The Whitewater controversy, Whitewater scandal, or simply Whitewater, was an American political controversy of the 1990s. It began with an investigation into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim McDougal and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation. This failed business venture was incorporated in 1979 with the purpose of developing vacation properties on land along the White River near Flippin, Arkansas.
A March 1992 New York Times article published during the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign reported that the Clintons, then governor and first lady of Arkansas, had invested and lost money in the Whitewater Development Corporation.[1] The article stimulated the interest of L. Jean Lewis, a Resolution Trust Corporation investigator who was looking into the failure of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, also owned by Jim and Susan McDougal.
Lewis looked for connections between the savings and loan company and the Clintons, and on September 2, 1992, she submitted a criminal referral to the FBI naming Bill and Hillary Clinton as witnesses in the Madison Guaranty case. Little Rock U.S. Attorney Charles A. Banks and the FBI determined that the referral lacked merit, but Lewis continued to pursue the case. From 1992 to 1994, Lewis issued several additional referrals against the Clintons and repeatedly called the U.S. Attorney's Office in Little Rock and the Justice Department regarding the case.[2] Her referrals eventually became public knowledge, and she testified before the Senate Whitewater Committee in 1995.
David Hale, the source of criminal allegations against the Clintons, claimed in November 1993 that Bill Clinton had pressured him into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, the Clintons' partner in the Whitewater land deal.[3] The allegations were regarded as questionable because Hale had not mentioned Clinton in reference to this loan during the original FBI investigation of Madison Guaranty in 1989; only after coming under indictment himself in 1993, did Hale make allegations against the Clintons.[4] A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation resulted in convictions against the McDougals for their role in the Whitewater project. Jim Guy Tucker, Bill Clinton's successor as governor, was convicted of fraud and sentenced to four years of probation for his role in the matter.[5] Susan McDougal served 18 months in prison for contempt of court for refusing to answer questions relating to Whitewater.
Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary were ever prosecuted, after three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal. The matter was handled by the Whitewater Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr.  The last of these inquiries came from the final Independent Counsel, Robert Ray (who replaced Starr) in 2000.[6]  Susan McDougal was granted a pardon by Bill Clinton before he left office.
Nomenclature
The term "Whitewater" is sometimes used to include other controversies from the Bill Clinton administration, especially Travelgate, Filegate, and the circumstances surrounding Vince Foster's death, that were also investigated by the Whitewater Independent Counsel.[7]
But Whitewater proper refers only to the matters stemming from the Whitewater Development Corporation and subsequent developments.
History

This article is part of
a series aboutBill Clinton
Political positions
Electoral history

Early life
Family
Public image
Sexual misconduct allegations

Governor of Arkansas
Governorship

President of the United States
Presidency
Timeline

Policies
Economic
Gun control
Environmental
Foreign
Clinton Doctrine
International trips

Appointments
Cabinet
Judiciary

First term
1st inauguration
Health Security Act
NAFTA
Republican Revolution
AmeriCorps
Dayton Agreement
Timeline
'93
'94
'95
'96

Second term
2nd inauguration
One America Initiative
Balanced Budget
Operation Infinite Reach
Bombing of Iraq
Bombing of Yugoslavia
Clinton–Lewinsky scandal
Impeachment
Timeline
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01

Presidential campaigns
1992
Primaries
Convention
Election
1996
Primaries
Convention
Debates
Election

Controversies
Whitewater
White House travel office
Pardon

Post-presidency
Presidential Library
My Life
Activities
Clinton Foundation
Clinton Bush Haiti Fund
One America Appeal

vt
Origins of Whitewater Development Corporation

Bill Clinton had known Arkansas businessman and political figure Jim McDougal since 1968, and had made a previous real estate investment with him in 1977.[9] The Clintons were seeking ways of supplementing their income: Bill Clinton's salary was $26,500 as Arkansas Attorney General (which would rise to $35,000 if his campaign for Governor of Arkansas succeeded) and Hillary Clinton's salary was $24,500 as a Rose Law Firm associate[10][11] for a combined income in 1978 of $51,173,[12] equivalent to $197,000in 2018.
In spring of 1978, McDougal proposed that the Clintons join him and his wife, Susan, in buying 230 acres (93ha) of undeveloped land along the south bank of the White River near Flippin, Arkansas, in the Ozark Mountains. The goal was to subdivide the site into lots for vacation homes, intended for the many people coming south from Chicago and Detroit who were interested in low property taxes, fishing, rafting, and mountain scenery. The plan was to hold the property for a few years and then sell the lots at a profit.[9]
The four borrowed $203,000 to buy land, and subsequently transferred ownership of the land to the newly created Whitewater Development Corporation, in which all four participants had equal shares.[9] Susan McDougal chose the name "Whitewater Estates" and their sales pitch was, "One weekend here and you'll never want to live anywhere else."[11][13][14] The business was incorporated on June 18, 1979.
Failure of Whitewater Development Corporation
By the time the Whitewater lots were surveyed and available for sale at the end of 1979, interest rates had climbed to near 20%. Prospective buyers could no longer afford to buy vacation homes. Rather than take a loss on the venture, the four decided to build a model home and wait for better economic conditions.[9]

Following the land purchase, Jim McDougal asked the Clintons for additional funds for interest payments on the loan and other expenses; the Clintons later claimed to have no knowledge of how these contributions were used.[9][15] When Bill Clinton failed to win re-election in 1980, Jim McDougal lost his job as the governor's economic aide and decided to go into banking.[11] He acquired the Bank of Kingston in 1980 and the Woodruff Savings & Loan in 1982,[16] renaming them the Madison Bank & Trust and the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, respectively.[13]
In spring 1985, McDougal held a fundraiser at Madison Guaranty's office in Little Rock that paid off Clinton's 1984 gubernatorial campaign debt of $50,000. McDougal raised $35,000; $12,000 of that was in Madison Guaranty cashier's checks.[17][18]
In 1985, Jim McDougal invested in a local construction project called Castle Grande. The 1,000 acres (400ha), located south of Little Rock,[13] were priced at about $1.75 million, more than McDougal could afford on his own. According to then current law, McDougal could borrow only $600,000 from his own savings and loan, Madison Guaranty. Therefore, McDougal involved others to raise the additional funds. Among these was Seth Ward, an employee of the bank, who helped funnel the additional $1.15 million required. To avoid potential investigations, the money was moved back and forth among several other investors and intermediaries. Hillary Clinton, then an attorney at Rose Law Firm (which is based in Little Rock) provided legal services to Castle Grande.
In 1986, federal regulators realized that all of the necessary funds for this real estate venture had come from Madison Guaranty; regulators called Castle Grande a sham. In July of that year, McDougal resigned from Madison Guaranty. Seth Ward fell under investigation, along with the lawyer who helped him draft the agreement.
Castle Grande earned $2 million in commissions and fees for McDougal's business associates, as well as an unknown amount in legal fees for Rose Law Firm, but in 1989, it collapsed, at a cost to the government of $4 million.[19] This in turn helped trigger the 1989 collapse of Madison Guaranty, which federal regulators then had to take over.[19] Taking place in the midst of the nationwide savings and loan crisis, the failure of Madison Guaranty cost the United States $73 million.[20]
The Clintons lost between $37,000 and $69,000 on their Whitewater investment; this was less than the McDougals lost.[21] The reasons for the unequal capital contributions by the Clintons and McDougals are unknown but the President's critics cited the discrepancy as evidence that then-Governor Clinton was to contribute to the project in other ways.[15]
The White House and the President's supporters claimed that they were exonerated by the Pillsbury Report. This was a $3 million study done for the Resolution Trust Corporation by the Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro law firm at the time that Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan was dissolved. The report concluded that James McDougal, who had set up the deal, was the managing partner, and Bill Clinton was a passive investor in the venture; the Associated Press characterized it as "generally support[ing] the Clintons' description of their involvement in Whitewater."[22][23]  However, Charles Patterson, the attorney who supervised the report, "refused ... to call it a vindication" of the Clintons, stating in testimony before the Senate Whitewater Committee that "it was not our purpose to vindicate, castigate, exculpate."[23]
Bill Clinton's first run for president
During Bill Clinton's first bid for the presidency in 1992, he was asked by New York Times reporters about the failure of the Whitewater development.[24] The subsequent New York Times article, by reporter Jeff Gerth, appeared on March 8, 1992.[1]
Removal of documents
Within hours of the death of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster in July 1993, chief White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum removed documents, some of them concerning the Whitewater Development Corporation, from Foster's office and gave them to Maggie Williams, Chief of Staff to the First Lady. According to the New York Times, Williams placed the documents in a safe in the Clinton residence on the third floor of the  White House for five days before turning them over to the Clinton family lawyer.[25]
Subpoena of the president and his wife

As a result of the exposé in the New York Times, the Justice Department opened an investigation into the failed Whitewater deal. Media pressure continued to build, and on April 22, 1994, Hillary Clinton gave an unusual press conference under a portrait of Abraham Lincoln in the State Dining Room of the White House, to address questions on both Whitewater and the cattle futures controversy; it was broadcast live on several networks. In it, she claimed that the Clintons had a passive role in the Whitewater venture and had committed no wrongdoing, but admitted that her explanations had been vague. She said that she no longer opposed appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the matter. Afterwards, she won media praise for the manner in which she conducted herself during the press conference;[15] Time called her "open, candid, but above all unflappable...the real message was her attitude and her poise. The confiding tone and relaxed body language...immediately drew approving reviews".[27] By that time there was growing backlash from Democrats and other members of the political left against the press' investigations of Whitewater. The New York Times was criticized by Gene Lyons of Harper's Magazine, who felt its reporters were exaggerating the significance and possible impropriety of what they were uncovering.[28]
At Clinton's request, Attorney General Janet Reno appointed a special prosecutor, Robert B. Fiske, to investigate the legality of the Whitewater transactions in 1994. Two allegations surfaced: 1) that Clinton had exerted pressure on an Arkansas businessman, David Hale, to make a loan that would benefit him and the owners of Madison Guaranty; and 2) that an Arkansas bank had concealed transactions involving Clinton's gubernatorial campaign in 1990. In May 1994, Fiske issued a grand jury subpoena to the President and his wife for all documents relating to Madison Guaranty, with a deadline of 30 days. They were reported as missing by the Clintons. Almost two years later, the subpoenaed billing records of the Rose Law Firm were discovered in the Clintons' private residence in the White House, with fingerprints of Hillary Clinton, among others.[29]
The Kenneth Starr investigation
In August 1994, Kenneth Starr[30] was appointed by a three-judge panel to continue the Whitewater investigation, replacing Robert B. Fiske, who had been specially appointed by the attorney general, prior to the re-enactment of the Independent Counsel law. Fiske was replaced because he had been chosen and appointed by Janet Reno, Clinton's attorney general, creating a conflict of interest.
David Hale, the key witness against President Clinton in Starr's Whitewater investigation, alleged in November 1992 that Clinton, while governor of Arkansas, pressured him to provide an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, the partner of the Clintons in the Whitewater deal.[3]
Hale's defense strategy, as proposed by attorney Randy Coleman, was to present himself as the victim of high-powered politicians who forced him to give away all of the money.[31] This self-caricature was undermined by testimony from November 1989, wherein FBI agents investigating the failure of Madison Guaranty had questioned Hale about his dealings with Jim and Susan McDougal, including the $300,000 loan. According to the agents' official memorandum of that interview, Hale described in some detail his dealings with Jim Guy Tucker (then an attorney in private practice, later Bill Clinton's lieutenant governor), both McDougals, and several others, but never mentioned Governor Bill Clinton.
Clinton denied that he pressured Hale to approve the loan to Susan McDougal. By this time, Hale had already pleaded guilty to two felonies and secured a reduction in his sentence in exchange for his testimony against Bill Clinton. Charges were made by Clinton supporters that Hale had received numerous cash payments from representatives of the so-called Arkansas Project, a $2.4 million campaign established to assist in Hale's defense strategy, and to investigate Clinton and his associates between 1993 and 1997.[3] These charges were the topic of a separate investigation by former Department of Justice investigator, Michael E. Shaheen, Jr.[32] Shaheen filed his report in July 1999 to Starr, who stated that the allegations that Hale had been paid in hopes of influencing his testimony were "unsubstantiated or, in some cases, untrue". Furthermore, no charges were brought against Hale or the Arkansas Project outlet, The American Spectator.[33] Writers from Salon complained that the full, 168-page report had not been made public, a complaint still being reiterated by Salon as of 2001.[34]
State prosecutors issued an arrest warrant for Hale in early July 1996, charging that Hale had misrepresented the solvency of his insurance company, National Savings Life, to the state insurance commission. The prosecutors also alleged in court papers that Hale had made those misrepresentations to conceal the fact that he had looted the insurance company. Hale said that any infraction was a technicality and that no one had lost any money.[35] In March 1999, Hale was convicted of the first charge, with the jury recommending a 21-day jail sentence.[35]
Starr drafted an impeachment referral to the House of Representatives in the fall of 1997, alleging that there was "substantial and credible evidence" that Bill Clinton had committed perjury regarding Hale's allegations.
Theodore B. Olson, who with several associates, launched the plan that later became known as the "Arkansas Project", wrote several essays for The American Spectator, accusing Clinton and many of his associates of wrongdoing. The first of those pieces appeared in February 1994, alleging a wide variety of criminal offenses by the Clintons and others, including Webster Hubbell. These allegations led to the discovery that Hubbell, a friend and former Rose Law Firm partner of Hillary Clinton, had committed multiple frauds, mostly against his own firm. Hillary Clinton, instead of being complicit in Hubbell's crimes, had been among his victims. In December 1994, one week after Hubbell pleaded guilty to mail fraud and tax evasion, Associate White House Counsel, Jane C. Sherburne, created a "Task List" which included a reference to monitoring Hubbell's cooperation with Starr. Hubbell was later recorded in prison saying "I need to roll over one more time" regarding the Rose Law firm lawsuit. In his next court appearance, he pleaded the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination (see United States v. Hubbell).
In February 1997, Starr announced he would leave the investigation to pursue a position at the Pepperdine University School of Law. However, he "flip flopped" in the face of "intense criticism", and new evidence of sexual misconduct.[30]
By April 1998, diverted to some degree by the burgeoning Lewinsky scandal, Starr's investigations in Arkansas were winding down, with his Little Rock grand jury about to expire.[19] Hubbell, Jim Guy Tucker, and Susan McDougal had all refused to cooperate with Starr.[19] Tucker and McDougal were later pardoned by President Clinton. When the Arkansas grand jury did conclude its work in May 1998, after 30 months in panel, it came up with only a contempt indictment against Susan McDougal.[32] Although she refused to testify under oath regarding the Clintons' involvement in Whitewater, Susan McDougal did make the case in the media that the Clintons had been truthful in their account of the loan, and had cast doubt on her former husband's motives for cooperating with Starr. She also claimed that James McDougal felt abandoned by Clinton, and told her "he was going to pay back the Clintons". She said to the press, again not under oath, that her husband had told her that Republican activist and Little Rock lawyer, Sheffield Nelson, was willing to "pay him some money" for talking to the New York Times about Bill Clinton, and in 1992, he told her that one of Clinton's political enemies was paying him to tell the New York Times about Whitewater.
From the beginning, Susan McDougal charged that Starr offered her "global immunity" from other charges if she would cooperate with the Whitewater investigation. McDougal told the jury that refusing to answer questions about the Clintons and Whitewater wasn't easy for her, or her family. "It's been a long road, a very long road...and it was not an easy decision to make", McDougal told the court. McDougal refused to answer any questions while under oath, leading to her being imprisoned by the judge for civil contempt of court for the maximum 18 months, including eight months in isolation. Starr's subsequent indictment of McDougal for criminal contempt of court charges resulted in a jury hung 7-5, in favor of acquittal. President Clinton later pardoned her, shortly before leaving office (see list of people pardoned by Bill Clinton).
In September 1998, Independent Counsel Starr released the Starr Report, concerning offenses alleged to have been committed by President Clinton, as part of the Lewinsky scandal. The report mentioned Whitewater only in passing; Clinton friend and advisor, Vernon Jordan, had tried to help Webster Hubbell financially with "no-show" consulting contracts while he was under pressure to cooperate with the Whitewater investigations.[32] Indeed, it was on this basis that Starr took on the Lewinsky investigation, under the umbrella of the Whitewater Independent Counsel mandate.[32]
There was much acrimony from the most fervent critics of the Clintons, after the release of the Starr report on the Foster matter and after Starr's departure and return to the case. The death of Foster had been the source of many conspiracy theories. Christopher Ruddy, a reporter for Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, helped fuel much of this speculation with claims that Starr had not pursued this line of inquiry far enough.[36]
Reaction of the Clintons
On January 26, 1996, Hillary Clinton testified before a grand jury concerning her investments in Whitewater. This was the first time in American history that a first lady had been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. She testified that they never borrowed any money from the bank, and denied having caused anyone to borrow money on their behalf.
Reaction of Congress
Parallel to the Independent Counsel track, both houses of the United States Congress had been investigating Whitewater and holding hearings on it. The House Committee on Financial Services had been scheduled to begin hearings in late March 1994, but they were postponed after an unusually angry, written communication from Democratic Banking Committee chair Henry B. Gonzalez to Republican Jim Leach. Gonzalez called Leach "obstinate", "obdurate", "in willful disregard" of House etiquette, and "premeditatedly" plotting a "judicial adventure".[37] The House Banking Committee began its hearings in late July 1994.[38]
The Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee also began hearings on Whitewater in July 1994.[39] These hearings intensified in May 1995, following the Republican gain of control, when the Republican Banking Committee chairman Al D'Amato also became chair of the newly formed Special Whitewater Committee. The Whitewater committee's hearings were much more extensive than those held previously by the Democrats, running for 300 hours over 60 sessions across 13 months, and taking over 10,000 pages of testimony and 35,000 pages of depositions from almost 250 people.[40] The hearings' testimony and senatorial lines of investigation mostly followed partisan lines, with Republicans investigating the President and the Democrats defending him.[40] The Senate Special Whitewater Committee issued an 800-page majority report on June 18, 1996, which only hinted at one possible improper action by President Clinton, but spoke of the Clinton Administration as "an American presidency [that] misused its power, circumvented the limits on its authority and attempted to manipulate the truth". The first lady came in for much stronger criticism, as she was "the central figure" in all aspects of the alleged wrongdoings.[41] The Democratic minority on the Committee called these findings "a legislative travesty", "a witch hunt", and "a political game".[41]
On November 19, 1998, Independent Counsel Starr testified before the House Judiciary Committee in connection with the Impeachment of Bill Clinton over charges related to the Lewinsky scandal. Starr said that in late 1997, he had considered preparing an impeachment report regarding the fraudulent $300,000 loan to Susan McDougall and the question of whether the President had testified truthfully regarding the loan.[42] Starr said that he held back the charges because he was not sure that the two major witnesses had told the truth,[43] but that the investigation was still ongoing. Regarding the reappearance of Hillary Clinton's Rose Law Firm billing records in the White House residential section, Starr said the investigation had found no explanation for the disappearance or the reappearance. "After a thorough investigation, we have found no explanation how the billing records got where they were or why they were not discovered and produced earlier. It remains a mystery to this day."[43] Starr also chose this occasion to completely exonerate President Clinton of any wrongdoing in the Travelgate and Filegate matters;[42] Democrats on the committee immediately criticized Starr for withholding these findings, as well as the Whitewater one, until after the 1998 Congressional elections.[43]
Convictions
The Clintons were never charged with any crime.  Fifteen other people were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Jim Guy Tucker, who resigned from office.[44]
Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, resigned (fraud, 3 counts)
John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy)
Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; U.S. Associate Attorney General; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)
Tax returns
In March 1992, during his presidential campaign, the Clintons acknowledged that on their 1984 and 1985 tax returns, they had claimed improper tax deductions for interest payments made by the Whitewater Development Company.[45] Due to the age of mistake, the Clintons were not obligated to make good the error, but Bill Clinton announced that they would nonetheless do so.[45]
Deputy White House counsel Vince Foster looked into this matter, but did not take any action before his death.[45] On December 28, 1993, almost two years after the original announcement, the Clintons did make a reimbursement payment, for $4,900, to the Internal Revenue Service. This was done just before Justice Department investigators started seeking the Clintons' Whitewater files. The payment was made without filing an amended return (possibly because the three-year period for amended return filing had passed), but did include full interest on the amount of the error, including the additional two-year delay.[45] The Whitewater files in question, publicly released in August 1995, cast some doubt on the Clintons' assertions in the matter, as they showed that the couple was aware that the interest payments in question were paid by the Whitewater corporation, and not them personally.[45]
Ray report
Kenneth Starr's successor as Independent Counsel, Robert Ray, released a report in September 2000, that stated "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct."[24] Nevertheless, Ray criticized the White House saying that delays in the production of evidence and "unmeritorious litigation" by the president's lawyers severely impeded the investigation's progress, leading to a total cost of nearly $60 million. Ray's report effectively closed the Whitewater investigation.[6]
Aftermath
Bill and Hillary Clinton never visited the actual Whitewater property. In May 1985, Jim McDougal sold the remaining lots of the failed Whitewater Development Corporation to local realtor, Chris Wade. By 1993, there were a few occupied houses on the site, but most of the properties were still for sale. One owner, tired of the many reporters who visited the site, hung a sign saying "Go Home, Idiots."[46] By 2007, there were about 12 houses in the subdivision, with the last lot up for sale by son, Chris Wade, Jr., for $25,000. In Flippin, Arkansas Jim McDougal's savings and loan bank had been replaced by a variety of small businesses, most recently a barbershop.[47]
The length, expense, and results of the Whitewater investigations turned the public against the Office of the Independent Counsel; even Kenneth Starr was opposed to it.[48] The Independent Counsel law was allowed to expire in 1999.[48]
See also

Lewinsky scandal
The Hunting of the President

 June 2, 1996; Page A01
. United States Senate Special Whitewater Committee. U.S. Government Printing Office. (June 17, 1996).

Coordinates:


Part of a series on theHistory of Australia
Chronological

Prehistory
European exploration (sea)
European exploration (land)

1788–1850
1851–1900

1901–1945
1945–present

Timeline

By topic

Constitution
Diplomacy

Economy

Federation
Immigration

Indigenous people
Military

Monarchy
Rail transport

By region
 State/Territory Capital ACT Canberra New South Wales Sydney Northern Territory Darwin Queensland Brisbane South Australia Adelaide Tasmania Hobart Victoria Melbourne Western Australia Perth
 Australiaportalvt

The Constitutional history of Australia began with the first white settlement in Sydney in 1788 and has undergone numerous constitutional changes since.
Settlement
Prior to European settlement of Australia in 1788, Europeans had been to the land merely as explorers. The only exception was James Cook who in 1770 sailed up most of the east coast of Australia and then claimed the entire coastline he had just explored as British territory. The basis of the claim is not clear, but it is clear that the indigenous peoples were not consulted and no treaty was entered into. In later years the doctrine of terra nullius was invoked in justification of the act.
Orders-in-Council were issued in London on 6 December 1785 for the establishment of a colony in Botany Bay.[1] Arthur Phillip was appointed Governor-designate of the new colony in October 1786. In Phillip‘s commission, the boundary was defined as the 135th meridian east longitude (135° east),[2] (26 January 1788 - Map) taking the line from Melchisédech Thévenot's chart, Hollandia Nova‒‒Terre Australe, published in Relations de Divers Voyages Curieux (Paris, 1663).[3]
Soon after Lord Sydney appointed him governor, Phillip drew up a detailed memorandum of his plans for the proposed new colony. In one paragraph he wrote: "The laws of this country [England] will of course, be introduced in [New] South Wales, and there is one that I would wish to take place from the moment his Majesty's forces take possession of the country: That there can be no slavery in a free land, and consequently no slaves."[4] Actual white European settlement commenced with the arrival of the First Fleet, comprising 11 ships which arrived at Botany Bay, New South Wales between 18 and 20 January 1788.[5] The Fleet brought a total of 1044 people to the new settlement, of whom 696 were convicts. The actual settlement was located at Sydney Cove.[6] The colony was formally proclaimed by Governor Phillip on 7 February 1788 at Sydney. However, though the settlement was a military prison, and Phillip had full power as governor, the colony also had a civil administration and courts of law.
The first test of the doctrine of terra nullius occurred in R v Tommy[7] which held that the native inhabitants were only subject to English law where the incident concerned both natives and settlers. The rationale was that Aboriginal tribal groups already operated under their own legal systems. This position was further reinforced by the decisions of R v Ballard [8] and R v Boatman.[9] In 1835, Governor Bourke issued a proclamation which showed the implication of the doctrine of terra nullius.[10] He proclaimed that Indigenous Australians could not sell or assign land, nor could an individual person or group acquire land, other than through distribution by the Crown.
[n 1] The proclamation was approved by the Colonial Office on 10 October 1835. The proclamation was issued in response to the attempt by graziers from Van Diemen's Land to enter into an agreement with indigenous tribes in Port Philip, known as Batman's Treaty.[10]
During the 19th century, separate British colonies were formed in Australia. In 1825, Tasmania, named Van Diemen's Land, was proclaimed a separate colony from the colony of New South Wales.[11][12] The Swan River Colony of Western Australia was established in 1832, separately from that of New South Wales, effectively taking over by Britain of the remainder of the Australian continent. Following the Treaty of Waitangi, William Hobson declared British sovereignty over New Zealand in 1840 and was part of the colony of New South Wales. In 1841, it was separated from the colony of New South Wales to form the new Colony of New Zealand.[13][14] South Australia was formed in 1836 separately of the colony of New South Wales, and Victoria in 1851 and Queensland in 1859 both from the colony of New South Wales.[15] By Letters Patent on 6 June 1859, Queen Victoria gave her approval to the separation of the colony of Queensland from New South Wales. On the same day an Order-in-Council gave Queensland its own Constitution. Queensland became a self-governing colony with its own Governor, a nominated Legislative Council and an elected Legislative Assembly.[16] South Australia was founded as a "free province"—it was never a penal colony.[17] Victoria and Western Australia were also founded "free", but later accepted transported convicts.[18][19][20][21] A campaign by the settlers of New South Wales led to the end of convict transportation to that colony;[22] the last convict ship arrived in 1848.[23]
Responsible government

Between 1855 and 1890, the six colonies individually gained responsible government, managing most of their own affairs while remaining part of the British Empire.[24] The Colonial Office in London retained control of some matters, notably foreign affairs,[25] defence,[26] and international shipping. New Zealand achieved responsible government in 1853, New South Wales and Victoria in 1855, Tasmania in 1856, Queensland in 1859 (separated from New South Wales in that year with self-government from the beginning) and Western Australia in 1890. These arrangements were confirmed by the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865.
The Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 was a British Act of Parliament to define the relationship between local ("colonial") and British ("imperial") legislation. It confirmed that colonial legislation was to have full effect within the colony, limited only to the extent that it was not in contradiction with ("repugnant to") any Imperial Act which extended to that colony. The Act had the effect of clarifying and strengthening the position of colonial legislatures, while at the same time restating their ultimate subordination to the British Parliament.
Until the passage of the Act, a number of colonial statutes had been struck down by local judges on the grounds of repugnancy to English laws (whether or not those English laws had been intended by Parliament to be effective in the colony). This had been a particular problem for the government in South Australia, where Justice Benjamin Boothby had struck down local statutes on numerous occasions in the colony's Supreme Court.[27][28][29]
Towards federation
The first formal steps to federation of the colonies was in the form of the Federal Council of Australasia in 1885. However, the Council was a weak non-executive, non-legislative federation of Western Australia, Fiji, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria. The movement for full federation developed in the late 19th century, culminating in the six Australian colonies forming a federation of States. It was envisaged that New Zealand might also join.
In the 1890s, two constitutional conventions were called, which ultimately adopted a constitution based on a combination of British, American and other models (monarchy and parliamentary government from Britain, federalism from Canada and the United States, the use of the referendum from Switzerland). This constitution was then approved by the voters in each of the six colonies. (At the time women had the vote in only one of them: South Australia, and Aboriginal Australians in South Australia and Queensland only).
It was then passed (with an amendment allowing for some appeals to the Privy Council in London) as an Act of the British Parliament: the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. The Act entered into force on 1 January 1901, at which point the Commonwealth of Australia came into being.
The Australian Constitution, besides other matters, dealt with the allocation of powers between the colonies, which became states, and the federal parliament. Most of the powers, including those of foreign affairs and defence, were concurrent powers, with the proviso that if there was a conflict between the federal and a state law, then the federal law "will prevail". But the United Kingdom still had the power to engage in foreign affairs on behalf of Australia, and to make laws for it. In the early years Australia continued to be represented by the United Kingdom as part of the British Empire at international conferences. In 1919, following Canadian lead, Australian Prime Minister Billy Hughes insisted that Australia have separate representatives at the Versailles Peace Conference and not as part of the British delegation.
The Constitution provided that the British monarch be represented in Australia by a Governor-General. Originally, appointments were made on the advice of the British, not the Australian, government, and was generally a British aristocrat. In 1930, the Australian government insisted that Australian-born Isaac Isaacs being appointed. The British government very reluctantly accepted the Australian position that such appointments be made on the advice of the Australian government.
Finally, the Constitution provided that any law of the Australian Parliament could be disallowed within a year by the British monarch (acting on the advice of British ministers), though this power was never in fact exercised. In summary, the constitutional position of the Commonwealth as a whole in relation to the United Kingdom was, originally, the same as that of the individual colonies before federation.
From a united imperial Crown to a shared monarch
A fundamental change in the constitutional structures of the British Commonwealth (formerly the British Empire, and not to be confused with the Commonwealth of Australia) did occur, however, in the late 1920s. Under the British Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, which implemented a decision of an earlier Commonwealth conference, the unified Crown that had heretofore been the centre point of the Empire was replaced by multiple crowns worn by a shared monarch.
Before 1927, King George V reigned as king in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Irish Free State, South Africa, etc., each of these states, in effect, as dominions, amounting to a subset of the United Kingdom. After 1927, he reigned as King of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, South Africa, etc.
The form of use in the royal title as issued by King George V[30] did not mention the dominions by name, except 'Ireland', which changed from being referred to as Great Britain and Ireland to Great Britain, Ireland, indicating that it was no longer part of the United Kingdom, but a separate state of which the monarch was now directly the head, rather than through linkage with Great Britain. Though unnamed, except through reference to the 'British Dominions beyond the Seas', the ground-breaking move shattered the previous concept of the shared monarch to one of multiple monarchies, all held by the one monarch.
Though this principle was implicit in the Act and in the King's new titles, and came out of a Commonwealth Conference, neither the British government nor the dominion governments seemed initially to grasp its significance. So while the Irish immediately put the principle into effect by assuming the right to select their own governor-general and to demand a direct right of audience with the King (excluding British ministers), other dominions were much slower to go down this path, and when they did so, they were faced with determined, though ultimately futile, attempts to block such evolution in London.
Whereas before 1927, it was correct in law to talk about the British monarch reigning in the dominions, after 1927, there was technically a King of Australia, etc., even if that title was never used formally, with the only link being that that monarch was also monarch of the UK and resident outside the Commonwealth of Australia. Curiously, while the Irish asserted the title King of Ireland by having King George V sign an international treaty on behalf of his Irish realm as early as 1931 (where he was formally advised by the Irish Minister for External Affairs who formally attended His Majesty, with no British minister present), the formal title Queen of Australia was only adopted through the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973.[31]
Statute of Westminster 1931
By the mid-1920s, it was accepted by the British government that dominions would have full legislative autonomy. This was given legislative effect in 1931 by the Statute of Westminster 1931. The Statute took effect in Australia in 1942 with the passing of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, with retroactive effect to 3 September 1939, the start of World War II. The adoption of the Statute repealed the application of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 in relation to federal legislation. However, the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 continued to have application in individual Australian states until the Australia Act 1986 came into effect in 1986.
Crisis in 1975

The elections of the Australian Labor Party in 1972 and 1974 under its leader Gough Whitlam forced several constitutional issues to be tested. For two weeks in 1972, the Government had only two ministers, Whitlam and Lance Barnard. Although it had a majority in the lower House, the ALP faced a hostile Senate, and the defeat of Government bills led to a double dissolution and a consequent joint sitting and the passing of the bills into law as allowed under section 57. The political situation however was not improved much by the 1974 election, and the Senate later failed to provide "supply" (i.e. to pass tax and expenditure acts). The resulting Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 raised a series of issues:
Must a State Governor appoint a party's nomination as a replacement in the Senate?
Should the Senate refuse supply or refuse to discuss supply?
Should the Prime Minister resign in such a situation?
If he does not, should the Governor-General dismiss him?
How can the Governor-General and Prime Minister have a sensible discussion when each is able to have the other dismissed immediately provided that the other has not already acted?
Of these, only the first has been partly resolved; an amendment in 1977 changed the procedure for casual appointment. While the State Parliaments can still require a state Governor to appoint somebody who is not the party's nominee, by stripping that nominee of their party membership the party can deny them appointment to the Senate. Under Section 11 of the Constitution a State parliament can still refuse to appoint the party's nominee; in this case, a stand-off can develop where the vacancy goes unfilled.  This occurred in 1987, when the Tasmanian state parliament refused to appoint the Labor Party's nominee for a casual vacancy.[32]
Two time-honoured constitutional principles were in conflict during the crisis. The first is that a ministry drawn from the majority of the lower house may continue to govern until it has lost the confidence of the House. The second is that a ministry may not continue to govern once supply has been exhausted. The potential of conflict has been resolved in the United Kingdom, where the House of Lords no longer has the power to block money bills. To date it has not been resolved in Australia. The crisis of 1975 may be repeated in the future, though it is unlikely.
The Australia Act
The power under the Statute of Westminster to request the British Parliament to make laws for Australia was used on several occasions, primarily to enable Australia to acquire new territories. But its most significant use was also its last. This was when the procedure was used to pass the Australia Act 1986. The Australia Act effectively terminated the ability of the British Parliament or Government to make laws for Australia or its States, even at their request; and provided that any law which was previously required to be passed by the British Parliament on behalf of Australia could now be passed by Australia and its States by themselves.
Since the Australia Act, the only remaining constitutional link with the United Kingdom (if it is one) is in the person of the monarch (see Queen of Australia). But even that connection may not be automatic. In an important constitutional case (Sue v Hill (1999) 163 ALR 648), three justices of the High Court of Australia (the ultimate court of appeal) expressed the view that if the British Parliament were to alter the law of succession to the throne, such a change could not have any effect on the monarchy in Australia, because of the Australia Act: succession to the throne would continue in Australia according to the existing rule, unless and until that was altered in Australia. None of the other four justices in that case disagreed with this reasoning. (Because it was not strictly necessary to decide the case at hand, this is not strictly a binding judicial determination; but it is almost certainly correct given the precedent of the Abdication Crisis of 1936.)
The same case decided (and on this point the decision is binding) that the United Kingdom is a "foreign power" within the meaning of the Constitution, and therefore that holders of British citizenship are ineligible for election to the Federal Parliament (though a special "grandfathering" arrangement merely phases out the right of British citizens to vote).
Towards an Australian republic?

As already seen, the only remaining constitutional connection with the United Kingdom is through the monarch, who is the monarch not only of the UK, but also of Australia and of each of its States. The main function of the monarch is to appoint and dismiss the Governor-General and the State Governors, and this function is exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister or the relevant State Premier. (The monarch is also sometimes asked to perform some function, such as giving the Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament, for ceremonial purposes during a Royal visit.)
See also
Australian constitutional law
Constitutional law
Constitutional convention
Notes

Bibliography

When did Australia separate from Britain?


The Partitions of Poland[nb 1] were  three partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth that took place toward the end of the 18th century and ended the existence of the state, resulting in the elimination of sovereign Poland and Lithuania for 123 years. The partitions were conducted by Habsburg Austria, the Kingdom of Prussia, and the Russian Empire, which divided up the Commonwealth lands among themselves progressively in the process of territorial seizures and annexations.[1][2][3][4]
The First Partition of Poland was decided on August 5, 1772. Two decades later, Russian and Prussian troops entered the Commonwealth again and the Second Partition was signed on January 23, 1793. Austria did not participate in the Second Partition. The Third Partition of Poland took place on October 24, 1795, in reaction to the unsuccessful Polish Kościuszko Uprising the previous year. With this partition, the Commonwealth ceased to exist.[1]
In English, the term "Partitions of Poland" is sometimes used geographically as toponymy, to mean the three parts that the partitioning powers divided the Commonwealth into the Austrian Partition, the Prussian Partition and the Russian Partition. In Polish, there are two separate words for the two meanings. The consecutive acts of dividing and annexation of Poland are referred to as rozbiór (plural: rozbiory), while the term zabór (pl. zabory) means each part of the Commonwealth annexed in 1772–95 becoming part of Imperial Russia, Prussia, or Austria.
In Polish historiography, the term "Fourth Partition of Poland" has also been used, in reference to any subsequent annexation of Polish lands by foreign invaders. Depending on source and historical period, this could mean the events of 1815, or 1832 and 1846, or 1939. The term "Fourth Partition" in a temporal sense can also mean the diaspora communities that played an important political role in re-establishing the Polish sovereign state after 1918.
History

During the reign of Władysław IV (1632–48), the liberum veto was developed, a policy of parliamentary procedure based on the assumption of the political equality of every "gentleman", with the corollary that unanimous consent was needed for all measures.[1] A single member of parliament's belief that a measure was injurious to his own constituency (usually simply his own estate), even after the act had been approved, became enough to strike the act. Thus it became increasingly difficult to undertake action. The liberum veto also provided openings for foreign diplomats to get their ways, through bribing nobles to exercise it.[1] Thus, one could characterise Poland–Lithuania in its final period (mid-18th century) before the partitions as already in a state of disorder and not a completely sovereign state, and almost as a vassal state,[5] or in modern terms, a Russian satellite state, with Russian tsars effectively choosing Polish kings. This applies particularly to the last Commonwealth King Stanisław August Poniatowski, who for some time had been a lover of Russian Empress Catherine the Great.
In 1730 the neighbors of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita), namely Prussia, Austria and Russia, signed a secret agreement to maintain the status quo: specifically, to ensure that the Commonwealth laws would not change. Their alliance later became known in Poland as the "Alliance of the Three Black Eagles" (or Löwenwolde</i>'s Treaty), because all three states used a black eagle as a state symbol (in contrast to the white eagle, a symbol of Poland). The Commonwealth had been forced to rely on Russia for protection against the rising Kingdom of Prussia, which demanded a slice of the northwest in order to unite its Western and Eastern portions; this would leave the Commonwealth with a Baltic coast only in Latvia and Lithuania.[1] Catherine had to use diplomacy to win Austria to her side.
The Commonwealth had remained neutral in the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), yet it sympathized with the alliance of France, Austria, and Russia, and allowed Russian troops access to its western lands as bases against Prussia. Frederick II retaliated by ordering enough Polish currency counterfeited to severely affect the Polish economy. Through the Polish nobles whom Russia controlled and the Russian Minister to Warsaw, ambassador and Prince Nicholas Repnin, Empress Catherine the Great forced a constitution on the Commonwealth at the so-called Repnin Sejm of 1767, named after ambassador Repnin, who effectively dictated the terms of that Sejm (and ordered the capture and exile to Kaluga of some vocal opponents of his policies,[5][6][7] including bishop Józef Andrzej Załuski[8] and others). This new constitution undid the reforms made in 1764 under Stanisław II. The liberum veto and all the old abuses of the last one and a half centuries were guaranteed as unalterable parts of this new constitution (in the so-called Cardinal Laws[7][9]). Repnin also demanded religious freedom for the Protestant and Orthodox Christians, and the resulting reaction among some of Poland's Roman Catholics, as well as the deep resentment of Russian intervention in the Commonwealth's domestic affairs, led to the War of the Confederation of Bar of 1768–1772, formed in Bar, where the Poles tried to expel Russian forces from Commonwealth territory.[5][7] The irregular and poorly commanded Polish forces had little chance in the face of the regular Russian army and suffered a major defeat. Adding to the chaos was a Ukrainian Cossack and peasant rebellion, the Koliyivshchyna, which erupted in 1768 and resulted in massacres of noblemen (szlachta), Jews, Uniates, and Catholic priests, before it was put down by Polish and Russian troops.
In 1769 Austria annexed a small territory of Spisz and in 1770 – Nowy Sącz and Nowy Targ. These territories had been a bone of contention between Poland and Hungary, which was a part of the Austrian crown lands.
First Partition

In February 1772, the agreement of partition was signed in Vienna. Early in August, Russian, Prussian and Austrian troops simultaneously invaded the Commonwealth and occupied the provinces agreed upon among themselves. On August 5, 1772, the occupation manifesto was issued, much to the consternation of a country too exhausted by the endeavors of the Confederation of Bar to offer successful resistance;[1] nevertheless, several battles and sieges took place, as Commonwealth troops refused to lay down their arms (most notably, in Tyniec, Częstochowa and Kraków).
The partition treaty was ratified by its signatories on September 22, 1772. Frederick II of Prussia was elated with his success; Prussia took most of Royal Prussia (without Danzig) that stood between its possessions in the Kingdom of Prussia and the Margraviate of Brandenburg, as well as Ermland (Warmia), northern areas of Greater Poland along the Noteć River (the Netze District), and parts of Kuyavia (but not the city of Toruń).[1] Despite token criticism of the partition from Austrian Empress Maria Theresa, Austrian statesman Wenzel Anton, Prince of Kaunitz-Rietberg, was proud of wresting as large a share as he did, with the rich salt mines of Bochnia and Wieliczka. To Austria fell Zator and Auschwitz (Oświęcim), part of Lesser Poland embracing parts of the counties of Kraków and Sandomir and the whole of Galicia, less the city of Kraków. Catherine of Russia was also very satisfied. By this "diplomatic document" Russia came into possession of that section of Livonia that had remained in Commonwealth control, and of Belarus embracing the counties of Vitebsk, Polotsk and Mstislavl.[1]

By this partition, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth lost about 30% of its territory and half of its population[1] (four million people), of which a large portion had not been ethnically Polish. By seizing northwestern Poland, Prussia instantly gained control over 80% of the Commonwealth's total foreign trade. Through levying enormous customs duties, Prussia accelerated the collapse of the Commonwealth.[10]
After having occupied their respective territories, the three partitioning powers demanded that King Stanisław and the Sejm approve their action. When no help was forthcoming and the armies of the combined nations occupied Warsaw to compel by force of arms the calling of the assembly, no alternative could be chosen save passive submission to their will. The so-called Partition Sejm, with Russian military forces threatening the opposition, on September 18, 1773, signed the treaty of cession, renouncing all claims of the Commonwealth to the occupied territories.
Second Partition

By 1790 the First Polish Republic had been weakened to such a degree that it was forced into an unnatural and terminal alliance with its enemy, Prussia. The Polish–Prussian Pact of 1790 was signed. The conditions of the Pact contributed to the subsequent final two partitions of Poland–Lithuania.
The May Constitution of 1791 enfranchised the bourgeoisie, established the separation of the three branches of government, and eliminated the abuses of the Repnin Sejm. Those reforms prompted aggressive actions on the part of its neighbours, wary of the potential renaissance of the Commonwealth. Arguing that Poland had fallen prey to the radical Jacobinism then at high tide in France, Russian forces invaded the Commonwealth in 1792.
In the War in Defense of the Constitution, pro-Russian conservative Polish magnates, the Confederation of Targowica, fought against Polish forces supporting the constitution, believing that Russians would help them restore the Golden Liberty. Abandoned by their Prussian allies, Polish pro-constitution forces, faced with Targowica units and the regular Russian army, were defeated. Prussia signed a treaty with Russia, agreeing that Polish reforms would be revoked and both countries would receive chunks of Commonwealth territory. In 1793, deputies to the Grodno Sejm, last Sejm of the Commonwealth, in the presence of the Russian forces, agreed to Russian territorial demands. In the Second Partition, Russia and Prussia helped themselves to enough land so that only one-third of the 1772 population remained in Poland. Prussia named its newly gained province South Prussia, with Posen (and later Warsaw) as the capital of the new province.
Targowica confederates, who did not expect another partition, and the king, Stanisław August Poniatowski, who joined them near the end, both lost much prestige and support. The reformers, on the other hand, were attracting increasing support, and in 1794 the Kościuszko Uprising began.
Third Partition

Kosciuszko's ragtag insurgent armies won some initial successes, but they eventually fell before the superior forces of the Russian Empire. The partitioning powers, seeing the increasing unrest in the remaining Commonwealth, decided to solve the problem by erasing any independent Polish state from the map. On 24 October 1795 their representatives signed a treaty, dividing the remaining territories of the Commonwealth between their three countries.
The Russian part included 120,000km2 (46,332sqmi) and 1.2million people with Vilnius, the Prussian part (new provinces of New East Prussia and New Silesia) 55,000km2 (21,236sqmi) and 1million people with Warsaw, and the Austrian 47,000km2 (18,147sqmi) with 1.2million and Lublin and Kraków.
Summary
With regard to population, in the First Partition, Poland lost over four to five million citizens (about a third of its population of 14million before the partitions).[11] Only about 4million people remained in Poland after the Second Partition which makes for a loss of another third of its original population, about a half of the remaining population.[12] By the Third Partition, Prussia ended up with about 23% of the Commonwealth's population, Austria with 32%, and Russia with 45%.[13]

(Wandycz also offers slightly different total annexed territory estimates, with 18% for Austria, 20% for Prussia and 62% for Russia.)[13]
During the Napoleonic Wars and in their immediate aftermath the borders between partitioning powers shifted several times, changing the numbers seen in the preceding table. Ultimately, Russia ended up with most of the Polish core at the expense of Prussia and Austria. Following the Congress of Vienna, Russia controlled 82% of the pre-1772 Commonwealth's territory (this includes its puppet state of Congress Poland), Austria 11%, and Prussia 7%.[15]
Aftermath

The King of Poland, Stanisław August Poniatowski, under Russian military escort left for Grodno where he abdicated on November 25, 1795; next he left for Saint Petersburg, Russia, where he would spend his remaining days. This act ensured that Russia would be seen as the most important of the partitioning powers.
As a result of the Partitions, Poles were forced to seek a change of status quo in Europe.[16][17] Polish poets, politicians, noblemen, writers, artists, many of whom were forced to emigrate (thus the term Great Emigration), became the revolutionaries of the 19th century, as desire for freedom became one of the defining parts of Polish romanticism.[18][19] Polish revolutionaries participated in uprisings in Prussia, the Austrian Empire and Imperial Russia.[20] Polish legions fought alongside Napoleon[21][22] and, under the slogan of For our freedom and yours, participated widely in the Spring of Nations (particularly the Hungarian Revolution of 1848).[20][23]
Poland would be briefly resurrected—if in a smaller frame—in 1807, when Napoleon set up the Duchy of Warsaw. After his defeat and the implementation of the Congress of Vienna treaty in 1815, the Russian-dominated Congress Kingdom of Poland was created in its place. After the Congress, Russia gained a larger share of Poland (with Warsaw) and, after crushing an insurrection in 1831, the Congress Kingdom's autonomy was abolished and Poles faced confiscation of property, deportation, forced military service, and the closure of their own universities. After the uprising of 1863, Russification of Polish secondary schools was imposed and the literacy rate dropped dramatically. In the Austrian portion, Poles fared better, and were allowed to have representation in Parliament and to form their own universities, and Kraków and Lemberg (Lwów/Lviv) became centers of Polish culture and education. Meanwhile, Prussia Germanized the entire school system of its Polish subjects, and had no more respect for Polish culture and institutions than the Russian Empire. In 1915 a client state of the German Empire and Austria-Hungary was proposed and accepted by the Central Powers of World War I: the Regency Kingdom of Poland. After the end of World War I, the Central Powers' surrender to the Western Allies, the chaos of the Russian Revolution and the Treaty of Versailles finally allowed and helped the restoration of Poland's full independence after 123 years.
"Fourth Partition"

The terminology describing the partitions of Poland can be somewhat confusing, as the first three partitions are sometimes used to refer to the three dates on which Poland was divided (1772, 1793, and 1795) and sometimes to the three geographic divisions (the German or Prussian partition, Austrian partition, and Russian partition). The term "Fourth Partition" has also been used in both a temporal and a spatial sense.
The term "Fourth Partition of Poland" may refer to any subsequent division of Polish lands, specifically:
after the Napoleonic era, the 1815 division of the Duchy of Warsaw at the Congress of Vienna;
the 1832 incorporation of the "Congress Kingdom" into Russia, the 1846 incorporation of the Republic of Kraków into Austria, and the 1848 incorporation of the Grand Duchy of Posen into Prussia; and
the 1939 division of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union pursuant to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.[24]
If one accepts more than one of those events as partitions, fifth and sixth partitions can be counted, but these terms are very rare.
The term "Fourth Partition" was also used in the 19th and 20th centuries to refer to diaspora communities who maintained a close interest in the project of regaining Polish independence.[25] Sometimes termed Polonia, these expatriate communities often contributed funding and military support to the project of regaining the Polish nation-state. Diaspora politics were deeply affected by developments in and around the homeland, and vice versa, for many decades.[26]
Historiography
More recent studies claim that partitions happened when the Commonwealth had been showing the beginning signs of a slow recovery and see the last two partitions as an answer to strengthening reforms in the Commonwealth and the potential threat they represented to its power-hungry neighbours.[17][27][28][29][30][31][32]
As historian Norman Davies stated, because the balance of power equilibrium was observed, many contemporary observers accepted explanations of the "enlightened apologists" of the partitioning state.[33][27] 19th-century historians from countries that carried out the partitions, such as 19th-century Russian scholar Sergey Solovyov, and their 20th century followers, argued that partitions were justified, as the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth had degenerated to the point of being partitioned because the counterproductive principle of liberum veto made decision-making on divisive issues, such as a wide-scale social reform, virtually impossible. Solovyov specified the cultural, language and religious break between the supreme and lowest layers of the society in the east regions of the Commonwealth, where the Belarusian and Ukrainian serf peasantry was Orthodox. Russian authors emphasized the historical connections between Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, as former parts of the medieval old Russian state where dynasty of Rurikids reigned (Kievan Rus').[34] Thus, Nikolay Karamzin wrote: "Let the foreigners denounce the partition of Poland: we took what was ours."[35] Russian historians often stressed that Russia annexed primarily Ukrainian and Belorussian provinces with Eastern Slavic inhabitants,[36] although many Ruthenians were no more enthusiastic about Russia than about Poland, and ignoring ethnically Polish and Lithuanian territories also being annexed later. A new justification for partitions arose with the Russian Enlightenment, as Russian writers such as Gavrila Derzhavin, Denis Fonvizin, and Alexander Pushkin stressed degeneration of Catholic Poland and the need to "civilize" it by its neighbors.[28]
Nonetheless other 19th century contemporaries were much more skeptical; for example, British jurist Sir Robert Phillimore discussed the partition as a violation of international law;[37] German jurist Heinrich Bernhard Oppenheim presented similar views.[38] Other older historians who challenged such justifications for the Partitions included French historian Jules Michelet, British historian and politician Thomas Babington Macaulay, and Edmund Burke.[27] Edmund Burke was alone in criticizing the immorality of this act.[39]
Several scholars focused on the economic motivations of the partitioning powers. Jerzy Czajewski wrote that the Russian peasants were escaping from Russia to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in significant enough numbers to become a major concern for the Russian Government sufficient to play a role in its decision to partition the Commonwealth.[40] Increasingly in the 18th century until the partitions solved this problem, Russian armies raided territories of the Commonwealth, officially to recover the escapees, but in fact kidnapping many locals.[40] Hajo Holborn noted that Prussia aimed to take control of the lucrative Baltic grain trade through Danzig (Gdańsk).[41]
Some scholars use the term 'sector' in reference to Commonwealth territories consisting of Polish (not Polish-Lithuanian) cultural heritage as well as historical monuments dating as far back as the first days of Poland's statehood.[42]
Other countries
The Ottoman Empire was one of only two countries in the world that refused to accept the partitions[43] and reserved a place in its diplomatic corps for an Ambassador of Lehistan (Poland).
Il Canto degli Italiani, the Italian National Anthem, contains a reference to the partition.[44]
The ongoing partitions of Poland were a major topic of discourse in The Federalist Papers, where the structure of the government of Poland, and of foreign influence over it, is used in several papers (Federalist No. 14, Federalist No. 19, Federalist No. 22, Federalist No. 39 for examples) as a cautionary tale for the writers of the U.S. Constitution.
See also
Administrative division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in the course of partitions
Administrative division of Polish–Lithuanian territories after partitions
Three Emperors' Corner at the border of the Russian, Austrian and the German Empire
Ambassadors and envoys from Russia to Poland (1763–1794)
Notes

Further reading
Lord, Robert. The second partition of Poland; a study in diplomatic history (1915)
Lukowski, Jerzy. The Partitions of Poland 1772, 1793, 1795 (1998);
Lewitter, Lucjan R. "The Partitions of Poland" in A. Goodwyn, ed. The New Cambridge Modern History: vol 8 1763–93 (1965) pp 333–59

Krzysztof Wroński,  (in Polish)