MISTAKES ABOUT POLAND: LORD DUDLEY STUART AND PR INCE CZAII'I'()ht
YSKI.
To THE EDITOIL or Tile sled TATOli.
Sm—The Polish Constitution of 1791 having been often referred to by the so-called friends of' Poland as one of the sublimest products of the human in- tellect, and forming the very landmark beyond which no Pole has ever dared to go in his wishes, it is perhaps time to say a few words on that pattern of perfection called the Constitution of 1791.
Before that period, Poland had is King elected, idle, by this constitution was rendered hereditary. This was all the change; and, mark it well, this royalty was sumo Iiing perfectly useless. The King did not coustitute it separate toil independent power. All laws were made without his concurrence. Ile could neither sanction nor reject them. Ile was nothing but a first senator and prime functionary, telt°, having been placed in a state of inactivity, bad retaintd his title. With I he legislation, as I said, he had nothing to do ; nor was he in possession ;X t hose privilevis which. eimstitute the political attributes (it royalty. War and peace were nettle without ids concurrence. Whitt difference could it make to Poland if sUch a plipoet was elected or was hereditary ? And the ,independence, the grandeur, the ri generation of Poland, were all to come frora this important change. History there to show what that change pro- duced—the divisien and destruct ion or Poland.
Poland was an a ri,toeratic rtpublic. Such was tiw constitution of Poland from time immemorial. 'fo change this aristocratical republic into one more popular, was all that was required. T!, is would have been a logical develop- ment and sensible enlargonent of the old Polish constitution, and one con- formable to the national traditions. The Polish aristocracy embraced about one million of persons. This million constituted the Polish nation ; and in that respect our constit Mimi had a democratical character. Poland %vas a de- mocracy, limited to one million of inhabitants. The hereditary royalty inhn- duccd be the u est' Col: St ittiti.n was a jiireign element, contrary to our demo- cratic principles and historical education. Royalty, ou the contrary, had no histialcal root, no foundation in the sentiments of the nation. The donocra- thml principle existed both as a principle and tot a practice. If royalty was in- troduced 1,s: as a practice than as a principle, at all events it acted as a prin- elide contrary to that of democracy, and pmtlitccd a complete confusion and anarchy in the ideas. This principle of royall y was an innovalitat ; sod, ma- sequently, little understood by the pyoplc. It gave no new notions, and yet ilestroyed all the old beliefs and all the political sentimetas that haul liefie:e ex- isted in the nation. This was the very reason which inspired PEIMA NT), a Prowl' writer and Royalist, with the following remarkable words—" Pendant (lute l'assemblee constituante, conduiroit la France h hut perte en y il6truisant une monarchic, in Diet de 178S, conduiroit la Pologne it sum peat cut y ant une sage et haratlitaire monarchic." If we, however, compare the present state of the two countries, it would almost appear that the abolition of roy- alty is a less dangerous experiment than the introduction of royalty; for France at this moment exists and is a powerful country, but where is 'Palatal now ? The institution of' a hereditary moutuvIty has crushed her. Do not believe, Sir, that the monarchical priaciple is 1110ir ntore cherished in -Poland. We have not the least reason for that. It was kings that murdered Poland ; and it was kings again that ratified and sanctioned that abominable assassination. It is true Prince A oAm CzAUTORYSKI has overcome this tint mini aversion in 1831. Faithful to his political education he bad received at the Russian court, he showed las affect mils I ry bitterly deploring the decree of the Diet in 1831, in virtue of which N wilt/LAS was deprived of his hereditary rights over Poland. Beside himself' with despair, when the decree was passed, Prince CZA it I, beating liis hands against his fiffehead, sobbed—. They have lost Po- land." Yes, Poland was lost, because such tt man was left at the head of our allairs. And twenty days before the dill of 'Warsaw, he ran away in order to PIM: what he believed the greatest treasure of Poland, his own precious life, from the general ruin. The rifles of the people bade him adieu ; while, dis- guised in the nualeat garb of a laequey, wearing a. parcel, he rode away through the floor of Wala (Freedom.) Ile Wits shout ii, hut escaped. In the year 1834, however, the great majority of the Polish' emigration declared I • a foe and traitor to his country, by a decree signed by three thousand Poles.
royalty of 1791 was renewed in 1831, with the same fatal consequences for our tuitional independence. Having done now with the monarchical principle, I puss over to the ovgattiza-
tion of the Senate in the Constitution of 1791. Its organization was alike conformable to the received dogmas of constitutional governments. The Senate had no independent power. It was just as great a nullity as the King.. It was at most a conseil d'etat. Neither the King nor the Senate had the right of veto. The Chamber of Notices was and-every thing. The Nonces were almost exclusively taken from the nobility. The nobility was in the ex- clusive possession or the rights of sovereignty, and they exercised them without a sluulow of respoilidldlity. Yon have !ward probably of the towns patrticipatino in the rights of representation. I shall describe to you in what consisted mere rights. Twenty-one towns obtained. the right of representation. But this right was a mere delusion, for they had no vote, excepting on subjects of com-
merce anl local police. No burgher could be invested with any high function
of the government. In every respect, the nobility was the nation ; and legisla- tion, as well as the geverntnent, entirely devolved upon them. As to the freedom of the press, the censorship of the Romish see introduced in Poland ia the year 1017, leas confirmed in all its prescriptions by the Constitution of 1791. As to religious freedom, the Catholic religion was proclaimed the re- ligion of the State, and any chimp of religion was proscribed' under pains of exile or death. The peasant was a serf. This shivery was not of long stand- ing in Poland. It had only been introduced in 1573, in an act of usurpation on the part of the nobility. This usurpation was lfgalized by the Constitu- tion or 1791. Slaveu having been made the national state, it WaS kolged necessary to state in express words, in the said Constitution, that ftweigners cumin,' to Poland should. be considered as freemen.
It is not without good reasons that I have said so much of the Constitution of 1791. The best protector which the Poles have found in England, is Lonl Duman- STuART, Vice-President of the Literary Association of the Friends of Polaud. His words and his ideas have a great weight on the ques- tion of Poland with a great portion of the English people. Lord DUDLEY STUART is the declared admirer mid friend. of Prince CZARTORTSKT, the Man whom a majority of the Polish emigration has declared the foe of his country. Lord DUDLEY STUART is also the declared tuhnirer of the constitution of 1701. lii i speech which he pronounced at a meeting at the Literary Associa- tion of the Friends of Polaud, on the 3d of May 1838, he employed the follow- ing remarkable words- " on the 3.1 Mae 191.a cousaitio ion wai erected ;Oda Atained the admiration or every enlinid,nea man in Europe. and still conlinnrs to do so. Let us hope that we shall see the day, when it will berri,stabfishett."—Rernt of the Sixth General Mictiny tf the Literary AsAeiation of the Friends of Pol ant. Lundun, Can it be, that the English friends of Pol d should bold up to the admira- tion of the world. serfage and all the other be'IlLii:tits of the Constituthm of 1791? This constitution had for its motto—oh for the nobility, little or nothing for burghers, and nothing at all for peasants. It produced the division of 'Poland No Pole can hear its name mentioned without all the misfortunes of Poland coming to his recollection. Why, Sir, the constitution given by Nmioixox in 1807, and the constitution given by Czar ALEXANDER ill N15, were sensible improvements upon the Constitution or 1-;!1.. Ana is this the regeneration of Poland which Prinre CZARTOItYSET revolinliended. to LODI DUDLEY STUART? Did he ever find the constitution of the Muscovite Czar too liberal fir him, that Poland must be brought back to what it was in 1791? And Lord Or 1). LEY STUART is the declared friend of such men, and he liste116 it) their adviees and recommendations! -Why, Sir, Poland in its present de- plorable state, deprived of its nationality, and under the Muscovite yoke, was in a much happier condition than it Lvould. he under the Constitution of 1791 The Czar NICHOLAS is not the unconditional friend of serfage. On the con- trary, where his personal influence prevailed, with the peasants of the Crown, he has abolished serfage. But Prince CziwroitYsKt has not only never set at freedom his own peasants, he has also resisted others who would abolish serf- age. During the last revolution, it was he who declared. it a dangerous inno- vation if the peasants of Volhynia, Praaten, and Lithuania, were proclaimed free, although it was the only means of noising them and engaging them to join the Polish arm. It was this very man who put his own name under on order in virtue of which Svveral peasants in the neighbourhood of Cracow ond Kalish were severely punished, and soldiers sent against them, for leaving re- fused to do the dirty work of serfs; and both these events happened during the last revolution, when the whole of Poland was called to arms in defence of freedom. What can Poland expaTt from the protection of Lord Drown. e Alen W110 is the declared friend ofa It a Item ? And to him he ll-tens.
should lie very sorry, Si,, if my statements should be construed con: vary to my intentions. Lord Dummy slyer Awe, thowda he litzs allowel him if to
he misled by bad councillor:, has shown 11 l
minse.t, oil the lehole, a lean well wishing, and endowed with a lively Sin 'e for the personal hardship, of the Pi ties. But if we consider the question under a political point L.f view, he has done a great deal of mischief to tin Polish cause, by favouring a ,ingle party- nlisaralde minority, to the prejudice of the general priacipks it the Polish Emigration, Rod of the real interests of Poland. 1 did not write, however, the present letter with the intention of blaming Lord DeDLEY STU-kit'''. I have a greater to to perform. It seems tied the interest for Poland increases; that Europe 1 i to to understand, 1 will not say the crime, but the blunder of having permitted the dismemberment of Poland, and hy it endangered the se- curity and freedom of the whole Continent. I can iwver believe that the projects, or rattier intrigues of our oppressors, can ever tend to ameliorating the position of Poland.
If, then, the propositions of Lord Dcnt,rx S•rcAur gained ground—if the advice of a minority, by its principles anti its actions proclaimed criminal, or if you like better, invaptibleoce principally listened to and cherished—the conse- quence 1611 be, that the promoters of thteae schemes will meet with general aversion amongst the Emigration, and with general indignation amongst flue Polish nation. For, Sir, this fiction, thus minority, is composed either of per- sons without talent, or stigniatizvd by the malediction of all "'abed. In- stead of rendering service to Poland, you will offend her, you will hriv there the germs of new commotions. In:testi. of founding something, yon shall assist in a war of destruction. The only MC:MS of saving to Poland and to Europe new misfortunes, is to leave to Poland the freedom of constituting its government on the basis Mach they themselves shall judge best.
T. B. OSTROWSKI.
Previous page
