QUESTION. (Hansard, 12 February 1864)

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, he rose to ask a Question respecting an important despatch which was sent during last autumn to Russia on the subject of Poland. On the first night of the Session the Under Secretary of State expressed a doubt whether he (Mr. Hennessy) was right in stating that a despatch was sent to Prince Gortschakoff last autumn, and was subsequently recalled and altered. Since then the correspondence relating to Poland had been published. It contained practically three despatches—the first from Earl Russell to Lord Napier, dated August 11, 1863; Prince Gortschakoff's reply to Baron Brunow, dated August 26; and the third from Earl Russell to Lord Napier, dated October 20. The despatch of the 20th of October was the one which he alleged was sent in the month of September, and which, after being signed by the Secretary of State and approved by the Queen and Cabinet, was recalled by telegram, in order that an important sentence might be struck out of it. In the first paragraph of the despatch of the 20th of October, reference was made to a prior despatch of Earl Russell on the 11th ultimo. But the despatch referred to was dated the 11th of August, and therefore he inferred that when the despatch had had the sentence struck out and had been redated, the alteration from the 11th ultimo which was correct when the despatch was dated in September, was not made, as it should have been, to the 11th of August. That showed that he was probably correct in his statement that the despatch of September was recalled and redated. He believed there was no doubt about it, and he was inclined to think that Her Majesty's Government would admit that his statement was correct as to what had happened to the despatch. On the 26th of September Earl Russell made an important declaration at Blairgowrie. The purport of that declaration was immediately conveyed to Prince Gortschakoff by telegraph, and Lord Napier subsequently informed Prince Gortschakoff that a despatch embodying the declaration was on its way to St. Petersburg, and was to be presented to the Russian Government. He (Mr. Hennessy) was informed that Prince Gortschakoff advised Lord Napier not to present that despatch. He believed that Prince Gortschakoff was able to strengthen that 538 advice by appealing to two other countries, and that Herr von Bismark and Count Rechberg both advised the withdrawal of the dispatch. However that might be, the attention of the Russian Government having been roused, a telegram was sent withdrawing it. In order that the House might understand the gravity of the transaction, he would read the declaration of Earl Russell at Blairgowrie, the substance of which was embodied in the despatch. Earl Russell said— At the Treaty of Vienna it was thought fit, and circumstances of expediency perhaps justified what was done, to admit, as it were, into the Law of Nations the State of Poland as divided between the three Powers, and to give a kind of retrospective sanction, as it were, to the partition of Poland. The Powers of Europe became, to use a legal phrase, accessories after the fact. Austria and Prussia complied with the conditions of the treaty. Russia has not complied with them. It seems to me that it was an act of great imprudence on the part of Russia, when she had that great advantage—when she had the act of spoliation and partition condoned, as it were, by Europe—to reject the terms on which that sanction was given; to rest, as she now rests, on the title of the original partition, on the title of conquest; rejecting all those conditions by which at the Treaty of Vienna that title was, as it were, accepted by Europe. What may be the consequences of that act—what conduct the different Powers of Europe may follow—is not a question on which I can properly enter. I merely wish you to remark the fact, that these conditions, which are contained in the Treaty of Vienna, by which Russia obtained the Kingdom of Poland, have not been complied with; and that without the conditions of the tenure the title itself can hardly be upheld. That was a very important statement, and he asked the attention of the House to the fact that a statement somewhat similar was embodied in a Resolution, notice of which was submitted last Session by his hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Bradford. Furthermore, every one in that House, acting on behalf of Poland, as well as the honourable engagements of England, insisted upon such a declaration being made; and he would venture to remind the House, that on the last day of the Session the last words which he addressed to the noble Lord on the subject were similar to the words used by Earl Russell at Blairgowrie. He was perfectly aware that the noble Lord at the head of the Government differed from Lord Russell, and did not see the importance to the Poles of making that declaration. It was enough that the declaration had been made by Earl Russell, and that the Poles attached immense importance to it. He said that a despatch embodying 539 that declaration, signed by the Secretary of State, sanctioned by the Queen and Cabinet, and sent abroad, was recalled. It was written in the month of September. It was recalled and redated the 20th of October. The despatch, as altered, ended with this sentence— Her Majesty's Government have, in the despatch of the 11th of August and preceding despatches, shown that in regard to this particular question the rights of Poland are contained in the same instrument which constitutes the Emperor of Russia King of Poland. I am, &c., RUSSELL. It was a very abrupt ending. The last sentence stated the premise. It did not draw the conclusion. The conclusion was drawn by Earl Russell at Blairgowrie. The conclusion was that Russia having failed to fulfil the conditions of the Treaty of Vienna, England no longer recognized the legitimate rule of Russia in Poland. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether he would give the House the despatch of September in its complete form. He ventured to impress on the noble Lord that the House was bound to consider the policy of the Government as they declared it. It might be true that Prince Gortschakoff advised Lord Napier not to present the despatch, and that the Government withdrew it and struck out the passage. But the people of England wished to know what was the policy and what was the opinion of the Government, and would not be satisfied with the mutilated despatch from which the declaration of the Government was omitted. He would also particularly remind the noble Lord, that in the many petitions which had been laid on the table on the subject of Poland, the petitioners all asked the Government to make the identical declaration which Earl Russell made at Blairgowrie, and he was sure the noble Lord would acknowledge he was right in saying that those who represented the National Government in Poland, and who had from time to time made unofficial communications to the British Government, had over and over again asked for such a declaration. The Poles had never asked for armed aid from England. The representatives of the National Government had over and over again declared that they did not want armed assistance. All they had asked was that England should wash her hands of what was now going on, by making such a declaration. He hoped the noble Lord would give a full and frank explanation on the subject, It was one of 540 great importance to the Poles. It was of pressing and immediate interest to the people of England, and he firmly believed that it was the most important step which had been taken in relation to Poland by any British Cabinet since 1815.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
The hon. Gentleman wishes to know, whether a certain despatch which had been prepared and sent to one of our Ministers abroad was altered by the direction of the Secretary of State before it was delivered to the foreign Government for whom it was intended? There have been to my knowledge many such instances. There have been many cases where, upon reconsideration, it has been thought advisable to make some change in a despatch sent to one of our Ministers abroad, and intended for communication to a foreign Government. But I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see it would be exceedingly improper to lay before Parliament that which was not the deliberate act of the British Government. He might as well ask for despatches in the form before they were finally settled by the Secretary of State. That to which the House is entitled is the actual communication made to the Foreign Government, and I must decline to enter into any explanation as to what changes may have been made at any period of time in a despatch intended for a Foreign Government. With regard to the statement of my noble Friend at Blairgowrie, and the applications which the hon. Gentleman says have been made by the Poles, with all deference it does not seem to me that my noble Friend's declaration tallies exactly with what the Poles wish. What the Poles ask for, and what the hon. Member has often asked for, is that we should state to the Russian Government that we consider the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna no longer binding on them with regard to Poland—that is, that we should say we do not hold by the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna. Such a statement would release Russia from all the obligations which the Treaty of Vienna imposed on her with regard to the treatment of the Poles. It is quite true that Polish persons with whom I have communicated have always urged that as a most important thing in their interests. It is often said that people are the best judges of their own interests. But here I do not think the Poles are the best judges of their own interests. It would be an important but a fatal communication with regard to the rights on which the Poles 541 stand, because it would be tantamount to saying to the Russian Government, "You no longer hold Poland by a treaty which stipulates that you should do certain things; you hold Poland by the right of conquest;" and it would place the Poles at the mercy of Russia, and beyond tire interference of any one as to the manner in which Russia should treat them. It would be placing the Poles in the same position as that in which they stood after the re volt of 1832. When we remonstrated with the Russian Government with respect to their treatment of Poland after the rebellion, they said— Do not talk to us about the Treaty of Vienna; it is at an end. We have reconquered Poland, and you have no right to dictate to us how we should treat our conquered subjects. We, however, always denied the justice of that position. I have always held that a great step in advance with regard to the treatment of Poland had been made when, last year, the Russian Government were obliged to acknowledge that the Powers of Europe who signed it had a right to make representations to them founded on the Treaty of Vienna. I have, therefore, felt that to comply with the wish of the Poles, that we should release the Russian Government from all the arrangements and stipulations in their favour made by that treaty, would, so far from being advantageous to them, be to deliver them bound hand and foot to the mercy of those from whom they claim that we should endeavour to protect them.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he hoped the noble Lord would state, or, if he were prevented by the rules of the House from again speaking, that he would instruct some Member of the Government to state, why it was that the despatch to which his hon. Friend the Member for the King's County referred had been recalled? For his own part, speaking with some knowledge of the feelings of the leading men among the Poles, he could say that there was nothing which had been done within the last year by our Government—scarcely, indeed, anything which had been done by it at all—by which they were more bitterly disappointed than they were at finding the speech of Earl Russell, which they had read with the greatest joy, and from which they derived the greatest consolation, was not justified by events. They did not ask us for armed assistance; still less did they ask us to make diplomatic representations on the ground of the Treaty of Vienna.; such re- 542 presentations they regarded as useless. But they said to us, "Now you have an opportunity, by simply acknowledging that you were parties to that treaty, that its conditions have been broken, and that you therefore withdraw your sanction from it, of putting us in our true position before Europe." And the reason why the Poles used that language was, that while they did not ask us to go to war on their behalf, yet they felt it to be of the utmost importance to them that, if a great war broke out in Europe, they should stand in the situation of having the status quo ante bellum altered by such a declaration as that which he had mentioned on the part of one of the leading European Powers. They would then, he maintained, stand in a different situation from that in which they were at present placed. The House had, under these circumstances, he thought, a right to know from the Government what it was that occasioned that sudden change in their policy to which his hon. Friend had drawn attention. Was it occasioned by the fact that the noble Viscount did not agree with Earl Russell when the despatch was sent? That he could hardly suppose; but if the despatch did not leave without his full concurrence then he had a right to ask, what were the circumstances which caused the noble Lord, and doubtless Earl Russell also, so suddenly to change their opinions? It was impossible, he contended, to know the position in which England stood in relation to Poland, unless the Government explained those two points, and he trusted therefore that that explanation would be given.

MR, GRANT DUFF
said, he rose to express a hope that the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy), who appeared to represent in that House, to a certain extent, the views of the National Government of Poland, would soon furnish the House with an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion on the Polish question. He knew not whether the Poles had or had not a right to hold Earl Russell to the declaration which he made at Blairgowrie; but they had, he thought, a right to know whether England did or did not mean to help them. For his own part, he took quite a different view from that which he understood the hon. Gentleman entertained of the state and prospects of the insurrection in Poland. The hon. Gentleman, if he was correctly informed, believed that the Poles were never stronger than at present; whereas the result of his own ob- 543 servation in Russia and Poland lately led him to the conclusion—and he was much mistaken if he should not be able to prove to the House that that conclusion was a sound one—that the insurrection was nearly worn out, and that every additional day it was prolonged gave Russia an opportunity of crushing still more a country which was sufficiently crushed already. It remained to be seen whether his view or that of the hon. Gentleman was the right one; whether it was desirable that we should go on fostering the insurrection by holding out unfounded hopes, or frankly say that we could do no more.