surance from Russia that she would never post a body of troops in that part of the kingdom of Poland which lies beyond the Nidda, a small river flowing in the Vistula; whilst Austria on her part expressly granted to the riparian town of Podgorze (opposite to Cracow and belonging to Austria) the privileges of a free trading town in perpetuity, and stipulated never to form any military establishment which might threaten the neutrality of Cracow. By the final act of the congress, as we have already seen, the three protecting powers expressly stipulate to respect, and cause to be respected forever, the neutrality of the town and its territory. No foreign troops can be introduced into it under any pretext whatsoever. It is, on the other hand, reciprocally stipulated, that no asylum or protection should be afforded, in the town and territory of Cracow, to fugitives from justice or deserters belonging to the territories of either of the three protecting powers; but that such fugitives from justice and deserters should be arrested on the demand of the competent authorities and sent, without delay, under a sufficient escort in order to be delivered up to the guard authorized to receive them on the frontier. By the additional treaty relating to Cracow between the three powers, annexed to the general treaty, certain dispositions respecting the constitution of the city, its university, and the bishopric and chapter of Cracow were adopted, which are declared by the final act of the congress to have the same force and value as if textually inserted therein.b

According to the 4th article of the constitution thus guarantied to Cracow, the directing senate was composed of twelve senators; of which six were to be chosen for life, and six for the term of seven years. One senator in each of these classes was to be chosen by the chapter; one by the university, and four by the representatives of the peo

Act Final, art. 6-9. h Act Final, art. 10.

ple. The representatives of the people were to assemble every three years, in the month of December, to deliberate upon the laws proposed by the senate. A fundamental change in this constitution, made in consequence of the interference of the protecting powers, was published by the senate on the 23d March, 1833, by which that body was reduced to the number of eight, four for life, and four for the term of seven years.

The 27th article of this new constitution provided, that in case of difference arising either between the senate and the chamber of representatives, or between the members of these two bodies, upon the extent of their respective powers, or upon the interpretation of the constitution, the residents of the three protecting courts, assembled in conference, should decide the question.

The ancient statutes of the university were also annulled and superseded by the new organic statute of the 15th August, 1833, which deprived the government of the republic of the right of appointing the professors, and conferred it on the protecting courts.

During the Polish insurrection of 1830-31, the town and territory of Cracow were temporarily occupied by the Russian forces; and in 1836, they were again occupied by Austrian troops, under the sanction of the other two protecting powers. The ground, upon which this last mentioned occupation was justified upon the part of the three powers, was the non-fulfillment of the stipulation in the treaty of Vienna against the harbouring of deserters and fugitives from justice in the town of Cracow; and the allegation that the territory of the republic had become the focus of plots and conspiracies against the security of the neighbouring governments. In the debate which took place in the house of commons on the 18th March, 1836, on the motion of Sir Stratford Canning, it was stated by the minister of foreign affairs, Lord Palmerston, that he did not see any sufficient justification of the violent measures which had been adopted against Cracow, a state whose in

dependence it was of as much importance that Great Britain should see was not causelessly and wantonly disturbed, as if the case were that of Prussia or any other powerful nation. In the more recent debate which took place on the 13th of March, 1840, Sir Stratford Canning observed, that the first occupation in 1830, took place under circumstances which though not giving, strictly speaking, the right to interfere, yet might still afford some shadow of excuse for the violation of the treaty of Vienna. The time of the former occupation was small, two months only; the second occupation had been continued for the last four years, notwithstanding the assurances which had been given that it should be temporary. It was not confined to the mere suppression of military authority in that city. Many civil and political changes had been made, and whilst the forms of a free constitution had been preserved, the supreme power was in fact exercised by the resident representatives of the three great powers. The constitution had been completely changed, the new functionaries had introduced the most arbitrary enactments, substituting their own act in the place of those of the constituted authorities. The police was placed under the controul of Austria, and every functionary was appointed by the conference itself. The whole system of free trade, which had previously existed, was discontinued. In his reply, Lord Palmerston stated, that the grounds, on which the three powers had justified the occupation, were deemed by the British government inconsistent with the stipulations of the treaty of Vienna, to which both France and Great Britain were parties. The British government had accordingly protested against it. But it was one thing to express an opinion, and another to adopt nostile proceedings to compel the three powers to undo what they had done; and there were particular local circumstances, which prevented Great Britain from enforcing her views, except by war; because Cracow was a place inaccessible to the direct action of that country. But when he stated these facts and this protest, it would be but fair

that they should bear in mind the peculiar state of Europe immediately before the time of this occupation. A great revolution had taken place in France, followed by another in Belgium, which had led to the separation of that country from Holland. There had been a mighty effort on the part of the Poles to recover what they considered their rights from Russia. The three powers were greatly alarmed at these demonstrations. Each had in its possession some portion of that territory which had formerly been part of Poland; and their passions, or their fears, might, at that time, have, in some measure obscured that judgment, which in calmer moments they might have entertained respecting this question. These seemed to him reasons why they might indulge the hope, that under the altered state of Europe, the three powers might now be induced to take a kinder view of the matter. The British government had, for some time past, endeavoured to urge upon Austria the necessity of withdrawing the occupation which had been established for temporary purposes only; and the answer which had been given was, that this recommendation would be adopted, and that the Austrian government was only waiting for some arrangements to be made with regard to the military force and for the result of certain pending trials. The Austrian government had assured the British government that no permanent occupation was intended, and the only question which remained between the two governments was one of time.i

tion of Germanic

the

The ancient Germanic constitution, as established by 13. Formathe peace of Westphalia, had been completely subverted by the wars of the French revolution. Its minor princes confederation. and states had been mediatized, and secularized, after the peace of Luneville, in 1803, and in consequence of the formation of the confederation of the Rhine, under the protec

i Mirror of Parliament, 18 March, 1836. London Morning Chronicle, 14 July, 1840. The city of Cracow has been since evacuated by the Austrian troops.

torate of the Emperor Napoleon, in 1806. The Emperor Francis had renounced, in the same year, the elective crown of Germany, and assumed the title of hereditary Emperor of Austria. The former free imperial towns had been merged in the territories of the respectives states by which they were enclavés, with the exception of the remaining Hanseatic cities of Hamburg, Bremen and Lűbeck, and the free town of Frankfort. The number of independent princes and states of Germany had been thus reduced, from three hundred and fifty-five to thirty-eight. These fundamental changes, produced by so many wars, and revolutions, and treaties, rendered it obviously impossible to restore the Germanic empire on its ancient foundations.

The sixth article of the treaty of Paris, 1814, had stipulated that "the states of Germany should be independent and united by a federal league." At the congress, a committee was formed to draw up a constitution for the new confederacy, called the Germanic committee, and consisting of the representatives of the crowned heads of Germany, Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Hanover, and Wurtemberg; Saxony being excluded by the fact that the king was still a prisoner, and the fate of the kingdom not yet decided. The other sovereign princes and states, who had also been excluded from the deliberations of this committee, demanded that all the states of Germany should be admitted "to participate in the formation of a compact which could only derive its binding force from the consent of all." This demand was, in the first instance, rejected, upon the ground that the admission of the states of the second order would lead to interminable delays, and that they had previously given their assent to such measures as might be required for the reëstablishment of the liberties of Germany.

"Les états de l'Allemagne seront indépendans et unis par un lien fédératif."