HC Deb 19 May 1863 vol 170 cc1954-8
MR. HENNESSY

said, he rose to ask a question of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, of which he had given him private notice, with reference to the conduct of the Prussian Government in Poland. It appeared to him not only was the Prussian Government carrying out the convention against Poland, but was even pressing its terms with undue and illegal severity. The simplest manner in which he could put the case to the noble Lord would be to read an extract from the letter of two French officers who had been eyewitnesses of the manner in which the Prussian Government were acting— As to the manner in which Prussia is acting in concert with Russia, one tact that we relate as eye-witnesses shall be sufficient. During the battle of Nowawies, a Russian detachment, pursued by the Poles, and having no ammunition left, was obliged to retreat on Prussian territory. The Prussian authorities not only quartered them upon the inhabitants, but, having given a banquet in their honour, conducted them back to the frontier after two days, with all their arms and baggage; and, what is more incredible still, this same detachment, having fled for want of ammunition, was found to be, after its visit to Prussia, well provided with powder and balls. The Prussian frontier bristling with cannon, their military stations at about 500 metres distance one from another, and the military occupation of all the villages in the vicinity of Poland give sufficient evidence of the convention being executed. He should like to know from the noble Lord, Whether the supply of arms and ammunition by the Polish authorities to the Russian troops was not a breach of international law, and whether the permission given to these troops to return with their arms and ammunition was not a breach of the convention? The point, however, to which he wished to direct the noble Lord's particular attention was the supply of arms and ammunition, He would also ask the noble Lord's attention to a letter from the Prussian General Lewald, stationed on the frontier, to the Russian General Masclow, commanding the troops at some short distance — I have the honour of informing your Excellency that a Russian detachment, commanded by Major Nelidow, having no exact news about the enemy's strength, was obliged to cross the Prussian frontier; the Russian detachment mustered two companies of infantry and 100 horsemen. These troops went over near to a village called Voycina. Major Nelidow has been forced to take this step after an engagement with a superior force of insurgents, in which the latter lost 200 men. After the Russian troops had passed the frontier the insurgents went on towards Konin, where they were again attacked by Russian troops, formerly commanded by Prince Wittgenstein. I beg your Excellency to inform me betimes of every military expedition on the Prussian frontier, that I may give the necessary orders according to circumstances. I inform you, besides, that in all beneath-mentioned places there are garrisons of special Prussian detachments, infantry and cavalry. [Here follows a list of the localities.] The officers (Prussian) commanding those detachments are obliged to receive your Excellency's orders, that they may afterwards forward them to me. The meaning of that was that the Prussians were really acting in concert with the Russians, supplying them with ammunition, receiving orders from them, and giving them information. In fact, Prussia was just as much at war with Poland as Russia was. That, he asserted, was a breach of international law, and he wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had recently addressed any communication to the Government of Prussia on the subject. He was anxious at that time to forbear from raising anything like a discussion on Poland; indeed, it was with reluctance that he spoke about Poland at all, for he believed the time was come for something more practical to be done for Poland than mere speeches. He felt that if Prince Gortschakoff's despatch was to receive only the answer which the Secretary of State was said to have given it in another place, this country would get out of the unfortunate and disgraceful condition in which it now was with regard to the question in a manner which was neither consonant with the feelings of the people nor the honour of England. The noble Lord had recently had an opportunity of discovering for himself that the people were ahead of the Government in this matter, and it would be better for his Government if he would look to see what their feelings were and act upon it.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, the hon. Gentleman has asked me a Question involving a point of international law. As far as I am informed, it is the duty of a neutral conterminous to a belligerent territory not to allow the armed forces of one of the belligerents to make use of the neutral territory for the purpose of more advantageously attacking its opponents. I am sorry to say that in 1832 the Prussian Government did not act up to that duty; and the result of the war in 1832 was very much brought about by Prussia allowing a Russian corps to traverse Prussian territory, and get in the rear of the Polish army with which it was contending. Another duty is this:—When a belligerent force is driven by its opponents to take refuge in neutral territory, that force should be disarmed as soon as it crosses the frontier. But I am not at all aware that the neutral has any right to confiscate the arms and baggage of the belligerent force. On the contrary, I believe, that having re-conducted that belligerent detachment disarmed to its own frontier, it should restore to them their arms and baggage when they re-enter the territory of their own Sovereign. Therefore, I apprehend that Prussia has committed no violation of international right or neutral duty if she restored to the Russian detachment their arms and baggage when they crossed back to Russian territory. With regard to furnishing ammunition, we must always recollect the doctrine laid down by the United States of America during the war with Russia, that neutrals have the right to furnish warlike stores to either or both belligerents. Therefore, I apprehend there has been no violation of neutral obligations by Prussia with respect to furnishing ammunition. With respect to lining the Prussian frontier with artillery and troops, it is not unnatural, that when an insurrection prevails in a neighbouring country, any Government should take precautions to prevent that insurrection spreading into its own dominions; and as Prussia possesses by treaty the Duchy of Posen, and there is an insurrection in Poland, I do not apprehend that any Government has a right to complain that the Prussian Government have taken precautions, by strengthening its military position on the frontier, to prevent the spreading of that insurrection in Prussian territory.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, the declaration which the noble Lord had just made was an exceedingly important one. The House came by degrees to the noble Lord's declarations, and the enlightenment which they from time to time afforded on points of international law, prerogatives of the Crown, and subjects of that kind. These things came to the House bit by bit. The noble Lord had made the stereotyped declaration, that when troops of a conterminous country came into neutral territory they were bound to be disarmed; but he added that which divested the doctrine of all practical value, because he said, that having gone through the form of being disarmed when their arms were no longer useful against their enemy, they were to be allowed to return at the time they selected, and to be put in possession of all the means of offence which they had brought with them; and were, in addition, to be supplied with ammunition by the neutral Government. If this was the slate of the law of nations, the whole convention between Prussia and Russia was in practical operation. Prussia was particeps criminis with Russia, and was ready to support Russia in anything which she might do with regard to Poland. The subject was full of difficulties; but it appeared to him that the noble Lord was strong in his declarations to deputations from working men, and not so strong when called upon to act.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

I may be allowed to explain my former answer, which was rather short. I stated that it was the duty of a neutral Government to disarm a belligerent detachment driven into its territory. I ought to have added that it is a duty with regard to its own subjects to prevent a foreign force marching in arms through the country, and not a duty with regard to the belligerents.

MR. SEYMOUR EITZGERALD

— There is another part of the answer of the noble Viscount which appears to me to be so extraordinary as to require some explanation. The noble Lord has either misunderstood the question asked by the hon. Member for the King's County, or he has laid down a principle of international law for which I undertake to say there is no foundation, or precedent, or authority whatever. The hon. Member for the King's County adverted to the fact that the Prussian Government had supplied ammunition to the Russian force that had taken refuge in Prussian territory. The noble Lord replies, that it was the doctrine of the United States Government, which has since been adopted and enforced by ourselves, that it is not a breach of the position of neutrality for the subjects of a neutral Government to provide the belligerents with ammunition. Now, I wish to understand from the noble Lord whether he lays down as a principle of international law that it is not a breach of neutrality on the part of a neutral Government to supply ammunition to a belligerent force.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

My doc- trine is confined to the subjects of a neutral Power. I am not prepared to say offhand whether the same privilege would apply to a neutral Government. But I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to be positive as to the information which he gave, and I myself do not know anything about the matter.

MR. HENNESSY

I am quite positive, having received a letter in which it is stated that ammunition was supplied to the Russian troops by the Prussian Government.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, that the noble Lord had not told the House whether on the Polish forces passing the frontier of Prussia their arms were restored to them, as in the case of Russian troops passing that frontier. He wished the noble Lord had stated what would be the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in case the conduct of Prussia should involve that country war—whether they would or would not stand by Prussia in a contest provoked by her unpardonable conduct in that war. They had it from the highest authority that it had been the policy of the Russian Government to provoke insurrection in Poland in order to destroy the most intelligent, the most warlike, and the best portion of the Poles. Such conduct was unparalleled in the world's history; and he hoped the noble Lord would take every opportunity of expressing the horror, indignation, and perfect contempt with which Her Majesty's Government viewed it.