s made to Cracow. Lord John Russell deprecated the
language used by Messrs. O'Connell and Hume, the more particularly as
the honour of Great Britain was not committed in the transaction. Lord
Dudley Stuart, however, contended that the honour of Great Britain had
been violated. Was it, he asked, no affront for these three powers
to tell a great country like this, that the treaty which settled the
possession of all the powers of Europe, and to which it was a party,
should be infringed and violated at their pleasure? By the violation
of the neutrality of Cracow a serious blow had been inflicted on our
national reputation, and on the security of Europe.

During this session a lengthened discussion took place regarding the
dangers to which Europe was exposed from the systematic encroachments of
Russia. The subject was introduced by Lord Dudley Stuart, who moved
an address for the production of the treaty of Constantinople between
Russia and the Porte, the treaty of St. Petersburg, the correspondence
between the British government and the governments of Russia and Turkey
relative to these treaties, and the correspondence between the courts
of London and St. Petersburg regarding the remonstrances made by this
country against the conduct of Russia towards Poland. In reply, Lord
Palmerston said, that he had no objection to produce the treaty of
Constantinople, or Hoonkiar Skelessi; but he would not concede the
production of others. Government, in fact, was not officially possessed
of the treaty of St. Petersburg, and therefore it could not be supplied.
The correspondence, again, between this country, Russia, and Turkey,
relative to these treaties could not be produced without inconvenience
to the public service, and would not answer any object which could be
contemplated by the motion. With respect to the correspondence which had
taken place on the subject of Poland, he thought its production would
not serve any useful purpose. No good could arise from publishing to the
world, after an interval of three years, all the correspondence which
might have passed between two governments on a subject respecting which
their opinion differed, especially as nothing had occurred to make
the publication of this correspondence necessary. Lord Dudley Stuart
expressed himself satisfied with the papers which the foreign secretary
had expressed himself willing to give. Mr. P. M. Stewart, however,
thought that Lord Palmerston was either too blind a