The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-27 00:00:00

course that would be pursued in regard to enabling the public
to witness the review of the volunteers in Hyde-park next
Saturday.
Mr COWPER said that Government was anxious to
afford every facility to the public to witness the spectacle,
and tickets would be sent to members of the house and
other gentlemen, but no person would be admitted without
such ticket.
THE ALLEGED LETTERS OF MR. JEFFERSON

DAVIS AND LORD J. RUSSELL.
Mr. J. HANKEY drew attention to the two documents
which had appeared in two of the daily papers, and asked
for some information relative to the same.

... .._
Mr. LAYARD said he believed these letters were a hoax,
and not a very ingenious one. (A laugh.)

POLAND.
On the motion for going into committee of supply,
Mr. HENNESSY moved the following resolutions :
—.l. That the negotiations of her Majesty's Government
respecting Poland have not terminated in a satisfactory
manner. 2. 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. 3.
That this house is of opinion that her Majesty's Government
is no longer bound to recognise the sovereignty of Russia
in Poland. The hon. and learned member commenced by
alluding to the opinion that prevailed in quarters entitled to
great respect as to the connection that subsisted between the
present affairs of Poland and Denmark, and he repeated the
charge made against the Government, namely, that the
present unfortunate condition of Poland was attributable to

the policy they had pursued. He then reviewed the early
condition of Poland, the high literary and social position
she occupied centuries back amongst the principal powers
of Europe, and dwelt on the religious freedom that pre-
vailed in that country from an early period. He went in de-
tail into the different despatches which had emanated frotu
the Foreign.office, when disturbances broke out in Poland;
he contended that the necessary information as to the de-
spatches between this country and other foreign states re-
lative to the affairs of Poland had not been supplied to the
house. He bad seen in the papers an account of ladies
having been thrown into prison for no other offence than
that they had assisted the sick and wounded Poles, The
noble viscount was to blame for a good deal of what had
happened in Poland. Poland had a chance since 1831, when
the noble lord was in office, and he had not done so much
for Poland as he ought, and as he could. It had often
struck him (Mr. Hennessy) that that was owing to the dis-
regard which the noble lord had sometimes shown for public
laws. In his maiden speech, delivered in that house on the
3d of February, 1808, the noble lord laid down a principle
of policy which he has followed more or less throughout his
whole career. He said, " There are times when the law of
nations must be broken_" Now, he (Mr. Hennessy) main-
tained that the law of nations must be upheld. After re-
ferring to the declaration made by Earl Russell at Blair-
gowrie, to the effect that Russia had forfeited her dominion
over Poland. eight days before that declaration was made
the noble earl had consulted the French Government on the
subject, and they were of opinion that it ought to be made.
Subsequently Earl Russell embodied that declaration in a
despatch, dated 20th October, 1863, which was forwarded
to St. Petersburg. When, however, Lord Napier privately
communicated its contents to Prince Gortschakoff, that
Minister observed that it was a very grave matter, for her
Majesty's Government to declare that Russia had forfeited
her sovereignty in Poland. Then Count Bismark, who re-
ceived early information of the nature of the despatch, wrote
to the British Government and threatened to make it a
cams bell if the despatch were delivered to Prince Gortcha-
koff. The French Government, however, pursued a very
different course. M. Drouyn de Lhuys wrote a short de-
spatch to French Minister at St. Petersburg, stating that
the French Government were entirely in accord with the
declaration contained in Earl Russell's despatch. What was
done by Earl Russell ? After two days delay that despatch,
which bore his signature, and had the approval of his
Sovereign and the sanction of the Cabinet, was recalled.
(Opposition cheers.) The last sentence, and the only one
of any importance, was then struck out, and the despatch
was communicated to the Russian Government. The value
of the declaration made at Blairgowrie could hardly be
overrated, and he thought the house might at least ask, as
it had been publicly made to the Queen's subjects by our
Foreign Minister, that that declaration might be communi-
cated to Russia by her Majesty's Government. The revo-
lutionary and Conservative parties on the continent, and
the Emperor of the French, entertained the same feelings
with regard to Poland ; and in Poland itself every man of
intelligence, of education, or of property—every man who
was moved by moral duty and religious zeal every man who
(leserved to be a citizen—was in favour of the independence
of his country. The sympathy evinced in this country on
behalf of the struggling Poles was shown in a most touch-.
ing and affecting manner the other day at a fete for the sick
and wounded Poles, In conclusion, he hoped the Govern-
ment would remember the opinions expressed by the wisest
of politicians and the most powerful rulers of men. Edmund
Burke, Talleyrand, and Lord Castlereagh had all declared
the independence of Poland to be inevitable, and Napoleon I
recorded that the independence of Poland was essential to
Europe, and was a certainty in the future, Prince Louis
Napoleon some years ago declared that Poland was the
sister of France, and the Emperor Napoleon 111. had re-
published that sentiment in his exile, and not many months
since, speaking from his throne, had reiterated the rights Of
Poland. Those rights were written is the public law and
in its practical effect when supported by an enlightened and
universal popular will, so long he should never despair of
Poland. (Loud cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON said —Although there is much in
the speech of the hon. gentleman with which I entirely and
cot dially agree, I cannot concur in the conclusion at
which he has arrived, and I certainly shall vote for going
into committee of supply instead of agreeing with his
amendment. I shall net follow the hon. member through
the historical details of the earlier period of the Polish na-
tion. I agree entirely with him in the condemnation which
he has pronounced of that great European crime, the parti-
tion of Poland. I entirely concur with him—it is needless
to say so—in the censure and condemnation which he has
passed on the conduct of Russia throughout the whole of
her relations in connection with Poland. (Hear.) I might
indeed remark of that part of the speech of the hon. gentle-
man, but reversing the sentiment, Quis vituperaverit Her-
culem ?—who has palliated, justified, or excused the con-
duct of Russia towards Poland? But that is not the ques-
tion whieh tie house is this evening called upon to decide.
The hon. member condemned the conduct of her Majesty's
Government in respect of its recent transactions with regard
to Poland. I do not revert to those former periods, be-
cause they really have nothing to do with the issue at
,re-
sent before us. But though the hon. member in It'
.48 reso-
lution says the efforts which her Majesty's '-da,eramen,
have made in favour of Poland have nci-
been successful,
yet I am at a loss to understand fee,
ee him what we have
not done, and what we ought to nave done. He says it is
our fault that we have not teen more successful with respect
to Poland. Bat 1 app to the memory of the hon. member
in the whole course of last year,
himself to say wh-,,her,
when he was `..njoining upon us to exert the influence of
G-eat Bri'.,ain in favour of Poland—whether he did not re-
peater:4 say that he did not ask for war—that he did not
af‘ec for the display of arms—but that he wanted diplomatic
assistance; and especially he said it was his wish that the
influence of England should be exerted to obtain from all
the principal Powers of Europe a concurrence of opinion as
to the violation of ber engagements under the treaty of 1815,
Well, we did an the hon. gentleman asked us to do. We
did go to the utmost extent in length of diplomatic oxen
lion. We did succeed in getting most of the leading Powers
to concur with us in representing at St. Petersburg the
manner in which Russia had tailed to perform her engage-
ments under the treaty of 1815, and we exhorted her to
perform these engagements, and to deal differently with the
Polish nation. What was the next step, then, that we had
to take ? Why, there were only two things to be done.
Either to cease representations, which, however respectable
and powerful the quarter from which they came, had not
been attended with success; or to do that which the right
lion, member for Bucks upon a former occasion described as
an act of insanity—to go to war with Russia. Well, sir,
we were not insane ; we did not at any moment of time
contemplate going to war for the sake of Poland. (Hear,
hear.) My noble friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs
has stated that more than once in his place in Parliament,
iht e who
nunl d. hg
ea
nv
te
ebeen asna7acs
tthaotf
roThafterneesasr et
of Itanvye rdeLsoe n,so,WhyT
upon one occasion we declined the co-operation of Austria
and France in favour of Poland. why, sir, he afterwards
mentioned with condemnation the conduct which Austria is
now pursuing with respect to the Poles in Gallieia ; and is
it likely that Austria, having Gallicia, and Prussia, having
Posen, both of which aro fragments of the Polish nation,
would have concurred in an attack upon Russia to compel
her to perform her engagements under the treaty of 1815 ?
Why, sir, it would have been impossible. Well, then,
as to France. For many years the French Legislature
passed annually resolutions somewhat !similar to that
which the hon. member now proposes to the Reels, of
Commons. But at last the French Legislature felt that
they were placing 'themselves in an undignified position
by passing resolutions which were not followed up by
practical aela on the part of the executive Government,
and they abstained from doing so. (Hear, hear.) If the
hon. gentleman asks me whether, in my opinion, Russia
has not forfeited that right to Poland which she obtained
1 under the Treaty of Vienna, because she has not fulfilled
the corresponding engagements *of that treaty, I should
be very much disposed to agree with him, (Cheers.) But
1 say it would be undignified in this house formally to pro-
nounce that opinion unless it was prepared to follow it up
by an address to the Crown, to give effect to the declaration
of forfeiture, If ivo were prepared to go to war to-morrow,
and follow up that sentence of forfeiture by execution—it
we were prepared, either singly or in conjunction with any
other power. to go to Poland,
and say to Russia, Not only
have you forfeited your riehts, but we mean to rescue Poland
from you—in that case I could understand the propriety of
coming to such a decision as ,hie. But to pronounce such
a decision, without being prepared to act up to it, would be
not only placing as in an undignified, but even in it
ridiculous position. (Hear, hear) But has this country a
rightl singly to deal with the question? Does Russia posse`
soli ?d
y j7tieof a treaty between her
, an
of Thea
Warsaw was
o it
gy Vienna,e4 t o
itoypow,,,itiaicwha: onion ol the Duchy

signed not only by England, but by France, Spain,
Portugal, and Sweden. England by herself, therefore, has
no right to dispute the treaty; and a declaration of Eng-
land alone would not be valid as putting an end to the rights
of Russia. But the hon. member says the Poles are most
anxious that this house should pronounce such an opinion.
I can only say that if that is the case the Poles are very
shortsighted. What happened after the insurrection of
'3l-'32 ? That insurrection was suppressed by the arms of
Russia—it was suppressed with the passive co-operation
of Prussia. We remonstrated with the Russian Govern-
moat for abolishing the constitution which the Emperor
Alexander had granted. What was the Emperor's reply ?
tie said, You have no right now to appeal to she Treaty
of Vienna; I don't hold Poland by virtue of the treaty of
Vienna—l hold Poland by the sword. It revolted, but
I have subdued it, and, therefore, it is mine by the
right of conquest, and you have no more right to talk to
me about my treatment of Poland than of any other por-
tion of my empire. Well, we gained a considerable step
in our recent negotiations with Russia; because, in defer-
ence to the collective opinion of Europe, the Russian Go-
vernment admitted that they do hold Poland by virtue of
the Treaty of Vienna, and that they are bound by the stipu-
lations of that treaty. They said, however, they could not
fulfil those obligations as long as the insurrection was going
on, but that when order and tranquillity were restored they
would do what they were bound to do. Now, surely that
is a much better condition for the Poles to be in than if we
were now to unsay that which we have hitherto said, and
to throw them back upon the declaration of 1832. I say,
in the well-understood interest of the Poles, such a declara-
tion as that would be as injurious as anything this house
could do with respect to the Polish question. I therefore
hope the house, notwithstanding the eloquent statement of
the hon. gentleman—notwithstanding his statement regard-
ing the wrongs which Poland has had to endure at all times
—the cruelties practised upon her, and especially of late, by
agents of the Russian Government—will not be led away
by its feelings to act in a manner which reason forbids them
to act in, and will not take away from the Poles the only
remaining diplomatic protection which the Treaty of Vienna
gives them, and deprive them of that shelter, trifling as it
may be. The hon, member has stated very truly that the
Poles have manifested a decree of national feeling, and an
attachment to their native country, a power of endurance,
and a courage and an enters rise, almost unexampled in his-
tory. Bat the more you admire the Poles, the less you
ought to concur in these resolutions. The more you think
the Poles deserve the sympathy of Europe, the less you
ought to deprive them of that diplomatic and political protec-
tion which the Treaty of Vienna still affords them,and which,
at some future period, we are entitled to expect the Russian
Government will acknowledge. The hon.member alluded to
two instances in corroboration of his proposal. One was the
dcalaration made towardsßuesia that we did not ackonwledge
her sovereignty in Circassia ; the other thatwe did not acknow-
ledge the sovereignty of Turkey in Greece. I do not think,
with regard to these instances, that the one is encouraging,
or the other applicable. What is the state of Circassia now ?
Has that declaration saved Circassia from conquest by
Russia? Do we not know that hundreds of thousands of
its inhabitants have been expelled from their country, and
are seeking a refuge from Turkey, exposed to every possible
misery ? Do we not know that the actual dominion of
Russia in Circassia has been established by the success of
Russian arms ? Well, is the same consequence to follow
in Poland ? Ido not think that example is at all encourag-
ing. With regard to the other instance—that of Greece—
if Poland was as accessible to England and France as
Greece was to England and Russia, why, then the argu-
ment of the hon. member would be of force, and a declara-
tion of forfeiture might be easily followed by execution.
But the position of Poland is utterly different from that of
Greece, and therefore that example has no bearing upon the
conclusion to which the hon. member invites us. There-
tore I entreat the house, in regard to its own dignity and
character, and in the well-understood interest of the Poles,
of whose cause the hon. member has been so able and so
consistent an advocate, to pass to the motion for committee
of supply, and not to agree to the amendment.
Mr. G. DUFF, who was impatiently listened to, depre-
cated the acceptance of such a motion, for the sake of the
Poles themselves.
Sir F. GOLDSMID said the argument of the noble lord
at the head of the Government had been a thousend times
refuted by the cruelties practised upon the Poles by the
Russian Government.
Mr. SCULLY had learned privately that there was to be
no division on this important motion, but as no one was
more ready than the noble lord at the head of the Govern-
ment to admit that the negotiations of her Majesty's
Government on behalf of Poland had not been satisfactory,
he should vote for the motion.
Mr S. FITZGERALD said the speech of the noble lord
(Lord Palmerston) had been in some respects satisfactory,
but in other respects it deserved the notice of the house.
His hon friend. (M r Hennessy) had made certain statements
and referred to certain documents, as to which the noble
lord, addressing that house, had preserved the most studied
silence. (Hear, hear.) Ore of the statements made by his
hon friend was that a question was put to the noble lord in
1861 as to whether any correspondence had passed between
the French and Austrian Governments and her Majesty's
Government with reference to the kingdom of Poland, and
that the noble lord in his place distinctly stated in the face
of the Commons of England that there was no such corre-
spendence. Now his hon friend the member for King'e
County had referred to despatches when they passed.
Lord PA. LMERSTUN—French despatches,
Mr FITZGERAL —French despatches s
Lord PALMERSTON—Addressed to the French Am-
bassadr, r, not to us.
Mr FITZGERALD took exception to some of the sta'e-
ments of Lord Palmerston, and denied that the Government
had done all that could have been done, insisting that they
had paralysed the action of France and Austria,
Alter some explanatory remarks by Mr LAYARD, the
resolutions were negatived.
Mr AUGUSTUS SMITH moved that the Miscellaneous
Civil Service Estimates, Class 2, be referred to a select com-
mittee to examine the same in reference to the past €7 Pen.
diture for the civil services, and to report to the ouseany
reductions, better arrangement, or other pa e -.oculars which
in their opinion deserve the attention of the house when the
said estimates are under their cons' deration.
The motion was seconded le
es Sir J. SHELLEY, but the
SPEAKER ruled that, setter the result of the last motion,
this question should. not be
put.
Alter a few r
reply to M 'emarks and explanations by Mr F. Peel in
Smith, and an objection urged by Mr W. Wil-
liams ‘.o voting money en account.
Mr FERItAND put a question regarding superannuations
in the dockyards, which was answered by Lord C. PAGET.
The house then went into a committee of supply, when
Lord C. PAGET entered into a very long and detailed
explanation of the several heads of the Supplementary Navy
Estimate, embracing the proposals of the Government for
increasing the active pay, and a scheme of improving the
retired alowances of various grades of officers of the Royal
Navy, in consequence of the report at d recommendations
of the Select Committee of last year. He ended by moving
the first vote of 155,266.
After a protracted discussion, this and the other votes
were agreed to and ordered to be reported.
The report on the Bank Acts was brought up and agreed
to, and a till was ordered to be brought in.
On the report of the Union Assessment Committee Act
Amendment Bill, certain new clauses were added,
The Highways Act Amendment Bill was read a second
time, after a short discussion, and ordered to be referred to
a Select Committee.
(House of Commons) Bid, and
es of Deceased) Bill passed the ats
theThAerraVyaepatiiinzge ofo (Shares
Com-
mittee,
Other bills were forwarded, and the motions on the paper
having been disposed of, the house adjourned at 25 minutes
past 1 o'clock.