POLAND.—RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 26 May 1864 vol 175 cc636-62

MR. HENNESSY

, who had given notice to move the following Resolutions on the subject of Poland:— That the negotiations of Her Majesty's Government respecting Poland have not terminated in a satisfactory manner. That it appears from the Papers laid before Parliament that the conditions on which the British Government agreed to acknowledge the dominion of Russia in Poland have not been fulfilled by Russia. That this House is of opinion that Her Majesty's Government is no longer bound to recognise the sovereignty of Russia in Poland. said, Lord Wodehouse, on his return from Denmark, had attributed in the other House the failure of his mission to the policy which the British Government had pursued with regard to Poland; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) a short time ago had said that there was an intimate connection between the Polish insurrection and the present state of affairs in Denmark, and that the deplorable condition of Denmark was strictly to be traced to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in those negotiations with respect to Poland. He had heard, also, that an eminent diplomatist, when the rumour reached this country that Lord Clarendon had succeeded in his mission to Paris (a rumour which was unfounded), remarked that if he had been so successful he must have had ample powers to deal with the Polish question. Finding that the Danish and the Polish questions were so intimately connected in the opinion of eminent authorities, he felt perfectly justified, even apart from the European importance of the subject, and the engagements which England had contracted in regard to Poland, in bringing on that discussion at the present moment. Nearly fifty years had passed since the British Government had entered into engagements with respect to the future of Poland, and it was our duty to see how far those engagements had been fulfilled. Poland was an integral part of Europe one hundred years before Charlemagne was crowned, and England had for centuries maintained intimate relations with that country. Malte Brun described the Poland of ancient Europe in glowing language as a most flourishing and prosperous country, where the mechanical arts and manufactures were encouraged by wise sovereigns. Poland was the first country to enforce the principles of free trade, and she had always been distinguished for her religious toleration. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) had on several occasions expressed some doubts on that point, but an authority whom he would no doubt respect — the Rev. Mr. Spurgeon—in a recent address delivered in the Metropolitan Tabernacle, had dwelt with great force on that point, "Religious liberty," he said, "was the chief glory of Poland," even at a time when every other country, England included, was given up to bloody butcheries on account of religion. She was the asylum of the oppressed from all parts of Europe, and, indeed, from all parts of the world. In one city there were three bishops of different faiths; and when a man went to exercise any of his civil rights, no question was ever asked him as to what communion he belonged. He had, he might add, himself heard a Protestant, as eminent in the Anglican Church as Mr. Spurgeon was among Dissenters, declaring at a meeting at Guildhall the same fact—that Poland was foremost in religious toleration —and he confessed that when he listened to Lord Shaftesbury on the occasion to which he referred, he could not imagine the lion. Gentleman behind him would again that evening, ns he had done before, seek to cast a slur on the Poles on the very ground on which Lord Shaftesbury and Mr. Spurgeon were of opinion they were most deserving of praise. But be that as it might be, of the many centuries through which England maintained intercourse with Poland, the century during which Poland suffered under the rule of an elective monarchy was the period to which her weakness and dissensions were to he traced. Although that principle was nominally in force for two centuries, it existed, in fact, only during one century. Even during that period, however, there were to he found in Poland a number of men sufficiently enlightened to discover the weakness of their Government, and they, towards the close of the century, united themselves, under the presidency of Prince Czartoryski, and determined to alter their constitution. How, then, let him ask, did it happen that Poland did not alter her constitution as the Poles desired? The answer to that question was to be found in the attitude which was assumed towards their country by Russia, Prussia, and Austria. When the Empress Catherine of Russia received intimation that the ancient form of Polish government —hereditary monarchy—was about to be restored, she entered into a secret treaty with the King of Prussia, dated June, 1762, in which the following paragraph occurred:— Their Majesties the Empress of All the Russias and the King of Prussia mutually engage in the most solemn manner, under any circumstances, and in all cases, that if any one, whoever he may be, should attempt to establish an hereditary kingdom in Poland, their Majesties of Russia and Prussia will not permit it; but, on the contrary, will avert, repel, and annul in all ways, and by all means, projects so unjust and so dangerous to the neighbouring Powers by acting together, joining their forces, and even resorting to arms, if circumstances require it. Not only was that treaty signed between Prussia and Russia, but the Empress Catherine addressed a despatch to her Ambassador at the Court of Poland, in which she informed him that on account of the proximity of Russia to Poland the whole attention of the former should be directed to preserve entire the existing form of the Polish Government, and that she was determined, if things took a contrary course, to exercise all the power which Providence had given her to settle the affairs of Poland to the advantage of Russia. She added, in the secret instructions which she also sent to her Minister, that if necessary for the accomplishment of her object she would order her troops to invade simultaneously all parts of the Polish territory, and to lay waste their country with fire and sword. Such was the policy of Russia, and he would, with the permission of the House, conclude that part of the subject by referring to a despatch written by the French Ambassador at Warsaw to the Duke de Choiseul, in which he described the effect of that policy, observing that Russia had silenced and intimidated the greater part of the Polish nation by detestable and unheard-of violence on such persons of position as defended public right in the State Assembly, and by repeated acts of tyranny towards all those who ventured to act in opposition to her views. The Poles, however, still determined, even in the face of such opposition, to restore their ancient constitution, and, accordingly, on the 3rd of May, 1791, the Polish constitution was issued by the Sovereign and the Estates of the realm of that kingdom. That constitution, he might add, received the praise of Pitt and the leading English statesmen in many debates in relation to Poland which took place in that House between 1791 and 1795, and the noble Viscount now at the head of the Government might, perhaps, if he had come up from Harrow and taken his seat under the Strangers' Gallery, have heard Mr. Pitt declaiming on the subject. Mr. Burke, moreover, spoke of the Polish constitution in terms to which he wished briefly to allude, because the de jure Poland of to-day was the Poland which Mr. Burke had described when he said, speaking of the change made by the Poles, that, "in contemplating that change, humanity had everything to rejoice at and glory in; nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to suffer." Such was the description given by Mr. Burke of a constitution which lasted only from 1791 to 1795, because then the armies of the Empress Catharine, to which she referred in the treaty and in her letters, entered Poland, and it was divided among the three great Powers. Now, it was a matter of interest to inquire what England did on that occasion. It might surprise some hon. Gentlemen to hear that England, although he believed she did it unknowingly, actually contributed to the partition of Poland; for when that partition was about to take place the King of Prussia solicited a subsidy from the British Government to the amount, if he was not mistaken, of £1,200,000, on the ground that he wanted troops to oppose the French, while it turned out that, instead of employing the troops subsidized by our money against France, he employed them in the subjugation of Poland—a fact which did not escape the attention of the House of Commons, inasmuch as Mr. Jekyll, in referring to the subsidy on the 5th of February, 1795, said the last instalment to his Prussian Majesty had been paid on the 4th of October, but long previous to that period the Prussian troops had gone to co-operate in the infamous project of the dismemberment of unhappy Poland; while the subject was also alluded to by Mr. Whitbread and by Mr. Fox, who said that the Emperor of Germany might conceive that, perhaps, the best way to destroy those French principles against which the war was carried on was to apply the money received from England to the dismemberment of Poland. It was also remarkable that the first Russian fleet which entered the Mediterranean was commanded by an Englishman, took up the transport vessels attached to it in English ports, and was employed to destroy the fleet of Turkey, which was the ally of the Poles, and thus contributed to the dismemberment and destruction of Poland. In 1805 the Emperor Napoleon restored to independence one, and in 1812 another, portion of Poland, and in 1815 Lord Castle-reagh exerted himself with some success to secure the establishment of an independent Poland. The return of Napoleon from Elba deranged the combinations of the Allies, and ultimately, by the Treaty of Vienna, instead of Poland being erected into an independent State, the Crown of that kingdom was conferred upon the Emperor of Russia. In accepting the Crown, the Emperor Alexander told the Poles that, by being placed under his dominion, they had obtained a Constitution appropriate to their wants and their character, the preservation in public enactments of their language, the restriction of public appointments to Poles, freedom of commerce and navigation, and facility of communication with those parts of ancient Poland which remained subject to other Powers, a national army, and a guarantee that every means should be taken to perfect their laws; and soon afterwards, in addressing the Poles, he said— Your re-construction is defined by solemn treaties; it is sanctioned by the Constitutional Chart. The inviolability of those external engagements and of that fundamental law insures for Poland henceforward an honourable place among foreign nations. Notwithstanding these professions, the course which Russia adopted towards Poland was a complete violation of the Treaty of Vienna. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government had himself stated that the stipulations of that treaty were broken as soon as they were entered into, and that the greatest violation of treaties which had taken place in the history of the world was that which occurred in the case of Poland. In 1831 the Poles endeavoured to maintain the treaty by force of arms. He would not say that they rose in insurrection because the Grand Duke Constantine gave to General Zamoiski, one of his aides-de-camp, a letter authorizing him to proceed to the national army of Poland, which was then in the neighbourhood of Warsaw, and to release them from their allegiance to the Emperor. The Poles were defeated, and then fresh promises were given by Russia to Poland and to Europe. The Emperor Nicholas issued the Organic Statute, which up to the year 1862–3 was the law of Poland. The operation of that statute was illustrated by a "confidential report on the condition of the Kingdom of Poland, presented to the Emperor Alexander II. by Tymowski, Minister and Secretary of State, March, 1861." In that report the Minister said— The decree of 1831, although it constitutes to this very day the fundamental law for the Kingdom of Poland, and ought thus to be binding on the inhabitants of that country, has never yet seen 'a commencement of execution.' It may be said that since 1831, without any regard being paid to the pledges of the decree, the kingdom has been completely delivered over to the bureaucracy, and has remained exclusively under the thumb of the officials, without any participation whatever of the inhabitants, who were thus placed without the pale of the administrative hierarchy. He then referred to certain reforms, and continued— Nevertheless, it must be added that such a result depends above all on the good faith with which the measures indicated are executed, for the country is radically imbued with the sense of law, and will appreciate the confidence bestowed upon it. The events of 1861 and 1862 had been described in both Houses of Parliament In the House of Lords, Lord Carnarvon called attention to the subject, and Earl Russell following him said that nothing could justify the violation of law and humanity of which the Emperor of Russia had been guilty. In 1861 there were no less than four successive Viceroys of Poland, each of whom tried a different system, and each of whom was recalled upon its failure. One of them, Count Lambert, took with him into Poland a Russian officer as Commander-in-Chief, who inaugurated the state of siege, and who, being reproached by the Viceroy for a massacre of men, women, and children which took place in the streets of Warsaw, drew out a pistol and committed suicide. Soon afterwards Count Lambert was withdrawn. He mentioned this to show how utterly impossible it was that Russia should govern Poland. It was unfortunate both for himself and for Poland that in 1831 the noble Lord at the head of the Government declined to join France in rendering assistance to Poland; but in 1855–6 there was another opportunity at which that country might have been saved by England. Three years ago he was to his astonishment informed by the noble Lord that, although there was a short despatch written upon the subject in 1856, during the Crimean war no despatch passed between our Government and others upon the subject of Poland. The House would be surprised to learn that at the time of the Crimean war such despatches did pass between England, France, and Austria, and, ns they had been concealed from the country, he would read extracts from them, and ask the Government whether they were authentic. He had a copy of a despatch dated "Paris, December 15th, 1855," from Count Walewski, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to Count Persigny, then French Ambassador in London, in which the Minister said— The object of this despatch is to call your attention, and to engage you to fix that of the British Government, upon a question which excites, and with justice, the solicitude of the Emperor, and to which, doubtless, the Cabinet of London does not attach less interest. I mean Poland. The first article of the Treaty of Vienna, 1815, in declaring the union of the duchy of Warsaw to the Russian Empire, provided that it should be unchangeably united thereto by its constitution under the name of the Kingdom of Poland. Even this was, doubtless, but a very incomplete reparation for the injustice of the partitions which annihilated Poland. Still it was an act of homage paid by Russia to the indelible principle of Polish nationality; and the Kingdom of Poland, with its constitution, with its distinct administration, and its army entirely national, in reality possessed guarantees which were wanting in the other dismembered provinces. Contrary to the promises arid to the formal assurances of the Emperor Nicholas, the Kingdom or Poland, incorporated with Russia, has since been nothing more than a province of that empire. The treaties which had constituted its political existence were openly ignored. Nevertheless, the Treaty of June 9, 1815, was then, as it is to-day, an act essentially European, by which all the contracting parties are virtually bound towards each other, and each of them towards all the rest. France and England protested against such an infraction of the public law of Europe, and if for the sake of maintaining the general tranquillity, they shrank from making it a casus belli, both of them with only the more emphasis reserved the rights in regard of which they had just protested, until an opportunity should offer itself for renewing them and upholding them with more chance of success. This opportunity, M. le Comte, cannot fail shortly to arise, and the moment is come for preparing to make the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Poland, within the conditions stipulated by the Congress of Vienna, one of the essential objects of the negotiations for peace, as soon as these negotiations shall become possible, as well as one of the fundamental bases of that peace. What was the reply of the British Government? The House had never received it, and the country had never known it. But it was given in a letter written by Count Walewski to Count Persigny, and dated October 15, 1855. Writing from Paris, he said— Lord Cowley has read to me a despatch from his Government, in reply to that which I commissioned you to deliver to Lord Clarendon on the subject of the situation of the Kingdom of Poland, in its relation to the treaties which determined its legal condition in 1815, and to the eventual basis of the future peace. The Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs declares that, not only would the English Cabinet desire, like ourselves, that the obligations contracted by Russia towards Poland should be fulfilled, but that it would see in the independence even of that country the surest barrier for Europe against the invasions of the Russian Power. The only question in the eyes of Her Majesty's Government is, to know if the moment is opportune for entering into an engagement not to treat with Russia, except on the condition that she carries out the stipulations which concern Poland in the Vienna treaties. He comes to the conclusion that, without tying our hands or binding ourselves to any particular line of conduct, it is enough for us to agree that we will take advantage of events, within the measure of the possible, in favour of Poland. On a subsequent occasion the French Government renewed their application, and met with a somewhat similar reply. Count Walewski, having become in the meantime the French Ambassador, said— I have spoken to the principal Secretary of State on the contents of your Excellency's despatch, dated March 26, I pointed out that if in a European negotiation, having for its object the re-establishment of peace with Russia, no mention whatever should be made of the breach of treaties of which the Russian Government was guilty in assimilating the Kingdom of Poland to the Empire of Russia—a breach against which we had protested—our silence might be treated as an implied sanction, and as an abandonment of our previous protests. The principal Secretary of State acknowledged the full value of this observation, and admitted that at an opportune time it would be desirable to take some steps of a nature to support the opinion previously expressed by France and England on the conduct held by Russia towards Poland in 1831; but Lord Clarendon, in his turn, observed to me that at this moment every attempt to bring Russia to restore matters in Poland to the position in which they were before 1830 would be inopportune, and might be attended with consequences to be regretted. On the conclusion of peace in 1856 the French Government again urged the British Government to do something for Poland; and he came now to the only papers which had been laid before Parliament on the subject. In a despatch from Lord Clarendon to Lord Palmerston, in April, 1856, he stated that on the 9th inst., "at the request of Count Walewski," he held a conversation with Count Orloff on the subject of Poland, and Count Orloff replied that the Emperor had determined to restore to his Polish subjects everything which had been suggested in the conversation, but that the announcement could not be made to the Congress, as that would be misrepresented in Russia. Count Orloff said in a friendly manner— Do not, in the interest of the Poles, bring the subject forward in the Congress; for I can tell you nothing there, nor admit your right to interrogate me. My answer, therefore, must be disheartening to the Poles, and the Emperor may perhaps think it a matter of dignity to postpone what he intends to do. Lord Palmerston, in reply, informed Lord Clarendon that Her Majesty's Government entirely approved the manner in which the subject had been treated by him, both in bringing the question under discussion with Count Orloff, and in abstaining from mooting the matter before the Congress. It was in the early part of 1856 that this conversation took place with Count Orloff. In May, 1856, the Emperor Alexander II. visited Poland, and having assembled round him the Polish marshals, senators, and clergy, addressed them in these terms— I am resolved that the order established by my father shall be maintained. Therefore, gentlemen, above all things let there be no dreams— no dreams. The welfare of Poland depends upon her entire absorption into Russia. What my father did was therefore well done. I will uphold it. My reign shall be a continuation of his. This was the language held one short month after peace had been secured. Since then, from 1856 to 1864:, the Poles had exhibited the greatest moderation and the greatest heroism. Lord Wodehouse, formerly Minister Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg, bore testimony to this in his place in Par- liament, and the same testimony had been reiterated in the course of their debates. But in 1863 the Russians, in violation of their own laws, enforced the conscription, with the avowed object of carrying off from the country every man possessed of public spirit. Under that conscription, University students and artisans were taken who were exempt from the conscription under the Russian law itself. That was done in the early part of 1863, and it caused the Polish war of 1863–4. Every Member of the House was as familiar as himself with what had since taken place in Poland. The Poles had maintained the unequal contest with greater success and for a longer time than in 1831, The Russian funds had declined from day to day, and were now lower than at any period during the Crimean War. It had been necessary to send hundreds and thousands of Russian troops into Poland, and even the Russian Guards, who had not been sent into the Crimea, had been marched against the Poles. The war had now been going on for thirteen months, and what had England done? Earl Russell had written a great many despatches. In the Christmas pantomime at one of the theatres a large box on the stage was labelled "England's aid to Poland." At the touch of a wand the front of the box fell down and discovered a very small ink-bottle and a very large pen. That was "England's aid to Poland." England, however, had promised to do much, and might have done a great deal. Earl Russell in his despatches showed that Russia had broken engagements to which England was a party, and he denounced Russia for violating public, international, and moral law. At one period of the negotiations Baron Brunnow came to Earl Russell in great alarm, and inquired whether the intentions of Her Majesty's Government were peaceful. Earl Russell published his reply in a despatch which was shown to the Ministers of France and Austria. The noble Earl said, in effect, that the intentions of his Government were peaceful, but that he must not deceive the Russian Government. The Emperor of Russia might reject the proposal he then made, as he had formerly rejected others, but the insurrection would probably continue, and conflicts and difficulties might arise, which all Would deplore. The meaning attached to those words in Vienna and Paris was that the British Government had made up their minds that the engagements of England were to be preserved. The Emperor of Russia rejected the proposal, however, like the rest. The House rose for the recess, and Earl Russell wrote a despatch to Prince Gortschakoff. It was a very long one, and was not worth much, but the three last paragraphs had some sense in them, and struck every one as not having been written by Earl Russell. The question then arose, "Who wrote them?" He would give the House some information on this subject. The Governments of Great Britain, France, and Austria were then all acting together, and when Prince Gortschakoff's rebuff was received the Emperor of the French made a proposal to the Cabinets of London and Vienna, that an identical note in reply to Prince Gortschakoff should be drawn up by Count Rechberg and sent to Russia by the three Governments. The Emperor of the French at the same time represented that Austria was within a few hours march of an enormous Russian army. England and France were remote from such a danger, and it was therefore desirable to enter into a compact guaranteeing to Austria the assistance of the two Powers in the event of any attack by Russia. That was an extremely fair and reasonable proposal. It was worthy of remark that the Government had not given the House the correspondence with the Cabinets of the Tuileries and Vienna on the subject of this identical note. It was, however, of great importance, because, as the note was not sent and no joint action took place, the question arose how Parliament was to know which of the three Powers refused to take this joint action. A paragraph, which appeared to come from an official source, appeared during the recess in The Times newspaper on the 15th of August, 1863. It was as follows:— Russia and Poland.—The three despatches in reply to Prince Gortschakoff from Austria, France, and Great Britain will probably reach St. Petersburg this day, and will be presented at once to Prince Gortschakoff. England and Austria objected to an identical note, as proposed by France, because they considered it would too much resemble a menace to Russia. As it is, each Power has contented itself with replying to the arguments addressed to it by Russia. Beyond this statement the House of Commons had not received the least information as to this identical note, although it was the turning point of the whole negotiation. It was supposed from the statement in The Times that the identical note was refused both by Austria and England. This, however, was not correct. The fact was that the identical note was drawn up by Count Rechberg, and was then submitted to the Governments of France and England. The latter Government refused to agree to the identical note, or to enter into any further combinations, and Earl Russell expressed his intention to pursue in future an isolated policy. On the 3rd of August, in last year, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, writing to the French Ambassador, the Due de Grammont, at Vienna, said— I do not propose to recur to-day to the considerations which pleaded in favour of a complete identity of language in the replies of the three Courts to the communications of Russia. Our reasons—I have pleasure in saying so—have been thoroughly appreciated at Vienna; and I consider it my duty to acknowledge that it is not the fault of the Austrian Government that our proposition was not adopted. It was inspired, not only by the desire of augmenting the authority of our proceedings in giving to the Russian Cabinet a proof of the unity of views, which it has seemed to doubt, but, also, by the sentiment of the peculiar situation of Austria, to whom we thought it right to guarantee that we intended to share with her the consequences of a common policy. Our proposition not having been accepted in London, I have prepared the separate despatch, which our Ambassador at St. Petersburg will be instructed to deliver to Prince Gortschakoff. I enclose it herein, with the English draft, which has been communicated to me by Lord Cowley. The conclusion of these two documents reproduces the last paragraphs of the draft originally proposed by the Vienna Cabinet. We desire that at least this partial identity may be maintained. The Foreign Minister of France, writing to the French Chargé d'Affaires in London, on the 22nd of September, 1863, said— We have not changed our opinion concerning the European character of the Polish question, and concerning the rights which the general interest and treaties confer upon us. We deplore the circumstances that three Powers like England, Austria, and France, have not resolved on giving to their proceedings all the efficacy desirable, and the responsibility of assuring to their opinion the irresistible authority of a collective resolution does not rest on our shoulders. Neither the Emperor of the French nor the Emperor of Austria was therefore to blame for the failure of the diplomacy of the Western Governments. He could not say thus much: of the diplomacy of Austria without also adverting to the conduct of the Austrian Executive at the present moment. While the diplomacy of Austria, following the Foreign policy of Lord Castlereagh, desired the independence of Poland, the Austrian Executive in Galicia imitated the cruelties of Mouravieiff. Ladies whom he had himself seen tending the sick and wounded Poles in Cracow, were now in prison. One of these ladies was kept in solitary confinement, and her letters were not allowed to reach her. The Austrian Government punished these ladies for having assisted the sick and wounded Poles, but their sympathies were naturally with the insurgents. The noble Viscount was to blame for a good deal that had happened in the history of Poland. Since 1831, whenever Poland had had a chance, the noble Viscount had been in office, and had not done as much for her as he ought and could. One cause of this was the disregard he had always shown for public law. His maiden speech in this House, delivered on the 3rd of February, 1808, was against Denmark and in defence of the bombardment of Copenhagen by the British fleet, and he then laid down a principle of policy which had run more or less through his whole career as Foreign Minister. "There are times," he said, "when the Law of Nations must be broken." Now, he (Mr. Hennessy) maintained that the Law of Nations must always be upheld, and, if this had been done, Poland would not have been in her present deplorable condition. At Blairgowrie, Earl Russell, referring to the partition of Poland as an event which was a scandal to Europe and a reproach to the Three Powers who were parties to it, said that,. by the Treaty of Vienna, Europe had given a retrospective sanction to the partition, and had become accessary after the fact; but, as Russia had not fulfilled the conditions under which her title was recognized, we were no longer bound to recognize her sovereignty in Poland. This was the substance of the Resolutions before the House. But the noble Earl was not satisfied with his declaration at Blairgowrie. Eight days before he made it, he was in communication with the French Government on the subject, and they were must desirous that the declaration should be made. Accordingly, in September, Earl Russell wrote a despatch to Russia, which was dated October 20, 1863, and embodied the Blairgowrie declaration. Lord Napier privately communicated its contents to Prince Gortschakoff, who said it was a very serious matter to declare before Europe that Russia had forfeited her sovereignty in Poland. Lord Napier telegraphed home Prince Gortsehakoff's opinion, and, at the same time, Count Bismark actually threatened to make it a casus belli if the despatch were read. The very day the English despatch was written, the French Government wrote to their Minister at St. Petersburg referring to it, stating that they were in accord with every word of it, and directed him to support it. But, after this despatch had received the approval of the Queen and Cabinet, Earl Russell recalled it, struck out the last sentence, which was the only one of importance, and it was afterwards delivered to the Russian Government. So bungling was the noble Earl's surgery that the scar could still be seen—the premisses were there, but he had removed the conclusion. The value of such a declaration, had it been made, could hardly be overrated, and the Poles looked for it with anxiety. It did not mean war. Count Bismark, indeed, might threaten war; but, though he had made war on a weak Power, it was doubtful whether Count Bismark would make war on England. The noble Viscount had stated, on a former occasion, that to tell any country that we did not recognize her sovereignty where she was de facto sovereign, though there might be insurgents there, would occasion war. But, in the case of Circassia, the British Government had distinctly refused to recognize the sovereignty of Russia; and before Greece became independent, Count Nesselrode proposed that the British and the Russian Governments should jointly declare to Turkey that they did not recognize Turkish rule in Greece. Remembering these precedents, and looking at what England had done and omitted to do in Poland, the least which the House of Commons could ask was that the declaration made by the Foreign Minister and inserted in a despatch should be made by the Government. Diplomatically, the Blairgowrie declaration possessed no value. Foreign Governments were not bound to know anything about it, But not so the subjects of the Queen, who, when the Foreign Minister stated in public that Russia had forfeited her title to sovereignty in Poland, were bound to look upon that forfeiture as having been declared with authority. Poland of to-day was Poland within the limits of 1772; and there was something more which made this question a practical one. What were the influences, and who were the parties, that determined the future destinies of Europe? From time almost immemorial, the destinies of Europe had been swayed by two great parties—the revolutionary and what, without reference to the political divisions of parties in this country, might be called the Conservative party. There was a third influence which had modified these two on the Continent of Europe. A house or fa- mily—at one time the House of Hapsburg, at another the House of Bourbon. For the latter we had now the House of Napoleon. And what was the attitude of those three great parties? The revolutionary party, as represented by a disinterested soldier who had recently received an enthusiastic reception in this country, had declared that Poland must be revived. The Conservative party at the other end of Europe had made a similar declaration; and, judging by the information which was in the possession of the public at large, he thought he was entitled to say that the Emperor of the French also was in favour of Poland. The growing greatness of Spain, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of as one of the great facts of the day, the kingdom of Italy, and the establishment of the Empire of Mexico, were each of them owing to the combined action of some two of the three parties to whom he had alluded. Keeping the fact in view, remembering what were the sentiments of all three as regarded Poland, and having regard to the fact that every man of intelligence, education, and property in that country was in favour of its independence, certainly he did not despair of Poland. After the insurrection of 1831, the Emperor Nicholas tried the effect of banishments to Siberia, and issued ukases under which male children were taken from their country to be reared up in Russia; and yet, notwithstanding all that, the insurrection of 1831 was in the present day vindicated by a generation then unborn. The consistency with which the men of Poland had resisted foreign oppression was due to the heroism of her daughters. At an historic place near this metropolis, the beauty and rank of England were gathered round tables on which the jewels of the women of Poland were displayed for sale at a fancy fair held in aid of their country. On those tables were to be seen the tiaras of princesses, the diamonds of noble ladies, and the less costly ornaments of humble, but not less heroic and patriotic women. The inscriptions on many of those articles told their own tale:—"A birthday gift from a brother;" "A wedding present from a father." And there were memorials even more touching and instructive than all those diamonds. There were the offerings of women who, having sold their jewels to equip their husbands for the field, now, when those husbands had fallen, parted with the last memento of their married life, and sent their wedding rings here to be sold for the benefit of the wounded. It was creditable to the leaders of fashion in England that, when the great ladies of the land were gathered around those tables, and when they looked at those wedding rings, tears started from the eyes of many of them. The women of England had paid that tribute—that tribute in kind to the sorrows of the women of Poland. When would the statesmen and soldiers of Europe pay a tribute in kind to the statesmen and soldiers of Poland? The Emperor Napoleon, Edmund Burke, Metternich, Talleyrand, Lord Castlereagh, and other eminent statesmen, had all declared an independent Poland to be inevitable. The records of the opinions of such men were full of hope; but there were also in favour of that nation less perishable records—records written in the hearts of the people of Europe; and as long as he believed in the existence of a sense of public right in the heart of man, he should refuse to despair of Poland. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving his first Resolution.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the negotiations of Her Majesty's Government respecting Poland have not terminated in a satisfactory manner,"—(Mr. Hennessy,) —instead thereof.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, though there are certainly many things in the speech of the hon. Gentleman in which I agree, yet I cannot concur with him in the conclusion at which he arrived; and I certainly shall vote for the Motion for going into Supply, instead of for the hon. Member's Resolution. I shall not follow the hon. Member through the historical details of the earlier history of the Polish nation. I agree with him in the condemnation he has passed on that great European crime, the partition of Poland; and it is almost needless to say that I concur in the censure and condemnation which he has passed on the conduct of Russia throughout the whole of her connection with Poland. On that part of his speech I might make a well known remark, but inverting the sentiment, Quis vituperavit Herculem? — and say, who has excused, palliated, or justified the conduct of the Russian Government? But that is not the question on which the House this evening is called to give an opinion. The hon. Gentleman condemns the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in their recent transactions with regard to Poland. I do not intend to revert to those former periods to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, because they have in reality nothing to do with the question at issue. Though I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says in his Resolution— that the efforts which Her Majesty's Government have made in behalf of Poland have not been successful—yet I am at a loss to understand from the hon. Gentleman what it is that we have not done which he thinks we ought to have done. He says it is our fault that we have not been more successful in regard to Poland; but I appeal to the memory of the hon. Gentleman himself to say whether, in the course of last year and the year before, when he was urging us to exert the influence of Great Britain in favour of Poland, he did not repeatedly say that he did not ask for war, that he did not ask for the display of arms, he wanted only diplomatic assistance, and especially, he said, he wished that the diplomatic influence of England should be exerted to obtain from all the principal Powers of Europe a concurrent opinion with ourselves as to the duty which Russia owed towards Poland, and as to the violation of her engagements at the Treaty of Vienna. Well, we did all that the hon. Gentleman asked us to do— we went to the utmost extent and length of diplomatic exertions. We did succeed in getting most of the leading Powers of Europe to concur with us in urging at St. Petersburg the manner in which Russia had failed to perform her engagements contained in the Treaty of 1815, and in exhorting her to fulfil those engagements, and to deal in a different manner with the Poles. What was the next step then which we had to take? Only two things remained to be done. One was to cease those representations which, however respectable and powerful the quarters from which they came, had not been attended with success; and the other was to do what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) said would have been an act of insanity—to go to war with Russia on account of Poland. We were not insane, and we did not at any moment contemplate going to war with Russia for the sake of Poland. My noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated that from his place in Parliament on more than one occasion. There are many reasons why it would have been an act of madness to venture on such a war. The hon. Gentleman said that on one occasion we declined the cooperation of Austria and France in favour of Poland, Why, Sir, he afterwards mentioned with condemnation the conduct which Austria is now pursuing with regard to the Poles in Galicia. Is it likely, Sir, that Austria having Galicia, and Prussia I having Posen, both of which are occupied by fragments of the Polish nation, would have concurred in attacking Russia, and compelling her to perform engagements which, in point of fact, they had no great interest in asserting on behalf of the Poles, Sir, it would have been impossible. Then, with regard to France. For many years the French Legislature passed annually resolutions somewhat similar to that which the hon. Gentleman now proposes to us to pass, but at last they felt that they were placing themselves in an undignified position by expressing opinions which were not to be followed up by any practical acts on the part of the executive Government, and they therefore abstained from doing so. If the hon. Gentleman asks me whether in my opinion Russia has, in point of fact, not forfeited the right which by the Treaty of Vienna she obtained to Poland, because she has not fulfilled the corresponding engagements imposed on her by that treaty, I should be very much disposed to agree with the hon. Gentleman. But I say it would be undignified for this House formally to pronounce such an opinion unless this House was prepared to follow it up by an address to the Crown to give effect to the declaration which they had made. If we were prepared to go to war to-morrow and to follow up the sentence of forfeiture by execution, either singly or in conjunction with any other Power; if we were ready to go to Poland and say to Russia, "Not only have you forfeited your right to Poland, but we mean to take away from you that territory to which you no longer have a European right,"—I could understand the propriety of coming to such a decision, if the House were convinced that it was founded on justice and right. But to pronounce such an opinion without being prepared to act up to it would be placing this House not only in an undignified, but I will say a ridiculous position. But has this country a right to deal singly with this matter? Does Russia possess Poland simply by a treaty concluded between England and Russia? By no means. The Treaty of Vienna, by which the Duchy of Warsaw was given to Russia, was signed by eight European Powers— not only by England, but by France, Austria, Prussia, Spain, Portugal, and Sweden. England alone has no right to abrogate any part of that treaty which she thinks may have been broken by one of the Powers parties to it. A declaration, therefore, by England alone would not have any validity to put an end to the right of Russia, independently of the circumstances that it would be most undignified on the part of this House to pronounce an opinion of that sort, unless we were prepared to give effect to it in some practical way. The hon. Gentleman says the Poles are most anxious that this House should pronounce such an opinion. If that be so, then I must say the Poles are very shortsighted with regard to their own interests. What happened after the insurrection of 1832? That insurrection was suppressed by the arms of Russia and by the passive co-operation of Prussia. We remonstrated with the Russian Government for abolishing the Constitution which the Emperor Alexander had granted to Poland. What was the reply of the Emperor of that day? He said, "You have no right to appeal to the Treaty of Vienna. I don't hold Poland in virtue of that treaty; I hold Poland by the sword. I have conquered it: it is mine, not by treaty, but by the right of conquest; it revolted and I subdued it; and you have no more right to talk of my treatment of the inhabitants of Poland than of any other part of my dominions." We gained a step—a considerable step, I think, in our recent negotiations, when, in deference to the collective opinion of Europe, the Russian Government admitted that they held Poland by virtue of the Treaty of Vienna, and that they were bound by the engagements which Russia took towards Poland under the stipulations of that treaty. They said, "We acknowledge that we are bound by those engagements; we cannot fulfil them while this insurrection lasts; but when order and tranquillity are restored we will do that which we admit we are bound to do under the Treaty of Vienna." That is a much better position for the Poles to be in than if we were to say to Russia, "We will not accept your admission; we go back to your declaration of 1832; we say that you hold Poland by conquest independent of any treaty; and we leave you therefore at liberty to deal with it as you please—we give the Poles up to your tender mercies, to be treated in such a manner as you may think fit."To the well-understood interests of the Poles such a declaration as the hon. Gentleman asks this House to make would be as injurious as anything this House could do with respect to the Polish question at the present moment. I hope, therefore, that, not with standing the hon. Gentleman's eloquence, not with standing all the statements he has made, and justly made, as to the wrongs which Poland has sustained at all times, and particularly as to the cruel injuries recently inflicted on her by the agents of the Russian Government, this House will not be led away by their feelings, and will not, in a manner which their better reason would forbid, take away from the Poles the only remaining diplomatic protection which the Treaty of Vienna gives them, which, good or bad, effective or not, is still a diplomatic shelter, and throw them back into the condition the Russian Government asserted they were in after the close of the rebellion or the war, I may more properly call it, of 1831–2. The hon. Gentleman has said, and has said truly, that the Poles have manifested a degree of national feeling, of attachment to their country, powers of endurance, and a courage and intrepidity, almost unexampled in the history of any other nation. But the more, in my opinion, we admire the Poles the less disposed ought we to be to agree to these Resolutions; the more we think them deserving the sympathy of Europe the less ought we to deprive them of that diplomatic and political protection which I maintain the Treaty of Vienna still affords them, and the force of which we are entitled to expect the Russian Government will, at some future period at all events, in some degree acknowledge by its conduct. I concur with the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure all who heard him must do, in the opinions which he has expressed in reference to the conduct of Russia, but then I cannot agree with him in the conclusions at which he has arrived. He mentioned two instances in support of his Motion: the one being the declaration which we made to Russia that we did not acknowledge her sovereignty in Circassia; the other the representation which we made to Turkey, to the effect that we did not acknowledge her dominion over Greece. Now, I would ask with respect to the first of those instances, What is the position of Circassia now? Has our declaration saved Circassia from being conquered by Russia? Are there not at this moment hundreds of thousands of Circassians who have been expelled from their country by Russia, receiving refuge in Turkey, and exposed to every possible misery and privation? Has not actual dominion over Circassia been established by the success of Russian arms? Does the hon. Gentleman think it desirable that the same consequences should follow a similar declaration in the case of Poland? Are we now to tell Russia that we do not acknowledge her dominion in that country, and are we to look on while she extends that dominion with the same firmness as in Circassia? The example of Circassia does not, I confess, seem to me to be a very encouraging one for this House to act upon, while, with respect to the case of Greece, I would observe that if Poland were as accessible to England and France as Greece was to England and Russia and France, and if England and France had the same means of rescuing Poland from Russia that England and Russia and France had of rescuing Greece from Turkey, there then might be some force in the hon. Gentleman's illustration, and a declaration of forfeiture might be easily followed by execution. The case of Poland, however, is entirely different from that of Greece, and, therefore, the example which the hon. Gentleman has given us seems to me to have no bearing on the conclusion at which he has arrived. I would, in conclusion, entreat the House, both out of regard for its own dignity and character, as well as for the sake of the best interests of the Poles themselves, of whose cause the hon. Gentleman is so able and consistent an advocate, to agree to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, and not to give its assent to his Amendment.

MR. GRANT DUFF

said, that the Question which was submitted to-night did not turn upon the past history of Poland. It was simply whether the House should or should not agree to the Resolutions which the hon. Gentleman had put upon the paper. With regard to the Resolutions, they might agree as individuals that they were correct; but it was another question whether the House of Commons would do wisely in giving them their solemn sanction. He could not see what good could emanate from the passing of those Resolutions. He was told on his visit even by Polish authorities, that the insurrection was extinguished, and every day it was attempted to be excited only gave Russia additional opportunity of intensifying the subjugation and misery of Poland. He thought the time would come when Poland would have free institutions given her by the Liberal party who were now growing up in Russia.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, the argument used by the noble Lord, that great injury would be done to the Poles if they were deprived of the diplomatic protection afforded by the Treaty of Vienna had been refuted a thousand times by every act of cruelty which the Russian Government, not withstanding all remonstrances, inflicted on Poland. The Russian Government had shown in the plainest manner by their conduct that that protection was utterly worthless in their eyes.

MR. SCULLY

said, that while standing below the Bar of that House he had heard a statement which had brought him back to his place. He was told that there was to be no division upon the Motion, but he took occasion to say that he should certainly have a division. He, like other hon. Members, had received a circular asking him to attend the House for a certain division. He had given up every engagement in order that he might be present, and he thought that they ought to have a division. if division there could be upon such absolute truisms as were expressed in those Resolutions.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

said, he hoped that the House would allow him to offer a few observations, because the noble Lord at the head of the Government had made a speech which, though in some respects satisfactory, in others deserved and claimed the notice of the House. His hon. Friend the Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) had made statements and referred to documents respecting which the noble Lord, addressing the House upon this important subject, had preserved the most studied silence. One statement was that in 1861 the noble Lord was asked whether, at the time of the Crimean war, any Correspondence passed between the French or Austrian Governments and Her Majesty's Government with reference to the re-constitution of the Kingdom of Poland, and the noble Lord distinctly stated in the face of the Commons of England that there was no such Correspondence. The hon. Member had that evening referred to despatches which then passed.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

French despatches.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

French despatches addressed to this country.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

To the French Ambassador, not to the Government.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

But quoting the opinions of Her Majesty's Government, and quoting statements made by the representative of Her Majesty in Paris. The hon. Member for the King's County had quoted those despatches, and yet the noble Lord did not for a moment attempt to explain how it was that in 1861 he made a statement which the despatches which the hon. Gentleman had now read proved to have been inaccurate. [Viscount PALMERSTON: Not at all,] The noble Lord represented the question as being whether there were any despatches from Her Majesty's Government. The question was this — and a most important question it was—whether at the time of the Crimean war any propositions were made by France and Austria, or any communication addressed to Her Majesty's Government, upon the subject of the reconstruction of the Kingdom of Poland. In 1861 the noble Lord distinctly denied that; and, as far as the House could judge at that moment, that statement of the noble Lord was not accurate. That was a matter which deserved notice and required explanation, from some other Member of the Government. But there was another point to which the hon. Member for the King's County had referred. He had stated that after the speech made by the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office, in the course of last autumn, at Blairgowrie, a despatch was written by him, and forwarded to Paris, to Vienna, and even to St. Petersburg, and was in the hands of our Minister there, which contained the very declaration which the hon. Member now wished to have repeated by the House of Commons, but that it was withdrawn because our Ambassador was told that the consequences of its presentation might be serious. Surely such a statement was not one to be passed over in silence by the head of the Government. A declaration made upon the authority of the Cabinet, with the assent of the Sovereign, communicated to the other Powers of Europe, and then withdrawn because our Government was informed that the consequences might be serious! Was the statement of such a fact to be made in the House of Commons, in the presence of the noble Lord, and to be passed over in silence? Having pointed out those two circumstances, which he thought ought to be explained by some Member of the Cabinet, he wished to draw the attention of the House to one or two other observations of the noble Lord. The noble Lord said that the speech of the hon. Member for the King's County admitted that the Government had done everything that they could, except that they did not go to war, which, said the noble Lord, was never suggested by any one, and certainly would not have met with the support of the House. That was not the statement of the hon. Member for the King's County. The statement of the hon. Gentleman was that the Government did not do all that they could; and, more than that, that when the Governments of Austria and Prussia were prepared to take another position, their action was paralyzed by the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to concur with them. The hon. Gentleman had pointed out—and the noble Lord made no reference to that part of his speech—that it was proposed by the Government of France that an identical note should be addressed by the three Governments to Russia, that that course was assented to by Austria, and the note prepared by her Minister, but its adoption was prevented by the refusal of England. When, therefore, the noble Lord said that the Government had done everything that they could have done, it was shown that he was endeavouring to throw dust in the eyes of the House, and to make them forget the statements of the hon. Member for the King's County. He offered no explanation why it was that, when there was this combined action on the part of the Continental Powers, when Austria herself was willing to take that course, he and his Government paralyzed the action of those Powers, and prevented that interference on behalf of Poland which but for their resistance would have taken place. Even as far as that declaration was concerned the noble Lord's Government did not do all that they could. It was true that they sent it to St. Petersburg, but they brought it back again, and, as far as the House knew from the documents which were published, the very declaration which was described by M. Drouyn de Lhuys as being in his opinion, and that of the Government of the Emperor, the most important step that could be taken by the Governments of Europe in this question was prevented by the noble Lord and his Government. The noble Lord said that it would be very unbecoming and injurious for this country to assent to such a declaration of forfeiture as this. But surely if the arguments of the noble Lord against such a declaration being made by a Resolution of that House were good, they applied with far more force to that declaration to which the noble Lord consented, which was made upon the authority of the Government and assented to by the Sovereign. Surely if it was now against the interest of the Poles to deprive them of the protection— the protection, forsooth—of the Treaty of Vienna—much protection it had been to them during the late unhappy months— the same objection would apply with still more force to the declaration made by the noble Lord and his Cabinet. But when the noble Lord told the House of Commons that it was contrary to the dignity of this country to hold language which we were not prepared to follow up by energetic measures, he would ask the noble Lord to consider what the Government had been doing in the case of Denmark for the last six or seven months. Talk of strong language—talk of menaces of war, and that it was contrary to the dignity of this country to hold such language unless we were prepared to support it! The last Minister who ought to make such a declaration was the noble Lord himself, who was at the head of a Government which had been using bullying language. ["No, no!" and "Hear, hear!"] The noble Lord might jeer; but if that expressed his opinion it did not express the opinions of the people of England or of the Members of that House. He said that a Government which had been holding the language which the noble Lord's Government had to the Governments of Germany for the last six months was the last that ought to make the statement that it was contrary to the honour and dignity of this country to use language which we were not prepared to support by force. He understood that it was not the intention of his hon. Friend to take a division upon the Resolutions which he had placed before the House, resting satisfied with the declaration which had been obtained from the noble Lord in his place in Parliament, and speaking as Prime Minister, in corroboration of the statement made by the noble Lord his Colleague in Scotland in the month of September last. His hon. Friend might well rest satisfied with having urged upon the Government the rights and the claims of Poland when his arguments had received the cordial and sympathetic assent of the House.

MR. LAYARD

said, he would not detain the House many minutes, but he wished to set hon. Members right on one or two matters of fact. The hon. Gentleman opposite had used very strong language, but it was easy to do so when speaking without any sense of responsibility. If he were asked to point out what the Government ought to have done, or what he would have done himself in the same position, he doubted very much whether the hon. Gentleman would have carried his views to the extent of going to war with Russia on account of Poland.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

desired to say that he had never contemplated anything of the kind.

MR. LAYARD

said, there was no other meaning to be deduced from his arguments. Except to take up arms on behalf of Poland, there was nothing the Government had not done. Over and over again, in the case of Denmark, of Poland, and of Italy, the Government had been twitted with not going to war in support of their views. The Government, on the contrary, believed that the country was not prepared for war, and did not wish for it; and the country, he was sure, gave the Government credit for keeping them out of war. As regarded the despatch so much relied on, it was perfectly true that England, France, and Austria had been acting together in the matter of Poland, and that the joint despatch was prepared which had been read by the hon. Gentleman; but though the French Government agreed to that despatch, the hon. Gentleman was completely mistaken in stating that the Austrian Government had ever agreed to it.

MR. HENNESSY

I must beg to disclaim the statement. I stated that the joint despatch was agreed to, supported by the French Government, and sent to St. Petersburg.

MR. LAYARD

said, the hon. Gentleman opposite undoubtedly stated that Austria was one of the three parties agreeing to the despatch. But, in point of fact, it was Austria, and not England, which objected to a particular passage. The hon. Gentleman twitted him, over and over again, with failing to produce the despatch. But it was not in his power to produce a despatch which had never been acted upon nor communicated to the Russian Government, and which had been cancelled, and consequently had no existence. The hon. Gentleman knew that it was a very common practice, in order to save time, to send on a despatch which was not delivered till all the parties concerned had agreed upon it. If afterwards the despatch was not agreed to, it was simply cancelled. The cancelled despatch, which was never delivered, had no existence, but the despatch actually presented to the Russian Government was included in the Correspondence laid before Parliament. The hon. Gentleman objected to the last paragraph of that despatch as differing materially from the one originally contemplated, but for his part he thought it conveyed almost as much as the hon. Gentleman alleged to have been left out. The inference to be drawn from the statement that the rights of Poland were contained in the same instrument which conferred the Emperor's title to be King of Poland plainly was, that if Russia violated the engagements and duties imposed on her by that document she forfeited her title to rule over the nation. As regarded identity of communication, the House must recollect the meaning of the term. First of all, it was very difficult to get several persons to agree to a precise form of words, but when the words were agreed upon in a communication of such a solemn and important character, if their representations were not attended to, it threw upon the Powers who combined for this purpose the responsibility of taking measures to enforce attention to their views. The British Government thought it better not to make such a communication, but to make separate representations which, though not identical in language, should be identical in effect. The despatch to which the hon. Gentleman had so frequently alluded had, in fact, no existence; it had been cancelled; and the despatch laid on the table was that which had been communicated to the Russian Government, That was the whole history of the despatch of which so much had been made, and the House would see how entirely hon. Gentlemen had been misinformed.

MR. HENNESSY

said that, after what had passed, he did not wish to press the Motion to a division.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.