4189282620

GREAT BRITAIN AND POLAND

“ History,” says Mr. Guedalla, “ repeats itsclf, historians rcpeat each othcr.” In thc casc of Anglo-Polish rclations, history has certainly repeatcd itsclf and I am conscious that this afternoon I shall be obligcd to repeat thc substance of what historians have oftcn said.

In thc rccent debato on the War and thc International Situa-'ion in thc Housc of Commons (Septembcr 28 and 29), it seemed * mc that thc spirits of Fox and Shcridan and Burkc musi have ^tirred as thcy heard thcir old argumcnts rcvivcd ; for thc argumcnts used in this debatę were idcntical with thosc which wcrc uscd when thc Polisli que$tion cropped up in thc House as it cften did after thc partitions of the eightet nth ccntury. It was always a strong point in thc argument of l^;ox and his associatcs to ask why should we havc gonc to war with France when wc had failed to go to war ovcr thc much greater wrong of thc partition of Poland. “ lf we saw the rights of Poland, of a ncurral and independent nation, openly trampled upon, its territory invaded, and all this for the manifest aggrandisemcnt of othcr powers, and no war dcclared or mcnaccd, not evcn a rcir.onstrance interposed . . . could we bc blamcd for suspccting that the pretended was not thc rcal objcct of the present war?” (Fcbruary 18, 1793, The Speeches of the Rl. Hon. Charles James Fox, vol. v, pp. 39-40).

The recent debate rccalled to my mind especially thc sirting of March 6, 1794, when Mr. Whitbrcad’s motion for a separatc peacc with France was debated. A certain Member named Mr. Jcnkinson, whosc namc has dcscrvcdly sunk into oblivion, is reported to havc spoken in this fashion : “ The honourable movcr had cndcavoured to make a deep impression on the minds

if the Mcmbcrs by an appcal ro rheir passions respecting thc ^elancholy case of Poland. Such an appcal was, howcvcr, in his pinion, inapplicablc to thc present State of affairs. Thcrc was an old adage that when your own housc is on fire you ought not to cxcrt yoursclf to exringuish thc flames in that of your neighbour. But he affirmed that whilc his own housc was on fire hc would not go thc distance of a mile to ex:inguish ihc flames of another. Forming thc analogy, he insisted that it was absurd to talk of Poland, a territory at such a distance, when there were thc greatest apprehensions of danger ; o nct⁵.r fome.” When bc rosę to speak, “ Mr. Fox begged lcavi- to continue the allcgory, and to ask whether it would be commcndable in a man when hc found his neighbour’s house on fire ro cali in a band of plunderers and robbers to his assistancc. Rather than make a common causc

3