Actually, at least according to Karl Marx, Metternich (yes, Metternich!) in 1830 was initially willing to restore Poland if it had an Austrian prince, but this ultimately didn't go anywhere due to Palmerston being opposed and Louis Philippe being unwilling to act without Britain.
Sorry, but when your example being cited is Karl Marx the socialist (who had no access whatsoever to high levels of government and wrote about the events some 34 years after the fact, and was only twelve when said events happened), I have to question the source. It reads like an often repeated rumor that Marx decided to take as fact.
As for Prussia, well, it was neutral during the November Uprising. There might've been plans for Prussia to crush the 1830 uprising, but these weren't carried out since AFAIK France threatened war with Prussia if it attempted to crush the uprising.
Also not true. Or rather, flipped topics. Prussia had threatened to invade Belgium with the Dutch, in order to suppress the uprising there. France threatened war over that, not Poland. The French had zero ability to power project into eastern Europe, and such a theoretical war (coming within months of the installment of a new "revolutionary" regime in Paris) would only see the French face off against an 8th coalition. Threatening a fellow great power to spread revolutionary activity would be the fastest way to freak the rest of Europe out.
You're probably right. Still, the statement of @Lalli about not a single great power willing to accept the polish success is overreacted. At that time Nicholas I believed himself to be the gendarme of Europe, and he spoke that he's about to go to Western Europe to crush both the Belgian Revolution and most of all the July Revolution in France. The second case would obviously cause the French to support the polish success for the sake of having it as a distraction for Russia. Simultaneously there's Britain. As much as Britain opposed breaking the status quo, a much bigger threat for the status quo were Nicholas' plans to absorb the Ottoman Empire. This was the main concern for Britain, as shown during the Crimean War. Thus, the polish success would be approved by Britain as a way of making Russia less able to attack the Ottomans.
All of that is pretty false, or untrue.
1. This was 1830 Nicolas I, not 1849 Nicholas I. Two very different beasts. And talking about sending troops to France is different then actually doing it. That statement was more a flig leaf to get further criticize the revolutionaries in the eyes of other conservatives; "See, those darned French could have been crushed by the glorious Russian army if not for those traitorous Poles!" Or something like that.
2. How, exactly, could the French provide support? I mean logistically. France is in Western Europe, while Poland is in Eastern Europe. Any material aid has to cross the German Confederation (meaning Prussia ignoring the supplies) or Italy and Austria (which means the Habsburgs ignoring said supplies) or shipped in (and the Poles had no port in the 1830-31 rising). Outside of declaring war and marching an army across Germany, the French can't do squat. At most, they can provide loans, but all the money in the world means nothing if there's no realistic way to get supplies to Poland.
3. Britain, even under the Whigs, was firmly supporting the Russians in their suppression of the November Rising. In fact, British society had very little sympathy for the Poles (especially in comparison to the French), And moreover, the British were staring down an incipient revolution in 1830-1832 in the form of the reform crisis. Britain was seeing tons of riots across the country during this period, had had all its attention focused on domestic issues, with the exception of Belgium (as the British long considered Antwerp a "dagger pointed at their hearts" and could never tolerate it in the hands of a hostile power).
So, for all the reasons I've pointed out, the November Uprising was always doomed to glorious, romantic failure.