Karl Marx

The Polish Meeting

[From the *Neue Oder-Zeitung* No. 379, August 16, 1855]

London, August 13. The repeated vexatious attacks by the government press on the great Polish meeting held last Wednesday in St. Martin’s Hall necessitate a few marginal glosses. The initiative for the meeting evidently came from the ministry itself. The “Literary Society of the Friends of Poland”, a society composed of adherents of Czartoryski on the one hand and the pro-Polish English aristocracy on the other, was put forward as the front. Since its inception this society was a blind tool in the hands of Palmerston, who manipulated and controlled it by means of the recently deceased Lord Dudley Stuart. The Polish addresses and deputations which it sent annually to Palmerston were one of the great means of keeping alive his “anti-Russian” reputation. The adherents of Czartoryski, for their part, derived important advantages from this connection: to figure as the only respectable, so to speak “official” representatives of the Polish emigration, to suppress the democratic party of the emigration, and to dispose of the considerable material resources of the society as recruiting funds for their own party. Vehement and protracted is the discord between the Literary Society and the “Centralisation” of the democratic Polish society. In 1839 the latter held a large public meeting in London, in which it exposed the intrigues of the “Literary” Society, unrolled the historical past of the Czartoryskis (this was done by Ostrowski, author of a history of Poland written in English), and loudly proclaimed its opposition to the diplomatic-aristocratic “restorers” of Poland. From that moment the usurped position of the “Literary” Society was shaken. In passing it may be noted that the events of the years 1846 and 1848/49 added a third element to the Polish emigration, a socialist faction, which, however, jointly with the democratic one, counteracts the Czartoryski party.

The purpose of the meeting instigated by the government was threefold: the formation of a Polish legion, in order to rid itself in the Crimea of part of the “Polish abroad”; the revivification of Palmerston’s popularity; finally, the delivery of any possible Polish movement into his and Bonaparte’s hands. The government press asserts that a deep-laid conspiracy, originating from Russian agents, thwarted the purpose of the meeting. Nothing is more ridiculous than this assertion. The majority of the audience in St. Martin’s Hall consisted of London Chartists. The anti-government amendment
(1)
was moved by an Urquhartite and seconded by an Urquhartite — by Collett and Hart. The handbills distributed in the hall contained the following:

“The meeting was convened by English aristocrats who only seek to maintain the old British system of government, etc.”, “Poland condemns any alliance with the present powers-that-be of Europe, wishes to be restored by none of the existing governments, not to sink down into a tool of diplomatic intrigues, etc.”

These handbills were signed by the president and secretary of the “Polish Democratic Committee”. If one now considers that in London Chartists, Urquhartites and the actual “democratic” Polish emigration, all three stand in relations to each other that are nothing less than friendly, every suspicion of a “conspiracy” vanishes. The noisy interruptions of the meeting were exclusively caused by the chairman’s, Lord Harrington’s, unparliamentary refusal to read out Collett’s amendment and put it to the vote. They were increased by the idea of Colonel Szulszewski, secretary of the “Literary Society of the Friends of Poland”, to call for a constable to have Collett arrested. The tumult naturally reached its height when Lord Harrington, Sir Robert Peel and their friends fled from the platform and vacated the place. As soon as George Thompson was appointed chairman in Harrington’s place, calm was immediately restored.

The specimens of England’s ruling class who stood out at this Polish meeting were by no means calculated to inspire particular respect for the patriciate. Earl Harrington is perhaps a very good man, but he is undoubtedly a very bad speaker. It was impossible to witness a more painful exhibition. Only with the utmost effort was his lordship able to stammer out two connected words. Up to this moment he has not finished a single sentence of his speech. That has, in the meantime, been done for him — by the stenographers. His lordship is a military man and doubtless brave, but to judge from his conduct of the Polish meeting, he is cut out for anything rather than a leader. As a speaker, Lord Ebrington, the accoucheur of the Sunday Bill, is only slightly superior to Earl Harrington. His physiognomy betrays obstinacy, the shape of his skull is that of a battering-ram. He has one indisputable merit. He cannot be beaten by arguments. Napoleon once declared that the English did not know when they were beaten. In this respect Ebrington is a model Englishman.

After the lords came the baronets. Lord Ebrington moved the government resolution for the restoration of Poland; Sir Robert Peel followed him and spoke as his second. In many respects no greater contrast is conceivable than that between the “Member for Tamworth” (Peel) and the “Member for Marylebone” (Ebrington). The former is a loose and natural humbug, the latter an artificial and puritanical milksop. The one amuses, the other disgusts. Sir Robert Peel makes the impression of a wine-traveller elevated to the peerage, Lord Ebrington of an inquisitor converted to Protestantism. Tony Lumpkin and Beau Brummell rolled into one person would yield roughly an incongruity such as is exhibited in the person, attire and manner of Peel. It is an extraordinary mixture of clown and dandy. Palmerston is very partial to the Tamworth oddity. He finds him useful. When he wants to know which way the popular wind is blowing, he hoists Sir Robert Peel as a weather-vane. When he wished to know whether English public opinion would sanction the expulsion of Victor Hugo etc., he had Sir Robert Peel speak, denouncing the refugees and apologising for Bonaparte. So again in regard to Poland. He makes use of him as a “feeler”. For this not over-dignified rôle Peel is exceedingly suited. He is what the English call “a chartered libertine”, a patented madcap, a privileged eccentric, for whose sallies and pranks, zigzags of word and deed no ministry and no party is held responsible. Sir Robert came to the Polish meeting padded and, as it is said, rouged in the artistic manner. He appeared laced up, wore a bright red rose in his buttonhole, was perfumed like a milliner, and brandished in his right hand an enormous umbrella, with which he beat the time to his speech. By a highly ironical coincidence, the lords and baronets were immediately followed on foot by Mr Tite, ex-vice-president of the Administrative Reform Association. Since he was, through the influence of this association, made the Solon of Bath, he has notoriously opened his parliamentary career by voting against Scully’s motion for a piece of administrative reform and for Palmerston’s Turkish loans, while on the vote on Roebuck’s motion he, with great moderation, abstained from voting. The lords and baronets seemed to point to him tittering: Look there at our substitute! It is unnecessary to depict Mr Tite more closely. Shakespeare did it, when he invented the immortal Shallow, whom Falstaff compares to one of the little figures carved out of cheese rinds at dessert.

In contrast to all these gentlemen, Hart, an unknown young plebeian, made the impression from his very first words that he was a man called to carry away and dominate masses. One now understands the vexation of the government over the Polish meeting. It was a defeat not only for Palmerston, but still more for the class he represents.

Footnotes

(1) Collett’s amendment, adopted by the meeting, read literally: “That this meeting, while heartily desiring the restoration of the Polish nationality, cannot forget that the destruction of that nationality is due mainly to the perfidious conduct of Palmerston from 1830 to 1846; that so long as Palmerston remains a servant of the Crown, any proposal for the restoration of Poland can be only a snare and a fraud. That the truth of this assertion is proved also by his prosecuting the war in such a manner as to injure Russia as little as possible, while the conditions of peace proposed by him would utterly destroy the integrity and independence of Turkey.”