Cracow, the ancient capital of the kingdom of Poland; and in return for the stipulations in favour of the free navigation of the rivers and canals, the use of the sea-ports, and the free circulation of the productions of the national soil and industry throughout the whole extent of ancient Poland.

All these stipulations combined were the equivalent for the sanction by Europe of the final partition of ancient Poland implied in the treaties of Vienna. Supposing then that any of the parties to those treaties really intended to reserve to the Polish nation the consoling hope of ultimate restoration, and at the same time to secure to them distinct institutions and privileges as a compensation for the temporary loss of their national independence, and to prevent their being entirely absorbed in the partitioning states, the questions recur has this intention been adequately expressed in the text of those treaties; and if so, have they failed of their effect in consequence of the Polish revolution of 1830?

Such is the intrinsic imperfection of all human language that it frequently becomes impossible from the mere words alone of any written instrument to ascertain the meaning of the parties. When to this intrinsic defect of every known tongue is superadded that studied ambiguity, which almost justifies the maxim of a celebrated statesman, an active agent in these transactions, that "language was given to man to conceal his thoughts," it becomes still more diffi cult to ascertain the real meaning of words selected to express the result of a compromise between opposite and almost irreconcilable interests and views. Without pretending more minutely to scrutinize the various motives which may have influenced the different parties to these arrangements, it must be admitted that nothing is more dif ficult than to maintain and regulate the relations between a sovereign empire, and a dependant or even a co-ordinate state, by means of foreign interference which must always. assume a character offensive to the superior government. Has then the intention of the contracting parties to the treaties of Vienna been expressed with sufficient clearness and

precision in this respect, to justify the interference of any of these parties, for the purpose of insisting on the execution of the stipulations in favour of Poland? If this intention has been inadequately expressed in the letter of the treaties, it must be sought for in the spirit by which the stipulations were dictated; which, as already observed, was that of a compromise among the conflicting views of all the parties. If this compromise has failed of its effect in consequence of the Polish revolution of 1830, and the subsequent re-conquest of the kingdom of Poland by Russia, then the parties to the stipulations in question, who seek to avoid the consequences of these events, must go behind the treaties, and reverting to the original idea of a complete restoration of Polish independence and nationality, must seek to realize that idea by means which are adequate to the end, by remodelling those stipulations so as to guaranty the existence of Poland as a state independent of any connection with other powers.

In the debate, which took place in the British house of commons on this subject, June 28th, 1832, it was stated by Mr. Cutlar Fergusson, that the stipulations in the treaties of Vienna were two-fold, first as respects the Polish provinces not included in the duchy of Warsaw, and secondly those which related to the duchy itself, which was to be erected into a kingdom with certain additions of territory.

As to the first, the stipulations related not merely to the Polish provinces subject to Austria and Prussia, but to those of Lithuania, Volhinia, Podolia and the Ukraine, united to Russia at the first partition of 1772. These provinces it was once the intention of the Emperor Alexander to have added, in whole or in part, to the kingdom of Poland; but so much was that kingdom considered a creation of the congress of Vienna, that it was thought necessary to reserve to the Emperor of Russia a power of adding to that kingdom; and the territorial extension contemplated by the treaty of Vienna was to be found in the Polish provinces

previously subject to Russia, to which in the mean time a representation and national institutions were to be given. The grant of this representation and these national institutions to those provinces was an express stipulation, binding on the Emperor Alexander, and matter of compact between him and the other powers parties to the treaty of Vienna, and which they had a right to see, and ought to have seen carried into execution by that prince. But, so far from this being the case, it appeared that although some most imperfect institutions had been given by Austria to the province of Gallicia, and by Prussia to the grand duchy of Posen, not only had no national institutions or representation of any kind been given to the other parts of the Polish territory, but their ancient institutions, which, to a certain degree, afforded security to life and liberty, had been wrested

from them.

The subject, however, which was first in order, and must form the main topic of deliberation, was the provision, by which the duchy of Warsaw was erected into a kingdom, and was conferred upon the Emperor of Russia subject to certain conditions, upon which only he received the sovereignty of Poland from the hands of the congress of Vienna. Nor was there any thing vague, ambiguous, or uncertain in the terms of the treaty. The house would remark the difference in the provisions of the treaty, with respect to the Polish provinces which were previously subject to Russia, and those which respected the kingdom of Poland conferred upon that state. By the treaty itself the Polish provinces were to have a representation and national institutions: but the duchy of Warsaw, erected into a kingdom, was to have, not merely a representation, not merely national institutions, but a constitution, by which the new kingdom was to be irrevocably bound, and without which constitution it was not, and could not be bound to the Emperor of Russia. It was the indispensable condition of rule over that country by the Emperor of Russia-the constitutional king of Poland-Poland, not a province, like

those that were to have a representation and national institutions merely, but a kingdom and a state, enjoying a dis tinct administration, to which the Emperor might give such territorial extension internally as he thought fit. Poland was made over to the Emperor of Russia; not to form an integral part of his dominions,-not to be at his will converted into a province of Russia; but on the express condition that it was to be irrevocably bound to his empire, by its constitution, and by no other tie. But even if the terms were vague and uncertain, who so fit to explain and clear them up as the Emperor Alexander himself? The words used in his speech on the opening of the diet in March, 1818, would show the terms on which he considered that he held the sovereignty of Poland. In this speech he said: "Your restoration is defined by solemn treaties: it is sanctioned by the constitutional charter. The inviolability of the external engagements, and of the fundamental law, assures, henceforward, to Poland an honourable rank among the nations of Europe."

The speaker then went on to show that the constitutional charter, thus granted by the Emperor Alexander, had been violated by him, and his successor the Emperor Nicholas, in every one of its leading provisions; and was in fact wholly subverted and destroyed by the authority of the monarchs, who had solemnly sworn to preserve and maintain it. The resistance of the Polish nation in 1830, was, therefore, justifiable, if the resistance of the English nation was justifiable at the revolution of 1688. But, even if he were to admit that the Polish insurrection was an unjustifiable rebellion, it could not be a reason for depriving a whole nation of its liberties. The Emperor Nicholas did not charge the whole nation with rebellion. He stated it to have been the work of a faction who had seduced a portion of his subjects from their allegiance. And he (the speaker) had already admitted that those who took part in the insurrection exposed themselves to the consequences of its fail

ure, but the constitution of Poland and the rights of the nation continued as before.

Most of the other speakers concurred in these views and the minister for foreign affairs, Lord Palmerston, consented to the production of the papers moved for; at the same time, stating that with reference to all the interests concerned, and on every account, he should best discharge his duty, by not entering into any discussion, or explanation of the conduct of the British government, in respect to these transactions. At the same time, he was bound in justice to add that the government was not blind to the rights conferred upon Great Britain by the treaty of Vienna. No man could entertain a doubt that she possessed a full right to express a decided opinion upon the performance or non-performance of the stipulations contained in that treaty. Nevertheless it could not be denied that England lay under no peculiar obligation, independent of the other contracting parties, to adopt measures of direct interference by force.f

The stipulations in the treaties of Vienna, relating to the Treaty of Vifree and independent town of Cracow, have also frequently to Cracow. enna relating become the subject of debate in the British parliament and the French chambers, in consequence of the interference of the three protecting powers, and the occupation of that town by the Austrian troops, under their sanction, in 1836. Cracow belonged, at the time of the congress of Vienna to the duchy of Warsaw; but had been subject to Austria, during the whole period, which elapsed from the third partition of Poland in 1795, until the peace of Vienna between France and Austria in 1809, when it was annexed to the duchy. The congress declared it to be a free, independent, and neutral city, under the joint protection of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, with a territory of 51,000 square miles on the left bank of the Vistula and a population of 110,000. It is said that Austria obtained a confidential as

f Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. xiii. p. 1115.