Page:Hansard's Parliamentary Debates (1842).djvu/424

{|width="100%"
 * 823 || style="text-align:center;" | Poland. || style="text-align:center;" | {COMMONS} || style="text-align:center;" | Poland. || style="text-align:right;" | 824
 * } should not be weakened by any apparent difference.

Sir R. Peel was not sorry that his hon. Friend (Sir R. Inglis) had spoken before him, for that enabled him to refer to a precedent which appeared to him to settle the only point on which his hon. Friend doubted. His hon. Friend thought it possible that some difficulty of a technical nature might interpose an impediment to the production of the papers referred to in the present motion. In 1832, a motion similar to that now before the House had been made, and he thought that a reference to that motion was important, as forming a precedent, for he should be sorry to take a course which might appear at variance with the view which was taken by Parliament and the Government in 1832. In that year he found that a motion to this effect had been made—

"That there be laid before this House copies of the manifestoes issued by the Emperor of Russia in February last, and of the organic statute to which they referred."

Now, that motion was unanimously adopted; and were he to take a different course now, and on the part of the Government oppose the production of these papers, an erroneous construction might be put upon his motive. His hon. Friend had overlooked the distinction between interfering in the municipal proceedings of a foreign country and the interference for a specific object, under a specific treaty; and he must beg of his hon. Friend to remember that Poland was not a province of Russia, so as to make the question one of mere municipal administration. He would not now enter into the question, whether the revolt of the Poles in 1830 had set aside the treaty of 1815, but he knew that we were parties to that treaty, and that, by it the condition of Poland had been regulated, and, consequently, we possessed a right to information as to the grounds upon which that condition had been changed. He felt therefore that he was not departing from the strict letter of diplomatic usage by consenting to the production of papers relating to that treaty. The temper and general spirit of the present debate was, he thought, most satisfactory, for it could not be said that it opposed any impediment—in point of honour—to the adoption of the motion. There had been throughout a most gratifying abstinence from anything approaching to abuse or offensive expressions in speaking of the conduct of Russia in reference to Poland, and he for his own part regretted that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. P. Stewart) had referred to the policy of Russia in the east. It, however, gave him (Sir R. Peel) an opportunity of repeating what he had previously stated, that Russia had most distinctly disavowed the conduct of her agents in Persia and on the north-west frontier of our Indian possessions—that she had recalled those agents, and had given to the British Government the most distinct and positive assurance of her desire to act in concert with England in respect to the affairs of Persia, and had further as distinctly disavowed all intention of interfering hostilely in regard to our Indian possessions. That Russia was sincere in those professions might be inferred from her conduct. Since those assurances had been given, misfortune had befallen our Indian army, and if Russia had not been sincere, there was a temptation to depart from her engagement which, doubtless, would have been taken advantage of. But as he had stated, the assurances which Russia had given to this country had been fulfilled strictly and punctually; and it was his duty to acknowledge, the amicable and friendly feelings towards this country which Russia had evinced. That power had cordially acted with us, and had done her utmost to discountenance and discourage any hostile demonstration on the part of Persia, or any of the inferior states, in the affairs of Affghanistan [sic]. There was at this moment the most perfect understanding between Russia and this country, and he looked upon it as a great guarantee for the peace and for the general interests of the world, that those amicable relations between the two countries should continue unimpaired. He had felt it to be his duty to state this in respect to the conduct of Russia, and of her friendly intentions towards this country; but at the same time, however desirable it was that these relations of amity should continue, (and so desirable he felt it to be, that he could assure the House it would be the duty of her Majesty's Government to do everything in their power, consistently with the honour and interests of the country, to promote them) still he could not, for the purpose of confirming the good understanding which existed, consent to any sacrifice of truth or principle. He could not, as a public man, say that in his opinion the policy of Russia with regard to Poland was wise or safe. He spoke of the policy of Russia in reference to Poland, and after what bad passed at Vienna this country had