appeared that, in consideration of the assistance rendered by
the allied powers to Holland, she agreed to pay certain sums
for the expenses which had been incurred. It was plainly evi-
dent that this sum was to be paid for the restoration of the
kingdem of Holland. At the conclusion of his
speech on Thursday last, the Right Honourable
Baronet the Member for Tamworth had taken occasion to
remind the House of the services which England had rendered
to Europe during the great struggle of the last war; and also
of the obligations which she had undertaken when she assumed
—when she took up —the responsibilities of the treaty between
Holland and Russia. He rejoiced to hear such sentiments
from the lies of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but he thought
England should be reminded that she was not the only agent
in making those arrargement!, and he thought some gratitude
was clue to Russia, as she was the first that broke the power of
Napoleon, and helped to effect the deliverance of Europe. '1 he
Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth also pro-
tested against a doctrine in one of Alonsieur Guizot's despatches
that the breach of one article of a treaty dissolved the obliga-
tion of the treaty itself on all who were parties to it. Ile did
not think that Mons. Guizot was correctly understood, and
though he was not sorry to see the protest of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, he thought that he had put a wider latitude upon
the phrase than the writer of it intended. He should like to
know, however, how they should act in the event of their
adopting the resolutions of the Hon. Member for Montrose.
If they acted in this manner, they would be affirming the prin-
ciple that the infraction by Russia of one particle of 'he treats
would justify them in releasing themselves from all those obli-
gations which they owed to Russia, on entirely other grounds.
The Member for Montrose had made the question assume a
judicial character, and he had called upon the House to decide
whether, under certain considerations, they were released from
obligr ions otherwise binding. This was a very delicate posi-
tion to be in, namely, to be judges of their own case, and it
was, therefore, doubly necessary for them to consider all the
bearings of the case, and to see how far they were justified in
attaching weight to the allegations which had been made, and
how far matter had been urged in defence of the parties accused.
He said the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member tor Tamworth,
had expresed a strong opinion of the necessity of a power like
England,—of all the great Powers accoreing a full measure
of protection to the smaller states. His expression was some-
thing to the effect that they were in a position to have no
anxiety as to such a Power as Prussia absorbing Russia, or
Bavaria, Prussia; but he did feel that it was the one principle
of the body of international law to afford protection to the
.weaker States, He (Sir John Walsh) entirely agreed with
the Right Hon. Baronet, that that was the duty and the policy
of the great States, and that it would be the solicy and the
special interest of England to do so, for England had nothing
to gain from territorial aggrandisement, or from conquests ;
1 and if she absorbed any weaker State, she would do that at
tehnat et ,r
Britisht
aa
mi
empire
ndp,i that
o,sooeupl idn
smalleri
bone a, h
a sacrifice, and the loss would be entirely hers. But while she
thatid. ewsvaetsri
Isla, Mrheienc ii
reciprocity
oi wouldtfy
saythoef
iesttahitonepsemd therei
duty, that iif they had a right to protection they were also
bound to observe strict neutrality, and to avoid giving any oc-
casion for aggression from the larger States. He did say that
the smaller States ought to pursue such a course as would
secure them peace, which to them was so valuable. But sup
pose they should take an in.tanee. 'They all knew the im-
portance of the noble city of Frankfort, one of the most emi-
nent of commercial cities ; the had all seen her 'solaces for her
merchants, the prosperity which existed in her streets, the
vital spirit of commercial enterprise which had given such enn-
„ense to that town. Suppose, then, it were possible that
France were suddenly inflamed with the lust of territorial
possession, and with a wish to obtain that fair • city;
that she was to set her armies in motion and invade the city of
Frankfort. If such took place there would no doubt be a
burst
of indignation throughout Europe. But let them sup-
pose, that instead of pursuing the quiet avocation of commerce,
that she was obliged, by some unfortunate circumstance, to be-
come a political point. Let them suppose that Frankfort was
to become what 4:oblentz was at the commencement of that
century. from whence the
century. Thnt she should become the p
It wouldo be easy for
enemies of France might issue. taken m France
infraction of a treaty had place. st„ti,
to state that an
mutantlis, he did not see the great difference between the hypo.
case of Cracow.
thetical case of Frankfort and the real
call the attention of the
lii making these observations he must.
not, entitled to the
House to the fact that this insurrection was . •
the insurrection of 1830. In
sympathy of the House, as was
ko at Cracow. For this
this insurrection there was no Koscius
movement there was none of _
the countenance of those great
Poles whe were foremost in the great struggle of 1830, who
stepped forward with so much gallantry, men who were ever
ready to promote the interests of their country, an who with
.dof
au much ardour were ready to encounter the
,whole power
Russia—men who sacrificed property, relatives, home, and all
that man holds dear, for the ino
cendence of their country.
The se were not the men who gave ounteuarice to the insur-
reel ion of Cracow. He believed, indeed, that it
was a well-
kn own fact that none of these men had, either directly
or indirectly, taken part in this Cracow insurrection;
tout they had, on the contrary, withheld all their countenance
from th 44 4ilastivs enterprise. Hs perceived froth a dispatch