Chapter 2 No.2

Speech by the Duc de Broglie, President of the Council, Chamber of Deputies in the Session of January 6, 1836, on the subject of Poland.

Gentlemen,

I do full justice to the high ideals and the noble passions with which the orator whom you have just heard has been inspired; [150] but I will venture to remind him that he has not done full justice to the Government and to the Ministry of 1831 in expressing his apparent belief that the difficulties of that period prevented our Cabinet from showing that interest in the Polish nation which a French Government will always feel for Poland.

At that moment, difficult and dangerous as it was, when the domestic circumstances of France were very perplexing, the French Government did for the Polish nation all that it was its duty to do. It did more than any other nation, and if history ever reveals the diplomatic correspondence of the French Government at that time, I venture to think that full justice will be done to the illustrious man who was then President of the Cabinet. [151]

What was done at that time in the interests of humanity and justice, the Government has never ceased to do whenever it thought that its intervention could be of any use to the population of Poland.

But in the presence of so enlightened a Chamber as this, it is unnecessary to recall the fact that the intervention of a foreign Power in the domestic administration of another state must be conducted with every care and precaution. There is often a reason to fear that such intervention, far from calming irritation and exasperation and far from weakening political animosity, may arouse these passions to greater power. In a word, such a task can only be fulfilled by the constant exercise of care and precaution.

I trust that the Chamber will understand me if I say that the French Government has never neglected any opportunity of intervening in the interests of humanity, but the Chamber will also understand perhaps that this is not the right moment for serving humanity and that it is indeed against the wishes of the Chamber to press the Government to further efforts in this place. It is to be feared that words actuated by generous feeling may indeed produce an effect entirely contrary to the sentiments which inspires them and may merely be translated abroad into greater ill-feeling. There is a fear, in short, that the cause of humanity may be betrayed in the very wish to serve it and without the knowledge of those who desire to defend it (General cries of Hear, Hear).

On this point I shall say no more. The former speaker has himself pointed out the difference that should characterise the observations of one who speaks for the Government, and those of an isolated member of the Chamber. The Chamber will certainly understand that it is not for me to reply severally to the observations which have been laid before you, because any answer to these observations will have an undue importance as coming from myself.

As to the other branch of the question, the existence of treaties which the first speaker has discussed, and to which the second [152] has also referred; I will speak upon the matter as shortly as I can. As far as I know, absolutely no one in Europe would assert that treaties should not be faithfully executed both in their letter and their spirit, but in the article of the treaty to which the two orators have referred, different principles are enounced; principles which are not incompatible, and should indeed be reconciled; on the one hand the Independence of Poland, and on the other the Union of Poland with Russia. In this article the principle is laid down that representation and certain national institutions should exist; but execution has been delayed until we know what these institutions are to be, and under what form they will be established.

This article was not drawn up with all the clearness that might have been desired. The possibility is thus open that the several Powers who signed the treaty of 1815 may interpret it in different senses, and emphasise more or less the principles therein enounced. It may be-I am only putting a hypothetical case-that the several Powers will not agree upon the application of these principles, or upon the nature of the action that lies before them. Are we to say that the moment a difference of opinion arises, we should immediately have recourse to force? The Chamber cannot countenance such an idea. The maintenance of relations between the Powers is upon the same footing as the maintenance of harmony between the public bodies. The mere fact that divergence of opinion is possible is no reason for an appeal to force. Discussion, reason, and time will enable the truth to prevail.

Well, gentlemen, I am confident that the Chamber will understand without further words from myself upon the question now before it, that there are divergences of opinion between the different Powers upon certain points. We consider that negotiations, discussion, and time will enable the truth to prevail, and we trust that upon this point you will agree with us. (Loud applause.) [153]