Page:Hansard's Parliamentary Debates (1842).djvu/415

{|width="100%" insurrection did not give Russia a right to abolish the Polish constitution. She had no right to abolish the constitution, even had Poland and herself been the only parties concerned; for, according to all the laws of civilized nations, the misconduct of a part does not entitle a sovereign to file a bill of indictment against the whole— and not only to take vengeance on the offending generation, but also to punish their latest and blameless posterity. But on the occasion in question, there were other parties concerned. The Polish constitution was as much guaranteed to the Powers who had signed the Treaty of Vienna as to Poland itself—and setting Poland aside, so long as treaties are binding, Russia had no right to abolish the Polish constitution, until she had previously obtained the consent of the contracting Powers to whom it had been conceded. But I need not occupy the time of the House with further urging this point, for, upon this point, England has declared its opinion. Whilst the struggle was yet going on (for this House will remember, that Russia did not find it so easy a matter to crush the handful of brave men who ventured to resist an empire), it was intimated to Russia by the Government of this country, that if not a finger would be lifted in opposition to Russia, or in aid of the Poles, yet that this country expected that the conditions of the treaty of Vienna would be maintained; and when it was perceived that such were not the intentions of Russia, the British Minister at the Court of St. Petersburgh was directed to make representations on the subject. Russia replied by alleging that the insurrection had released her from all her obligations, and argued that Poland was now her property by the right of conquest. The right of conquest! Does any nation that pretends to be civilized assert that conquest confers the right of inflicting wound after wound? No. Does not the conqueror who has any sense of the duties of a ruler, or any respect for the opinion of mankind, rather seek to heal the wounds which he could not help inflicting, and secure his restored authority by acts of generosity and kindness? But the arguments of Russia were not allowed to be valid. The noble Lord, the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, expressly informed this House, in the speech which he delivered in 1833, that he had instructed the British Minister to rejoin that the insurrection had only conveyed the right of putting it down; that, in spite of the insurrection, the treaty of Vienna remained in full force; that if Russia had no compassion for Poland, she would not be released from the obligations into which she had entered with Europe; and that, in spite of all that had been advanced, the abolition of the constitution of Poland would only be regarded as a direct infraction of the treaty of Vienna. Lord Palmerston said, 9th July, 1833—
 * 805 || style="text-align:center;" | Poland. || style="text-align:center;" | || style="text-align:center;" | Poland. || style="text-align:right;" | 806
 * } Alexander, a great change in the manner in which the affairs of Poland were administered, long before that unfortunate insurrection occurred. That change did not arise from any misconduct of the Poles, but from what was passing in other countries. Spain demanded a representative government—Naples followed her example—Germany was in a state of ferment—the monarchs were alarmed—Alexander himself was induced to see danger |n free institutions. In this alarm, he forgot earlier and more rational sentiments; he forgot his letter to Kosciusko; he forgot that the most secure foundation upon which the throne of a monarch can be based, is the happiness of his people. From that moment, the Poles were treated in a very different manner from what they had been. Promises were not fulfilled—various infractions of the treaty took place, and the harsh government of the Arch-Duke Constantine filled the cup of Polish disappointment to the brim. I do not stand here to justify that insurrection. I do not stand here to say, that the Emperor had not a perfect right to put it down; but this I say, that Russia might have remembered of how much the Poles had reason to complain; this I say, that Russia might have remembered the generous and chivalrous manner in which the Poles suffered the Arch-Duke Constantine, who had used them so cruelly, to escape unharmed, and at a moment when it was obvious how important a hostage he would have been in their hands; above all, I say, that the

"The contracting parties to the treaty of Vienna have a right to require that the constitution of Poland should not be touched—and this is an opinion which I have not concealed from the Russian government previous to the taking of Warsaw—and when Warsaw fell, that opinion was again conveyed to the Russian government. The Russian government, however, took a different view of the question. They contended that, by the re-conquest of