§ VISCOUNT RAYNHAMsaid, that as that was probably the last opportunity he would have, he hoped the House would allow him to make a few remarks on the subject of Poland. General sympathy had been expressed by the House and the country on behalf of that distressed nation, and no one in that House had attempted to discountenance that general expression of sympathy; but sympathy was not enough—in fact, it might mislead the Poles, and damage their cause. Material assistance was what they needed, or the present year might see the last gasp of the Polish struggle for liberty; but the great obstacle to this was the fear of war. Everybody, of course, must be opposed to war, except in oases of extreme necessity. If there were any cases in which a war would be justifiable, they were those in which our honour was involved, and he had never heard it disputed, that we were in honour bound to regard the interests of the Poles. He did not attempt to dictate to the House what course ought to be pursued, but the Government had admitted that we were implicated in the cause of Poland, and that we were bound to a certain extent to regard the interests of that country. The cause of humanity and the interests of civilization called upon this country to take decisive steps in support of the Poles. It was clear that the Poles were now heroically striving for that liberty which 1421 was their birthright, and the honour of this country was involved in the policy of taking a most active part on their behalf, even to the extent of drawing the sword. The gross violation of the Treaty of Vienna was a sufficient justification for our most active interference in defence of the rights and liberties of Poland. A large portion of the people of this country had expressed a desire to go to war if it should be necessary. Diplomacy, he was afraid, was likely to be of but little advantage. The adversaries of the cause of Poland had been very active. Many pamphlets had been distributed, in which the most extraordinary statements had been made against the Poles. It had been said that the insurrection was got up by the Catholic party, and that the priests were at the bottom of it. Some people, indeed, asked, what was Poland? He was afraid those who asked that question did so more for the purpose of sowing dissensions amongst the advocates of Poland than in any interest for that country. The people of this country were parties to the treaty of Vienna, and he hoped they would not sanction the oppression of the Polish nation which was carried on under that treaty. Much had been said of the benevolence of the present Emperor, but he did not know that there was anything to show that he was much better than his father of execrable memory. The conduct pursued towards Count Zamoyski showed that there was no change in the conduct of the Russian Government towards the Poles. Compromise would no longer answer, and the distinct independence of Poland must be recognised. The conduct of the brutal Mouravieff and the barbarous cruelties that were now being committed were a further inducement to pursue such a course. It was true Her Majesty' Government had expressed the greatest sympathy for the sufferings of Poland. He was, however, sorry to find that they evinced reluctance to aid that noble people with something more substantial than mere words. He had given notice of a Resolution to the effect that the Emperor of Russia had set up a claim to sovereignty in Poland directly at variance with the treaty of Vienna, and that, as one of the contracting parties, Great Britain could no longer continue to the dominion of the Emperor over Poland that sanction which she granted by that treaty under conditions inseparably connected with it, which had been grossly and systematically violated by Russia. At so 1422 late a period of the Session he could not hope to have an opportunity of bringing on that Motion, and he would therefore abandon it. He would, however, ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he did not think that the policy indicated in his Resolution was the one which England ought to follow.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONSir, let me, in the first place, answer the Question of my noble Friend with regard to the Exhibition ground. It is quite true that the ground will probably be cleared of the building now upon it as fast as that operation can be performed. I may say, that whereas the House of Commons thought it a dear bargain to buy that building for £80,000, we have been informed—whether truly or not I cannot say—that the contractors are now going to get £100,000 for it. [An hon. MEMBER: £90,000] That shows that the bargain we recommended was not such a bad one. Between this time and next Session Her Majesty's Government will consider what will be the proper disposition of the ground in question, and will take steps for forming such plans as will provide for the immediate wants to which it may be suitable.
The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. C. Bentinck) began that evening with a discussion upon the state of Greece, and he appeared to imagine that Her Majesty's Government had changed their policy with respect to the union of the Ionian Islands with the Greek Kingdom, and with regard to the views which they entertained as to the conditions under which they thought that those Islands might properly be added to Greece. No change whatever has taken place. The hon. Member stated, that as set forth in the Speech at the commencement of the Session, we held the opinion, that if a Sovereign were chosen for Greece, who gave a promise of maintaining constitutional Government, peaceful relations with his neighbours, and an abstinence from any system or policy of aggression, the Ionian Islands might usefully be added to the Kingdom of Greece. All I can say is that I trust such a Sovereign has been chosen. The hon. Member thinks that because the new King is young we cannot reckon upon the policy which he may pursue; and he instanced the case of King Otho, who was about the same age when he was chosen, and who certainly did not justify the hopes of constitutional Government which at the time of his selection we thought we were entitled to entertain. I am convinced that 1423 such disappointment will not be experienced in the case of King George, which is the name the Greeks have given to their new Sovereign, William of Denmark; for I am satisfied that that Prince will govern Greece in the manner in which we think it ought to be governed by him, that he will develop the internal resources of the kingdom, that he will maintain constitutional institutions, and that he will preserve peaceful relations with his neighbours. We believe that the Ionian Islands were placed under the Protectorate of England for their advantage, and that it was the duty of Great Britain to promote their interests as far as it was possible to do so. We think that has been done by the manner in which the Islands have been governed, and we believe they are now in a state of much greater prosperity and happiness than they ever before enjoyed. But we have thought, that there being a prospect now of a Greek Kingdom constitutionally governed, and of a Sovereign under whom the internal prosperity of the country would be susceptible of that great development for which its natural position and its resources qualify it, we should be consulting the interests and wishes of the Ionian people, as well as the interests of Greece, by offering to the Ionians union with Greece if they should consider it for their advantage. Of course, they will not be united to Greece unless they themselves express a desire to be so. They have upon former occasions frequently expressed such a desire, and that, too, at a time when Greece was under a Government which rendered union, we should have thought, a punishment rather than a boon. The course we shall follow will be this:—We shall obtain the concurrence of those Powers by whom the Ionian Islands were placed under the protection of Great Britain to an application to be made to the Ionian Parliament to know whether it is their wish and the wish of the people to be united to the Kingdom of Greece. If that wish is expressed, the union will take place; if it is not expressed, of course no violence will be done to the feelings and desires of the Ionian people. But I cannot believe that they will do otherwise than express a desire to be united to that body of their fellow-countrymen who occupy the Kingdom of Greece. The hon. Member reverted to the discussion which took place yesterday with respect to the right of Turkey to be a consenting party to the proposed transfer. I have endeavoured to show, and I am persuaded that those who study 1424 the Treaty of 1819 will see, that that treaty was not an engagement placing, or contributing to place, the Ionian people under the protection of Great Britain; that it was a treaty by which the Sultan acknowledged a pre-existing fact—a fact which had been created without his concurrence or sanction—and that there is nothing in the treaty which implies that he acceded to the Treaty of 1815. He simply acknowledged that the Ionian Islands are under the protection of Great Britain, and in virtue of that protection he engaged to give the Ionians certain privileges as British subjects. There is a fundamental difference between a treaty which acknowledges a fact created independently of the Power concluding the treaty, and a treaty which is an accession to one already concluded. The case would be exactly the same, supposing a treaty were concluded between the Federals and Confederates in America, by which the latter were erected into an independent State, and Great Britain were afterwards to make a treaty with the Confederates for the regulation of commercial intercourse. That would not be a treaty of accession to the Convention between the two parties in America; it would simply be a treaty acknowledging the fact of the existence of the Southern States as an independent country, and arranging certain matters between Great Britain and them. I think, therefore, there is no just ground for stating that we have in any degree departed from our policy with regard to the union of the Ionian Islands with Greece. I trust and believe that that union will be accomplished, and that it will redound, first of all, to the honour of England, as acting from the most disinterested motives, for the good of the people who were placed under her protection, and next to the happiness and prosperity both of the Ionians and of the inhabitants of Greece.
The right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) has asked whether Her Majesty's Government are disposed to lay before Parliament the Correspondence which took place in 1825 and 1826 between this Government and the Government of Russia with respect to the interference which subsequently happened relative to the affairs of Greece, and which resulted in the independence of Greece and the creation of the kingdom. My right hon. Friend has certainly established a very strong resemblance in some points between that transaction and the affair now under discussion in regard to Poland. There was an insurrection 1425 which went on for some time without any material interference by the other Powers. At last, the sacrifice of human life, and the attrocities committed in the course of the struggle, attracted the attention of the other Powers, who interfered first of all by friendly representations, and then in a more decisive manner. That which ultimately led to the active interference of the Powers was the announced intention of Ibrahim Pasha to remove the whole population of the Morea to Egypt, and to re-people the Morea by fellahs brought from Egypt, which was thought a measure so outrageously violent that it led to the immediate decision of the three Powers to interfere. I have not heard as yet that there is any precisely similar occurrence likely to take place in Poland. Still, there is no disguising the fact, that the present state of things in that country is most lamentable. It is not only in the Kingdom of Poland that the state of things is deplorable, but in Lithuania and other provinces as well. The landowners are in this lamentable condition:—On the one hand, the Russian Government declares, that if they do not actively assist it, they will be subjected to every sort of penalty that can be inflicted upon them; while, on the other hand, the revolutionary Government at Warsaw tells them, that if they do not aid the insurrection, they will be subjected to all the penalties which it may be in the power of that Government to impose. Between the two, therefore, their condition is most pitiable. I need not say that the correspondence of 1825 and 1826 is very voluminous, and it is probable that some portions of it need not be laid before Parliament. We shall look over it, and if there are any parts of it which really have an interesting bearing upon the present question with respect to Poland, there will be no objection to produce them. Undoubtedly, the questions are so far similar that the principles which Russia maintained in the case of Greece may have some resemblance to the grounds taken by England, France, and Austria in regard to Poland. As for the Polish Government itself, I am sure the House will not expect me to go into a discussion of it on the present occasion. I would just offer one remark with respect to the observations which have been made on the Russian despatch. I stated, on a previous occasion, but I may as well repeat it, that in all former correspondence on the subject of Poland, the ground taken 1426 by the Russian Government has been, that the quelling of the insurrection in 1831 and 1832 emancipated Russia from all obligations under the Treaty of Vienna, and that from that time she held Poland as a conquered province to do with it what she pleased, treating it as a part of the Russian Empire: hence she denied the right of any of the parties to the Treaty of Vienna to question any of her proceedings in the government of Poland. That ground has not been maintained, and so far in the recent despatch a great step has been gained. Russia now admits that the parties to the Treaty of Vienna are entitled to discuss with her the government of Poland within the limits of that treaty; and that is a very great advance made by Russia in regard to any negotiations which may take place with respect to Poland. We are asked what our conduct will be in future. That is a matter far too important to be the subject of an offhand answer to questions put in this House. The only thing I feel it my duty to say is, that we shall continue to consult with France and Austria on a matter in which, as the House knows, we have been acting in concert with them. What the result may be it is impossible for me to state; and even if it were possible, it would be unbecoming in me to do so.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that the speech of the noble Lord in no way relieved the discussion from those features which might cause it to have a grave effect on public opinion, and on the view which foreign countries might take as to the opinion of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the Polish question. Some hon. Gentlemen had expressed sentiments calculated to create alarm on this subject, and it was desirable that something should be done to show the world that they did not express the opinion of that House. As an humble Member of the House of Commons, who was only entitled to speak for himself, he protested against reckless statements to the effect that Great Britain was ready for any eventuality arising out of the present negotiations. Such statements might do for popular meetings, to the proceedings of which little importance was attached, but they did not befit the House of Commons, on whom a grave responsibility rested. England, he affirmed, had never in the present century undertaken a war except where her own interests or honour were concerned. The Crimean war was undertaken to prevent the overthrow 1427 of a balance of power in the Mediterranean. But Poland was a country with which we had no special relations, and she might be removed from the map of Europe without in any way affecting our interests. It was one thing for this country to sympathize with the feelings of a suffering people in any part of the world, and another for this country to engage in a struggle in which it had not the least concern. He sympathized with the people of Poland, and he sympathized with the people of the Confederate States of America; but he did not see that we were to interfere as the police of the world, unless the interests and the honour of this country imperatively demanded it. Our duty, then, was to remain spectators of the events in Poland. It might be that Her Majesty's Government had erred in the tone of their despatch; but he protested against this country being, on that account, dragged into a position of greater difficulty, and into a war from the consequences of which he turned with horror.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he presumed that the allusion made by his hon. and gallant Friend to statements elsewhere referred to a public meeting over which he had had the honour of presiding, and he could only excuse those observations from the fact that the hon. and gallant Member had not read the speeches delivered at the meeting to which they had reference. He denied that there had been reckless speeches, or speeches unworthy of a Member of that House, made there, and all that he had said as president of the meeting he was prepared to repeat in his place in Parliament. If his hon. Friend would read what fell from him and other speakers at St. James's Hall, he would be sorry for the observations which had fallen from him; for if there was one thing more than another which was foremost in his thoughts and in the thoughts of others who spoke upon that occasion, it was their desire to strengthen Her Majesty's Government if they should find hereafter that insults were heaped upon this country, and to ensure them of support in any course which might be necessary, even though it should lead to war. If any mistake had been made upon this subject, it was by the Government in making a proposition to Russia which no man of common sense could believe her likely to accept, and the reply was an insult to this country.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he had no intention to convey anything disrespectful 1428 to his hon. Friend, and he was sorry that any remarks of his should have led to that impression.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.