additional aid was not paramount to the wants of the parochial department of the Church Establishment. He condemned the Government for not having given a seat in Parliament to the Bishop of Manchester; and, after the declarations of Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Wakley, that they were desirous of seeing the bishops bodily removed from the House of Lords, called upon the friends of the Church to consider whether the creation of one new bishop was worth the risk of sacrificing the principle of the legislative representation of the Church by the bishops in the House of Lords. Lord J. Russell repeated his former arguments in support of the present Bill, which he thought a better measure than the old plan which Sir J. Graham advocated. The bishops had made no opposition to the change; but, as they were foolish men who were bring ing on their own ruin, Sir J. Graham considered their opinions of no value, and based his vote on the opinions and statements of Mr. Roebuck and Mr. Wakley. He concluded by insisting that this Bill, without trenching at all upon the general constitution of the country, was calculated to increase the efficacy of the Church, and was open to no objection, theoretical or practical. Mr. Horsman expressed his concurrence in the feeling of Sir J. Graham, that the House was doing wrong in applying its attention to the episcopal rather than to the parochial wants of the people. He hoped that the Government would take the latter into their consideration during the recess, and would in the next session produce some measure for relieving their spiritual destitution. Mr. Stuart Wortley declared that, as he could not consent to the creation of a Bishop of Manchester at the sacrifice of so important a principle as the loss of a bishop's seat in the House of Lords, he felt compelled to oppose the Bill. Mr. Goulburn, Lord Clive, Mr. Acland, and Mr. Lefroy expressed their approbation of the measure. On a division the numbers were For the third reading 93 14 Majority for third reading. 79 And so the Bill passed. CHAPTER VI. ANNEXATION OF CRACOW.-Resolutions proposed by Mr. Hume on this Subject in the House of Commons on 4th March-The Debate is continued for three nights by adjournments-Speeches of Mr. Hume, Lord Sandon, (who seconds the Motion,) Lord John Russell, Mr. Milnes, Sir W. Molesworth, Lord Mahon, Lord George Bentinck, Mr. T. Duncombe, Sir R. Peel, Mr. J. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Disraeli, and Lord Palmerston-Mr. Hume's Resolutions are withdrawn-Remaining Business of the Session-Withdrawal of the Health of Towns Bill, the Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill, and other Measures— Bill for Remodelling the Poor Law Commission passed - Lord Brougham takes a critical Review of the proceedings of the Session, commenting on the small results achieved in it-The Marquis of Lansdowne vindicates the Government, and replies to Lord Brougham -The Parliament prorogued by the Queen in Person, preparatory to its Dissolution on the 23rd of July-Address of the Speaker, recapitu lating the Business of the Session-The Queen's Speech. THE HE annexation of Cracow, which had been noticed in the Queen's Speech, and which formed the subject of several incidental remarks in the debate on the Address, was brought before the House of Commons in a formal shape by Mr. Hume, on the 4th of March, and produced a discussion which was protracted to a considerable length by two adjournments. The following were the resolutions proposed on this occasion by Mr. Hume : "1. That this House, considering the faithful observance of the General Act of Congress, or Treaty of Vienna, of the 9th day of June, 1815, as the basis of the peace and welfare of Europe, views with alarm and indignation the incorporation of the free city of Cracow, - and of its territory, into the empire of Austria, by virtue of a convention entered into at Vienna on the 6th day of November, 1846, by Russia, Prussia, and Austria, in manifest violation of the said Treaty. "2. That it appears, by returns laid before Parliament, that there has already been paid from the British treasury towards the principal and for the interest of the Debt called Russo-Dutch Loan, between the years 1816 and 1846, both inclusive, the sum of 47,493,750 florins, equal to 3,374,4791. sterling money; and that the liquidation of the principal and interest of the remaining part of the loan, as stipulated by the Act 2nd and 3rd of William the Fourth, cap. 81, will require further annual payments from the British treasury until the year 1915, amounting to 47,006,250 florins, equal to 3,917,1877. sterling money, -making then the aggregate payment 7,291,6661., and the average for each of the hundred years, 72,9167. He subsequently defended, contending that Lord Palmerston had so completely demolished the Austrian document, that no man in future could have the audacity to pretend to give it the slightest credit. It was not for three of the parties to the Treaty of Vienna to annul it. "3. That the Convention of the If they had discovered any danger 16th day of November, 1831, be- to themselves in the existence of tween His Majesty the King of that "geographical atom," Cracow Great Britain and Ireland and the which formed, however, the subEmperor of All the Russias, was ject of four articles of that Treatymade to explain the stipulations of they ought to have called on the the Treaty between Great Britain, other contracting parties to conRussia, and the Netherlands, signed cur in the alterations which they at London on the 19th day of May, proposed to make in the constitu1815, and included in the Treaty tion of that state; and it was an of Vienna; and by that Convention insult to England, to whose efforts it was agreed by Great Britain those countries owed their independ'to secure to Russia the payment ence, to make those alterations of a portion of her old Dutch debt, without her concurrence. in consideration of the general would not enter into any protest arrangements of the Congress of against such abominable perfidy Vienna, to which she had given and injustice-what did they care her adhesion; arrangements which for any protest?-but he would remain in full force. show his opinion of it by taking a much stronger measure. As we had in our power, under legislative enactment, a sum of money which we had intended to pay to Russia, under certain stipulations, which she had broken, he saw no reason why we should keep our part of the treaty, and allow the other part of it to be violated. He considered that we were liberated from the obligation of the Russo-Dutch Loan by the reckless manner in which the Emperor Nicholas-on whose Polish policy he passed the strongest condemnation—had broken through all the arrangements of the Congress of Vienna for the independent existence of Poland. He justified this position by the authority of Vattel, Grotius, and Dr. Addams. He therefore called upon the House, by adopting his resolutions, to express, in lan 66 4. That this House is therefore of opinion, that Russia having withdrawn that adhesion, and those arrangements being, through her act, no longer in force, the payments from this country on account of that debt should be henceforth suspended." Mr. Hume commenced his observations by giving the House a history of all the proceedings which had led first to what was called the "temporary occupation" of Cracow, and subsequently to its incorporation into the empire of Austria by virtue of a convention, entered into at Vienna on the 6th of November, 1846, by Russia, Prussia, and Austria, in manifest violation of the Treaty of Vienna. He pointed out the hollowness of the pretext on which Cracow was originally seized, and on which its seizure had been guage which could not be mistaken, their alarm, indignation, and abhorrence at the extinction of the state of Cracow an act which trampled on all nationality, set all treaties at defiance, and released the subjects of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, one and all, from their allegiance. Lord Sandon was not often called upon to second a motion proposed by Mr. Hume, nor could he, on the present occasion, agree with every expression which that gentleman had used, especially with respect to a Sovereign with whom we were at present in friendly alliance. Still he agreed so much in the main purport of Mr. Hume's resolutions, that he felt justified in coming openly forward to second them. The most curious circumstance in these diplomatic papers was the undisguised consciousness of the Austrian, Prussian, and Russian Ministers, that they were engaged in a transaction which they could not justify to the world, much less to either France or England. Having read several extracts from those papers to prove that assertion, he expressed his astonishment that the three Courts, which declared first, that Cracow had forfeited all claims to independence; and, secondly, that none but themselves had a right to dispose of the fate of that state-could have forgotten that the independence of Cracow and the separate existence of the kingdom of Poland had formed one of the questions which the Congress of Vienna had found it most difficult to settle. He then reviewed the three first resolutions of Mr. Hume, and expressed his decided approbation of them; but as to the last he did not feel so confident, and should be glad to hear the opinion of Lord Palmer ston upon it; for its strength appeared to him to consist in the ambiguity of its terms. He concluded by declaring, that if we were at liberty to withhold payment of the Russo-Dutch Loan, we ought to do so, as the mildest way of expressing our disapprobation of the gross breach of contract committed by Russia. For some time no one rose to address the House, and there was a loud cry for the division, until Lord J. Russell rose, and, declining to enter into the general arguments of Mr. Hume and Lord Sandon, stated the general view which he took of this motion. He concurred in the view of Mr. Hume, that the three Powers were not justified by the Treaty of Vienna in deciding by themselves the question, whether the free state of Cracow should be maintained or not. Neither could he think that, whilst those arrangements, which placed the duchy of Warsaw under the power of Russia, and which formed the subject of much discussion at Vienna, and of a long correspondence between the Emperor of Russia and the British Minister, formed still the principal part of the Treaty of Vienna-the arrangement which left one particle of Poland, Cracow, free and independent, was an inconsiderable or insignificant part of it. The existence of Cracow having thus been maintained, he thought that, when complaints were made that Cracow was a focus of revolution, from which insurrections were fomented against the three Powers, those complaints should have been stated to England and France, and that England and France should have been invited to a conference to put an end to a state of things which the complainants deemed intolerable, and which they alleged they could not suffer to continue with any regard to their own safety. Both, then, on the grounds of the Treaty of Vienna, and on the insufficient grounds stated by Prince Metternich for the violent seizure and extinction of Cracow as a free and independent state, he was of opinion that the three Courts had been guilty of a violation of the Treaty of Vienna, and Her Majesty's Government had directed Lord Palmerston to protest against it to them all, individually and collectively. But Mr. Hume, not satisfied with the protest which Lord Palmerston had delivered, wished the House to agree to four resolutions which he had prepared. As to the first of them, he begged the House to consider that there was a great difference between what had been done by Lord Palmerston on behalf of the Crown, and what was now proposed to be done on behalf of the House of Commons. If a treaty had been signed and ratified by the Minister of England in the name of George III. with a foreign Power, and that treaty had been violated, it was the part of the Minister of the Sovereign of England to protest against it; but the functions of the House were different. When a treaty was made with a foreign Power, the Minister of the Crown asked the House for its concurrence; but, when it was violated, it was not the practice of the House to affirm a resolution which was merely declaratory of its opinion on that subject. While it was incumbent on the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to declare his sense of the violation of a treaty, it was not advisable that the House of Commons should af firm resolutions condemnatory of the conduct of a foreign Power, unless it was prepared to follow that step up by some act of an executive character. He saw no advantage in the House altering its usual course on this occasionit would gain nothing by it in dignity, force, or respect; and, therefore, while he did not hesitate to declare that he adhered to his former opinions as to the unjustifiable extinction of Cracow as a free state, he should move the previous question, if the same opinions were incorporated into a resolution of the House of Commons. The last resolution involved another and a different question, which made it necessary for him to give a history of the different Acts of Parliament by which the Russo-Dutch Loan was guaranteed. Having concluded that history, he observed that the highest legal authorities had informed him that, according to the spirit of the convention, the interest on that loan ought to be paid; and his own opinion was that, in justice and fair dealing, we could not refuse its payment. At the best, there was but a doubtful point in our favour, which we might indeed take if we wished to quibble, but which we ought not to take in a court of conscience between two nations. We should lower our position in Europe if we were to reduce this question to a mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence. Though in some of the late transactions in Europe our protests had been disregarded, our moral force had been increased and fortified, for there was no treaty, either ancient or modern, which we had either violated or set at nought. We had declared our readiness to stand by all our |