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

NEW WRIT-CLARE.

On the motion of Mr. BRAND, the Clerk of the Crown
was asked to issue a writ in the room of Mr. Calcott, de-
ceased.

POLAND.

r Mr. HORSMAN—Sir, the affairs of Poland have for a
long time attracted the attention of all Europe, and there is
not a Cabinet in Europe in which they have not been made
the subject of anxious consideration. The papers laid before
Parliament show that the British Government has taken a
prominent, if not the most prominent, part in the diploma-
, tic transactions with Russia and the great Powers. Whether
that activity will hereafter be recollected as a cause of na-
tional pride, or of a national reproach—of pride for great
services rendered, or of reproach for our part in great cala-
mities already too deplorable to be dwelt upon—has yet to
be determined. I have read those papers with all the anxiety
which attaches to a familiar but painful question, and I
closed the perusal of them with feelings of perplexity and
alarm. The interest is sustained throughout, and the tone
moat modeiate ; but it is impossible not to see that England
has placed herself, not only towards Russia, but towards
Poland and Europe, in a position of entanglement from
which it is impossible to escape. When this war first broke
oat, I avowed with feelings of apprehension the conse
quences of an irritating policy that could not be operative
without being mischievous. Poland has been diplomatised
to death, and it is cruelty to the Poles to excite them to re-
volution by implied promises of support, and then to aban-
don and betray them. It is clear from the correspondence
that the Government have gone too far, or not far enough.
If, after having been at such pains to provoke Russia and
excite Poland, our Government are to say, " We have done
our duty, and we will go no further," then, at no distant
day, I say that Parliament will turn upon them, and
say. " You have not discharged, but you have exceeded
your duty. If you mean to go no further, you have gone
a great deal too far, because you have once more deluded
and victimised Poland, and by provoking other Powers
you may have lighted a flame in Europe beyond your
poNver to extinguish." (Hear.) The Polish question com-
mences with the treaty of Vienna, and from the date 0 f
that treaty the revolution in Poland has been one great,
grand, growing event. To understand it thoroughly, we
must go back to 1815, and refer to the objections taken by
the plenipotentiaries at Vienna to the extension of Russia
(as referred to by Lord Castlereagh) by the addition of Po-
land. It was seen that that would enable her to threaten all
the other Powers on her boundaries, and to become a stand-
ing menace to Europe. It was also objected that to unite
Poland with Russia by a constitutional bond was impos-
sible. I beg the house to bear these two objections in mind,
because they lie at the root of the whole question. At the
same time, I should be guilty of a grave omission if I did
not dwell upon the despatch of Lord Castlereagh, written
during the Congress of Vienna, and which was characterised
by a vigour of language alike honourable to the man and to
the nation he represented. The Governments of Austria
and Prussia are both very much averse to the annexation Of
Poland, but being too timid to do so through their own
plenipotentiaries, they got Lord Castlereagh to be their
mouthpidce in remonstrating with the Emperor. The right
hon. gentleman then read an extract from a despatch of
Lord Castlereagh to Lord Liverpool, dated the 19th Octo-
ber, 1814, to the effect that Lord Castlereagh, believing that
the congress afforded Austria and Prussia an excellent ex-
pedient for making representations to Russia on the sub-
ject of the annexation of Poland without actually menacing
her with war, he had desired an interview with the King
of Prussia in order to impress on his Majesty the necessity
of Prussia's opposing every obstacle short of war to the
proposed arrangement. Shortly after that, Lord Castlereagh
was applied to formally to be the champion of the Austrian
and Prussian plenipotentiaries, Prince Metternich making
the proposal to Count Hardenburg, and Lord Castlereagh
accepted the invitation. With those credentials he wrote
to the Emperor on the 12th of October, 1814 :—" I do
not hesitate to declare my solemn conviction that it
depends exclusively upon the temper with which your
Majesty meets these proposals—those with respect
to the reconstitution of Poland—whether the present con-
gress proves a blessing or a misfortune for mankind." Very
shortly after that, a council of the three plenipotentiaries
was held at Lord Castlereagh's house, and a memorandum
was drawn up embodying three proposals, which were to be
submitted to the Emperor, and of these the first referred to
the reconstruction of the old kingdom of Poland. If the
Emperor would accept none, it was agreed that the pleni-
potentiaries should take their stand upon the first. Well,
the Emperor peremptorily rejected all three, and Lord Cas-
tlereagh found himself abandoned by Austria and Prussia.
The congress then became a scene of discord and entangle-
ment. However, the final triumph of Russia was shown by
the signature of England to the arrangement which she had
so strongly denounced. At the same time Lord Castlereagh
did not take leave of the congress without placing upon re-
cord his views as to the annexation of Poland ; and the lan-
guage which he then used might be taken without the
change of a single syllable, as the faithful history of the last
50 years. Prince Talleyrand states the views of France, and
he wrote to Lord Castlereagh on the 7th Jan., 1815, that
France shared the wishes of Great Britain for the indepen-
dence of Poland. To be sure, all this occurred so far back as
50 years ago; but, at the same time, things in Poland had
gone on from bad to worse, and from that day to this she has
been a standing reproach and an increasing difficulty to
Europe. The earnest warnings of Lord Castlereagh, there-
fore, instead of being weakened, gain authority from time
and solemnity from great events. The right hon. gentle-
man then read an extract from M‘Neile's work on " The
Progress of Russia," to show how enormous had been the
growth of Russia in recent times, and in order to justify
the apprehensions of the statesmen of 1815. I know (con-
tinued the right hon. gentleman) that some say the strength
of Russia has of late considerably diminished, Yes, at pre-
sent the vast distance of the extremities of the empire from
the centre of Uovernment is a source of weakness ; but in a
short time, when steam and iron diminish those distances,
Russia will stand forth more formidably than ever. The
right hon. gentleman then went on to oho,, that by gaining
her point in 1815 Russia had in reality reduced Austria and
Prussia to the position of second-tatePowers, and prevented
them from exercising any influence in Europe except that of
a perplexing character. And in the next place he recalled
the house to the events of 1831, to prove that what was now
happening was but a repitition of those events; in a word
that history repeated itself. Then, too, there was a joint
intervention on behalf of Poland ; but how did the Emperor
meet the remonstrance? Why, with the cold assertion that
Poland by insurrection had forfeited her right. Poland was
then incorporated with Russia. That, however, did not
satisfy Lord Palmerston, who pressed hard upon the Rasaian
Government. But, thus pressed by the noble lord the Rus-
sian Minister replied, utterly repudiating the Treaty of
Vienna, and closed the correspondence with the somewhat
startling and arrogant assertion that the Emperor was
thoroughly
determined to admit no foreign intervention in
the question, and he hopedggive
it
explanationsw ould be theup laston
atime j
subject
wouldt
which be called
uponhim himself alone. The right hon. gentleman
then detailed how the negotiations were finally brought to
concerned
a close by Lord Palmerston's declaration that remonstrance
was useless, unless the Powers were prepared to support it
by war. Well, the events of the presentf
'3l. Either of these courses
the repetition of the events o
year are merely
Have
the Government might have adopted, and either of them
could be intelligible or even safe. (Hear.)
the Go-
vernment adopted either of these courses ? They have not
adopted the first, because diplomacy has been renewed, and,
1' , that they
1831. But they have taken up the other Po icy
therefore they have abandoned the position they took in
should not speak unless they were prepared to strike. But
it was not a new policy which they have adopted, but the
old policy which had been formerly abandoned. But I will
let the despatches tell their own story. The precedent of
1831 was for some time longer continuously adhered to, and
the English Government were determined to protest, and
they appealed to Russia to respect the treaty of 1815. The
noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs could be at no
loss for the best form in which to convey the determination
of the Government to Russia. He had only to look in the
pigeon.holea of the Foreign-office, where he would find his
predecessor's despatch of 1831, which need only be copied
side, had the despatch of
Well, after ringing the changes upon and sent off to St. Petersbu Gortschakoff, on his
con-
gress pledges, the correspondence rNi necsas
conferencesel ro d e fo r piaan d cguide.on
snominnictee ended again with a polite
of State would
request from the Russian
be so good as
at attendh to his own busi-
ness, that the English Secre-
tarywSnoinsthe noble lord toookmellittle by his corre-
rnagiessn,ganitd put
abroad.do
insteadltnded whereo fen c ohui
8-
spondence, for in the end he found himTshe f
lhaanddeadver3ylthyienagrababteofroirge
e
before,
dy lastotadheoyf failed to
beuBPattohes of the
noblechief waslord
accomplish any good for Poland ;
English
diplomacy being more respected, the Pole found
the
circled more remorselessly about his neck at every fresh trope
Was this English policy or English levity ? If levity, after
what happened in 1831, it amounted to a crime. Do we ac-
cuse the Government for it ? I am glad to say that a closer
inspection of the correspondence shows a meaning and de-
sign sufficient to acquit the Government of levity, and at the
same time warns the house that there is danger to be appre-
hended from the opposite direction. A joint intervention
with France was declined in February by the Government
refusing to take action; and then they adopted a proceeding
which appeared to be a deliberate policy, and which was the

most judicious and effective proceeding they could heists
adopted, by which an entirely new aspect was given to the
Polish question. They addressed a circttlar to all the I'otVers
who were parties to the Treaty of Vienna, inviting them to
address communications to Rustia, and suggested that they
should be of the same spirited character which were before
addressed by them, And this was the Mont important point
in the whole correspondence. an was the turning point in
the policy of the 'Government, The right hon. gentleman
then read portions of the despatches No. 138 and No. 140,
which were written lay Lord Russell to Lord Cowley on the
9th of April; 1"-'063. The two despatches may be taken as
one, ten* the second only contained an explanation with re-
gard to the first; and more especially the purport of a con-
versation which he had with Baron Brunnow ; and the
house will agree with me that in this is to be found the real
key to the policy of the Government. Lord Russell then
states in his despatch to Lord Cowley that Baron Brunnow
called on him, and asked if the invitation addressed by her
Majesty's Government to the Powers of Europe was of a
pacific nature. To this Lord Russell replied that the inten-
tions of the Government were not otherwise than pacific;
and that, in like manner, their concert with foreign Powers
was no other than pacific; but still circumstances might
change, the present overtures might be rejected, the insur-
rection might continue, and if Russia adopted no measures
of a conciliatory nature, dangers and complications might
arise which were not then contemplated. (Hear.) In the
course of the conversation Baron Brunnow said that the
intentions of Russia were most kind and benevolent towards
Poland--(a laugb)--that there was a project for altering the
map of Europe; Russia wanted no territorial changes, and
wished to preserve the present map of Europe; to which the
noble lord the Foreign Secretary replied that Russia herself
was a party to carrying out territorial changes. (Hear.)
Did not the tendency of that policy imply, on the part of the
noble lord, " We begin with diplomacy, but if this fails,
there is something behind of which the Government of Russia
should beware." There is a profession of peace, but there
is also an unmistakable indication of war under certain
contingencies, every one of which has come to pass as if
inevitable and predetermined. I have no doubt, as the. oble
lord writes, that Baron Brunnow found this the most inte-
resting conversation he ever held. For at the end of every
pacific assurance the noble lord introduced the portentous
" but," which must have left a profound impression on the
mind of the Russian ambassador that Poland became a ques-
tion not to be trifled with. (Cheers.) The gravity of the
despatch was greatly increased by its immediate publication;
for before an answer could be received the despatch was
placed in the hands of the parliamentary printer and pub-
lished to Poland and the world. The early publication of
that despatch challenged our opinions upon it. We may
assume in dealing with the act of a Cabinet of sagacious
men that the effect produced was the effect intended ; for it
would be an insult to common sense to suppose that they
committed the puerile blunder of not meaning what was ex-
pressed. I have no hesitation in declaring my conviction
that the circular to the European Powers has been a diplo-
matic victory over Russia; for it is virtually an universal
condemnation of the cruel and aggressive policy of Russia
towards Poland. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman,
after referring to the great part taken by Lord Palmerston
in the historical proceedings embraced in the despatches,
said that the circumstances of Russia greatly changed since
1831. For example, in 1831 the despots of the North were
sure friends, and it was because of their then attitude that
France and England were compelled to fall back. But since
then great changes have taken place, which may bring the
present policy of the Cabinet into harmony with the policy
of 1831. That Holy Alliance of the North was dissolved.
Prussia was divided ; the nation on one side and on the other
the King, of whose abdication any telegram may bring in-
telligence. (Cheers.) In 1831 Russia was a colossal power,
with a large army, a powerful fleet, a numerous population,
and flourishing finances. Now her army was demoralised,
her fleet gone, her people in the throes of social convulsion,
and her finances disordered and embarrassed. Again, in
1831, Poland, though agitated, was not united. The in-
surrection was the insurrection of the nobles ; but the
middle classes were now in in arms against Russia; and if
the combination holds together and is well directed, it will
be impossible for Russia to it. (Cheers.) Under these cir-
cumstances, continued the right hon. gentleman, what
alternative had Russia but to submit ? But he was mis-
taken. Russia had a friend that stepped in at the critical
moment to rob Europe of its wise policy, and to secure for
Russia immunity for the past and endless future opportu-
nities of committing her worst designs. Austria stepped in
—Austria, that was itself the despoiler of Poland—Austria,
that had been the chief sinner against the liberty and en-
lightenment of Europe—Austria, the theatre of whose
crimes had been Italy, Hungary, and Poland, and whose
modern political history was the blackest in Europe. (Hear,
hear.) And yet this was the Power that now claimed equal
voice with England and France in the cause of justice and
freedom. They were told that that was all changed now,
and that the Government of Austria was a wise Govern-
ment, and was overflowing with sympathy for Poland. If
so, why did she not give play to her sympathies nearer
home, and give to Venetia and Hungary what she seemed
to wish for Poland? (Hear, hear.) No, he should tell his
hon. and learned friend the member for Sheffield that so
long as Austria continued to play the tyrant and tormentor
wherever she had the power to do so—(cries of " Oh, oh,"
and " Hear, hear")—we could not believe her to be the
sincere friend of Poland, and that in allying herself with
England and France she must obey and not pretend to dic-
tate ; ier Austrian Ministers knew that independent action
on their part in Poland, or a declaration on the side of
Russia, would be followed by revolution and the dismem-
berment of their own empire.
Mr. ROEB CCK—That is all rubbish. (Cries of " Oh,
oh," " Order," and laughter.)
Mr. HORSMAN continued : Austria was unfortunately
admitted to an equal voice in the council, and the result
was the production of a document on her part which he could
not but characterise as a mischievous combination of politi-
cal imbecility and hypocrisy, and as to which it was diffi-
cult to say whether the House of Commons should regard
it with shame or humiliation. There was nothing in the
smallest degree practical in the points which she submitted,
na
don
tdt
beenig] sTupde eohi
and had they been adopted by England and France they
would have been as delusive to the Poles as ruinous to
Europe. It wastherefore fortunate that Earl Russell added
a postcript, and insisted upon three other conditions—the
acceptance of the six points, the proclamation of an armis-
tice, and a conference of the Powers that signed the Treaty
of Vienna, These last conditions made England safe, and
not only preserved her the vantage-ground in the negotia-
tions, but were a protection to Poland itself. They had now
the Russian answer, which was an unqualified rejection of
everything that England had proposed ; and accordingly
the question they had to decide was brought within the nar-
rowest possible compass. They made the Emperor of Russia
King of Poland under the conditions of the Treaty of
Vienna. They recognised no title to sovereignty but what
that treaty gave him ; and if he were not King of Poland by
treaty, he was not King of Poland at all. The Emperor, on
the other hand, claimed to be king by conquest; but, as he
was no more king by conquest than was the Pope of Rome
King of Italy by marriage—(laughter)—the result was
that there was no King of Poland at all. It would
be impossible for the Emperor of Russia to draw a dis-
tinction between his Russian and Polish subjects ; for
were not the landed proprietors and townspeople of
Luthuania, Podolia, and Volhynia as much Polish as the
Polish kingdom, and would they not remain in a chronic
state of insurrection unless the same advantages were given
to them as were given to Poland ? And so far from the
papers and protocols settling the question of Poland, he
looked upon them as dishonest invitations to Europe to per-
petuate her calamities and dangers. Indeed, they might
save themselves a great deal of trouble, for the Emperor of
Russia had told them that he would not have their con-
gress kingdom, and he had told them what they all knew,
that he could not and would not rule Poland different to the
rest of his kingdom. By telling the Poles they were justi-
fihtehedusiasdinsasiiadts.atiking up arms against the sovereign we had given
them, they had irritated Russia. They had advised the
Poles to treat the Russian amnesty with the same con-
tempt as the Emperor of Russia has treated their constitu-
tion, and they had followed it—and how, he asked, did her
less,phaohad
a n
Majesty's Government intend to follow that advice up ?
—t
the
applying
up lct yr ionwgn whichetdo
The Poles were fighting for their nationality and nothing
distinction—that
eortbaGninhr.
.oeoaovyui
ft peghilnhaen
nationalities
thti mean
oe
they
light
hrgivetocil
nai
proclaimed
Idst
newmlh
Italy—but
byyy
Government
ta
latterit i
consideredwbay s divine
madethethey did
overdi ii
dg
absolutely
bt
good
ooitt
ewwlyoi
work
with
Austria,R while Poland was only entrusted conditionally to
with reference to recent events in Italy, and the Chancellor
of the Exchequer always referred with pride to his belong-
ing to a Government that came in at the eleventh hour to
secure Italy for the Italians. No doubt they did a good
work then, and they deserved and had obtained a lasting
gratitude for it; but could he not inform them that the case
of Poland was much stronger than that of Italy, which
was delivered by foreign armies, and not by treaties?
Poland was, indeed, a theme sufficient to inspire the elce
quence of a just and generous statesman, who united a
love for freedom with respect for laws, He believed there
was not a Minister whose conscience had not told
him what every reflecting man feels, that Poland was the
ward of Europe, and England her legally constituted guar-
dian ; and how then, he asked, could they as a Christian
Legislature, without committing
a fresh crime—greater
than any that had preceded it—deliver up Poland to the
hands of that Power whom their experience had
or just for
told them no oaths could bind,
(Hear, heart)e
God
suffering could move to mercy.
forbid that by such a crime committed totvards
Poland our Government should efface what they
had-done in Italy. No, let them rather recognise in Poland,
as in Italy, an historic though fallen nation, preyed by
suffering, elevated by patriotism, taught by the past,
and
aspiring to a new and better future ; and as they had gained
some credit to themselves and done some service by pro-
claiming Italy for the Italians, so let them not be wanting
now in courage, virtue, and wisdom to proclaim Poland for
the Poles, and so make some reparation to her in her
rising by welcoming her back into the brotherhood of nat-
t (Rear.) lons.
Much, however, as he desired it, and ar-
dently as he advocated it, he should not have ventured to
suggest anything so bold if her Majesty's Government had
not led the way, The manner in which they had expanded
our alliance with France
into a great European combine-
ion had bee t n most able and masterly ; but the despatches

left only one logical deduction is lie dratin from them, viz.,
the irasteration of Roland as the adopted policY of the Cabi-
net, which would be speedily and gladly accepted by the
people of England. The question whether it was possible
to accomplish it without hating recourse to war was not
difficult of solution, nor was it discouraging. It, however,
in his opinion, depended solely on Austria, and whether she
would or would not make restitution of Gallicia was the one
question on which every other eventually depended. If she
would come forward boldly, wisely, honourably, and freely
and make restitution of Gallicia, Russia must, on the same
grounds, relinquish Poland. (Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK—That's not very likely.
Mr. HORSMAN—His hon. and learned friend said that
was not very likely, and no doubt he would say, How could
they expect Austria and Russia to give up territory without
equivalents; but what could they require better as equiva-
lents than being placed in safety ? Was it, he asked, no
gain to a monarchy like Austria to have her territory more
guarded and secure, her commerce freely and uninterrupt
edly developed, to have the constantly recurring danger of
the Eastern question diminished, and her status resumed
as an independent power in Europe. On the contrary,
he thought the advantage to Austria, politically, commer-
cially, and nationally, arising from her being relieved from
the Russian incubus, would be so great that, instead of
asking for equivalents, Austria would be only too glad to
purchase them by the relinquishment of territory acquired
by such crimes. No Government in the world had more
interest than England in maintaining Austria as a strong
power in Europe ; but that could only be acquired
by her becoming liberal and progressive. (Hear, hear.)
But if Austria refused to do so, what then ? There were
some papers in the despatches which he grieved to say led
them to that view of the question; and there were others
from which they might infer that the English Government
might think that Austria would be justified in doing so,
and to some extent in countenancing her in that course ;
but, if so, would England adhere to Austria and leave
France to follow her own councils? (Hear, hear.) So
long as Austria holds her grip on Gallicia, so long she for-
bids the solution of the question. And should England
falter by the side of Austria, what France would do no
one could venture fortosapye,rorof France the beat of
did no
alllreasot knns, be-
causeow perhaps the Emperor
himself what he would do—(hear, hear)—but in that very
uncertainty consisted the danger. (Hear, hear.) No one
could possibly tell what public opinion in France might
require the Emperor to do. It was our Ministers who
had fanned the flame, for Europe would never have
moved in the matter if England had not given her
countenance to the movement ; and he besought them to
remember that the Polish question united all parties in
France ; for their love of Poland they would make it a
holy war, and they would unite all liberal Europe in
support of that champion who came forward to battle
in behalf of Poland. The combination against Russia was
the work of England, and he hoped her Majesty's Govern-
ment would keep their position at the head of the movement;
but if England abandoned Poland they might rely upon it
that, when the time came, France would be compelled to
take it. The answer to the question could only be given by
the noble lord at the head of the Government, who had
made it especially his own property, and the old spirit of
1831 unmistakeably pervaded the despatches. It was to the
noble lord that they must look to correct that feeble utter-
ance, and to counteract the mischievous hallucinations
which appeared in high places. A saying had lately been
attributed to our Foreign Secretary, of so ignominious a
character that those who knew that noble lord when he was
in that house deemed it to be incredible, viz., that, however
much the honour and interests of England demanded it, or
the safety of Europe required it, England would on no ac-
count draw the sword for Poland. (Hear, hear.) Another
statement, equally incredible, was attributed to a noble earl
who had been, and might hope to be again, Prime Minister
of England, that if Poland obtained her independence it
would not only be without the goodwill, but contrary to the
judgment, the wish, and the desire of England. (Hear.)
The first observation was so unstatesmanlike that it must
be a libel on the Cabinet; and the second was a libel on
that nation whose generous character he was believed to
represent—(hear)—and therefore he must look to the noble
lord at the head of the Government to vindicate the national
policy and the English character, by publicly repudiating,
in the name of the Cabinet and the country, these ignoble
sentiments. (Hear, hear.) Thenoble lord's career as a Mini-
ster
of the Crown had been one of unexampled duration,with
a constantly acquiring popularity,and he called on him to act
on this occasion in a manner that would crown his career with
laurels rather than a wreath of cypress. (Hear.) No doubt the
question was surrounded with difficulties and complications,
but there was no true-hearted Englishman who did not wish
the noble lord success, and there was no lover of freedom in
the world who would not bless him for his exertions in
establishing the nationality of the Poles. If, therefore, to
advance was difficult and surrounded with danger, to re-
treat was absolute ruin, for there was no middle course, and
the Government could not halt between two opinions.
(Hear, hear.) Knowing as they all did the difficulties, the
responsibilities, and the anxieties that surrounded the task
her Majesty's Government had undertaken, he felt bound
to do his utmost to support them in it. After a most care-
ful and critical examination of the papers, he had come to
the conclusion, which was shared in by others whose
oipaitnioionnss,
takenwere as a
more
whole,valua had beenblethanh so conductedisown,thatt thhensz o-
tif
her Majesty's Government did not now abandon them them-
selves, they ought not to be and would not be abandoned by
Parliament or the country. (Hear, hear.) He moved " That,
in the opinion of this house, the arrangements made with
gy thev er n
nr
ee
na tt y
oef f V i e n n
Poland a
ohr a vt
he e f
pa
ei a e
od e
oft of
sr
ee
eguarred ttoh Pe ogl aono
dd
Europe ; and any further attempt to replace Poland under
hoafr r
athat
etnr
te a
at
dmust
dangercause
Ec au
rl
oa es to
t he
Polandconadnitdioenms
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—My
right hon. friend has addressed the house in a speech to
eGovernmente
rle
nme
ea
sy, s a y
towards th a ti, t
se xecl
oe
spet, i
tno the
e
which I have listened with deep interest, and on behalf of
her Majesty's
shortlanguage but vheer y
supposes was uttered by Earl Russell in ano-
ther pace, I think we can have no reason to complain, so
far as we are concerned, of the spirit in which has discussed
this question. But it appears to me that on the whole it
partook of too sanguine, and, therefore, of too speculative a
character, In the latter part of his speech the right hon.
gentleman grappled with the question What is Poland,and
what it ought to be ; and that if Austria only surrendered
Gallicia, then everything else would follow. In another
portion of his speech my right honourable friend re-
ferred to the all-powerful effect of the monosyllable "but"
introduced into the middle of a sentence. There was another
monosyllable which, it occurred to me at the time, would
be just as omnipotent, and that was when he spoke of the
surrender of Gallicia by Austria. But, supposing that
happy expectation were realised, then, says my right hon.
friend, the surrender of Posen by Prussia would follow as a
matter of course. That may be clear to the mind of my right
hon. friend, but I confess it is not at all certain that it is so
clear to the mind of Prussia—whether by that name we re-
fer simply to that King of Prussia whose abdication the
ight hon. gentleman again—somewhat sanguine, as I
think—expects from day to day, or to the whole Prussian
people. (Hear, hear.) But I think my right hon, friend
is equally sanguine when he supposes that upon the sur•
render of Gallicia by Austria and of Posen by Prussia there
would be a reconstruction of the Polish nation. (Hear,
hear.) it seemed to me that there were parts of the speech
of my able and eloquent as he was,
didnotricgohhterhe°ll withfrioetnhcie which,
rparts. When he spoke of the strug-
gles of Poland and the wrongs done to the Poles by the
Russians, he seemed to limit his views to the portion of
Poland within the duchy of Warsaw ; but when he spoke of
the reconstruction of Poland he seemed to speak of all those
portions of Europe inhabited wholly or in part by the Polish
race, I confess when I look to the whole of his speech I
am amazed at the sanguine expectations of my right hon.
friend. To detach Gallicia from Austria, Posen from Prussia,
to sever the whole mass of the Polish provinces from Russia,
would be a task so gigantic as to be not only beyond the
scope of the powers of any Government, but beyond even
the scope of political speculation as understood in this
house. My right hon. friend has given us an interesting
review of the history of Poland; but, however that picture
may rouse our feelings of horror, shame, and indignation,
we must also consider that the position of the Emperor
of Russia deserves some consideration. (Hear, hear.) I
cannot think that the house has forgotten the words of my
noble friend at the head of the Government on another oc-
casion, wbo said that we ought to feel some consideration for
the Emperor of Russia, who had had the misfortune to in-
herit an empire of triumphant wrong. (Hear, hear.) When
we look at the courage with which Ile has faced political
problems of the highest order, and the success which had
attended his efforts, we cannot but feel regret that he should
have been brought into a position so unhappy as the pre-
sent. But when the historical review of my right hon. friend
reached 1831, he put a construction upon the policy of Eng-
land which, I think, was not altogether just. We did pro,
test against the annexation of Cracow, but without the aid
of armies, However, if I understood my right hon, friend
rightly, our course should have been war or nothing. Now,
when he gave us his opinion about Austria, he should re-
member that upon Austria and the German Powers we must
depend, if we wished to force from Russia what we believe
to be just and right. I have also heard what he has said of
the Emperor of the French and his intentions ; but I think
I have heard him allude to the Emperor, in this house, in
somewhat different terms. If France is a Power dangerous
from her ambition, is it not dangerous for him to recommend
a great combination of the Powers of Europe, in which our
chief dependence must be upon Austria,Prussia, and France?
It is only by combination such a war can be carried on, and
it must be prosecuted in perfect unity of purpose and une-
quivocal abnegation of selfish purposes. That was the un-
derstanding during the Crimean war, and it was honour-
ably adhered to by France. How does France stand now
with Poland ? A war with Russia would be a war over
all Europe, and it would require the courage of my right
hon. friend himself to take even a mental view of the dan-
gers that beset the very first stage in the course of re-esta-
blishing Poland by military force. The giving up of the
Duchy of Warsaw by Russia would not much help the
cause of Poland ; but if the right honourable gentleman
meant that Russia should give up all herßusso •Polish pro-
vinces, then I say his intellectual boldness alarms and con-
fuses me. (Hear.) The social amalgamations produced by
several goner ations of alliance lead to relationship so close

that a severance becomes extremely difficult; so much so,
that T do not think this Government, nor any which may
succeed it, would attempt t }rine it dent. rhea comes
his other alternative, that if we did not go td at we ought
to have done nothing, and said nothing. That would not
have been consistent with the policy of England since 1831,
and would have been altogether impossible, having regard
to the state of public feeling both in this country and in
France. The right honourable gentleman said that the time
taken by Russia for her reply showed the importance at-
tached to the message ; but that very circumstance, I think,
justified the action. We have adopted the policy of Mr.
Canning when the French invaded Spainin 1823, and when
he confined himself to diplomatic interference. It has been
admitted that every party to a treaty may interpret it in the
way most conducive to his own interests. But my right hon.
friend likewise adverted to a despatch of Earl Russell dated
the 10th of April, as making a great change in the policy of
the Government. He took that as a starting point from
which the contingency of war was first brought into view.
My right hon friend describes the despatch as a menace to
Russia ; but to my mind it bears no such interpretation.
My right hon. friend draws a very broad conclusion from
very narrow limits ; what my right hon. friend calls a
menace of war, I call a wise reservation of discretion, ab-
solutely necessary under the circumstances. Who was to
answer for it that the Polish question could be confined
to the limits of Poland t Who was to answer for it that
the festering sore should not spread over a much larger
portion of the body of Europe? (Hear, hear.) We
had to consider the attitude of Prussia, and it was im-
possible not to see that the attitude assumed by Prussia
might involve other Continental Governments in the
struzgle. Under these circumstances, was it not wise, in
giving a pacific assurance, to assert that that assurance had
reference to the then limits of the question ? Still my right
hon. friend thinks that great results have followed in Poland
from the diplomatic action of her Majesty's Government,
and that the anticipation of the Poles of aid from without has
been altogether founded upon the proceedings taken by the
British Government. (Hear, hear.) Well, but that inter-
pretation of my right hon. friend is unsupported by anything
in the nature of evidence ; can he produce any authorita-
tive authentic declaration to connect the prolonged resist-
ance of the Poles with the proceedings of her Majesty's
Government ? On the other hand, he knew that the expec-
tation of foreign aid is the very first feeling to propagate
itself on the weaker side in all struggles. For example, he
knew that it influenced the outbreak of the great struggle.
But, so far as that species of vague encouragement went, it
did not depend upon the Government to decide whether such
encouragement should be given. We saw committees
formed and subscriptions made ; we heard of motions—nay,
debates took place in this house—which were much more
calculated to stimulate hopes of foreign intervention than
anything said or done by her Majesty's Uovernment. With
regard to the position in which we now stand, my right
hon. friend has not pressed the Government for any declara-
tion of our future intentions. I think he has felt that, an
important despatch having been laid upon the table this
evening, it is obvious that any further development of our
future policy at such a moment would be inappropriate.
Acting as we have done, in concert with other Powers, it is
the absolute duty of the Government to take counsel with
those other Powers as to what should be our decision in
the matter. But my right hon. friend invites us to make
a solemn renunciation of the treaty of Vienna. Well, to
condemn the treaty of Vienna may be the first step on the
road on ehich we are invited to travel. Still, it is
a very lame, impotent, and inadequate declaration on the
part of Parliament. Limited as the motion is, it is not one
which it is desirable for this house to adopt. Whether the
case of Poland is parallel to that of Italy, I will not under-
take to say. All I will say is, that her Majesty's Govern-
ment have pursued the same course with regard to Poland
as they did with respect to Italy ; that is, by intervention
strictly diplomatic, we used our good offices to serve the
cause. But whether the possibilities of the case are the
same, that is another matter. What we have in view with
respect to Italy has been this :—We felt that no Govern-
ment ought to commit itself in a cause except where it was
righteous, and that no cause was really righteous in regard
to its being taken up by a Government unless its objects are
practical and attainable. That is a most important modifi•
cation ; and, in the case of Italy, I do not think that the
Government recommended anything which was not strictly
practical. But would any benefit be conferred upon Poland
by condemning the treaty of Vienna ? Are we to regard the
treaty of Vienna as something injurious to Poland ? If we
were to surrender the treaty of Vienna, the result would be
to leave the Poles subjects of Russia by conquest; and we
should depart from the only ground according to which we
have a right to address Russia on the subject of Poland.
For that reason I trust the house will be disposed not to
adopt the motion. It may be little that can be hoped for in
this question from any intervention, diplomatic or other.
wise. Its intrinsic difficulties, which my right hon. friend
seems to regard as light, are, I fear, enormous. The con-
sequences of former misdeeds dog and follow not only those
who have inflicted the wrong, but those who have suf-
fered it. To undo and repair political crimes—especially
after long subsistence—is in many cases beyond the
power of man. If in Italy there might be redress for
wrongs inflicted through a long course of generations,
that might be perhaps a happy and peculiar case. In
the case of Poland, I trust that no British Government
will ever shrink from any effort to obtain by practical and
legitimate means whatever is possible for that gallant, un-
happy, and long suffering people. (Cheers.) But, with
these feelings, it would be a betrayal of our duty were we
to accede to a motion which, brought forward as it undoubt-
edly is by one of the ablest and most enthusiastic advocates
of Poland, would really rather told to weaken her position,
by depriving friendly Powers of the only basis of right to
warrant future efforts in so righteous a cause. (Cheers.)
Mr. HENNESSY said it might not be fair to ask the
Government what their intentions were with regard to the
Russian reply ; but it would be fair to ask what the wishes
of the people of England were with reference to the ques-
tion of Poland. Upon very many questions of foreign
policy that house was often in advance of the people of Eng-
land ; but the case was very different as regarded Poland;
for iu everything that concerned the prosperity and inde-
pendence of that country, the English people were more in-
terested than Parliament. This was known by the nume-
rous petitions sent to both houses, and by the speeches and
resolutions at public meetings in all the large towns of the
kingdom. He would turn to Austria, and upon this point
he was compelled to differ from his right hon. friend who
opened the discussion. He denied that the Austrian people
and Government were opposed to Poland. There was a
party there, no doubt, unfriendly to Poland ; but a large
portion of the Government and people, and he believed he
might include the Emperor with them, were favourable to
Poland. But it was necessary that Austrian statesmen
should act with caution, for he could inform the house
upon reliable data that there were no leas than 100,000
Poles in the army of Austria, including infantry, cavalry,
artillery, and miscellaneous corps, The hon. member then
showed, by reference to official documents, that it was a
mistake to suppose that the treaty of Vienna only included
the Duchy of Warsaw ; the Russian provinces of Poland
were also comprised within the terms of the treaty. He
believed that no war in the present century would be more
popular in France than a war for the independence of Po-
land, and he equally believed that the Emperor of the
-French would not make such a war the pretext for terri-
torial aggrandisement. He could not agree in the praises
lavished by his right hon. friend upon the noble lord at the
head of the Government for his policy in 1831 with regard
to Poland. At that time Louis Philippe applied to the noble
lord to mediate in favour of Poland, but the noble lord re-
fused to do anything but write despatches. The hon. mem-
ber then read passages from the last reply of Prince Gorts-
chakoff, in which the prince tauntingly refers to the foreign
element in the Polish insurrection—but he denied the as-
sertion, and showed that the Russian Gazette itself stated
that the movement in Poland was made up of small far-
mers, the lower class of officials, students of the universi-
ties, and the artisans in towns. The hon. gentleman then
defended the Polish national Government, ,and after dis-
claiming the cruelties which were laid to the charge of the
Polishinsurgents he claimed for that nation justice and
freedom.

Mr. KINGLAKE thought that the hon. gentleman op-
posite (Mr. Hennessy) had not done much for the cause he
advocated by exalting the anonymous Government of War-
saw. It was the, great difficulty of the British Government
that that Government was nothing but a vast secret so-
ciety, and nobody knew who it was we were supposed to
deal with. With regard to the remarks of the right hon.
member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) as to the history of
Poland from 1815, he seemed to forget that at that period
the Russians were the strongest party to the arrangement,
and that Lord Castlereagh used his best efforts to modify
the treaty. It had been a treaty, however, without gua-
rantees, and he thought it very unreasonable now to com-
mence a proposal for a triple alliance, by calling one of
the parties imbecile and hypocritical, and asking her to
dismember her empire. It was a very remarkable fact,
however, that the Gallicians themselves were ta
ot by any
means anxious to be separated from Austria to join
a secret society. (Hear, hear.) (The hon. gentleman
then read some extracts from a speech of Chevalier
Krocoski, the member for Gallicia in the Austrian Parlia-
ment, to that effect.) Altogether he condemned the policy
of finding fault with the treaty of Vienna just now, seeing
that was the only chance left to go upon.
Mr. PEACOCKE said there was not much in the right
hon. gentleman's resolution, but there was a good deal in
his speech, and if be had meant all he had said in his speech
about going to war he ought to have put that into his roso-
lution. The hon, member then argued that some of the
conditions embodied in the six points were not such as
Russia could accept, and he called on the house not to ac-
cede to the motion, but to throw the whole responsibility of
relieving the country from a position of difficulty and danger
upon the shoulders of the Government.

Sir F. GOLDSMlDconciem—;d the course followed by
the Government, and went into a variety of facts to prove
that the Jews of Poland, who might be counted by millions,
were heal t and hand in the national movement.

Mr. NE WDEGATE said, as a general opponent of the
Government, he was prepared to leave the negotiations in
their hands, and he came down to the house for the purpose
of opposing the resolution of the right hon. member for
Stroud. No power in Europe had done more for freedom
in the present century than Russia in the emancipation of
her serfs.

Lord H, VANE approved the course taken by the noble