The Express.
London, England, 1863-07-21 00:00:00

TUE EXPIIESS, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 21, 1863.

Of Vienna have failed to secure the good government of
I Poland or the peace of Europe, and any farther attempt
to rt place Poland under the cooditious of that treaty
must cause calamities to Poland and embarrusinent and
danger to Europe. He proceeded severely to_ criticise
tbs propositions made by the three powers to Biu, which
implied the engrafting of a constitutional goverment of a
province on a despotic power, and attributed them to the
'Bootee., of Austria, ohm only intention was to cheat the
Poles ; but he added that England had, by insisting on an
armistice and a confereoce, made her policy safe. Russia,
however, had rejected these latter, and had accepted only
that which was the proposition of Austria. lie argued
generally that no protocol or congress-emoted kingdom of
Poland would now do, and if she wu to be freed from the
pusses rule of Russia it could only be done by establishing
her independence. The peaceful attainment of that object
depended on Austria, and her giving up of Galicia, which
must be followed "oy Prussia yielding Pout, and the rest
moat follow. _ __.____ _

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER mid hie
right hen. friend had not massed for any declare-
boo from the government of their future intentions.
He had felt that, as an important despatch, contain-
ing the answer of Russia, had just been laid on the table,
the present was not a moment when any further develop-
ment of their future policy would be appropriate. Acting
as they did in concert with Austria and France, it was their
absolute duty tc take counsel of those powers before consi-
dering or deciding on their future course. But before be
sat down he wished to make an observation on the motion
of his right hon. friend. His right hon. friend invited them
to make a solemn reostriciation of the treaty of Vienna. His
motion was pondemnatory of that treaty, but he must him-
, self feel that it very inadequately conveyed all the senti-
ments he had expressed in the bons. as to the reixestitution
of Poland and the comparative facility of attaining that
consummation. But Limited as the motion was, it
was not one which it was desirable the house should
adopt. Whether the case of Poland was parallel, as his right
boo. friend seemed to thick, to that of Italy he would not
undertake to say, but he did say that her Majesty's govern-
ment bad pursued precisely the same course in both in•
Manx*, vie., by intervention strictly diplomatic, by using
their goad offices, by a plain expnimion of aentimente which
they believed to be for the benefit and interest of all, they
had endeavoured to do what little good might lay in their
power. What they felt in the case of Italy
was that no government ought to commit itself
to any incomes mikes the objects contemplated were pew-
ticanU and attainable ; and he believed they had acted upon
that principle. But would his right hon. friend, by asking
them to condemn the treaty of Vienna, really confer a be-
nefit upon Poland? What they had always contended for
wee., sot that Poland required to be placed under the treaty
of Vienna, but that ohs was under the conditions of that
treaty. That was the language held by his noble friend
thirty years ago, and that was the effect of all they had
represented on the present occasion. It might no doubt be
said they might get a better treaty, but that was not the
question before the house. The Tuella' was whether they
could do any good to the Poles by the formal abandonment
and renunciation of the treaty of Vienna. What would be
the effect of that? They would leave the Poles the subjects
of Russia by cooqueet ; they would depart from the only
definite and tenable ground on which they had a right to
address Russia. They would not by such a course as
that improve, but on the contrary would materisUy
injure the position of Poland, so far as it might_ he de-
pendent on the efforts of other powers on its behalf. For
that reason be trusted the house would not be disposed to
adopt the motion of his right hon. friend. It might be
little that could be hoped on this question from any inter-
, vention, diplomatic or otherwise. The intrinsic difficulties
which his right hon. friend seemed to regard as light were,
be feared, enormous. The consequences of former misdeeds
dogged and followed not only those who inflicted
the snook but those who suffered it, and to repair
a political cry, especially after it had long subsisted, was
almost in many mess beyond the power of man. Helmeted,
however, that in the case of Poland no British government
would ever shrink, or place itself under the suspicion of
shrinking, from any effort to attain, by legitimate and prac-
tical means, whatever could be attained on behalf of that
gallant, unhappy, and long suffering people ; but with
theca opinioes it would be a betrayal of duty on their part
if they acceded to the motion, which appeared to them,
though undoubtedly intended to benefit Poland by one of
its ablest and most enthusiastic advocates, yet would really
tend rather to weaken than strengthen its position, by
depriving friendly powers of the only bads on which they
would be warranted in interposingon behalf of Poland. (Hear.)
Mr. HENNESSY contended that the feeling of the people
of England had been unequivocally expnmeed in favour of
Polish freedom, irrespective of any of the terms of the
treaty of Vienna. He combatted Mr. Honman's notion
that Austria was iasincere, and eves treacherous, in her
present conduct towards Poland, and urged that the Aus-
trian government was really anxious for the Poles, while
the Austrian people and the Austrian army gave them
their entire sympathy. He asserted that the treaty of
Vienna was not confined to the Duchy of Warsaw, but in-
eluded the Polish provinces of Russia. He forth's; argued
that the Prussian people were in favour of Poland, wh,le
France, is her support of the cause of the Poles, contem-
plated ho territorial aggrandisement ; and as, in feet, all
Europe was with her, it could hardly happen otherwise
than that there should be established an independent
Poland.

_
Mr. KINGLAKE admitted that England had a right to
call on Russia in reference to the treaty of Vienna ; but
that not being a treaty with guarantees, she was not bound
to go to war in support of it. Unless its interest of
England were involved it would not be passible to take
the country into a war for mere sympathy. He also
defended Austria from the charge which had been made
against her, showing that there was every reason
for her being impelled sincerely to advocate and
promote the cause of Poland. As to the coal= of Galicia
by Austria, be produced statements from Galicians them-
selves to the effect that they did not desire to throw off
the rule of Austria. He pointed out the difficulty of
obtaining an armistice, which, in fact, would be dived.
vantigloos to the Poles themselves ; and therefore it would
be unwise to break off negotiations with Russia because she
declined to accept an armistice. He objected to the motion
as condemnatory of the treaty of Vienna, which was the
only ground on which her Majesty's government had to go.
Mr. It EACOCKE hoped the bowie would not agree to
the resolution, but allow the whale responsibility to reef
capon the government, which had placed the country io •
position of considerable difficulty and of coosidendge danger,
from which it could not advance with profit or recede with
credit.

Sir F. GOLDSMID said that he belonged to a religious
community whose numbers, counted by thousands in other
parts of Europe, might be counted by millions in Poland,
and their future fate was greatly involved in the present
struggle. Of late years the Russian government had
adopted the usual policy of despots, and contrived to set
class against clams, and had used the Jews against the ca-
tholic., and inducer, the oatholics to acquiesce in the pers.,
cation of the Jews. Ha was glad, however, to be able to
say that the Jews were now joining hand and heart in the
struggle, and that the catholis were cordially welcoming
their aid. Those who were best informed, and whose
opinion was entitled to respect., believed that England
would do more for Poland if she adopted some course like
that indicated by the resolution before the house, and inti-
mate to Russia that its rights over Poland had ceased ; and
when the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked, how
would that benefit Poland, be would reply that it would
have a sort of negative superiority over the course pursued,
in not asking Russia to enter into arrangements which she
regarded as impracticable, or to make promisee which she
would eertainly break.
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought that in these negotiations
little consideration bad been shown for Russia. The right
bon. member for Stroud proposed that we should request her
Majesty's government to cast aside the treaty of 1815, that
we should abandon the ouly ground of negotiation, and that
Fluent must yield to the demands of tome. The ground of
, complaint against Russia was that she was resisting • re.
hellion conducted by a secret agency, and at a time when she
wu endeavouring to advance from a position of despotism
and slavery into the community of constitutional states.
He thought it had been too much overlooked that no one
empire had does so much for freedom a. Russia in this cen-
tury. (Hear, bear.) Millions had gained freedom by the
act of the mperor iu abolishing serfdom, and was such
conduct as this to entail upon him the hoe.
tility of Europe at the instance of constitutional England!
Hs must esprees his full confidence that this great goes-
sloe was safe in the hand. of her Majesty's government,
sod he was therefore prepared to vote mama% the motion.
(Hear. . . _ .

Lora H. VANE thought it would be mach better toles,*
the natter in the bawls of government than to make
speeches which tended to irritate without producing any use-
ful result.

Mr. S. BEAUMONT believed that the seutimentsex-
premed by the bon. memoir for North Warwickshire (Mr.
Newdegate) with regard to Russia wee not shared
by any other member of that house. (Hear,
hear.) He talked of the generosity of the
Emperor of Russia. Did he moan to my that General
llottiavieff was generous—a man whose brutal acts had
aroused, nut only the indignation of that house, but of all
Europe? (Hear, bear.) He (Mr. Beaumont) could not
vote for the motion of the right boo. member for Stroud,
because he believed it would not lead to • eulution of the
question, while it would certainly imply • censure on the
conduct of the government.
.........—.

Lord PALBEILIPON —Sir, my right hon. friend who has
made this motive Las made a speech which was marked by
his usual ability, and to which the house Hawn(' with the
greatest attention and delight ; but as he weal along it ap.
pealed to me that that speech was not so oonsiocrit
itself as the speeches of my right boo, friend usually have
been ; nod, moreover, that speech was evidently not con-
sistent with the motion which he has made. In the beginning
of his speech my right houourable friend blued fault
with the government of 1831, and with myself as the
organ of that government, for having interfered diplo-
matically in the affairs of Poland. He reproached the
government with timidity and with not having pursued
their point to the arbitremeet of war.
Mr. HORSMAN—I approved of everything that they did.
Lord PALMERSTON-1 think my right hon, friend
went further, and I am very glad that 1 misapprehended
what he said with respect to the past time. He certainly
did peas very high pestse upon the course pursued by my
noble friend at the head of Foreign Affairs on the present
occasion, inasmuch as he said it was a greet diplomatic
priaeiple to Lave obtained the coneurreaeo of almost all
the powers of Europe to the repreeetitatiotm made to Russia
against the course she has pursued with regard to Poland.
But it streak me that the gist of as, right hooey:stile