The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-27 00:00:00

TEE PRUSSIAN CHAMBERS.

A debate of some interest took place in the
Prussian Chamber of Representatives on the 22d
inst.

M. Niegolewski, a Pole, in the name of the
Polish members, brought forward a motion to the
following effect :
" Considering that the contracting Powers at the
Congress of Vienna could not come to an agree-
ment respecting the re-establishment of Poland,
which they had at first projected, but were never-
theless agreed upon this point, that the peace and
tranquillity of Europe imperiously demanded that
Poland should at least retain her existence as a
separate member in the family of the peoples of
Europe, and that the different parts of ancient
Poland, despite their partition under three sceptres,
should be recognised as forming one homogeneous
whole, with the guarantee of their nationality ;
considering that the peculiar situation, con-
formable to the law of nations, granted
by these stipulations to the Polish people
in the family of European States, must be re-
garded as the minimum of the political existence of
a people; considering that this minimum of formal
right granted to the Poles is becoming gradually
more and more restricted; considering finally, that
the innumerable victims and the martyrdom of the
Poles, incessantly renewed, speak loudly of their
national and political existence, and that these
proofs claim from the equity of Europe the expia-
tion of the injustice done them, or at least the
accomplishment of the concrssions forcibly granted
to them in the interest of the tranquillity and peace
of Europe—the author of the motion proposes that
it may-please the Chamber of Representatives to
decide that finally the territorial unity of the
ancient Polish State of 1772, guaranteed by the
formal right of peoples, as well as the national and
political rights appertaining to the Poles within
those limits, may at least hold good and be carried
out, and that those rights may not henceforth be
arbitrarily restricted by the signing Powers to whom
in virtue of the treaties of Vienna, parts of Poland
have been conceded under conditions previously
stipulated."
M. Niegolewski, in bringing forward his motion,
asserted the right of appealing to the treaties of
Vienna. Those treaties guaranteed to the Poles
the maintenance of their nationality, leaving it to
the care of the three Governments to determine the
form of the national institutions which, in virtue of
those treaties, they were bound to grant to the
Poles. It was not his object to propose the re-
establishment of ancient Poland, but simply to
claim the fulfilment of admitted stipulations. M.
Niegolewski read various despatches of Lord Cas-
tlereagh and the Councillor Hurdenberg and others,
to establish that the Powers had promised to pre-
serve to Poland her national institutions. No one
had a right to }tussianise or Germanise Pointed.
The treaties of Vienna denied such a pretension.
The King of Prussia had sanctioned those guaran-
tees by solemn promises, which ought to remain
valid as long as the Prussian monarchy existed. If
the primitive intentions of Alexander I. had been
realised, Poland might have received a development
and have been spared many revolutions. These revolu -
tions will occur again unless the Poles are allowed the
rights granted to them by treaties. As long as
Russia, Austria, and Pi ussia mutually advised each
other to have recourse to energetic measures of re-
pression, poor Poland would assume more and more
the appearance of a churchyard, and floods of inno-
cent blood would again be shed. The recent events
at Warsaw were a disgrace to history. "It cannot
be denied," concluded the speaker, " that we never
cease to dream of the restoration of Deland. You
yourselves would despise us if we did otherwise.
But that is not the question now before us. For the
present we only ask the fulfilment of promised and
guaranteed rights, Do not yourselves leave the
peaceful path we have adopted to attain our object.
Do not drive us into revolutions, and do not cast us
aside as useless elements for achieving the grand
aim to which our present epoch aspires."
M. de Vincke observed, that by the 14th article of
the final Act of Vienna the Grand Duchy of Posen
was incorporated in the kingdom of Prussia, and
that, consequently, there could be no question of the
territorial unity of Poland as advanced in the mo-
tion. The motion appeals to the edict of 1772. Now
of the 352 members of which the Chamber consisted
53 belonged to the country which at that period
fell to Prussia. Of those 53 the Polish fraction
counted 18, while 35, consequently two-thirds, en-
tertained opposite views. The originators of the
motion were acting unconstitutionally in speaking
in the name of their Polish brethren. Article 88

of the Constitution enacted that the deputies re-
present the whole people.. Prussian representatives
had no mandate as long as they sat in the Chamber
to speak in the name of Polish brothers. But what
particularly characterised the anti-constitutional
bearing of the motion was that it asked the Govern-
ment to admit the territorial unity of the Polish
State of 1772,'which was contrary to the Ist Article
of the Constitution, which expressly defined the
unity of the country, and according to which no
portion of the State could at any time appertain to
another State. Moreover, the real object of the
motion was the unity of the Polish State and the
restoration of Poland. In 1850 the Polish depu-
ties resigned their mandate, declaring
thatuld
by taking the oath to the Constitution they would
be renouncing their nutiongity, ~ I will ask thorn

'if the Constitution has changed since then. I will
ask them what would be said in France and Eng-
land if the Alsatians or the Irish wished to make
their nationality prevail in the Chambers."
M. Niegolewski—They have done FO repeatedly.
M. de Vincke—" In my opinion the intellectual
originator of this motion must not be sought for
either at Paris or Warsaw. (Laughter.) It is true
that the member for Genesen, in the sitting of the
28th of January last, threatened that if the pre-
tended rights of Poland were not granted the Poles
would throw themselves into the arms, of the
Emperor of Russia. But recent events at Warsaw
will doubtless have somewhatfcooled the desire for
a Russian embrace." M. de Vincke concluded by
quoting Count Ciessowski's words in the sitting of
the Chamber of the 12th of May, 1859, who said :
—"Nationality or revolution, that is the dilemma
of the present age. We have made our choice
make yours." " Gentlemen," said M. de Vincke,
" the dilemma has undergone a change. it is now
Constitution or revolution ;' and 1, in my turn,
say to you, ' Our choice is made; may you soon.
have made yours.' " (Loud cheers.)
Count Schwerin (Minister of the Interior) was
of the opinion that the discussion had left the ques-
tion before the House. He could not protest too
strongly against the opinions expressed by the
mover of the proposition. The point was not to
know what Lord Castlereagh said on this or that
treaty. The important point was that the King
of Prussia holds the province of Posen in full sove-
reignty, and that such sovereignty excludes the
territorial unity of ancient Poland as well as its
separation from the other provinces of the State.
That sovereignty exacts that no other law shall
prevail in the province of Posen than the law of
Prussia. That law is actually in force there, and
will continue to be so. The Government will know
how to put down any infraction of that law,
whether in words or acts, with the necessary
energy.

Count Ciessowski desired to address the Cham-
ber on a personal question. It was true he and
other members resigned their mandates when the
Constitution was a lex ferenda, and they Presumed
their seats in the Chamber in presence of the lex
lata, but reserving their rights by a public declare-
tion. As regards the dilemma put by M. de
Vincke, I will tell him—" We have also, long since,
made our choice, but you, you are rushing to-
wards revolution by violating justice."
President Simson could not allow such words to
be spoken without stating in the most serious man-
ner to the speaker that he committed a grave
breach of the rules of the house.
The Chamber then divided, when the order of
the day pure and simple was adopted. The ad-
vanced fraction of the Liberal party voted with
the Poles against the order of the day.