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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, MARCH l7, IM7.

chants and shipowners of Kirkaldy against the light
dues, and also another petition to the same effect from
the shipownon and merchants of Caernarvon.
Mr. AINSWORTH presented a petition from the
borough of Bolton, signed by numerous members ut'
the Temperance Socirty, praying that the House would
put a stop to the manufacture of all intoxicating drinks,
in order that the corn used in their manufacture might
be used as food for the people.
Mr. WILSON PAT.FEN presented u petition from
Chorley, in Lancashire, praying the House to appoint a
Select Committee to inquire into the causes which
checked the growth of cotton in India.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Dr. Ilt )WIZING postponed the resolution on this
subject he had on the paper till this day fortnight.

BOAVITA

On the motion of 1)r. BOWRING, Dr. Mac WO
report on the Boavista fever was ordered to be laid on
the table.

UNION WORKHOUSES.

Mr. BOND CABBELL moved for returns of the
union workhouses in England and Wales, and the num-
ber of the poor, and the cost of maintaining them in
each union ; and the number of the poor, and the amount
ar out-door relief by each union, during the years
184:1, 1844. 1845, and 1i46 rcspccively, classified
according to age and ; of the number of
children separated from their p uents in each of the
union workhouses i t England and Wales, distinguish-
ing their sexes, and stating if any and what
other classification exists; and a report of their school
instru •tion, and the nunithr of deaths of infants, in each
year, from the year 1834 to the end of the year IS-16
respectively; also, to move for a return showing the
amount paid to the medical attendant. of the union
workhouses, and the number of the poor, and the num-
ber of the sick in each union, and the number of the
poor each attendant has under his care, and the number
of the poor relieved by orders from medical men for
extra nutriment, during convalescence, in each union,
during the years 1844, 1845, and 1846, respectively.
Agreed to.

Mr. SPOONER said he would bow to the wish of the
House.

Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
FACTORY BILL.

Mr. DENNISTOUN wished to ask a question of con-
siderable importance with respect to factory labour.
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member is out of order.
Mr. DENNISTOUN would throw himself on the in-
dulgence of the flouse.—(Hear.)
The SPEAKER said, as is appeared to be the wish
of the House, the Hon. Member might proceed.
Mr. DENNISTOUN—The House was aware that the
Factory Bill was to come before the House again,
to-morrow. The manufacturing interest had been over-
whelmed with surprise by the majority of the Ilouse in
favour of the Bill, and had not taken any steps what-
ever. He had received communications from some
of the most influential of his constituents, with a
proposal that would meet the vi'-ws of all parties.
He regretted to see that the Hon. Member for Oldham
(Mr. Fielden) was not in his place, but as the Hon.
Member for Cockermouth w..s present, and his name
was at the back of the Bill, pei haps he could say whe-
ther the mover would be ready, with the concurrence of
the Noble Lord, to postpone the measure.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was quite true that the
lion. Member had submitted the proposal of a plan
which he conceived sva.; likely to men-t the views of botli
the parties who were intere.aed in this matter, and likely
• to remove those portions of the Tcn Hours' Bill w hick
were objectionable in their eyes. In his own opinion
he inti,t say that the pry p,sal was feasibl-, but it
depended entirely on the teelinAs of the Hon. Member
for Oldham as to whether he would postpone the Bill or
not, especially in its present stage. Nor could he (Lord
John Russell) ask him to do so. But it certainly ap-
peared a great advantage to adopt any plan which
might meet the views of both parties.
Mr. AGLIONBY had no authority whatever for
acceding to a proposal for postponement, but he perfectly
concurred in the opinion that it was most desirable to
obviate the objections which had been entertained
against the measure The Noble Lord had stated
that it was necessary for the Hon. Member for Oldham
to state what course- he intended to pursue,' before an
mcc_,wcra coodd be given to the quection. From what had
felice from the Noble Led; t eppeexed that the FropeA-
tion waa we:thy of attenticu.
Mr. HUME said that as the first Minister of the
Crown had expressly declared that this proposal was
calculated to meet the objections of both parties, it was
of immense importance that it should be duly con-
sidered.

Mr. 'LINDLEY hoped the House would go on with
the Bill. The difficulty of a private Member carrying a
Bill through that House was very great, and he thought
it unreasonable to expect the Hon. Member for Oldham
to postpone it. With regard to the opposition of the
masters, he believed it had very much abated of late,
and he believed that, if the Noble Lord stated his wish( s
to them, there would be a general acquiescence on the
part of both.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK thought the proposed course
was irregular, and he trusted the Hon. Gentleman, if he
wished for postponement, would be able to-morrow to
convince the House of its propriety.
Dr. BOWRING thought his Hon. Friend had done
everything that could be expected of him. He received
a communication from his constituents with respect to
the Bill, and he no sooner received that communication
than he communicated it to the Government. In fact.
he had done everything that could be expected from him.
Mr. FERRAND said that the only method to end the
discussion was to pass this Bill in the way it now stood, for
if it was otherwise, a more determined agitation wou:d
take place in favour of the measure than heretofore, and
the reason was, that the operatives had seen that the
Anti-Corn•law League had carried their point by agi-
tation.

from Mr. Msgennis, that General Sobieski, who was so dis-
tinguished for his gallantry in the contest of 1830, had
altogether abstained from taking part in the late insurrection
of Cracow. and hail, as soon as he had received information
of the outbreak, not only refused the sanction of his great.
name, but had removed into the territories of Austria as soon
as it commenced. The Hon. Member for Finsbury charged
his Hon. Friend Lord George Bentincls) with only partially
reading the manifesto of the provisional Government of Poland
issues; at the breaking out of the revolution If the House
would permit him, he would read the document in full, which
might be called the Magna Charts of Poland. —( Hear ) (The
Hon. Member here read the various articles of the manifesto. )
The penalty of death was also to be enforced upon spies, and all
persons forming clubs against the new Government were to be
declared traitors to the country. Any interference with the
signals established was also to be punished with death. The
7th article regulated the national colours very minutely, and it
wai that system of contemptible triflieg and sanguinary tyranny
which was to guide the future destinies of Poland. The con-
duct of Cracow must be deemed as involving its own safety.
He could not conceive that when a snsall state like Cracow was
occupied by a military force that it could be other than imbe-
cile and weak, or that it subjected itself willingly to •uch mili-
tary occupation. M. Guisot had very much urged upon the
consideration of the three Powers the possibility of their adopt-
ing without destroying the independence of Cracow, such pre-
ventiv m e
easures as would check the progress of these conti-
nued insurrections. Such a cour,e could not be adopted without
some vast and general system of espionage, which, even to the
interest of Cracow its .it, would be most objectionable. Cracow
would have been placed in a false position, and instead of being
benefitted by such an arratigeineat it would bare been ma-
terially injured. Was the state of Europe such as would war
rant them in directing to the three Powers such a fceble show
of remonstrance and hostility, a.hich eculd not have the
smallest effect upon the independence of Cracow ? So great a
nation as England could never have recourse to a little war, or
to a petty and inefficient measure. Let the House consider
what would be the effect of a measure of petty hostility-as
directed to these three Powers—it, would lead to innumerable
protocols, and declarations on the part of Russia. that this
country had been guilty of a gross breach of faith, while it
would be productive of no effect, but that of contempt. He
was aware that warm feelings existed in this country towards
France, but he knew, from his own experience, that the same
feelings did not exist in France. France was, he believed, at
that moment the only nation of Europe which had a desire‘
for war, and a desire of aggrandisement by conquest. Ihe
drazling names of 'Marone°, 2,usterlits an still,d Jena areFe-
=embeiscd In net country, and kept alfcc, that rtn‘lila;
rpirit. He hoped ti's.filo polvcrs of Europe 7,-ou..labe
enabled to zauge the preKbt dialeulty without
exciting that fearful feeling. He felt convinced that in
the event of any disturbance of the peace of Europe
France would not be a safe ally for this country. How many
times during the last seven years had they been on the verge of
a breach of their treaty with this country? It was only the
other night that they were called upon to increase the navy
estimates. because they were assured that the whole seaward
coast of France was arming. He did ri,,t know for what pur-
pose the 127 furnaces were burning at Brest, but of this he
felt assured, that they did not burn there to restore the inde-
pendence of Cracow. Under these circumstances, he felt
perfectly willing to vote with the Noble Lord on the previous
question, and he did Rot feel inclined to interfere with the
operations with respect to Cracow by any such inefficient
measure.

Lord HARRY VANE had not heard an argument to induce
him to agree with the object of the present motion. He had
listened with the utmost attention to the statements of the Hun.
Baronet (Sir J. Walsh) to a certain extent he agreed
with him, that the treaty of 1831 was a subsequent and a
technical treaty ; but still he could not separate that trea' y from
the treaty of 1815, and from that of the 14th of August, 1814.
To a certain extent he coincided with the Right Hon. Baronet,
the Member for Tamworth ( Sir R. Peel) that there had been
an infraction of those treaties ; but yet, at the same time he
quite acceded to the proposition of the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government, that it was unbecoming in this country to
descend to the monetary consideration of a great political ques-
tion, and that it was sufficient that a protest had been entered
against the proceedings of the three Powers. Yet he, at the same
time, must say that the three Powers saw reason to believe that
the independence of Cracow occasioned disturbances in their
dominions that they might not do away with the sixth article
ot the treaty of Vienna. But although he was far from saying
that the independence of Cracow was of the great importance
to the peace of Europe which it had been represented to be, he
would at the same time assert that the three Powers had no
right to destroy the independence of Cracow without consult-
ing their allies. After going through the several political relae
tions which had arisen out of the treaty of Vienna, but while
delivering which it was utterly impossible to give the details
in consequence of the peculiar tone in which the Noble Lord
spoke, he proceeded to say that, reviewing all these circum-
stances, there appeared to be ample reason for the acknowledg-
ment that Russia and Austria had no right to act without
the concurrence of France and England. He would not
Tamworth ( Sir
rely solely upon the alliance of France, although he felt
that the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
R. Peel), had hardly done justice to the worth of that alliance.
He quite agreed with M. Guisot, that it was no justification
whatever for one party to love sight of his engagements, be-
cause another had altogether overlooked them. He had stated
very shortly what his opinions were, but he could not
agree at all with the opinion expressed by the Right Hon.
Baronet the other night, that there was no sufficient justifica-
tion for the protest, and he sincerely trusted that the three
great Powers would take warning from the observations of the
House on the coarse which they were pursuing, and that this
country might take advantage of the legal construction of this
treaty.
Mr. J. WORTLEY felt himself in a great dilemma as to
the question which was before the House. He would express
as plainly and as forcibly as he was able, his total disapprobation
of the suppression of the independence of Cracow.
But he could not forget that there were political
considerations well worthy of attention, and which induced
him to hope that the Honourable Member for Montrose
would not force the House to a decision on the question.
He did not wish to dwell upon topics which tended to create a
spirit of hostility in that House, but he could not help re-
marking that, on the first partition of Poland in 1772, the
same excuses were put forward by Catherine that had been
lately advanced by the existing Sovereign of the same country.
He reminded the House that in the year 1814 it was one of
the first articles of the convention of Paris that the throne of
Holland should be restored to the house of Orange, and Great
Britain voluntarily gave up the colonies which had belonged
to that country (and particularly Java), which they had every
right by the laws of conquest to retain ; and therefore, in point
of fact, the restoration of these colonies depended only on the
friendship of the King for the house of Orange. By the
treaty of Paris it was determined that Great Britain should
pay 1,000,1:001. to Sweden, 2,000,5 001. for the re-construe-
tion of the fortifications of Holland on the side of France,
and to give an equal amount, with Holland, to the other
allies; such sum not to exceed 3 000 0001. Among
the subjects
which came under the consideration of the convention of
Vienna, was the consideration of the losses sustained by
Russia—the destruction of her ancient capital—the ravaging
of her country in a greater degree than suffered by her allies
_and it was agreed upon that England should waive her
title to compensation in favour of Russia! And why?
security for Holland. Their
Be-
cause of the facility which the latter country had given to the
settlement of Holland. But they did not undertake to pay an
amount of money to Russia as
obligation to pay was a distinct and independent one. The
Hon. Member then read the stipulations of the treaty of 1831,
to show that Russia was guaranteed the repayment of her
old Dutch debt, on conifition of her maintaining
inviolate the treaty of Vienna.—(Cries of Hear, hear.)
The consideration of the treaty of 1815, and subsequently of
1831, was the general arrangements of the Congress of Vienna,
and the facilities Russia had afforded towards carrying them
out. Had that consideration failed? If it had on one side,
the other had a right to take advantage of it. What was the
state of things in the time of Lord Castlereagh? Why Lord
Castlereagh, assisted by France, wished to restore the freedom
of Poland, while Russia wished to have the whole of Poland
annexed to Warsaw; and the contest was brought
to an end
Russia's contracting to secure the freedom of Cracow. Upon
that understanding the loan under discussion was
taken up by
England ; but as Russia had broken one of the conditiondsiosf
the agreement, England clearly had a right by
'
continue its payment. But then, did not matters
of policy suggest to them that it would be in-
judicious to pursue such a course ? England was !n Possession
of the colonies, which were part of the consideration for which
she took upon herself the loan, while in times of danger and
trouble now gone by, Russia had observed—and with the
tLexcep-
tion of this single instance, still observed the conditions
of
Treaty of Vienna. Was it prudent, then, for England_a geogra-
phical
now to
annul the loan, in consequence of the confiscation of
atom 9 Could she do it without coming to some new
arrangement with Russia as to the possession of the colonies?to the •
He apprehended not, and therefore he was so far onno "
motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose.— (ILL, hear. )
Still, however, there could be no doubt
thatthe I ready of
antly Vienna had had beeu violated; for Russia relateich related
rented only to that part of the treaty
still
she did
to the freedom of Poland, but
consent to it, and there could not be a shadow of a doubt that
the annexation of this geographical atom to Austria was I.
manifest violation of the treaty. In the Conventu n of Au-Via
and Poland, the real contracting parties in this matter, Russia
made certain proposals. upon which was ultimately founded the
final treaty which settled the balance of power to be exercised
by the various nations of Europe. Now in those very pro-
posals there was an article expressly providing for the freedom
for ever of the town and state of Cracow, and in the face of
that fact it was impossible to deny that Russia and the two other
with regard to Cracow.
At the time that treaty was come to,
s
in the parts they had taken
it was admitted on all
Cracow was of the utmost importance to England,
Powers of Austria and Prussia ha' violated the treaty of Vienna
hands, that
now it was a commercial station of no mean character.
alnt 'w) easvetn n
thought at that time that Cracow was a city of too
much importance to be given to either party. It was quite
clear that a violation of the treaty had taken place. The
conduct of the annexing parties would also show that they con-
sidered it themselves that they were taking a course contrary
to the treaty of Vienna. They had acted in the matter alto-
gether without the knowledge and consent of Eng-
land.—( Hear, hear.) This country would, he hoped, not de-
scend to avenge the violation of the treaty by inflicting
a mere pecuniary punishment. He hoped that the House
would adept the dignified course recommended by the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government, and set thereby an ex-
ample to the other states of Europe and to the world. He
would, therefore, if the motion were pressed to a division,
certainly divide with him upon the first resolution, but against
him on the last resolution, recommending a suspension of the
payment of the interest on the Russo-Dutch loan.
Mr. CHRIS'I'IE said that the real facts of the history of
the case appeared to be, that a payment should be made
by England to Russia, of a sum of money equal in amount to
the interest on what has since been known as the Russo-Dutch
Loan. The portion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's
n interests could
of be
tho consideredhvuijacohltai
tseehsdeatS:haatlhdl otentered
bindingtrpep_raacet:dy
speech which might be deemed historic, had not, in his opi-
nion, affected or altered the position of the question, and wth
great deference to that Hon. Gentleman's legal acqinrements,
he did not think that words introduced into the preamble of a
second convention fifteen years after the date of the first, and
engagements
yiennwttishrawet opinion,
speaking in a very general and vague manner with respect
orto athffeeetCioogngtrheess
of Vienna.—( Hear, hear.) It had been said, that even if
got: n eVi
violation of the treaty had taken place, this country would
he thought
that
lot:117,1
into.
ife
tHbhoeei did s
provisions
nlhfisol
oot.fheevteheren.
ties to that treaty would be released from their engagements.
If, then, the infraction of the treaty had absolved England
from paying the interest on the Russo-Dutch loan, England
should cease to pay it, and it would not be shabby
for
the country to take advantage of that violation.
and endeavour to inflict some punishment, however small, upon
a great power, for the infliction of a great injury. lf,
on the
other hand, this country was not. absolved from paying the
money, then "shabby" would not express in proper terms
the conduct of the country in withholding the
same.
e
thought, however, that it was inconsistent with the functions
of that House to pass resoiutions on the subject of the foreign
relations of other countries. He thought that this debate
should not conclude without some remark to the cruel-
ties of Minsk, and the barbarities of Gallicia, especially as
the Noble Lord the Nleniber for Lynn had, in a most extrava-
gant speech which was its own refutation, gone considerably
out ot his way to pass a high-flown eulogium on what he
termed the mild and paternal Governments of Austria and
Russia. The lion. Member then proceeded to read extracts
front a number of letters written by Mr. Magennis and other

persons, describing the condition of the people prior to the insnr..
rection and outbreak in Gallicia, and the conduct of the Austrian
Government during the insurrection of the Gallician peasantry.
The Hon. Member then went on to say that a great deal of
odium had been endeavoured to be affixed upcn the manifi sto
of the revolutionary government. He did not wish to defend
that document, but he thought that some allowances should be
made for the circumstances in which the people and the Go-
vernment wer, placed. He trusted the House would excuse
him for trespassing so long on its attention, and he would con-
clude by expressing a hope that the Hon. Member would with-
draw his resolutions, and rest satisfied with the strong expres-
sion of opinion which they had called forth.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said, that in reply to the Noble Lord-whe
had challenged them to give an instance of the violation of treaties
on the part of Eng:and he would name an instance. He asked
the Noble Lord, did she not violate the treaty of 1782, which she
had entered into with Ireland—a treaty as solemnly and for-
mally entered into as that of Vienna. With regard to the
question before the House, he thought that there could be no
doubt that the northern powers had violated the treaty of
Vienna. The Noble Lord (Bentinek) attempted to defend
them on the ground that they had been guilty of former in-
fractions
of that treaty, but that, in his opinion, rather aggra-
vated than extenuated their offence. The Noble Lord the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs had ridiculed the idea that
the suppression of Cracow had taken its rise I
from the apprehension entertained by the northern
powers that this was necessary to their security.
The effect, however, of this annexation, was to deprive the
minor states of Europe of all confidence in the stability of
present arrangements. fie should like to know from the Noble
Lord the Foreign Secretary, why a diplomatic agent had nut
been appointed for Cracow, agreeably to the premise given to
183(i? If this had been done, the scenes that hid taken place
in Gallicia and Cracow would never have occurred. The
Noble Lord, instead of taking the course which he ought to
have taken under the circumstances, had paralysed the in-
fluence which this country would have bad, by em-
broiling the friendly relations which existed . between
them and :"ranee. 'The French press had now taken
up the ease of Poland, and represented it to the Govern-
ments of Europe in its true colours, and he trusted
France and England by their co-operation, and determined
efforts, would endeavour to circumvent the policy by which
it was sought to keep a great nation in a condition of perpetual
degradation.
Mr. B. ESCOTT rose to support the resolutions sub-
mitted for the approval of the House. by the Hon. Member
fi*Jr Montrose. T7lO questicna had been raised during the
ishate. The tint, whether the suppr2ssion of Cracow., by the •
three Petnts, wes, or V 733 Let; a vich,tion of t!ie treaty cf
Viertna ; and, tacondly, vrhather after the treaty had been I
violated, as it had been, this country ought to continue to pay
a large sum of money to one of these Powers which in the opi-
nion of many was only contingent upon the strict observance
of the treaty. He, for one, was content to leave the vindica-
tion of the honour of the country to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs, in accordance with the sentiments of the speech from
the Throne at tile opening of Parliament. He was, therefore,
unwilling to enter upon the discussion of that part of the
subject; but on the record he thought they ought unhesitat-
ingly to express their opinion. especially after the speeches de•
livered that evening by the Hon. Gentlemen the Members for
Bute and Weymou h. One party in that House was in favour
of Russia receiving the money, but another party held that the
people of this country ought not to be called upon to pay the
money, unless it was clearly payable. The Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Bute, after making one of the clearest state-
ments ever made in that House, that they were not liable to pay
the money ; but he followed it up by one of the weakest argu-
ments he had ever heard, namely, that although it was not due,
he could not vote in favour of discontinuing its payment. There
was, however, but one Member who had taken a straightfor-
ward view of the matter—he meant the Noble I

Lord the Member for Lynn. If he was correct
in stating that the three Powers were consulting
their own safety and the safety of their subjects in suppressing
Cracow, and that the act was no invasion, and that we ought
to pay the money ; but still he admitted that the payment of
the money depended upon the observance of the treaty, and that
if it had been broken, be should, nevertheless, vote in favour of
the payment of the money. All he could make of the Noble
Lord's speech was, that one-half of it went to show that they
ought not to pay the money, and the other that they ought to
pay it. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bute laid down
two propositions—first, that the payment of the money de-
pended upon the construction to be put upon the treaty of
Vienna; and, secondly, that the annexation of Cracow was a
gross violation of the treaty of Vienna; but then he pro-
ceeded to state that although the treaty had been violated, thee
must still pay the money to Russia.—( Hear, hear.)
His argument was simply this, that where two con-
ditions were made between two parties, and one broke his
portion of it ; the fulfilment of the agr, ement was not binding
upon the other. He (Ur. Escott) was at a loss to understand
why this country was to pay large sums of money to foreign
Powers which were not due. It simply resolved itself into a
question of pounds, shillings, and pence ; but he had remarked
that whenever that argument was brought forward it was
treated with derision—as a part of the subject with which one
ought not to deal.--( Hear, hear, from Mr. Hume.) But, in
his opinion, it was the most important question of all.—( Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Weymouth
said it was a mean thing to pay an unjust demand from fear of
a foreign Power—( Hear, hear)—that it was the very consum-
mation of meanness to do so ; and ha wished Honourable
Gentlemen who differed with him would point out
how it was incumbent upon this country to pay the
money to Russia, when she had violated the
faith of treaties, and, consequently, released them from the
obligation which the treaty of Vienna had imposed upon
them. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member fur Tamworth
produced a great impression on the House by reading the
treaty of 1815, under which the money was formerly paid ; but
he ought to have known that the money ass payable even in
1832, and that he told the Ministers then in office, that, until
they could get an indemnity from Parliament to pay it, that
they would not be justified in doing so. The Act passed in
1832 repealed altogether the stipulation of 1815, and the Act
of 18.32 showed that the Noble Lord was correct, when he
stated that the payment of the money was dependant upon
Russia adhering to the faith of the treaty, and that the saAlv
of the last remnant of Poland should not be interfered with.'
Lord Castlereagh, to whom history would do ju6tiee, for he
was a nobleman of great powers, had, in the
opinion of the Duke of Wellington, acted most
judiciously in his negotiations With the three Powers, as he hail
stated, "that it was a masterstroke of policy to bind Rusoa by
a pecuniary obligation to observe the faith of treaties." There.
fore he (Mr. Escott) was correct in saying that the question
simply resolved itself into one of pounds, shillings, and pence.
But now, having it in their power to act justly—having justice
on their side— to give some effect to the eloquent protest of the
Noble Lord, they were told that the House of Commons had
nothing to do with foreign affairs—" here is a 0,4,4 from ihe 1
Queen's Minister—respect the Executive Government." avow,
he wanteo to help the Executive Government; but if trey con-
tinued, after what occurred, to p'y the money, the Minister of
Russia would no (Lula say,—" If this is the nature of your
protest, I wish you would do so in a similar strain as
often as you think proper." Certainly they would cot be
respected in Europe if they paid a pure:y unjust demand ;
if it was just, let them by all means pay it, but it it was unjust
let them manfully refuse to do so. Some seemed to think that
the question was one or war, it they refused to pay the money,
but he considered it simply a question a hotter the treaty had ,
been violated or not. It was not a war question, but the dan-
ger of war was not created by refusing to pay a demand which
was unjust. Yet it any of the three powers were disposed to
go to war with Great Britain, he thought they would hold out •
a direct encouragement for them to do so, if they were to pay ;
the demand under such circumstances, and particularly if they
paid it—as they must if they paid it at ail—in the shape of
hush money. The Noble Lord the Member for Lynn
h: d made one observation for which he thanked
hint. The Noble Lord seemed to think that his
opinions peculiarly fitted him for the head of the
" country party," as it was termed, but the speech which he had
delivered on this subject, clearly showed that the ottiniens of
the country were against the country part), which he pro-
fessed to lead, as he hail declared that. he would meet the
motion of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) by a decided negative.
He would have no moving of the previous question, and he
honoured him for his determination, because the question was
one which ought not to be met by such a motion. tier Nia-
jesty's Ministers were of the same opinion, but the Noble
Lord (Bentinek) said they were all wrong in their con-
clusions, as there had been no violation of the treaty ; as
the three Powers, he said, had done their duty, and there-
fore, he should stand up for the payment of the money,
still, he must vote with those who supported the resolutions,
that the question should be put by the Speaker, and having
agreed to that motion, they would then come to the resolu-
tions ; but how Hon. Gentlemen ..ho considered that the treaty
had been violated could, on the division, tgo into the other
lobby, he was quite at a loss to understand. He recited that
the question must be viewed as one of pounds, shillings, and
pence. as the question of honour depended upon its bein2
viewed in that light. They had had to borrow 8,000 000/. for
the relief of the destitute poor of Ireland ; therefore, that was
no time to continue the responsibility of a debt of 7,1)00,000/.
when the other parties to the treaty had broken its conditions,
and taken away their liability to pay it. The plea of honour
was nonsense, and was one which a Minister could not
avail him elf ti's if it was not founded in justice.
They were told that the colonies which they still held were
compelled to pay this money. Ile should wish some Member
to get up anti say that it compelled them to pay it to Russia—
for such was not the case ; they were not bound to pay one
sixpence to Russia upon account of their colonies. Well then,
was the House of Commons about to vote the payment of this
money on no other grounds than these which they tie.:rd just
stated. The Noble Lord was bot singular, as it had been
observed, in his opinions. He hail no doubt that the Member
for Shrewsbury supported the views which he had taken, and
he had no doubt but that they should hear him gravely argue
in the same strain respecting the wisdom of the Aust: ian and
Russian Cabinets, but he did not blame them, they were at leastj
consistent. But how was the House of Commons, who condemned
their views, to justify its own conduct. It was better upon
such occasions as the present to speak the simple truth....
( Hear, hear.) There was one great disadvantage in that
;,t,lrtbe'udutno
country
Government which was vulgarly called Whig. namely, in any
question such as that under discussion, in anything which bore
upon its face the character and nature of a job, it was sure to
be supported by there goner I opponents—( Hear, hear)—and
there was one great advantage derived from that other class
vulgarly called Tories, who were sure to tie opposed by those
who in office never brought any of those buds and flowers of
patriotism which it required some other incentive to pr,,duee
than the reigns of power. The Noble Lord the First
Minister of the Crown would have the support of the former,
bat he would tell him that the present was a question of great
constitutional policy, and one which the peove would take up.
The late Minister had quitted office, not by reason of the great
liberal schemes which he had propounded, but 'because he
thought to lay his hands upon the constitutional liberties of a
part of the United Kingdom. The House of Commons de-
feated that attempt, and the Noble Lord had scarcely been
placed in power before he showed symptoms of a similar ten-
dency—(Hear, hear)—by the introduction of an unconstitu-
tional measure. But the Noble Lord took time to consider;
he took counsel of his own reason—of his better judgment—
and the result was, that he threw aside the weapons of oppres-
sion. The present was another great constitutional question,
amongandbe
f()
uhnehd
sw
amongoo u,,lndfihnisd e trhvail
household,te
aid
fol
ottwnhaei
tsr..l.,_,
bquestion,ecsht
efer
irehsi.ei)d had
were enemiesnnt
Mr. SNIYTHE said that he differed from the Honourable
Member for Montrose in his particular conclusions, altheugh
of
forth eFrtar enact:,
of
nef
div. otiiehnneendl
an
twht
eiatrdh
wthaai believingksinebnionpuinadneb.y
ptrootiiha,
dt
tiesahn nioin
suffered
g
had been abandoned more shamefully by France than Poland
had been, he was surprised that Metternich had sullied his
fame, which had been stamped upon the present century, for a
gain which had been termed a geographical atom, and for a loss
which would be the unsettlement of the peace of Europe.
The independence of Cracow had been guaranteed by more
protocols S
and treaties than that of any other tate in Europe,
and that would be a reason why the abolition of its inde-
pendencebe regarded more seriously than otherwise.
The three Powers, in
their charge against Cracow.
making,
should
provfnerd tsononhmuaehe,prfoier..
r eras
a
of years, it was their duty sooner to, have interfered. The
revolution
hree Powers had acted towards ,
( racew as Semiramis Mil
to Ninus, who suckled hint first, and atterwards debauched hint,
f
He was persuaded, that had an understanding existed between
.h had
c o proved their case.
for f
France and England, that the suppression of Cracow would
have taken place. He hoped that the ehtente cm &ale
would be renewed between those two countries, and he would
not
won
venture to call on the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign

Department, for the sake of the public order and the peace of
Europe to do so. Their doing so would be the means of pre- •
venting such acts as those in future. He thought a joint pro-
test would have been better than refusing to pay the loan
which was now under the consideration of the House. He
agreed with the conclusion come to by the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government, that while he believed the treaty to
have been violated. he would not take advantage of any con-
struction of its meaning to avert the payment of the debt, but
show to the world a scrupulous and honourable observance on
the part of England of the obligations which treaties imp sods
Mr. B. DISRAELI, in rising to address the House,
said he
could only appeal to them now on the present subject, 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 eon se. He had been
given to under,tand that a treaty of the greatest importance had
been violated; a treaty, which, for the interest: of thi-country,
ought to have been observed ? Now, before going into this
question, he thought they should first agree as to the subject
which was rot before them ; arid 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 H trui.ted that they all lamented
that the independence of Poland bad ceased to be. He re-
gretted the fall of Poland, mainly because he believed it was
for the interest of England that Po!asid should have remained
an independent Power. He could easily understand how the
Hon. 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. I.ut 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 Enzlish 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 tb- 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 Healing
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 a Protectorate. It
had been at various times occupied by military forces, and its
constitution often changed. 'I he result was, that after half a
century Cracow had again become an Austrian town. This
was really the historic statement which they had to decide to
night, and not the question of the partition of Poland. It was
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 ?
( Hear, hear.) Did their title deed to freedom depend on the
treaty of Vienna? Let them take away their sympathy from
Poland, and the question soon assumed a different aspect. It
was nearly eighty years since Poland had been partitioned, the
intervening period constituting what might be called the epoch
of modern history, a period during which England had lost her
colonies, France had been revolutionised, Ireland united to this
country, and that great legislative change accomplished by
which many Hon. Members had obtained seats in that House.
Who could deny that, under such circumstances, the partition
of Poland had ceased to be a political catastrophe, and must
now be considered peimanently effected? It seemed that two
of the greatest Powers in Europe had protested that there had
been a violation of this important treaty, which was at present
the basis of their diplomatic settlement, by the termination of
the quasi independent existence of this Austrian-Polish town.
This town, which was Austrian at the commencement of
those struggles, which the Convention affected to settle,
and which had become again Austrian , was the subject In dis-
pute. England and France, by the mouths of two most
able Ministers, had protected that there had been a violation by
the three continental Powers of a treaty which shook, in fact,
the total destinies of Europe. And one Hon. Gentleman, a
Member of the House of Commons, responding to the protest
of these two Ministers, called upon the House to re-echo their
protest--to respond to them—and taking advantage of certain
other treaties which were in existence, to punish
one of the violators of this stipulation. The
House would perhaps admit that be had fairly
stated the case which was before them. On the first night of
the sessions, although there was a general feeling in the Himse
—at least very much so on the side on which he had the honour
of sitting—that they should not enter into any discussion on
foreign affair- ; although he thought, though it seemed mis-
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 throne, that the House 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 had been
a manifest violation of the Treaty of Vienna in answer
to the address, he thought it only a matter of
statement, awl that they had to thank her Majesty
for the information which had been given to th.em upon the
subject. He had thought himself, therefore, perfectly sate 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
h there had been a inanifes, violation of the treaty of Vienna.
It was that observation which had made him (31r. Disraeli)
observe as he did to his Noble Friend near him, that he

thought it rather a susiielous assertion on the part of the Noble
Lard. Now, what we. the result ? The Right Ron. Baronet

the Member for the Uciversity, who was a great authority upon
ail subjects, but especially upon Parliamentary reform—(
laugh)—rose the other night and said that every gentleman
was pledged by the answer to the Speech from the 'I hrone, 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 adm►rable coolness, that every gentleman
who was pre ent had, by his silence, signified his acquiescence
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 hove

- - -
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 equivocal ion or evasion, and he had the judgment of some
of the principal judges of public law with him in his opinion
—that nu one could call the viAation of a particular treaty
inserted in a general treaty, a violation of that general ireaty.
He put the p inciple 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 be 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
aLlvised 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—and 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 after 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

House. The free states of Germany had been guaratteed by
the treaty of Osnabreck political rights. The treaty of Osna-
Greek was inserted in the treaty of Minster, and the Tree

states of Ger Many were derived of their political rights. They
applied to the signatory 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
bya m
guarantee.
treaty, to do them right, and fulfil that
It was decided, after the most weighty argument
second to none, and who had interfered with thef
treaty great trans-
actionan of Vienna, that the violation of a political
serted in the treaty achieved in Westphalia was not aty
violationin-
of the general treaty. lie (Mr. Disraeli) said that it de-
cided
In a man second to none, because he was surewas
that the
great
great Chancellor of Austria, 1‘..1. Oxenstern. to whom hi,. Hon.
Friend the Member fur Canterbury had referred, could scarcely
consi ier himselt inferior to the great Chancellor Mazarin, who
had given the opinion; and he (Jr. Disraeli) believe 6 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, b-ing 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 Alin-ter • opposed to
th.-m, 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, becau-e, in
his opinion, precedents were only important when th y
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 4.r four precedents would be as Ai-
clent as hundreds at another time, and under different circum-
stances. He 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 which be would remind them. Louis XIV.
had given his decision in favour of his view of the case, and
whiie 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 rights
hFranca
and 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
Diet of Germany. That Diet was decidedly opposed to the
decision which had previously been come t.o. and n was referred
to the consideration of William 111., e first opponent of
Louis XIV. 'That monarch had refused to clec:de upon his own
authority, and had de. ermined to decide it upon the general
law of Europe.---(Cheers.) They could not call 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