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

LONDON, WEDNESDAY E

protest—to respond to them—and taking advantage of certa;n
other treaties which were in existence, to punish
one of the violators of this stipulation. The
e-reses ~eat he had fairly
stated the cese which was be:ore them. On the first night of
the sestions, although there was a general feeling in the House
—at least very much so on the side on which he had tee honour
of sitting—that they should not enter into soy disitaision on
foreign affair ; although he thought, though it s. eined mist
takingly, that they were not at all bound by the address which
was voted to the gracious speech of her Majesty, still, from
some observations which unexpectedly fell from the Noble Lord
the First Minister, he felt bound, though he did it very im-
perfectly, to warn that House not too suddenly to admit that
there had been a manifest violation of the treaty before them.
He did not speak upon the subject as a question of policy, but
as a question of public law; that they were urged precipitately
to admit that there had been a violation of a treaty which was
for the interest of this country, and which, as he then observed,
and as he now believed, had not been infringed on. He had
always understood that whatever might have been the language
in answer to the address from the torsos, that the Ilouse was
not pledged to the language of that address, however decided
might have been the words in which it was couched. On a
late occasion it was to be remarked that her Majesty's Ministers
did not attempt even formally to pledge the House upon that
question, because, although on a previous occasion they might
have agreed with her Majesty's Ministers that there bad been
a manifest violation ot the Treaty of Vienna in answer
to the address, he thought it only a matter of
statement, and that they had to thank her Majesty
for the information which had been given to them upon the
subject. He had thought himself, therefore, perfectly safe in
receiving the information upon the first evening without any
comment. He was therefore very much astonished when the
first Minister of the Crown rose, and in adverting to the Royal
Speech, stated that there was no human being who could doubt
that there had been a manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna.
It was that observation which had made him (Mr. Disraeli)
observe as he did to his Noble Frieed near him, that be
thought it rather a suspicious assertion oil the part of the Noble
Lord. Now, what was the result ? The Right Hon. Baronet
the Member foe the University, who was a great authority upon
all subjects, but especially upon Parliamentary reform—( A
laugh)—rose the other night and said that every gentleman
was pledged by the answer to the Speech from the Throne, to
be of the opinion that there had been a manifest violation of the
treaty of Vienna ; and the Noble Lord the first
Minister, in his speech, to which he (Mr. Disraeli)
might be permitted to say he had listened with
great pleasure, but he had more admired his powers
of declamation than the effect of his observations upon public
law, had stated with admirable coolness, that every gentleman
who was present had, by his silence, signified his acquiescenee
in the opinions of the Government, that there had been a viola-
tion of the treaty of Vienna. He must appeal to the House
whether, under any circumstances, their silence would have
been an acquiescence ; but, under the existing circumstances—
looking to the language of ~the address in answer to the Royal
Speech, he would ask, if all the Members present had been
silent, and went to the question of a division to vote in silence,
and had appeared even favourably disposed towards the opinion,
whether they would have been bound by the language of the ad-
dress ? He was decidedly of opinion—and he laid it down with-
out equivocation or evasion, and he had the judgment of some
of the principal judges of public law with him in his opinion
—that no one could call the violation of a particular treaty
inserted in a general treaty, a violation of that general treaty.
He put the principle as broadly as words would permit him,
because he was unaware of any exception, and he should listen
with great respect to any one who could furnish him with any
exception to this principle, which he believed to be of the
gravest importance. He had addressed the House very im-
perfectly, but he hoped not in any dogmatical tone, and he
advised it to look well to the ease of the peace of Westphalia,
which had been detailed by a great authority—the Noble Lord
the Member for Hertford—arid who had reminded the House
that in that instance a treaty had been inserted in the
general treaty, and that that treaty, clothed in one of the
most remarkable and stringent guarantees on their diplomatic
records, had been violated. The parties to that political treaty
had, on a subsequent occasion, applied to the signators of the
general treaty, and it had been decided, after grave discussion,
and atter the case had been referred to the first judges in
Europe, that the violation of a treaty inserted in a general
treaty at Congress was not a violation of that general treaty.
There was another case similar almost to the case before the
HOU -st'. The free states of Germany had been guaranteed by
the treaty of Osnabreck political rights. The treaty of Osna-
breck was inserted in the treaty of Minster, and the free
states of Germany were deprived of their political rights. They
applied to the signators of the treaty of Minster, and they
called upon them, in consequence of the guarantee with which
the treaty of Osnabreck terminated they called upon
the great Powers, the signators to the general
treaty, to do them right, and fulfil that guarantee.
It was decided, after the most weighty argument, by a man
second to none, and who had interfered with the great trans-
action of Vienna, that the violation of a political treaty in-
serted in the treaty achieved in Westphalia was not a violation
of the general treaty. He (Mr. Disraeli) said that it was de-
cided by a man second to none, because he was sure that the
great Chancellor of Austria, el. Oxenstern, to whom his Hon.
Friend the Member for Canterbury had referred, could scarcely
consider himself inferior to the great Chancellor Mazarin, who
had given the opinion; and he (Mr. Disraeli) believed, that if
Talleyrand had lived, he would have been insulted to have been
compared to him in political dexterity, and yet those two great
statesmen, equally interested in the adverse decision, because
Sweden, being a German state, had exercised all its influence
to secure the political rights of the independent states of Ger-
many, and with the, treaty of Minster opposed to
them, these two great statesmen decided that the viola-
tion of an inserted treaty was not a violation of a
general treaty of Congress. He would put the case before
the House, not by the number of precedents, because, in
his opinion, precedents were only important when they
were connected in detail, and almost touched the
subject, and upon the authority of persons implicated
in the transactions to which they had reference. Under
such circumstances three or four precedents would be as effi-
cient as hundreds at another time, and under different circum-
stances. Ile would put the case as one of public law so
clearly, that he defied any man, to disprove it—at least he de-
fied any man, a member of the present Government, or a
member of the late Government, to do so, for he would show,
even to their prejudices, the opinions of one who might, with-
out any offence to the gentlemen on either side of the House,
be considered as not inferior to any leading statesmen, and who
had scrupulously, discreetly, and wisely always followed the
precedent of whieh he would remind them. Louis XIV.
had given his decision in favour of his view of the case, and
while France was compelled to give up the Palatinate, it was
stipulated that it should retain its religion. The religion
of the Palatinate under France was the Roman Catholic.
The German princes murmured very much that
the seat of the Protestant Reformation should
be thus converted into a Roman Catholic country.
After the peace which followed the war of thirty years, the
whole of the Governments of Europe were placed in a state of
controversy, and the question was, what would have been the
course of this country if there had been no such rights in exist-
ence ? He would then refer to the treaty made with France
arid the other Powers. They now came to the treaty of Osna-
burgh, and he would find that the decision then entered upon
had been discredited, and it was ultimately referred to the
Diet of Germany. That Diet was decidedly opposed to the
decision which had previously been come to, and it was referred
to the consideration of William 111., the first opponent of
Louis XIV. That monarch had refused to decade upon his own
authority, and had determined to decide it upon the general
law of Europe.—(Cheers.) They could not can in the ex-
pression of kindness of the several Powers, for they had all
assented to the proposition that it must depend upon the con-
struction which those Powers placed upon the treaty, and they
could not therefore rely upon the construction which had bees
made in their favour, or on the friendly interposition of the
Powers who were parties to this treaty. He would beg to put
these several treaties before the House, and remind them of
what had occurred at the commencement of the present ses-
sion. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth
(Sir R. Peel), after a series of observations on the real con-
sequences of the treaty, had expressed his opinion that
this was but an annexed treaty to the treaty of Vienna.
—(Loud cheers.) But what did the Right Honourable G. eu-
tlernan say? He asked, what was the use of those
treaties, and had designated them, as if in contempt, as an-
nexed treaties ; and had asked what was the use of those trea-
ties.bu He should be sorry to misrepresent those treaties, t
he believed that the effect of the whole of them was to give
nationality to Poland. And he did not believe that the treaty of
Vienna at all interfered with the objects
of that treaty.—
of
(Cheers.) What, indeed, was the use or the mh eatTengGo.
these propositions, if they were not to be backed
Yuld never
vernment ? Quite sure he was that the House
w
sanction the tulfilment of the treaty if it were not. o
sanctioned
of these
by public opinion. What, in fact, was the meaning
the same
terms, or the use ot them, if theytt
did not mean (Hear,
time to sanction the expression of public opinion?--
hear.) What was the meaning of these terms if they
w ere not to sanction the proceedings of the several Powers ?
existence
—( Hear, hear.) as ' there a human being in
who did not believe that the same faults would be committed
trifling
change?
if the same fan is were to be observed at every trim
He was not aware of the mischief which might arise,f 01abuntd;noonecould read the 118th clause of the convention of
with-
out being aware that it was a pert of the same
wouldy
ofthe
ceahl
nothing to inculpate the several members
Church was in existence, except that which would best bind
men's consciences and their acts. The question was not as to
wretllethe treaty of Vienna should be broken, or whether it
should stand ' • and in showing that the treaty of Vienna oughtd
to be observed, he would rely not only on what had been
his °en se se otthewHasouesoeo,fobrumtaballoso
toon
on the thegiednaemr alprinciple
f
of justice. and which
the House with respecte to treaties. He could not agree that
the general rules of the House should be violated for the sake
in order to meet the feeling of irrita-
of a trifling expense, and that the first principles of general
law sheuld be sacrificed
which we have suffered so much. The Right Hon.
orth hadpointedthis
t ion from
ques-
tion
triumphant expression o
Baronet the Member for Tames out
popularaodm
_
wahich it was to beregu;atecif
feeling, and the mean
as the foundations obty
He would ask whether the
proved.—( Cheers. )
be maintained, arid
Rio lit Hon Baronet was to whether the in-
fractiontreaty was to be sufficient for the
of a particularinfrac-
tion of a general treaty. It
was very evident that there had
been an infraction of
the general treaty, and if it was not, there
was sufficient opportunity for correcting the report. The question
over and over again, but it as
had been discussed yet had never
Hon. Baronet lead
been settled. The Right put the question
never been violated. In '
as if the treaty had this case, the
and the
treaty was evidently violated, • consideration was, whether
the violation of one article wassufficient to justify the viola.
t t
lei ion of others. That was the ques inodn
iof which Austria, Russia,
Prussia, and France were parties;
ado they did not adhere to
the principle which they bad laid down, they would lose their
locus stand!. If there were any objections to the particular
article, still none could be etnterttalned as to the principles of
that
the original treaty. And if were to be abrogated, the
of that abrogation ought to give notice to •
signors the parties
to the original treaty, He would not refer to precedent, for
s altogether opposed te the infracti r
precedent wa
-on or a part
r• I
of a treaty and yet retaining re E mei!' ee ef the whole agree-
ment. He would ask the Noble ord, after reading the gene-
ral treaty, and the whole series of the corrosond ence, whether
one dot of a vowel of that agreement should be set aside, or
whether any forsign interposition should be suffered? Hon.
Gentlemen might choose to make an extibition at Freemasons'
Hall, and prostitute the influence of the British Senate, but
he trusted that, for the credit of the country and the character, of
the Noble Lord, they would not carry this question to a division.
Well, this had been laid down as the rule under these
circum-
stances, that when a superior instrument Was present the mere
repetition of its clauses was to be looked upon as a mere •
reci-
tal. They were merely the machine by which the signore gnora of
the original treaty were allowed to interpose in • the
settlement
of questions which might arise under the particular treaty. He
would hesitate very much, although he might be able to
esta-
blish his opinions by reference to very grave auth • onty—he
would hesitate very much—he would feel he had a great diffi-
culty to encounter in referring to the past—
but he could well
' establish his position by reference to living witnesses—by re-
ferring to the experience of statesmen in that House. He
must
say, however, that nothing had more amazed him than the
speech which the House had heard irom the
Right Hon. Gen
tletnan (Sir Robert Peel) on this question. He wouldask'
the Right Hon. Gentleman, or he would ask the Noble Lord
opposite, how they had both acted in the case of Belgium?—
How had the King of Holland acted? What was the conduct
of the King of Holland ? He had an intimate
knowledge of the law of nations ; but then he was not a mem-
ber of the House of Commons.—(Laughter.) He was pot a