precise views, nor a profound appreciation of facts, nor
complete freedom from the prejudices of the moment,
nor a sufficiently exact and measured language. I
will give only one example of this, and I select it in
order to re-establish, in their truth, certain ideas and
words which Sir Robert Peel assuredly contested only
because he had carelessly read and imperfectly under-
stood them.

It was in regard to the little Republic of Cracow,
founded by the Treaty of Vienna, in 1815, invaded
and abolished in 1846 by Austria, Prussia, and Russia.
France and England, it will be remembered, alike
protested, though separately, against this infraction
of a treaty which had been concluded with their par-
ticipation, and which could not be legitimately modi-
fied without their concurrence. On the 4th of March,
1847, Mr. Hume demanded of the House of Commons
something more than this mere protest; he proposed
that, in return for the act of violence which the three
Powers of the North had accomplished, the English
Government should hold itself discharged from a pe-
cuniary obligation which, in consequence of the same
Treaty of Vienna, England had contracted towards
Russia, and of which a sum of 3,917,1871. still re-
mained to be paid. While again protesting against
the violation of the treaty, Lord John Russell refused,
and with reason, to reply to it by another breach of
faith of a similar but subaltern character; and Sir
Robert Peel supported the Cabinet alike in its protest
and in its resistance. 'I am the more anxious,' he
said, 'that we should equitably and honourably fulfil

-324-