Vice-President Behrend.-If the Minister President repeats observations which I have declared not to belong to the subject, I shall most certainly use my right to adjourn the House. M. de Bismarck.-I cannot prevent the President adjourning the House, and as I have twice repeated what I meant to say I am satisfied. (Renewed disorder; the President rings his bell.) This threat to lay Prussia defenceless is an unfortunate one, all the more so that with this tendency the names connected with 1848 again become prominent. You are asked by your resolution to express your sympathy with the insurrection under Mierolawski. I have nothing to do with the intentions of the persons who have brought forward this resolution, but the practical result of it will undoubtedly be to identify the House with the Polish insurrection. The Report of the Committee is based upon a set of proofs in reference to the contents of the Convention derived from lies and misstatements taken from the newspapers, and the reporter has conjured up from these an imaginary belt of 500 square miles of Prussian territory given up to Russian occupation. This is a mere foolish phantasy. (Oh! oh!) On the contrary, the Convention secures Prussia against a danger of this sort. By it, Russian military are not allowed to cross the Prussian frontier without our sanction. From the exaggerations, the lies, the misrepresentations of the press, has arisen the bad impression made by the Convention abroad, and these misrepresentations form the material of the present debate. But this debate, I can tell you, will have no practical result, not even that of causing an embarrassment to the Ministry unless it be the inconvenience of a waste of their time. If the object of the resolution therefore has been to shake the position of the Government it will fail in its object, and all that will be obtained will be to prove before the whole country that you take part with the Polish insurrection. M. de Säuger, for the Bonin amendment. M. de Bismarck, in reply to an observation of this speaker, again repeated that "cach act of transgression of the Russian or Prussian frontier required the express sanction of the other party in each individual case." A motion for the adjournment was then moved and carried. Sitting of Friday the 27th. A further amendment was moved by M. Bockum-Dolffs, sup, ported by the party of progress and the Left Centre. It only involved a slight alteration of the resolution before the House. It was as follows: "That the interest of Prussia requires, that the face of the insurrection that has broken out in Pe assist or favour either of the contending parties, or allow armed persons to touch the Prussian soil without at the same time disarming them." Baron Vincke, in a brilliant speech, attacked, as is his wont, both the Government and the House. After dissecting the speeches made in favour of the resolution, he attacked the Government, and in an eloquent outburst showed how impossible it would be for a country like Prussia to pass safely through a great external crisis unless the policy of its Government had the enthusiastic approval of the whole country. He spoke in a very unfriendly manner of the Poles, and of their dangerous character as a revolutionary element in Europe, and approved of strong measures being taken by the Prussian Government against the present insurrection. He did not approve, however, of the opening up of the Prussian frontier to Russian troops, and had accordingly, in his amendment, confined himself to this one point. As the sum total of his views, he would conclude by saying that the right policy of the Government was to favour Russia to the utmost in putting down the insurrection, short of the entrance of Russian troops into Prussia or of Prussian troops into Russia. The debate was then continued to a very great length; the two most remarkable speeches being those of MM. de Bonin and Schulze-Delitsch. The former spoke in favour of his amendment, and having been the President of the Province of Posen under the liberal Ministry, he was able from personal knowledge to show the unwiseness of the Convention in regard to the practical interests of that province. The debate was adjourned at a late hour, and resumed this morning. The results of the divisions were as follows: For the Bonin amendment, 72; against it, 229. For the Bockum-Dolff's amendment, 246; against it, 57. No. 60.-Earl Russell to Lord Napier. MY LORD, Foreign Office, March 2, 1863. HER Majesty's Government view with the deepest concern the state of things now existing in the Kingdom of Poland. They see there, on the one side, a large mass of the population in open insurrection against the Government; and, on the other, a vast military force employed in putting that insurrection down. The natural and probable result of such a contest must be expected to be the success of the military forces. But that success, if it is to be achieved by a series of bloody conflicts, must be attended by a lamentable effusion of Moreover, the acts of violence and destruction on both sides, which are sure to accompany such a struggle, must engender mutual hatreds and resentments, which will embitter, for generations to come, the relations between the Russian Government and the Polish race. Yet, however much Her Majesty's Government might lament the existence of such a miserable state of things in a foreign country, they would not, perhaps, deem it expedient to give formal expression to their sentiments, were it not that there are peculiarities in the present state of things in Poland which take them out of the usual and ordinary condition of such affairs. The Kingdom of Poland was constituted, and placed in connexion with the Russian Empire by the Treaty of 1815, to which Great Britain was a Contracting Party. The present disastrous state of things is to be traced to the fact that Poland is not in the condition in which the stipulations of that Treaty require that it should be placed. Neither is Poland in the condition in which it was placed by the Emperor Alexander I, by whom that Treaty was made. During his reign a National Diet sat at Warsaw, and the Poles of the Kingdom of Poland enjoyed privileges fitted to secure their political welfare. Since 1832, however, a state of uneasiness and discontent has been succeeded from time to time by violent commotion and a useless effusion of blood. Her Majesty's Government are aware that the immediate cause of the present insurrection was the conscription lately enforced upon the Polish population; but that measure itself is understood to have been levelled at the deeply-rooted discontent prevailing among the Poles in consequence of the political condition of the Kingdom of Poland. The proprietors of land and the middle classes in the towns bore that condition with impatience; and if the peasantry were not equally disaffected they gave little support or strength to the Russian Government. Great Britain, therefore, as a party to the Treaty of 1815, and as a Power deeply interested in the tranquillity of Europe, deems itself entitled to express its opinion upon the events now taking place, and is anxious to do so in the most friendly spirit towards Russia, and with a sincere desire to promote the interest of all the parties concerned. Why should not His Imperial Majesty, whose benevolence is generally and cheerfully acknowledged, put an end at once to this bloody conflict by proclaiming mercifully an immediate and unconditional amnesty to his revolted Polish subjects, and at the same time announce his intention to replace without delay his Kingdom of Poland in possession of the political and civil privileges which were granted to it by the Emperor Alexander I, in execution of the stipulations of the Treaty of 1815? If this were done, a National Diet and a National Administration would, in all probability, content the Poles, and satisfy European opinion. You will read this despatch to Prince Gortchakoff, and give him a copy of it. Lord Napier. SIR, I am, &c. RUSSELL. No. 61.-Earl Russell to Sir A. Buchanan. Foreign Office, March 2, 1863. THE Convention which has been concluded between Russia and Prussia, relating to the affairs of Poland, has caused considerable uneasiness in this country. The Powers of Europe were disposed to be neutral in the contest between the Russian Government and the Polish insurgents. Prussia has departed from this course. My inquiries, as well as a despatch from Lord Napier, have led me to believe that the Convention contains: 1. An agreement that Russian troops, upon crossing the frontier of Prussia, shall not be disarmed, as would be required according to international usage, but shall be allowed to retain their arms, and to remain, and to act as an armed body in Prussian territory. 2. A permission for Russian troops to pursue and capture Polish insurgents on Prussian territory. Count Bernstorff defended this Convention, and declared that it was not an engagement invoking intervention in the contest between Russia and the Poles. But it is clear that if Russian troops are to be at liberty to follow and attack the Polish insurgents in Prussian territory, the Prussian Government makes itself a party to the war now raging in Poland. If Great Britain were to allow a Federal ship-of-war to attack a Confederate ship in British waters, Great Britain would become a party to the war between the Federal Government of The United States and the Confederate. It is obvious that by this Convention Prussia engages to become a party in the war against the Poles without any apparent necessity for so doing. For Her Majesty's Government have not heard that any disaffection prevails in the Polish provinces of Prussia. It is but too probable that this Convention will irritate the Polish subjects of Prussia, tend to excite disaffection where it has not hitherto existed, and thus extend the insurrection. Upon viewing this Convention in all its aspects. therefore, Her Majesty's Government are forced to arrive at the conclusion that it is an act of intervention which is not justified by necessity; which will tend to alienate the affections of the Polish subjects of the King of Prussia; and which, indirectly, gives support and countenance to the arbitrary conscription of Warsaw. You will read this despatch to M. Bismarck, and you will ask for a copy of the Convention between Prussia and Russia. It is possible that the Governments of Prussia and Russia, aware of the objections to which this Convention is liable, and seeing the ill consequences it may produce, may be disposed to cancel it, or to put an end to its operation. In that case you will inform me what steps have been taken with that view. Sir A. Buchanan. SIR, I am, &c. RUSSELL. No. 62.-Earl Russell to Sir A. Buchanan. Foreign Office, March 2, 1863. I HAVE extracted the following Articles from the Cartel Convention between Prussia and Russia signed at Berlin on the 8th of August, 1857,* and ratified on the 4th of September following: "The present Convention, which shall be put into execution 4 weeks after the exchange of ratifications, shall apply: “(a.) To all individuals who shall desert the active service of their respective armies, &c. "(b.) To all individuals who according to the laws of the State which they have left, either with or without the intention of returning thither, shall be subject, even at a future time, to military service." I wish you to inform me whether this Cartel Convention is still in force, and whether it is acted upon by the two Governments. Sir A. Buchanan. I am, &c. RUSSELL. No. 63.-Baron Gros to Earl Russell.-(Received March 2.) Londres, le 2 Mars, 1863. LE Baron Gros a l'honneur de présenter ses compliments empressés à Lord Russell, et il lui envoie, ci-jointe, copie des deux documents relatif aux affaires de Pologne dont il lui a donné connaissance le 24 du mois dernier. Earl Russell. (Inclosure 1.)-M. Drouyn de Lhuys to Baron Gros. M. LE BARON, Paris, 21 Février, 1863. La dépêche que j'ai eu l'honneur de vous écrire vous a fait con * Vol. XLVII. Page 1168 |