The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-28 00:00:00

come forward and protest against what was now taking
place in Poland. It Might not to be content with protest-
ing, but ought to induce the other Powers of Europe to
join with England in making a protest not only against
what had passed but against the barbarities which Russia
would perpetrate should she succeed. Russia had treated
Poland with scandalous cruelty and shameful insult as well.
She had most resolutely set herself to crush Poland under
the heel of an iron despotism, and, if possible, to break the
spirit of a most gallant people. (Hear.) He thought that
protest would not be without avail, as the Russians were
singularly sensitive to the public opinion of Europe, If
the Powers of Europe joined in such a protest, the Empe-
ror himself would immediately feel his position on finding
that all civilised countries were against him. The hon.
gentleman denounced the conduct of Prussia, and referred
to the state of feeling in France as most favourable ,for a
joint protest, in which Spain, Turkey, and Austria might
join, with a view of urging upon Russia a more wise and
gentle policy toward Poland in times to come. (Cheers.)
Mr. M. MILNES hoped the house fully estimated the
importance of the question, because upon their view of
the matter would depend the conduct of the Government in
regard to following any propositions of the Emperor of
the French, or in initiating any measures of their own.
The Government would do well to follow the opinions of
the house, because on this question no Government would
be authorised to act entirely on their own responsibility
or private opinions. It could only act with safety and
with honour by obtaining the full support of the house
and the country, not only in any measure which they might
take, but in any consequences which might result. It was
no secret that this question was now deeply agitating the
French people, who were ready to support their Emperor
in any measures whatever with regard to Poland, even
though they might ultimately induce an appeal to arms.
It therefore became the house to consider whether it was
their duty to support any proposition for possible interven-
tion which might be made to us by the Emperor of the
French. He could not think that the treaty of Vienna had
any other sense than:as determining the common consent of
all the Powers at that period that Poland should enjoy in a
certain degree a separate and certainly a comparatively free
Government, though there was no doubt that Lord Ca Ale-
reagh was aware of the difficulties which encumbered the
question the moment a free Poland was attached to a des-
potic Russia. All the evils which had been anticipated had
daily increased. He could not agree that Polish revolution
of 1830 was unjustifiable. It had been provoked by syste-
matic injuries and insults. The Emperor of Russia had
taken advantage of that outbreak, though it had never been
diplomatically stated, to consider that the treaty of Vienna
had been uicelled, and that thereafter she held domination
over Poland by simple right of conquest. He could not ad-
mit that doctrine for several reasons, and mainly that what-
ever might be the immediate relations between Poland and
Russia, that Russia by the treaty of Vienna had contracted
such obligations towards the other Powers of Europe
as would justify them in telling her that she had no right
at the present time when the wisdom of the moment bad
taught us that to hold a recalcitrant nation by pure force
was not only impolitic in itself, but intolerable in its conse-
quences, to keep Poland in a continual state of chronic in-
surrection--that she had no right to impose that condition
of disturbance upon her neighbours, Austria and Poland—
and no right to do so as regarded the common peace of
Europe. Looking at the question of interposition from
another point of view, he would call the attention of the
house to a somewhat parallel state of things in the history
of Europe. In the year 1809 the Tyrolese were attacked
by the combined armies of France and Bavaria, They made
an appeal to England, at that time under a Tory Govern-
ment not supposed to give countenance to anything like
insurrection. With the leave of the house he would read a
sentence from the answer made on that occasion to the de-
puties of the Tyrol by the Government of England. Lord
Bathurst, after expressing regret at the event, said
" When submission is in effect more hazardous than resis-
tance, or when the danger attending on both are nearly ba-
lanced, a brave nation may be encouraged justifiably to
prefer the latter alternative." The noble lord went on to
say that, " when there really was danger of defeat, it was
not for those who were not to participate in the danger to
counsel others to incur it. Should the oppressed nation,
however, decide upon resistance, his Majesty's Government
could not refrain from giving some testimony of the inte-
rest which he took in the issue of a contest too unequal, he
feared, to be availing, but which was just." The character of
the Russian nation was well known, and their calm and cool
headed statesmen would, of course, treat the expression
of British public opinion for just what it was worth. He
(Mr. Manes), however, really believed it was worth some-
thing, and in two ways—(hear)—for, as an hon. gentleman
had remarked, Russia was not quite unamcnable to public
opinion. The Russian Government were now conscious
that they could no longer act with all the astuteness of the
West and all the barbarism of the East. (Hear.) The
Czar knew now that the newspaper was not confined to the
Russian capital, but that it found its way to the remotest
portion of his dominions. Russia was conscious, too, that
she was perpetrating a crime which was alike injurious to
her prosperity and her reputation. If to the deep feeling
of the English nation were added the enthusiasm of the
French, it appeared to him that a force of public opinion
would be raised which sould not be regarded in vain.
(Cheers.) He thought if overtures were made to her Ma-
jesty's Government to express—if it were not too strong a
word—the indignation—(cheers)—of the English nation
he believed the Government would not misrepresent either
that house or the country, The Russian Government
would, no doubt. attempt to justify their proceedings, but
then it was well known that apologists had been found for
the massacre of St. Bartholomew and the Sicilian Vespers.
In fact, every coup d'etat that had ever taken place had its
side of reason. The Russian excuse for seizing numbers of
men in their beds in the middle of the night was that the
Government were afraid the people would cause a national
insurrection. But why should the Government have feared
that ? who drove the people into that state of mind ?
(Hear.) Although he had no doubt the military power of
Russia must make her successful in this unhappy struggle,
yet our interposition might, at any rate, shorten a state of
things which was most horrible and detestable to this coun-
try. (Cheers.)

Mr. WALTER said he had paid great attention to the
eloquent speech of the hon. member for King's County
(Mr. Hennessy) ; but he was surprised to hear that the
language of the last part of the resolution did not mean
anything but diplomatic interference. (Hear.) He
would express no opinion upon whether this was or was
not the right moment for an armed interference; but if the
words of the resolution meant anything at all, they meant
war, and it was important the house should bear that in
mind. England ought not to counsel her Sovereign to use
language she did not mean to give effect to. (Hear.)
Mr. DENMAN expressed himself in similar terms, and
said he should have proposed to substitute for all the words
after " demand," in the last paragraph, " the serious and
immediate consideratioß of her Majesty's Govermiaent."
He thought the hands of the Government should be
strengthened to express the sympathy of the English people
with the miseries and cruelties inflicted upon the unhappy
Poles ; but he did not at all agree that the negotiations
should be commenced with an avowed stipulation that un-

der no circumstances whatever of violence or cruelty were

we to go to war. The Poles had the sympathy of the whole
country, and of the whole of that house, except perhaps the
member for North Warwickshire, whose judgment had
been somewhat warped by the fact that the Poles were a
Roman Catholic people. But was the hon. gentleman
unaware that it was in countries oppressed like Poland,
that the Jesuits and their agents possessed greater influence
than in countries that were happy and free ? (Cheers.)
Lord FERMOY thought, if our interference was to be
limited to the expression of our opinion, the less nervous or
shy we were in the expression of that opinion the better.
(Hear, hear.) He had no doubt that if England, France,
and Austria made a remonstrance to Russia to the effect
that she might take her choice, either to fulfil the terms of
the treaty of Vienna with regard to Poland, or be prepared
to give that country its freedom. By adopting such a course
they would obtain the gratitude of the Polish people, and'
praise of the world. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. FITZGERALD commenced by compimenting
the hon. member for King's County, for the judgment,
discretion, and ability with which he brought the subject
before the house. This question of Poland had been sup- I
posed in former times to belong to politicians who had be •
come remarkable for their enthusiasm, but now the question
had entered into a different phase,
and
instead of being a
question only fit for enthusiasts,
thethe attention ther
e was na
more
tehper aeca
and urgent question demanding
states-
men of Europe than the present position of the Polish
nation. (Cheers.) And it became still more important
when we considered that the solution of the question rested
with her Majesty's Government. He did not remember an
occasion when greater responsibility devolved upon her
Majesty's Government. If they turned to France, they
found the journals of that country expressing in burning
language their enthusiasm and sympathy in the cause of
Poland ; and who could say but that the public opinion of
France might become too strong to be overruled by the
Government of that country ? And then indeed events
might take place, the importance of which it was impossible
to form any just appreciation. If events of such a nature
were to occur would it not be a source of humiliation that
they were the consequence of the over caution of the House
of Commons and a Liberal Government. (Hear.) It should
never be supposed that Austria, whatever her feelings,
could take the initiative upon a question of that kind. He
felt convinced that if this country were to unite with
France, Austria would zealously co-operate with them
in obtaining justice for Poland. Some hon. members on
the opposite side had found fault with the terms of the re-
solution ; but he could only say it had his entire approval ;
he wished it to be an influential expression of their opinion,
and that an address to the Crown was the best means of in-
suring that object. He had seen a distinguished Pole that
daony,m be one day restored to the family of nations. Let the
who told him he had never despaired that this country
Izisre.nsoTt
AdiNsaspvpoßitrithtahtanexkpede elute
rti.oFni.
zg(eCrhaeld for the
the gene-
rous words he had uttered. It was possible that the insur..
rection might be quenched in blood, but some spark of life
would be sure to be left behind ; and sooner or later the
smouldering fire must burst into a flame, and be followed
by a European conflagration. Action on the part of the
Government of England was imperative; but he did not
see how this eountry could commit itself by going back

upon treaties which had been so frequently violated with
impunity. He thought that a protest in the name of the
principle of non-intervention, endorsed by the unanimous
adhesion of the English people, would not be in vain. It
could not fail to be of real service to the gallant Poles, and
would be a step gained towards the practical recognition of
the principle of non-intervention as binding upon the na-
tions of Europe.

Lord R. CECIL, alluding to the speech of the hon. gen-
tleman who had sat down, said that, as he should be found
in the same lobby with that eloquent and accomplished
pupil of Mazzini and others with whom he did not generally
agree, it was necessary that he should state his reasons for
the vote he should give. He referred to the extraordinary
unanimity of feeling in that house for the sufferings of
Poland, and his detestation of the conduct of Russia. Eng-
land, by the treaty now in existence, had a locus standi in
all the events that occurred in Poland. It had been said
that those treaties had been too often broken to be now put
forward ; but that was an argument insulting to the dignity
of England. England could look neither to the right nor
to the left when she was bound by solemn covenants to a
definite course. He quite agreed that it would be an ab-
surdity for a maritime country to make war in behalf of
Poland ; still, whatever might be its use, they were bound
to record their protest against the violation of the public
law of Europe.

Sir H. VERNEY declared that if England abstained
from interfering on behalf of Poland, she, to a certain ex-
tent, became a party to the atrocities inflicted upon her.
Not only was it our duty so to interfere, but it was our
policy, and if necessary in a material degree.
Sir M. FARQUHAR expressed his regret that the
House of Commons had by their words and acts so en-
couraged the Poles to look forward to a day when they
might regain their liberty, and throw off the Russian
yoke, which had borne them to the dust, and then laid
itself open to the reflection of not having acted up to its
statements. The Polish question had now become one of
European importance, and it depended upon the course
which the Government might take, whether we should
be at last able to intervene so as to raise that country
from the difficulty in which it was placed, and from the
oppression to which it was subjected ; or whether wo
might not eventually be led into a dreadful European
war. He trusted some steps would be taken to show that
we are really in earnest. The revolution was one of de-
spair, and he trusted it would lead to the joint interference
of Europe.
Mr. G. DUFF hoped, in the name of the Scotch mem-
bers, that the Government would take a strong line in this
matter. He was glad to find in the debate which had
taken p lace, that there had been a just discrimination be-
tween the conduct of the Prussian people and that of
their Government in reference to the recent alleged con-
vention with Russia. The King of Prussia had not al-
ways been the friend of the oppressor against the oppressed
—but since succeeding to the throne he had gone into the
hands of a military clique, called by the people of Berlin
" The Anti-Intellect in uniform," who used the powers of
the Government for their personal advantage.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH said that the revolting cruelties of
Russia which had been referred to were only a part of the
Russian system. The hon. member referred at some
length to the proceedings of the Congress of Vienna, and
came to the conclusion that the stipulations of the treaty of
Vienna were worth nothing at all to the security of the
Poles. Nothing would satisfy that gallant people but the
restoration of Poland in its entirety, as it had existed be-
fore the partition of 1772.
Mr. H. SEYMOUR said that of one fact there could be
no doubt, that if the Government acted as the honour and
interests of this country demanded, they would receive the
unanimous support of the house and the people. He could
not agree to the last part of the resolution, because it re-
ferred to the treaty of 1815, and " a bas le traits do 1815"
had been the motto on the Continent for many years. He
would propose to substitute for it a Tote of confidence in the
noble lord at the head of the Government,

Mr. MAGUIRE fully concurred in the whole resolution
as it stood, and thought that if ever there was a case
where interference was not only justifiable but demanded
it was that of Poland.
Mr. WALPOLE—I have never heard a debate in which

there has been greater unanimity upon the facts—(hear)—

but there appears to be great diversity of opinion as to the
nature of the practical resolution which we should adopt
under present circumstances. (Hear. hear.) We are pain-
fully unanimous in deep sympathy for the much oppressed,
much suffering people of Poland. (Hear, hear.) We are in-
dignantly unanimous at the terrible oppression which has
now been brought to bear upon that people more violently
than ever, crushed as they are under the iron heel of Russia,
more cruelly even than in former years. (Hear, hear.) We
are, I think, sadly unanimous in thinking there is another
Power, with whom we are nearly allied, and who has been be-
trayed into what I may almost call mean and infatuated con-
duct—(hear)—towards a people over a portion of whom she
herself reigns, and with whom she should sympathise.
(Cheers.) Thus far we are unanimous, and then comes the real
question, how are we to deal practically in this case P What
is the practical test to which we should bring it I, Here there
arises an amount of diversity equal to the unanimity ex-
pressed by the house upon the first point. My hon, friend, in
a speech which does him infinite credit in every way for the
ability, the information, and the knowledge which it evinced,
as well as for the extraordinary temper and moderation in
which it was expressed.—(hear, hear)—has concluded his
resolution with a paragraph respecting which two of his
supporters are so little agreed as to its meaning and pur-
port, that while one of them, the hon. member for Tiverton

(Mr. Denman), thinks it weak, and requires amendment, the
other, the hon. member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), thinks
it is so strong that if acted upon—and I confess I concur
in that opinion—it must, if not necessarily, at least, pro-
bably, lead to war. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DENMAN—I did not say that I considerei the re-
solution weak, but I objected to it that it was a resolution
which ought not to be placed upon the records of the house
without we meant almost immediate war. (Hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE—Then the speech of my hon. and
learned friend, together with that of the hon. member for
Berkshire leads to this important question, "Are we pre-
pared to adopt a resolution which will inevitably lead you

- .
step by step into war ?" and I think before we arrive at that
conclusion we should pause. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend
the member for Horsham (Mr. S. Fitzgerald), in a speech

which has gone home to the heart of every one--(hear, hear)
—for the generosity of feeling and the ability it displayed,
has recommended us to press upon the Government to con-
cur with France and Austria in immediate remonstrance
with Russia. Perhaps that might be the most effective
course, but I apprehend that if this resolution would be
likely to lead to war, the concurrence of three such Powers
so remonstrating with such a Power as that remonstrated
with would lead you into a war that might not attain the end
of freeing Poland, but might end with a war which you do
not at present intend to begin—a war in the Rhenish Pro-
vinces. (Hear.) The hon, member for Halifax made a stout
speech, but he ended with a conclusion so tame that I could
hardly believe he meant to press it upon the house—that
we should act upon the principle of non-intervention.
My noble friend the member for Stamford urged an argu-
ment that ought to lead us immediately into action. He
told us there is such a violation of treaties and engagements
that we are bound in honour and public faith to take up the
question immediately ; but have not these engagements and
treaties been violated for the last 45 years ? And if the
same arguments have been impressed on us for all that time
without impelling us to us action, what new phase has the
question now assumed to lead to immediate action ? Well,
then, the last two hon. gentlemen who spoke have said,
" Do let us bring the question to a practical conclusion."
Now, I believe the most practical conclusion you can bring
the question to is not to destroy the unanimity of this house

in the eyes of Europe and of the world by anything which
would even seem to approach to division among us. (Hear.)
The question, therefora, does seem to resolve itse if into this,
—Are the Government prepared to echo the sentiments ex-
pressed by the house, and, if they are prepared to echo those
sentiments, is the house prepared to leave to them the re-
sponsibility of enforcing them? I will add no more. I
think there is a danger in this house adopting a responsi-
bility which it cannot execute for itself. I think there is no
danger that 1 can see in leaving the responsibility to a Go-
vernment who have expressed themselves already on the
question in terms as cogent as any that have been used in
this debate. I for one am prepared to support the Govern-
ment, and leave to them the responsibility if they assure

the house they will honestly exercise it. (Hear, bear.)
Lord PALMERSTO N, who rose amid loud cheers, said
it was natural, on a subject which excites so muc h feel-
ing, not only in this country but on the Continent, and
especially in a neighbouring nation, that this house should
re-echo the sentiment which prevails so strongly out of doors;
and I must do the hon. member who moved these resolu-
tions the justice to say that in the manner in which he
brought the matter forward there was nothing, I think,
of which anybody had a right to complain. (Hear, hear.)
With regard to myself, who have been quoted by the hon.
member, both as to what I have said and what I have writ-

ten, I have only to say that I don't stand here to unsay
anything which I may formerly have said, nor to retract
anything which I may formerly have u ritten. (Cheers.)
The Governments of which I have been a member have
always entertained the opinion which it was my duty
' to express, that is this matter of Poland the engagements
of the Treaty of Vienna, especially as regards Russia, have
been systematically and long violated. (Cheers.) It is im-
possible not to feel the deepest sympathy for the Polish
nation. (Cheers.) They have for a century been most singu-
larly unfortunate. They were unfortunate before the par-
tition in having a Constitution which, whatever some of
its merits may have been, was tainted with the gravest
possible defects. They were unfortunate in the successive
partitions which deprived them of their nationality. They
were unfortunate when the First Napoleon entered the
Polish territory on his way to Russia, because he did not
then think it expedient to take advantage of that occupa-
tion for the purpose of restoring Poland either to entire or
modified nationalitty. They were unfortunate at the Con-
gress of Vienna, because at that time, however anxious
the British Plenipotentiary was to restore Poland to a
considerable degree of nationality, the power of Russia
prevented it, and when Lord Londonderry (then Lord
Castlereagh) urged certain conditions the answer of the
Emperor of Russia was—" I have 200,000 men in
Poland, and I cannot agree to the proposal you make.'
They were unfortunate afterwards, inasmuch as the good