The Sun. — London, England, 1864-07-09 00:00:00

the consolation of knowing that they had saved Europe from the horrors of a general war. Lord CHELMSFORD supported the original motion, and Lord WODEHOUSE oe posed it, and explained the circum stances under which he had undertaken the special mission to Copenhagen, and the course which the negotiations took. He also stated that the Government had never given through him any promise of material support to the Danes, and that the advice they tendered had always been sound, and offered in conjunction with the other Powers. Tho Earl of CARNARVON argued that the conduct of the Government had, from beginning to end, been charac terised by feilure, and that it was the duty of Parliament to pass its judgment upon a policy so indecisive, feeble, and humiliating. Earl RUSSELL said that it would be most difficult to discover the foreign policy of the Opposition. The other night Lord Derby told them it would be wrong to contem plate war for Denmark under any circumstanees. But Earl Malmesbury had intimated that when the German troops were about to enter Schleswig he would have preferred a declaration of war, which he thcught would have been at tended with little or no risk. The noble earl who spoke last had said that the Government were in favour of peace at any price. But he (Earl Russell) had more than once said that if the honour or the paramount interests of the coun try were involved, we must ga to war at once. But if there was only a minor interest to be attained, or if the interests was only that of another nati on , we h a d a right to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages of going to war. The noble earl who had opened the debate was fortunate in not having had to encounter the difficulties of recent nego. Cations. The treaty cf 1852 was no doubt a good, but at the same time it was a very artificial engagement; it de- pended for success upon both Denmark and Germany reli giously fulfilling their engagements. Unfortunately this was not done. The Danes governed Schleswig and Holstein in such a m anner e s to make the German subjects of the Bing of Denmark in those duchies feel that they were op pressed; while on the other hand, the Powers of Germany asked for much more than they were entitled to. That being so, it became a matter of the utmost difficulty to maintain the arrangements established by th at treaty. It was said that the Government had constantly threat ened Germanyßut that was n o t so. All that the Eng lish Government had said, in the first instance, was, that they had not the slightest objection to a Federal execution in Holstein, if that was directed merely to the Govern ment of Holstein; but that they would object to it it it w ag directed to bring about the Government of Denmark by a German majority in Copenhagen. At that time it was proposed that each of the Duchies should send an equal number of deputies to a Parliament in Copenhagen, the re sult of which would be that Denmark Proper would be governed by the German population of the Duchies. This pretension had been abandoned, and that was, so far, again, although Holstein, Schleswig, and Jutland had been occu pied. And so many of the despatches had been read, he would refer to as few as possible. He thought it clear that no promise of material assistance had been given to Den mark, because if Denmark had thought the contrary, her Minister would not have failed to say so, when, in March last, Sir A. Paget read to Bishop Monrad a despatch in which he (Earl Russell) repudiated the notion of having given any premise of aid to Denmark. Again, when Lord Wodehouse went to Copenhagen he was met by reproaches on the part of M. Hall, that no promises of support were given. He could not help observing upon the different sort of judgment which was passed upon the conduct of Eng land and France in this matter. Daring last year we were engaged with Austria and France in remonstrating with Russia on behalf of Poland. Austria and England refused ultimately to agree to a step proposed by France, because they thought it would lead to a war. Thereupon the Em peror of France said, that although he was ready to go to war in concert with the other Powers, he would not do so alone, dear as the deliverance of Poland was to France. No one blamed him for that course. Why, then, should the English Government be blamed because, having been wil ling to go to war on behalf of Denmark in concert with France and Russia, they declined to take the responsi bility of acting alone ? They had acted in the case of Denmark exactly as France acted in the case of Poland. Prussia and Austria had certainly departed from their original promise only to take Schleswig as a material guarantee; but her Majesty's Government had never promised to make a casus bells either of the invasion of that province or of Jutland. He thought it would have led to far fewer complications if they had taken the bold course adopted by the German Confederation, declared for the treaty of 18.52, and avowed their intention to dismember Denmark. Neither of these Powers had ad hered to their promise to respect their engagements. For their first proposition in Conference was that the Duchies should have a separate government, under a sovereign of their own, and that the Diet should decide as to who that Sovereign should be. It was perfectly notorious that the Diet would never choose the King of Denmark, and this proposi tion, therefore, plainly involved a breach of the treaty of 1852. It would have been far better if they had not begun by professing to adhere to it. The noble earl who had intro duced these resolutions had objected to any dbference being paid to the principle of nationality in making territorial arrangements ; but in the present state of opinion in Europe, it was impossible to disregard that principle, especially eon eidering that it was favoured by so powerful a Sovereign as the Emperor of France. He did not think that the Germans were inspired by a merely selfish desire to possess themsels es of Kiel. He believed that they had a genuine sympathy for the people of the Duchies, who they believed to be oppressed. After these duchies had once been occupied by the German troops, it was perfectly impossible that England could go to war, or could even take steps for restoring Holstein and the Germans to Denmark on the old footing. It was clear that even if the Austrians and Prussians had been driven out, the Diet of Holstein would have declared for independence, and we should have been reduced to the necessity of govern ing them by military force. That was impossible. It was said that if the Government had threatened the Germans with war if they invaded Schleswig, the threat would have been effectual, and no war would have ensued. But he did not think that England, acting by herself, would have been justified in taking the chance of such a threat proving futile, and involving us in war. Nor did he believe that it would have been successful ; for the fact was, that Austria and Prussia were driven on by a popular force which they could not resist. The cabinets of Berlin and Vienna did not, he thought, in the first instance desire to break the treaty of 1852 for any ambitious projects ; but they were powerless to resist the impulse to which they were subjected—they were determined to prevent the minor Ger • man princes from gaining additional power, by becoming the representatives of the public feelings ; and they were determined also to check the progress of democratic feeling in Germany by enlisting it in favour of an attack on Den mark. The latter desire had also influenced Russia, and had inclined her of late to act in accordance with the German Powers. The noble earl opposite said the Government had no principle in their foreign policy; but they certainly had one—that of non-intervention in the internal aff Airs of other countries. They had declared soon after entering office that the people of Italy should be left free to decide their own destinies; and that declaration following on the victories of the Emperor of the French, had been so far effectual, that no attempt had been made to disturb that Italian unity which the Government were so glad to see established. On that side of the house there was the greatest disposition to favour the Confederates in the civil war which had arisen in America. The Government determined that no such offer should be made to the Confederation, In conclusion, the noble lord said if the Government had been guilty of anything, it had been guilty of advocating peace, maintaining justice, and promoting freedom in Europe and i n the world. (Loud cheers.) Earl GREY said that the influence of the country did not depend solely upon its material strength, but in a great de gree upon the opinion of neighbouring nations, Now, did England at the present time enjoy the respect and g . odwill of all the nations of the earth so largely as she formerly did ? For his part he thought she did not. He would not detain their lordships by entering into an examination of the volu minous correspondence which had been laid on the table; but b e must express his opinion that the negotiations terininated —as indeed the Government themselves now admitted—in the triumph of might over right. The noble duke had told them that the treaty of 1852 could no l onger b e considered as a living question. That was so; but if there had been a little foresight on the part of the Government they ought to have seen at an earlier period that that treaty could not be maintained. (Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Government had represented those who differed from them as being in favour of war, but this he denied. The Government, how ever, had diminished the securities for peace, and had admitted that they were diminished. The noble earl the Foreign 8 em ..._ Foreign had said that no th reats, but onl y warn ings,u"ell address e d to the German Powers. But he did not think that it was possible to draw a practical dis , auction between the two things. He thought that if the ountry had been lowered by the course taken by the Go vernment, the beat way to wip e away the stain upon our honour was to show that that conduct had not the approval of the country, and on that ground lm should support the resolution. Earl GRANVILLE believed that the debati had shown how unfounded were the charges brought against the Government. He denied that any promise of a id had been held out to Denmark. When Lord Palmerston made the speech which had been so o ft en referred to, h, only ex pressed a conviction that France a n d R ussia would join us int supporting Denmark. He never promised that we would go to war alone; ho had never givai Denmark any advice which was not shared in by the other Powers ; nor had the Danish Government ever asserted that any promise of aid had been given to them by England. The resolution was a vote of censure, and as such the Government accepted it. But it did not lay down any principle or indicate any policy on the part of the Opposition. It only amounted to a declaration on their part that they were willing to take the place of the Government. The Government had been charged with inconsistency, and with blowing hot and cold Bat the same thing could be said of Conservative speakers, and especially of the Earl of Derby, who had said last year that the Integrity of Denmark was of vital interest to Eng- land, and that he should be prepared to go to war in her favour, and had said this year that it would be insanity to go to war with Germany. He denied that we had lost our influence in Europe ; and the proof of this was that we had acted in entire harmony with the neutral Powers in the recent Conference, He did not think that tij.e language of a few newspapers on the continent furnished any proof to the contrary; and he trusted that that house would not proclaim the degradation of the country. The house then divided, when there were— Contents. Present Proxies -177 Non-contents. Present Prozies -168 Majority for the resolution 9 The resolution was therefore culled. The result was received with considerable applause. Their lordships adjourned at 20 minutes past two o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening. The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after 4 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time and passed : Helston and Penrhyn• Junction Riilway Bill (Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, to be signified)—Wandsworth Bridge Bill. ATTENDANTS. AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM. Mr IL LE WIS asked the member for the University of Cambridge whether an order had been issued (to take effect from Sept, Ist next), prohibiting the attendants at the Bri tish Museum from leaving the Museum during the ordinary dinner hour, or at any time between the hours of nine o'clock in the morning and six o'clock in the evening; and, if so, why has such order been issued; and whether any and what provision has been made to enable the attendants to procure their dinner on the premises at a moderate charge. Mr WALPOLE expressed a hope that any alterations which might be required would he made. THE ALTERATION IN THE UNIFORM OF THE POLICE. Mr A. SMITH asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the dress of the police had been altered, and whether it was intended that the whole metro politan police should assume a military costume and•ap pearance. He thought constables should have as little of a military appearance as possible. BRITISH OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS KILLED IN NEW ZEALAND. Sir F. SMITH asked the Under Secretary of State for War whether he had any objection to lay upon the table of the house a statement showing the number of officers and soldiers of the regular forces, as well as of the militia and volunteers, who have been killed or wounded, up to the last returns, in the New Zealand War The Marquis cf HARTINGTO :ti replied in the negative. MAJOR GORDON. Mr LIDDELL asked whether any official information had been received of Major Gordon's retirement from the command of the Anglo-Chinese disciplined force, in com pliance with the Order in Council in March last, or whe ther any secret orders, or reservations, or discretionary pa Were were conveyed to Major Gordon or any other English officer in China along with such order in council—and, if so, whether there be any objection to state the nature of Bush secret orders or reservations, and under what circum stances such discretionary powers were to be exercised. Mr. LAYARD said that there would be no objection to employ Major Gordon by the Government, but it would be on the condition that he gave up his connection with the Chinese. TEE ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT. Mr B. OSBORNE resumed the adjourned debate, He said that the question had net been rendered more clear and interesting by the speech of the Attorney-General last night. He considered that there had been some very curious unions of different members of the house in regard to this subject. For instance, the hon member for Hunt ingdon and Mr Bright, with their different opinions, appeared to kiss each other. He deprecated the con duct of the honourable member for Sheffield in the attack he had made on Lord John Russell, and when he made the observation that the noble lord would have been a schoolmaster if he had not been a statesman. But the hon. member forgot the services which the noble lord, the Secretary for _Foreign Affairs, had rendered to the country, or the lessons he had taught in regard to civil and religious liberty which were not easily forgotten. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the sneers of the hon. mem ber for Sheffield at schoolmasters, it must be remembered that there were very distinguished schoolmasters, and one, Dr Arnold, might rank with the hon, member for Sheffield. (Great laughter.) He by no means endorsed the foreign policy of the Government in its different details, but he did not like the injustice that had been done to the noble lord (Earl Russell), for which the whole Cabinet was responsible, including the noble lord the First Minister. (Laughter.) Having referred to the proceedings at the Conference, in the course of which ho described the pro ceedings ,as a: combination of blarney and bluster, and ridiculed the statement that had been made as an inter change of ideas between the plenipotentiaries at the Con ference, but what these ideas were which rendered an inter. change he did not pretend to understand. (Laughter.) He said that this country was most fortunate in being relieved from the responsibility of the guarantee proposed by the obstinacy of Denmark. (Laughter.) In referring to the Conference, ha said that the only unanimity in the members of the Conference wes a vote of thanks to Lord John Russell—(great laughter)—and a statement that they left England with great pleasure. (Re newed laughter.) He denied that the treaty of 1852, on which so much was said to depend in the solution of the questions of the Germans and Danes, was anything more than an emanation from the subtle policy of Russia. He drew the attention of the house to toe discrepancy which prevailed between the sentiments expressed in 1343 by the First Lord of the Treasury in reference to the question of the succession to the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, and the sentiments that he had expressed on the subject. The noble lerd had said in 1848 that the son of the Duke of Oldenburg should be named in the succession, (Hear, hear.) He denied altogether that the treaty of July, 1852, so important in this matter, had the sanction of Aus tria and Prussia, and he asserted that the latter power had entered an actual protest against it. (Hear, hear.) He repeated that this protocol was a mere dictation of Russia, acceded to by a doubtful policy which invested it with its political value. The fact was that Russia, in the protocol of 1851, promoted the views of King Christian IX. in re gard to the Duchies. He contended that the King of Denmark had as much right to the Duchies as he had to the throne of England—(hear, hear)—and they must remember that the rights of those duchies had been guaranteed. He said that the claims of the Duke of Augustenburg could not be voided, merely by the fact of his having been in pecuniary difficulties, and accepting some pecuniary compensation for his claims. He repudiated the idea cf going to war on this question, and merely for the purpose of forcing on the ~Duchies a disagreeable dynasty—(hear, hear)—as the ratepayers of this country had not the slightest interest in the matter. He said that the policy of the Government tended to drift this coantry into war, With regard to the late Conference on the Deno-German question, the only thing he had been able to make out of its proceedings was the diplomatic defi nition of the difference between a suspension of arms and an armistice; and that was all it was possible the most assi duous reader could collect. Credit hid been taken by the Government for having preserved the peace of Europe, but it could not be denied that they had been in league to go to war to put an unwelcome sovereign on the throne o. Schleswig-Holstein : and he believed that the re al credit of maintaining peace was due to the Emperor of the French. If it had not been for him, if the designs of ministers had been followed our, we should have been at this moment in the midst of an awful war with Germany. As to Den mark, in his opinion she would have made a better fight of it had she been better served by her own ministers ; but they had lectured and blustered in true Palmerstonian style; whilst they omitted to arm their people to repel the invader. He had no doubt, however, that) the Danes would now come to terms directly with Prussia; and he should not be surprised if he heard the Prime Minister stating in the course of the evening that England was about to agree to some convention to prevent a Scandinavian confederation. It has been a question, how far the just influence of this country has been lost, and it cannot be denied that England does not occupy the position she should do with reference to other nations owing to the bungling policy which has been pursued. But I think it would be easy to redress that, and to place the country in a proper position. What should we do? It the noble lord and gentlemen on that bench are not skilful —I think they have great capacity, but they are a little past their time, and they b ungle — (laughter) —if it be wished to place England in a proper condition, and to restore its in fluence, I think it might be done by imitating that custom which is obligatory on officials in Japan—(gereat laughter) if they would, only exercise in a modified form that "happy despatch"—l think they would place the country in a proper position, (Hear, hear.) Ido not suspect, however, that they will take that advice. There sits the nolele lord, sedet, I might almost say de ceternuntque sedebit, and I was about to add—but that would not be true—infetix. (Loud laughter.) But what is the position fit what is jokingly called the Libral party—that is the nom de guerre There is no such thing, though that is between our selves—(lour Opposition cheers, and coun t er cr i es o f Oh o o There aro people out of the house who imagine, when we go to the hustings with all our fine professions, that we mean it, and that we shall stand by our colours in this house. As an election is very near, let us consider what is the position of the Liberal party. The old Liberal watchwords were " peace, retrenchment, and reform." (Rear, hear.) It is delightful to see that as to one question we are all agreed —e ven the noble lord the member for Stam ford (Lord R. C ec il) is enthusiastic u p on it, that is, the question of peace, And cccasiona ll y we a ll nibble at retrench ment, but only occa s i ona lly. Ido nct go so far as the hon. member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), but I thilnk he will agree with me that both sides do not want reform—(hear) — that is the end of " peace, retrenchment, and reform." And what is the position of the Liberal party ? The hon. m ttm ber for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) has no pr eferences ; he ov-IY dislikes one side rather less than the other, and curiousty enough he dislikes the people among whom he sits more• than anybody else. (Renewed laughter.) He has instituted a comparison between the, two benches—l almost think there are as good flea in the sea as ever were taught—and THE SUN, LONDO.N, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 9, 1864. if we lost the present Ministry I do not know that we should have to record it with inconsolable regret, for I think it might be possible to replace them. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Let us see how this Ministry is constitute& Let me take the noble lord—and I would speak of him with every respect, because a more active and able man has sel dom existed in this country. (Cheers.) I might say of him that " panting Time toils after him in vain." Cer tainly he is facile prznceps, and he is certainly the liveliest if not the youngest man on the Treasury bench. The noble lord deserves great credit for his admirable manage ment of affairs during a long course of years. Ho has acted with all sorts of men, and has been associated with men holding all classes of opinions. Why, sir, he has contrived—and it is a most extraordinary feat—to con ciliate both the L,w Church party and the High Tories; the Record acknowledges his inspiration, and the hon. mem ver for North Warwickshire (Mr Newdegate) bows to his i n fLtence. These are great feats. But what is his policy ? His dOnestic policy seems to be to remain stationary. His foreign policy up to this day has been pugnacious and pro gressive. but now he is about to achieve the most wonder ful feat of his life. He is about to go to the country as the apostle and minister of peace, and will bo supported by my hon. friend the 'member for Birmingham. That is the most extraordinary feat of the whole. (Laughter.) Well then, sir, as to the cabinet, it is a museum of curiosities. (Laughter.) There a t 9 some birds of rare and noble plummage both alive and stuffed--(much laughter)—but there is a difficulty in keeping up the breed of those sweet birds, and it was found necessary to cross the Whig treed with the famous Peelite breed. I will do thei2l the justice to say that they have a very great and able mini:;t 4 r "mg them in the Chancellor of the -Exchequer, and it is L ', l his measures alone that they owe the little popularity and 11 he little support they get from this Liberal party; but it calf not be said, either by their enemies or friends, that their anpp:: of measures has been prolific. Then there is my right hon. frLqud who is not connected with the Whigs by family (Mr Gibson;. (Laugh ter.) He seems like a "fly in amber," and the wonder is how he got there ; and the hon. members for Rochdale and Birmingham must, I think, have been disappointed in this "young man from the country." (Loud laughter,) When he married into the family we expected some Liberal measures from them, but the hon. gentleman seems to have become indolent and lees quarrelsome under the guidance of the noble lord. Well, air, what is there to be ? We know by the traditions of the great Whig party that they will cling to the vessel, if not like shipwrecked sailors, at least like those tastaceous marine animals which adhere to the bottom, thereby clogging the engines and impeding tia3 progress. (Laughter.) Should a vote of this house dis place the administration, what are the Liberal party to do? Well, sir, if I might advise the Liberal party I should say they may be perfectly happy as to the issue of this great duel. They are somewhat in the situation of lago when he says, "Whethn Cassio kill,Roderigo,or Roderigo kill;Cassio, or each kills the other," so much they gain. (Laughter.) Nay, sir, even should this Parliament determine on termi nating its own existenn and that of the Government, they will find some consolatiog in the knowledge that the fune ral oration will be pronounced by the hon, member for North Warwickshire, and that a friendly hand will inscribe on their mausoleum, " Rest, any be thankful." (Loud cheers from both sides of the house.) Mr WHITESIDE described the for,'ign policy of the Government as inconsistent, capricious, and mischievous, and declared that he had no hesitation whatever in saying that the confusion which reigned had sprung f t •om that policy. He held that they had no right to give adv:,^•e to foreign powers unless they were also prepared to assist them. He supported the resolutions of his right hon, friend, be cause he was jealous of the honour of his country and con servative of her glory and her institutions ; and because he felt that the Foreign Minister had deeply erred, and lowered the just influence of England throughout the nations of the earth. Mr MONSELL opposed the motion. Mr B. COCHRANE supported it, urging that, were the terms in which it was couched much stronger, they would not have unjustly described the policy and conduct of the Government Lord ELCHO saw no ground for a vote of censure on Ministers. The O'DONOGEUE denied that there was any com pact among the Roman Catholic members to vote against the Government, or that there was any truth in the rumour that any agents of the Pontifical Government had under taken a mission to England to bring pressure on the Catho• lie members. For his own part he would vote in favour of the resolutions, because the Government had done nothing for Ireland. Sir S. NORTHCOTE observed that the Opposition did not wish to rest their case upon any particular despatch or any particular act of the Government, but that they charged a general want of sagacity and of statesmanship in the whole course of negotiations. The indictment was, not that the conduct of the Government had humiliated the country, but that she had lost a portion of her just influence in Europe. Mr CLAY was of opinion that if the policy advocated by hon. gentlemen opposite were adopted we should have been landed in a European war six months ago. Mr WALPOLE did npt believe the allegation that the population of Schleswig and Holstein were the cause of the troubles that had broken out in the North of Europe. On the contrary, the disturbing causes were an importation from a foreign land, fomented, encouraged, and excited by a revolutionary spirit under the guise of patriotism. He believed that her Majesty's Ministers had adopted a feeble, inconsistent, and hesitating policy which had led Dennisrk to believe that even at the eleventh hour England would give her material assistance. As in the case of the Crimean war, " too late" was written on every act of the Government - . So i. had proved in re ference to the Dano-German question. In the former in stance they went'on drifting and drilling until they drifted into war. In the present case they had drifted into shame and disgrace, They had been too late in applying to other Powers for co-operation; too late in not protecting Den mark before the Eider was crossed ; too late in protect ing the islands before they were taken ; and they would be too late in protecting Copenhagen ; for it appeared that all they intended to do was to reconsider their decision in the event of the city being taken and the King made a prisoner of war. It was therefore the duty of the house to speak out, and throw the responsibility on the shoulders to which it belonged. This was tha constitutional course to adopt, and as he considered the resolutions of Mr. Disraeli were framed with that view ho would support them. Lord PALMERSTON then rose, and was received with most enthusiastic cheering, which lasted several minutes. When it had subsided, the noble lord said—Mr Speaker, if any doubt could have existed when the notice of this mo tion was first made as to its object and importance that doubt must have been fully dispelled by the debate which had ensued upon it, for We are now told, fairly and plainly, that, although the words imply simply a censure upon one act of the Government, yet it is intended as a vote of " no confidence"—(hear, hear)—and that the issue which the house is called upon to determine if, whether gentlemen on this side, or gentlemen on that. side, should be charged with the conduct of the affairs of the country. (Cheers.; Now, sir, I object to much that has passed in this debate, but to two things mainty—first of all, to the attempt to se parate turnoble friend at the head of the Foreign -office— (cheers)—from the rest of his colleagues - a most unconsti tutional attempt, a most unfair attempt, an attempt which ought to have been reprobated by those who, having been in office, know the joist responsibility of the members of the Cabinet. (Renewed cheering.) Sir, I declare on the part of my hon. colleagues, that we are all equally responsible for what the noble lord has done—(loud cheers) —and, there fore, I trust we shall not hear any more of these personal attacks upon Lord Russell, but that whatever censure any man may wish to cast on the conduct of the Government may be aimed at the Government itself, and not at any in dividual member of it. (Cheers.) Now, sir, I also regret deeply for my country the pains which have been taken by many of those who have taken part in this debate to vilify and degrade—(cheers and counter-cheers)—that country. (Cries of " No, no," from the Opposition.). Not content 1 with blaming the Government, which they were entitled to do, and endeavouring to prove that we were wrong in every step of these transactions, they have maintained that England is ;degraded—(Opposition cheers)—and that she has sunk in the estimation of foreign countries, And when ? and since when ? Since the ter mination of the Conferences—(No, no, from the Opposition) —which only closed a few days ago. Now, sir, I deny, on the part of the country, the statements which have been made. (Ministerial cheers.) I say that England stands as high as she ever did—(cheers and counter cheers)—and that those who think that she has fallen in the estimation of the world are not the men to whom the honour and dignity of England ought to be confided. (Loud cheers.) Well, sir, this bill of indictment was most singularly brought in by the right hon. gentleman who proposed the motion, because in the early part of his speech, step by step, he expressed his approyal of what Government had done. He-began by admitting that the treaty of 1852 was, when it was concluded, a wise and good arrangement. He could not deny that all the Governments who were parties to that treaty had congratulated each other upon having made what they then thought—and there were grounds for the opinion —was a settlement that would en sure the peace of .Europe. And when we have been told that the Prussian Minister of that day, the Chevalier de Bunsen, refused to put his name to a certain protocol, I think I am right in saying that so eager was the Prussian Government for that treaty, that the draft *as sent from Berlin to London with a special order to the Chevalier de Bunsen that he was to sign it such as he received it, and not to make any objection of his own. Well, then, what ever may have been the feelings of the Chevalier de Bunsen, who was known to be a very enthusiastic champion of Ger man unity at that time, I say those feelings were not shared by his Government—and it is a misrepresentation to infer, that because of the objections he may have felt, Prussia was not sincere in concluding that treaty. Saxony was equally pleased with the arrangement that was then made. That arrangement violated no rights. It simply was that the Danish Government should be invited to change the law of succession legally, which they did—that the King, by his prerogative, should be empowered to name his successor, which he did—and that that suc cessor should be acknowledged by the contracting powers as heir to the Danish crown ; and that the States which were then and had been for a long time under the sway of the King of Dearaari4 should, as far as the object of the treaty went, remain united under the Danish sceptre, And it was thought that arrangement was secured by the change in the law of succession in Denmark, and the re nunciation of the Duke of Auguatenburg's rights to the succession of Holstein. 'Well, sir, we know that the reason why that arrangement failed, was that on the one part the Danish Government did not treat the German subjects of Schleswig with that administi wive system to which they were entitled, and that the late king committed the same errors which the King of Holland did with regard to Bel gium, namely, interfering with their language, laws, and religion, and all that was dear to man, That has been the constant source of expostulation oa the part of Germany, and those expostulations were not attended to in the way in which they ought to have been. The result of that was, that when the late king died, those discontents which had been smothered during his reign burst forth as to the dis puted succession to Holstein; and th en came th e execu ti on in Holstein, for the purpose of comp e lli ng t h e ki ng -d u k e t o revoke his patent ; and that brings me to the point to which I have often been referred—the answer I made to the hon. member for Horsham (Mr S. Fitzgerald), at the end of last session. Well, it is said that we began at that time to threaten war in Germany. I deny that what I said was a threat of war on the part of England. The words which lam going to read I think will prove it, What I said in answer to the hon. member was, " I have said we entirely concur with him, and with every reasonable man in Europe, including those in France and Russia, in de siring that the independence, and the integrity, and the rights of Denmark may be neeintained. We are con vinced—l am convinced at least —that if any violent attempt were made to overthrow those rights, and to in interfere with that independence, those who made the attempt would find in tie result that it will not be Denmark alone with when they will have to con tend." (Cheers and counter cheers.) But the contest shows that when I talked of every man in Europe, it is quite evi dent I did not confine myself tc this country. (Cheers and Opposition cries of "No, no.") And what was the passage which preceded that ? I had just said before, " It is impos • sible for any man who looks at the map of Europe, and who knows the great interest whice. the Powers of Europe feel in the independence of the Danish monarchy, to shut his eyes to the fact that war begun about a petty dispute con cerning the constitution of Holstein would, in all probabi lity, not end where it began, aid might draw after it conse quences which all the parties who began it would exceed.• ingly regret to have caused." (Hear, hear.) What I was pointing to was a European war, and not simply a war be tween this country and Germany. But then, what was it which the hen. gentleman, who is so much against all in terference and anything that mihates against the rights of Germany—what was it he said that called forth what I am quoting? When the hon. gentleman stated that he appre hended danger from the execution in Holstein, he said that the entrance of the Federal troop 3 into Holstein might in volve consequences fatal to tie independence and integrity of Denmark. And he contineed, " If the Government would say that, under pretence of Federal rights, the Confederation were not to interfere with the rights of the Danish Crown, and if France and Russia would hold similar language, the danger to which he had adverted might be diverted." The hon. gentleman therefore wanted the English Government to say to the Diet, You shall not go into Holstein for the pur pose of executing Federal law; and he said if England could persuade France and Russia t 3 say the same thing, the dan ger which he apprehended wculd be averted. Well then, I say it is not for the hen. gentleman to tax us, and say that our representations and expostulations with Prussia, Aus tria, and the Diet against the course they were pursuing, eaere justifiable, since he world have had us take a higher meae nre, viz., tell the Diet teat they were not to do that which by the law of Germany and the law of Europe they had a perfect right to do. (lelinisterial cheers.) But we did not do that ; our representations were of a different charac ter. When that occupation took place the Danish Govern ment was recommended, not by England alone, but by Eng land and other Powers, not to resist. They did not resist; and when the farther invasion of Schleswig was threatened we endeavoured to persuade the King of Denmark to take steps to revoke that constitution which was made the ground of that occupation of Schleswig as a guarantee of the revocation, The King ?remised to do all that he could and as early as he could for the purpose. Well, what was the time when, according to gentlemen opposite, who com plain so much, and at the tottom of whose thoughts lies the notion that we ought to interfere by force—(cries of No, no, from the Opposition benches, and cheers from the Minis terial benches)—what was the time when that interference ought to have taken place ? The German troops entered Schleswig about the middle of winter. Well that was not a time when any naval or military operations could have been undertaken. What did we do? From the beginning we en deavoured to persuade France and Russia to concur with us in every step we took. (Hear, hear.) But menacing lan guage is said to have been used. (Hear.) Why, the me nacing language was warning the German Powers of the danger to Europe and themselves which might arise from the extension of the war beyond the quarter where h had arisen. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) in his speech ap proved of our conduct up to September. He said it was wise and judicious, because was France was with us. He went on to say, however, that after September a change took place, and then you disgusted France. How was that ? It was on account of Poland and :he Congress—that we abondoned France about Poland. What was our course about Poland? Were we not told in this house over and over again that we ought to interfere diplomatically in favour of the Poles. (Fleur.) Did not the hon. member for King's county (Mr Hennessy) repeatedly urge us in that direction, and was not his urging backed and supported by hon. members op posite ? Even the mode of representation was pointed out. We were told, "Do not content yourselves with simple remonstrances on the part of England, but get France, Austria, Prussia, and all the Powers of Europe, to concur in repreeenting to Russia the expediency of dealing leniently with Poland, and of acting in accordance with her engage ments." Well, we did not do that which we never under• took—to make war for that purpose. My noble friend and myself avowed that was not intended, but the right hon. gentleman acknowledged the perfect justice of our course upon that occasion ; for he said some little time ago to have made war for Poland would have been an act of insanity. Could, therefore, the French Emperor have found fault with the English Government for not committing an act of insanity? Then, again, as to the Congress, the right hon. gentleman said we were quite right in declining the Con gress. No man w ith a common understanding could imagine that a Congress could, under such circumstances, have been attended with beneficial results. The right hon. gentleman said that a Congress ought to follow action, not precede it, which is a very great distinction, Well, then, to say that France was influenced by such considerations in her conduct towards Denmark was to impute conduct to the French Government perfectly inconsistent with what ought to be expected from a Government acting upon great and generous principles. (Hear.) France was actuated by quite different motives, and she never concealed them from us About that time we were led to expect that France and Russia would join us in pressing strongly upon the German Powers the impropriety of their conduct towards Denmark. But France very finely told US, " War for you on behalf of Denmark would be a naval war, for us it would be a land War ; we have Germany upon our frontier, and war, there fore, would be a great undertaking, costly both in men and treasure. We are not disposed to undertake it, especially for an object which is not a French object —an object which interests neither the dignity, inde pendence, nor welfare of France." I think then we had ro right to press upon the French Government the adoption of the course which we m o st approved, We, theref ore, lost the support of France, except morally and diplo maticall y . Well, Russia was applied to; bu, Ru s sia gave us a n answer also declining any co - operation with us. And when one comes to consider the union which exists betw een Russia, ved. Prussia, and Austria with - regard to the Polish question, one cannot be surprised at Russia not being willing to take up arms against her neighbours. Well, up to September, the right hon, gentleman adm its our po licy was wise and judicious. And I contendl say, step by step that from that time our policy was likewise wise and judicious, and ho nourable to the country. (Ch eers. ) We laboured to per• suede the parties to come to an agreement; we remonstrated with the German Powers on their conduct towards Den mask; but at last a Conference was proposed. The pro posal came from Prussia first. W e agreed. Some time, however, elapsed before the Conference could assemble. and a question arose whether an armistice should precede the Conference. We should have preferred an armistice before the Conference, but failing in that we stipulated that it should be the first subject of discussion, We found it im possible to obtain an armistice, and then we said let us have a Conference as soon as p oss ibl e. Well, sir, our influence was lowered—we had n o i n fl uence Europe. (Opposition cheers.) Why, first o f a l l we were invited to take steps to bring the Conference to ge th er, an d in that Con ferenc e step by step every proposal made by Eng l a nd was supported by France, Russia, and S we d en. N o thing was done or pro posed by England whi c h was no t previously agreed upon and previously concert e d with t h es e Powers, and therefore am at a loss to und erstand I w h a t you mean when you say that England is a degraded P o wer—(cheers) — and that you have no eonfidence in the Government. We are accused in that Conference of having departed from the provisions of the treaty of 1852. Those provisions have certainly been departed from, but it was necessity tha t compelled us to depart from them. When the Conference assembled all the Powers bound themselves to abide by the provisions of the treaty, Th at wa s the starting-point; but we did not make it the basis of the Conference, because we knew that there w as an objection t o it on the part of Aust r i a and Prussia, and th e G erman Con f e deration. But th e rea l ababsaissiws a fo s r f t o h r e th c e on p f u e r r p e o n s c e e o t f h a a r t riving at a peaceful soluti on of the question, an d o f restoring pea ce to Europe. Was th a t an unworthy obj ec t. (C heers.) If it wa s obtained, was it not might lead to satisfactory results ? The p ar ti es Were asked t o s tate what the t erms were upon which th ey were will i ng to complete peace. Th ey proposed ter ms of a,person a l union, with details, which th e Danish Government were w illing to accept. They m a d e another proposal, which was to separate Holstein from Den- mirk and the whole of Schleswig. That was objectionable. They were induced to relax from that pretension, and at last the parties were brought toth is, that the Danes consented t o the proposal mad e t o . them, o n the part of Germany, that the question should b e se ttl e d b y the separation of Holstein from Denmark, together with the German portion of Schleswig, Well, no doubt that was a departure from the treaty of 1852; but I am not sure that it would 'net be to the advantage of Denmark, which has long been crippled by the people of Schleswig,who have been long discontented with her,as was shown at the time of the Royal marriage, when they refused to contribute to the dower offered by the King, in order to show their dissatisfaction. So the parties were brought to gether, and they agreed to a division of Schleswig, a part to be united to Holstein; and the only question at last was where the line was to be drawn. It was found impossible to bring them to an agreement. We then proposed arbitration, If the parties accepted it, and if the arbiter was empowered peremptorily to decide the point, and that the two parties agreed to it, instead of a vote of censure, instead of con demnation so lavishly bestowed upon us in this debate, all would agree that our exertions had been crowned with suc cess, and that we had made an honourable arrangement between the two parties, and that the peace of Europe was secured. (Cheers.) It was not our fault that the two parties objected to the arrangement. The proposal was a most reasonable one. It has been said that our Minister pro mised Denmark that if she agreed to the line of the Schlei he walld not propose another line. He did make that promise, but that was not to fetter his hands when he found it was impossible to bring Germany down to the Sehlei, nor to bring Denmark up to the Apenrade, But if the Conference had broken up, would it not be said to us, " Why did you not propose arbitration ?" I say it was proper, and our duty as a last resort to propose arbitration, which if accepted would have restored peace. (Cheers.) The French plenipotentiary proposed another solution— namely, an appeal to the population of the disputed districts, but it was not acceptable to Denmark or to Prussia; and that proposal, although honourably made, was not acceded to. Well, then, I say when hon. gentle men, not looking to the main features of the transaction, only pick out sentences from the blue books and found upon them a vote of condemnation against the Government, I say that such a proceeding, although it may suit the purposes of a party who want to blacken and disgrace the Govern ment, I am persuaded that the country will not think this is the way to treat great European questions (cheers), and that it will not approve the condemnation which is proposed by gentlemen opposite. Now, let us examine a little what is the resolution which the right hon. gentleman proposes. I speak not of the first and second sentences, but the last. He proposes that this house should affirm that the influence of England is lowered in the eyes of the world—(cheers) — and that thereby the security for peace is diminished. That is supported by a great number of gentlemen who maintain that we are never to interfere in anything beyond our own shores. that is the use of our influence if we are not to in terfere ? (Cheers.) And how is the peace of Europe to be endangered by the loss of our influence if that influence is to be confined within those walls. (Cheers.) This doctrine is altogether unsound, for our interests are affected by mat ters which happen in every part of the world, and a coun try like ours cannot be passive or indifferent to what passes among other nations ; that she has interests which require vigilant watching, and that we must interfere in some way or other in transactions in which we are not directly or ab solutely concerned. But then we are told that the balance of power is exploded. Why, the balance of power is founded upon the nature of man. (Hear, hear.) The balance of power means that, in the community of nations, no nation should acquire such a preponderance of power as to endanger the security of the rest; and it is' for the ad vantage of all that the smaller Powers should be respected in their independence (Opposition cheers)—and not swallowed up by their more powerful neighbours. That is the doctrine of the balance of power, and it is a doctrine worthy of being acted upon. I say we have done our best to rescue Denmark from the dangers to which she was exposed by counselling her to set herself right upon those matters where she was in fault; advising her aggressors to adopt a more moderate course ; and by inducing the neutral Powers to join with us in advising the same course. but what said the right honourable gentleman upon the subject ? He said if England had a policy, and that England and France were upon cordial terms, war would be very different; but if Russia, France, and England had come to a good understanding, war would be impossible. Well, we tried to make it impossible, but France and Russia would not combine with us, and there fore war became possible, and took place. The right hon gentleman had therefore pronounced a panegyric upon our policy, and he ought to vote against his own resolution. (Cheers and laughter.) We adopted the best means of ren dering war impossible, and the failure was not our fault. At the time I answered the question of the right hon gen tleman opposite we had reason to believe that Sweden was going to conclude a treaty offensive and defensive with Denmark, but it was not carried out. Well, then, I deny utterly that the influence of England has been lowered. I say that there is no proof of it. The assertion must belong eiiher to the period before the Conference or to the period afterwards. But to the period before the Conference it could not apply, because by the influence of England that Confe rence was assembled in the capital of this country. It can not apply to anything subsequent to the Conference, because nothing has taken place. (Hear.) Well, then, I say that it is a gratuitous libel upon the country. (No.) It is a libel by a great party upon the country which they wish to govern. Why, such a resolution being recorded, foreign Governments would say to that party, you have put itupon record that your country is degraded, and whether it is or is not, you are not the parties to restore it. (Hear.) I say therefore that is a most urpatriotic course, which I trust will not receive the support of the house. It would be a libel upon the country to which we all belong to record in Inc votes of this house that which is not a fact—that the influence of Eugland had been lowered, (Hear.) Sir, the influence of a country depends upon other things than pro tocols and despatches. (Hear, hear.) The influence of a country depends upon its power to defend itself, its wealth, its prosperity, its intelligence, and upon the cultivation of mind and the development of arts and sciences, and upon all those things which make a country great and powerful. So long as England retains these conditions, so long I defy any one to prove that her influence has been lowered or degraded. (Hear.) Well, then, I contend that the reso lution of the right hon. gentleman is not one which is fitting for this house to adopt. Reference has been made to the amendment of the hon. gentleman the member for Bridg water, and it has been said by some that it was an escape from voting upon the resolution of the right hon. gentle man. (Hear.) Well, I have no hesitation in saying that for my part I regret that the hon. member (Air. Kinglake) has moved that amendment, because I should have been better pleased to have come to a decision on the resolution of the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks. But we were told just now by the hon. baronet (Sir S. North cote) that that resolution, with the amendment of my hon. friend, embodied entirely the statement which I made to the house not long ago in stating the results of the Conference. Surely if that is the case, gentlemen opposite cannot be sun _ _ prised that we should accept that amendment, and be pre pared to vote for it. No man can say that by voting for that amendment we are shirking the resolution of the right hon. gentleman. At the same time I did express to my hon. friend a wish that he would not put his amendment, so that we might vote on the resolution of the right hon. gentleman. He, however, declined to withdraw it, and we are now pre pared to take the vote upon his amendment. (Hear.) In the course of this debate the real character of the right hon. gentleman's motion has been more plainly dilated upon by some who have taken part, more especially by the hon. member for Tipperary. It has been fairly avowed that this is not simply a censure upon one individual act, but upon a course of action. It is fairly an issue to test a vote of con fidence in the Government. It has been intended to oust the Government. Ida not complain of that object, but I complain of the mode, because I think it would have been more manly, open, and straightforward, to have put the issue in the constitutional mode of a resolution, rather than to endeavour to wrap it up in the 1,500 pages of a blue book. (Hear.) It would have been much more consistent to say, We have borne this Government for five years ; it is too much for human endurance ; everything must have its limit; the time is come when we wish Parliament to declare plainly, aye or no, will they retain the present Go vernment, or not ? I have not the slightest reproach to make to them, except that they have not fairly avowed and put their object in plain hinguage. They complained of our despatches not being in plain language ; but I think their resolution is not in plain language, and it would be much better, and more according to usual custom, to put it in the plain way. (Hear.) Then the member for Tipperary said very truly that this being the case, the house ought to look not simply to this limited action of the Government on the Danish question, but to look to their general conduct on other matters. That would be quite proper and fair, because if a vote of no confidence had been moved, of course it would lead to a discussion of all th 3 measures of the Government. I contend that if the house take that view of the matter, they will find in the five years that we have been honoured by the house, and have carried on the Government of the coun try this country has been in an unexampled state of prosperity—(cheers)—that more has been done in everything connected with the material interests of the country than perhaps ever was done in the same space of time before. (Hear.) On that ground at least we may stand unscathed, and defy any attack which may be made upon us from any quarter whatever. I know that details applicable to this argument would be encroaching too much on the time and patience of the house : but I now ask leave to state one or two minor facts weich bear on this question, to show what has been the conduct of the Government, and what have been the improvements in the country during our adminis tration. (Cheers.) Between 1859-60 and 1861—(cries of "Question" and cheers)—we have listened very patiently to the abuse of hon, gentlemen opposite. I think now it is but fair that they should listen to the reasons that we think may be fairly stated in our general justification. (Hear.) We have reduced, between 1860 and 1864 twelve millions of taxation. We have concluded, with the assistance of the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr Cobden), that treaty with France which has so wonderfully increased the commercial relations between the two countries—(heat, hear)—for whereas in 1859, the imports from France were in value jq millions, in 1863 they were 24 millions, The eicports also have increased in a greater degree, for while in 1859 they were only 9i millions, in 1863 they were £22,900,000. It must be obvious that this great development of the c o rn' merce of the country must have been of the greatest advani, tage at a time when we were suffering so severely from the failure of the supply of cotton from America. (Cheers.) In the meantime we had reduced the national debt by eleven millions, that is to say, 3ve millions had been actually paid off, and six n In-dono had been converted into terminable annuities. The private personal income of the country has increasel to such au extent that the assess ment to the income tax has increased by 27 zillions in the course of that time. Between 1860-61 and 1864 65, the expenditure has been reduced by 3 miilions, Meanwhile we had not been unmindful of interests and considerations very important to the country, viz,, the national defences ; our primary object being to make the country unassailable from any quarter. I willingly give hon. gentlemen opposite the credit of originating the volunteer movement, but that sys tem of defence has been wonderfully developed under the present Government. (Hear.) Onr dockyards are now in course of being made secure; so that we no longer hear of pamphlets about the perils of Portsmouth. Portsmouth and our other naval stations will soon be in a position to defy attack. The foreign trade of the country has increased to a very great degree, having risen from 377 millions in 1861 to 444 millions in 1863. An increase of 67 millions in two years I It is not necessary for me to go into the details of the improvement of a savings' banks, although those are matters which are of deep interest to the working classes. (Hear.) We have got through that great calamity, as it was expected to be, of the cotton famine without any of the disturbance which might have been expected through the losses and privations of those who suffered by it. We have not been solely occupied with the concerns of the United Kingdom ; for my right hon. friend who has the management of India has done great things in regard to that country. And an important matter that is, because I recollect it was said when ft change took place in the Government of India, that although India was indebted to England then, tlee time might come when England would be indebted to India. In 1858, the deficit in the Indian revenue amounted to £14,000,000; but it 1864 there was a suplus of £813,000; so that, in con sequence of the instructions of my right hon. friend, a large deficit in the Indian revenue has been converted into a large surplus. The contentment of the people of India was known to everybody. Railways, telegraphs, and every improvement which modern times have produced have been introduced into that country. The exports from India in 1858-9 were £29,000,000; in 1862-3 they amounted to £46,000,080. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, I say that all the indications of national prosperity that now exist—(An hon. member: In Ireland I ) )—amongst the subjects of the ueen have g ood foundation, and that the Government of the Queen during the five years they have been charged with the conduct of the affairs of the country have not been inattentive to any interest to which their attention ought to be directed, but we have been the promoters of general improvement in all the matters which constitute the gene ral interest of the country. Well, but we have during that period of office preserved this country from war. (Hear.) There were many people ready to urge us to take an active part in the war in America. (Hear, hear.) We were not without motives which might have been supposed to in duce us to take part in the contest going on in that country. We abstained from it. (Cheers) No doubt there are some who thought we ought to have leant more to one side, and others who thought we ought to have leant more to the other, but our condttct has been that of rigid neutrality, and we have saved the covntry from the calamities of that war. (Cheers.) There are many gentlemen in this House who do not entirely approve of the policy that we pursued in China. (Hear, hear.) That may be a subject of discussion, but there is certainly a great development of our trade with China, and we have a good understanding with the Go vernment of China. Therefore, whatever may be thought of the steps by which we have arrived at that conclusion, no man can deny that the result and conclusion have been advantageous to the country. We have preserved pacific relations with all the countries of Europe. It has been said that in the last speech from the Throne for the first time was omitted the sentence, " I con tinue to receive friendly assurance of peace from all foreign Powers." (gentlemen who make that assertion are but little read in Queen's speeches, because this is not the first time, that foolish and unmeaning passage has been left out, and I trust it will never appear again, because those "friendly assurances" never were given or received. (Laughter.) The only meaning of the passage was, that the Sovereign was on good relations with foreign Powers. We could not say that entirely here—(hear)—because we had differences with Austria and Russia, which rendered it impossible to make that assertion; but when those differences are over—(a laugh)--I hope • that it may be shown in the Queen's Speech that it is owing to the way in which for a great many years the affairs of the country have been conducted. Although that is the case, I quite admit that the hon. gentlemen opposite are perfectly entitled to make a great struggle and a great fight for power. That is an honourable feeling, which 1 do not mean to reproach. I think that a great party comprising a great number of men of influence and ability in the country, are perfectly entitled—when they think the prize is within their reach—to strive for it. (Hear, hear,) But, on the other hand, I do not think we have done any.. thing to deserve that that prize should be taken from us. (Cheers.) I think we have conducted the affairs of the country, during the five years we have had these seats, with honour to the country, with advantage to the country, and with credit to ourselves, and deserving the approbation of the house and the confidence of the country. (Cheers from the Ministerial side, followed by counter-cheers by the Op position.) Although hon. gentlemen meet that assertion with " No, no," I am inclined to think whatever the decision of this closely packed assembly may be to-night, the country at large will answer in the affirmative—(cheer s and counter cheers)—and will re-echo the assertion I have taken the liberty of making. (No, no, from the Conservatives.) Well, then, I say there has not been any special ground made for the motion now before us. It evades and shirks the objects of the movers. They ought to have come manly forward with a vote of want of confidence. I think that is not a motion which is founded upon justice and facts; and 1 am confident, whatever may be the decision of the house this night—and I trust it will be a rejection of the motion and a substitution of that of my hon. friend, which will in fact be a negative—whatever the decision may be, I am satisfied and believe it will be in our favour, and I am sure that if it is not in our favour, it will not be in accordance with the gene ral feeling of the people of this country. (The noble lord, on resuming his seat, was loudly cheered.) Mr. DISRAELI—Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I moved an address to the Crown,thanking her Majesty for the papers of the late negotiations which had been placed on our table, and at the same time in that address I made three state ments which I wished the house to accept. The first was, that her Majesty's Government had failed in their avowed policy, which was to uphold the integrity and independence of Denmark. The second point was an expression of regret that the just influence of this country in the councils of Eu rope was lowered. The third proposition was that, by that lowering of the just influence of this country in the councils of Europe, the securities of peace were diminished. In in troducing that address to the consideration of the house, I had, as is inevitable under such circumstances, to quote con siderably, though in as small proportion as I could arrange, from a gloat many diplomatic correspondence that had been placed on our table. I have observed always under similar cir cumstances when the opinion of the house has been asked, as on the affairs of China, in which Sir James Graham took part, there are always accusations on both sides of extracts being garbled, 1 our not conscious of being guilty of anything of the kind. I have listened with great attention to the present debate, which has lasted four days, and having read the despatches referred to by members on both sides of the House who have drawn from extracts quite different inferences, I am bound to say I did not observe any quoted in any unfair manner, and it is my belief that fa'r quotations is the inva rible practice of this House. Indeed it appears to me one of the most silly things in the world, totally irrespective of any other consideration, for any person who attacks her Majesty's Government on occasions of this character, wil lingly to managle or misrepresent these documents. What could be the position of such a member, when he knows that hon. gentlemen opposite, having the original documents, are in the possession of the means of correcting him ? Every gentleman has the papers, and can refer to the page from which the despatch is quoted ; and therefore it is absurd to suppose that any gentleman would attempt to misquote or misrepresent any document. (Hear, hear,) I was impressed with the weakness of the case of the Government when the most distinguished orator of the Treasury benches rose to answer me at once—l will not say vulgarly, but certainly with a taunt which ought not to receive the sanction or the approval of the House. (Hear, hear.) He it:media! ely accused me of misquoting—(Opposition cheers)—with mis representing; which was as much as to say,—You are a person totally incompetent, and you must be a very silly person to attempt to address the House on this occasion, and bring forward a case founded on misquotations. (Cheers.) I should not have said this, but I thought it due to my self. (Hear, hear.) With reference to the despatch which was from Earl Russell to our chargé d'affaires at Paris, I copied it myself, and quoted from the copy. I read as much as I:thought sufficient to prove my case, and what I omitted was only to save the time of the house; but, in fact, that part which I did omit went to support my ease. (Hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer and other gentlemen assumed that my object in quoting from Mr Grey to Earl Russell, giving the conversation with M. Drouyn de Lhuys, w as t o show that the Emperor of the French would not act with the English Government. But I never supposed that any and I would have acted from a feelin g of pique, n d I should think that the Emperor of the French was the last - person who would so act. But I again say that that ma epithet, in which I omitted would, if given, have further provedthe part my case.e of falsifying(ll ear . ) a Thestatement. Chancellor of (Hear,the hear,Exchequer from th the c o c p u i s 3o. Ine d x el e te e r g t u h e e r gracious renalled nn which d e 11 0 n t h o e t dBCiehtsia:rnnee.)teolleg However, Chancellor imfhtheEhthe slightest pain orannoyance. (H ear. ) It is true that I may have inadvertently described the de 'etch as referring to Federal execution; that the menace referred to Federal I may lut" "I'l e.xecution ; but 'what it I did? (Hear, hear.) It was an i yet upon the strength of of misquoting. Again, the Cha it a charge passage, and says that in the first place I ge vuts made against me I lcellor of the Exchequer Make out that the English Government was acting in a ner ; that they we re Germany threatened gnglish Gove r Otellacdt i g rre h g e u r l e ar an a d nd n i a m ja p li o n li g tic th m e a r n e -; ay and Denmark the other, and done by the other great n n in eu e t n ra t l Pdiodwenrest,hbiyngFbrauntcwhat d w b a y s Russia. Thi s was broadlycaar, hear.)etate by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and sine repeated. But not a tittle of proof was given of it. ‘,,a We have had plenty of proof that England h a d no menaced and cajoled, but we have proof, kinWithstawling the short declaration of the Chancellsr of the Exchequer, and. reiterated by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that Franco and Russia did the same. Until the debate commenced I was not even aware vhen the English Government did be gin to menace, or when they ceased to menace. Why, the despatch that was qu ,ted by the hon. member for the Uni versity of Dublin was most important, as showing the time during which this system of menace was carried on. I allude to the letter from Earl Russell to Lord Bloomfield, in which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs referred to his conversation with Count Barnstorff. (Hear, hear.) I will also draw the attention of the house to the statements which have been made respecting the British fleet being ready to sail at twenty-four hours' notice. (Hear.) What did that mean ? Did not the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House of Lords make mysterious allusions respecting the Channel fleet ? I also want to know what is meant by the Secretary to the Admiralty when he ..comes down here and hitches up his trousers like a celebrated per former—(" Oh, oh," and considerable laughter) —I did not mean any offence to the noble lord, who is an ornament to his profession—and says the Channel fleet is ready to go anywhere in twenty,our hours ? I want to know what he m cant. Lord C. PAGET—I merely read some answer to a ques tion by the right hon. member for Droitwich. (Cheers.) Mr DISRAELI—It was not the answer to a question of the hon. member for Droitwich whieh sent the Funds down one per cent. the next day. (Cheers.) I say there has been a continuous system of threats. I would also remind that all the facts upon which the Govern ment formed their decision respecting the question of interference between Germany and Denmark were in their possession months and months ago—(hear, hear) and yet the decision was not formed till after the Conference, and even then communicated with a gloomy and terrific proviso at the end of the noble lord's statement to the house. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman continued to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had contended that the resolution was not in accordance with parliamentary practice, and that Mr Pitt or Mr Fox would have moved an address to the Crown for the dismissal of the Ministry. But not only was it in ac cordance with the practice of Parliament, but two distinct precedents could be shown for it—one in the case of the Melbourne Administration, when Lord George Cavendish moved a resolution when peace was concluded with France, Spain, and America; and the other by Mr. Fox himself in 1796. (Opposition cheers.) The Chancellor of the Ex chequer also complained that the Government were not met in a straightforward manner ; but were they (the Opposi tion) met in a straightforward manner? Until he had heard the noble lord he could not have believed that the Government were going to shelter themselves under the amendment of the hon. member for Bridgewater. What was the amendment? It was the previous question—(ironi cal cheers and counter cheers)—drawn up by an amateur diplomatist, and moved by the historian of the Crimean war as a compliment, he supposed, to the Emperor of the French. (Cheers and laughter.) The noble lord had talked of the ' exports and imports of the country—(laughter)—but that was an argument as applicable to the Ashantee debate as the motion which then occupied the house. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman then denied that the Opposition had lost any time in calling the attention of Parliament to the question, and asked why the right hon. member for Stroud (Mr Hoasman), whom he described as the "superior person" of the house, had not himself moved in the matter. Ho then referred to the conduct of the Government in the Polish negotiations; and, in r-ply to the question, where had the influence of the country been diminished, he answered; "everywhere." (Opposition cheers.) They had twice within 12 months made the most importunate ape peals to St. Petersburg, and twice had their appeals been rejected. (Opposition cheers.) Within the same space of time, not twice only but manifold times, they had applied to France in their difficulties, and France had declined to act with them. They had menaced Austria, and Austria had derided their menaces. They had menaced Prussia and the Prussian Diet, and in every case they had been treated with indifference. (Cheers.) The resolution was not retrospective merely, but also referred to the future, and was eminently practical, and he was confident that it would commend itself to the feelings of the house, and be approved by the sentiments of the country. (Opposition cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON suggested to the hon. member for North Warwickshire that as the feeling of the house was decidedly against his amendment, he should not press it. (Loud cries of hear, hear from all parts of the house.) Mr NE W DEGATE, amid strong manifestations of dis • sent, declined to do so. The house was then ordered to be cleared for a division. The SPEAKER then pointed out to the house the neces sity of deviating from the usual mode of taking the division by arranging that it should not be necessary for the Ayes, when they had gone to the right, to wait for any great number to assemble, but to pass the tellers at once, and then, instead of returning into the house, to pass into the lobby outside; otherwise, as had been foreseen by the offi cials, the lobby where they should assemble would not be large enough to contain the Ayes. Ths right hon. gentleman then proceeded to put the question on Mr Newdegate's amendment, when the hon. member announced that, as he did not wish to put the house to inconvenience, he should withdraw his amendment. Mr KINGLAKE attempted, amid loud cries of "move," to address the house, but was obliged to resume his seat. The question was than, in a very crowded house, put from the chair. The resolution of the right hon. gentle man the member for Bucks (Mr Disraeli), was first read then' the amendment of the hon member for Bridgwater (Mr Kinglake) ; after which the usual motion was put, " That the words proposed to be left ouf stand part of the question." The house divided, with the following result Ages 295 Noes 313 Majority for the Government --1S The amended resolution was then put and agreed to. The other business was disposed of, and the house ad journed at 10 minutes past 2 o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. LIVERPOOL-FiuDAy. There was a thin attendance to-day of both the town and country trade, and wheat met with cnly a moderate demand, at about last Tuesday's prices, and in some cases at a trifling reduction for amber ex quay. Fl our held for previous rates, but does not bring them. Oats and oatmeal steady, but slow. Bean©, peas, and barley each m a i n t a in Tuesday's improved feeling. Indian corn off ere d qu ite sparingly, and, with a retail d eman d , fully maintains the r week ecent advance, which may ba quAed le 6cl per qr on the STAMFORD—FRIDAY. Whito wheat, 4t's to 428; red, 37s to 40s per '36 stone. Barley, malting, 32s to 34s ; grinding, 28s to 328 per qr. Oats, 20s to 24s per 24 stone. Beans, old, 408 to —s per qr. ; new, 38s to —s. LINCOLN. --FRIDAY. White wheat new, 40a to 42s Barley, grinding 26s to Ng Red d 0... 36s to 40s Oats, old, .. 248 to 260 Old white 4 38 to 46s New do .......... 20s to 23 0 Red do.. 3Bs to 42s 1 Beans. ........... 3 7s to 4 0 0 Barley, malting 32s to 34s 1 Beans, new ...... 332 to 350 CORK—TIIIIRSDAT. The following were the quotations this morning :.—Red wheat, 8s Od to 8s 10d; white, 8s Od to 9s 8d , barley, Id to Os Od ; oats, 6s 6d to 6s 8d ; black do., 6 8 6d to 5s l Id. BRISTOL SUGAR—Pnin/Y. There has been more demand to-day, and a fair business has been done at an improvement in prices of from 6d to 1 6 per cwt. Refiners' produce continues limited in demand, at about Gd advance on late prices. Rum—About 6 0 puncheons Demerara have been sold at is 9d proof. COAL MARKET. Prices of Coal per Ton at toe close of the market. Cowpen H ar tl e s. d. y 17 3 Hastings Hartley l7 flolywell Canfield Moor Butes..l3 6 Wylam 16 3 Walls End. ...18 t taswell Hartlepool .... .. ... 18 ° East Hartlep oo l...... 18. 3 South Hartlepool.,.... 17 3 Wharneliffe ...... l6 A 9 Eden Main ...... l6 Y , Framwellgate lB South Hatton 1 u 37; sold, 33. Walls End. Braddyll's Hatton 17 3 Cassop 17 6 Hetton 18 6 Ships at marker Births. HANKEY..--011 the 7th inst,, at 8, Albert road, Regent's• park, the wile of John Allers Hankey, jun., Esq., of 66 daughter. HORNS.--On the 6th inst., at Maida-vale, Mrs. William Horne, of a son. LEGGATT.—On the 6th inst., at Enfield, Middlesex, Mrs. Henry Leggett, of a son. Marriages. CA UPDELL—CARRINGTON,—On the 7 t h inst., at Whit©- hall Ch a p e l R o y a l, Lieut.-Col. A rc hib ald Campbell, O Blytheswood, to Augusta Clementina, daughter of Lord and Lady Carrington. CONGREVE—CUST.—On the 6th inst., at Saint Thomas% Murylebone, Charles HPury Congreve, Esq., t o Eth e ldrod V. F. Oust, third devaghter of Lieut.-General the Hone Sir Edward Cwt. Deaths. ARuNDELL.—On the 6th inst., at 5, Richmond -terrace, the Hon. Mrs. Arthur Arundell. HARNETT.—On the 6th inst, f at St. john's-wood Ando'. W Harnett, Esq., b arr i ster, aged 48. , HOLBEIN.—On the 6th inst., at 81, Albert-street, Morn' ington-crescent, N.W., Henry Reib e i n , Esq., aged 43. HUNTINGFIELD.—On the 4th inst., at Kreuznach, in Ger many, the Hon. Catherine Vanneck, eldest daughter of Lord and Lady Huntingfieid, aged 24. JACO Jac tomb B.— Es On the 7th i nst., at Upper Clapton, Char leo , q., aged 82, KEITH.—On the 4th inst., at 34, Green-park, Bath, Lady Mary Keith, aged 69, KNIGHT.—On the 7th inst., at Plymouth, henry Knight , Esq., aged 67. London : Prltted and Prblished by WILLIASI AN DICE - N S. of N o. 112 , Strand, Printer, at TnE SUN Office No. /1:1 Strand, 4 1 the Precinct of the l avey, the c'ovati 411s141e lex. — Satutcley, July 8,1864. A. do