The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-10 00:00:00

events, what I meant to state, yesterday was, that a notion

had been broached in Germany and in some quarters at
Berlin that if a state of war could be established between
Prussia and Austria and Danmark, that would release those
two Bowers from the engagement of the Treaty of 1852. I
stated my opinion upon that point, but I meant to say, or to
imily, that that was not the doctrine upon which Austria
and Prussia at present take their stand, inasmuch as they
have declared, by that paper which was read here and in the
other House of Parliament, that they acknowledge the
binding nature of the Treaty of 1852, and adhere to the
intention of maintaining the integrity of the Danish
monarchy, and therefore they cannot contend that their
hostilities with Denmark have released them from the en-
gagements of that treaty. But I entirely concur with
the view which I infer that the right hon. gentleman
takes that, even if that condition of things existed be-
tween Denmark and the two Powers which could be ra-
tionally called war, and which if the engagement had been
contracted simply between these two Powers and Denmark
might and would have put an end to that treaty, still the
Treaty of 1852 was not a treaty contracted simply between
Austria and Prussia, on the one hand, and Denmark on the
other—(hear)—hut was an engagement which they entered
into, in common with the other great Powers who signed
and the Powers and States who acceded to that treaty, and
that they could not be relieved from that common engage-
ment by anything which may take place between them
separately and Denmark. That opinion I found not simply
upon the reason of the thing. there is a case precisely in
point. The five Powers entered into a treaty with Turkey
by which they agreed to respect the neutrality of the Bos-
phorus and the Dardanelles, and that no ships of war of
any of the Powers should enter those straits without
the speecial permission of the Porte, and then only a
certain number at a time. Tho ratifications of that
treaty were exchanged with Turkey, and not among all tb'.
Powers who signed it, just as in the case of the Treaty of
1852 the ratifications were exchanged in London between
each of the Powers and Denmark, and the Powers did not
go through
the unnecessary form of exchanging ratifications
with each other. When the British fleet entered the Dar-
danelles at the commencement of the Russian war, Austria
protested against that act as a violation of the common en-
gagement which by the treaty regulating the passage of the
Dardanelles was taken by all the Powers. An answer was
given, which in our opinion was sufficient ; but that proved
that in the opinion of Austria herself a general engagement
taken by many Powers towards one was binding upon all
who took it, not simply between each and the party con-
Corild, but as with respect to the allies with whom that
engagement was taken.
THE TOWNLEY CASE.
In reply to Sir F. KELLY.
Sir 0° GREY stated that the papers connected with this
case, including the certificates of the borough magistrates
and medical men upon which Townley had been removed
to the lunatic asylum, would be in the hands of members
Lefore he moved the second reading of the bill which he had
introduced the previous night.
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN.
Mr. DISRAELI—In continuation of the question put to
the noble lard, I wish to ask whether
what was callen a
despatch the other ntght—a document which, 3 believe, was
considered very ambiguous, and was treated with derision
by the Secretary of State—is the last and only evidence the
Government possess of the intention of Austria and Prussia
to uphold the Treaty of 1802 ? I would also take the liberty
of reminding the noble lord that he has omitted to answer
raytsecond question.
Lord PALMERSTON—I had just discovered my unin.
tentlonal omission to answer the last question of the right
hon. gentleman, and was about to do so. The despatch
alluded to is certainly the last official communication re.
ceived by the Government ; but I consider that it is com-
plete in regard to the recognition of the Treaty of 1852 and
the maintenance of the integrity of the Danish Monarchy.
We certainly have no guarantee on the part of Austria
and Prussia that they will evacuate Schleswig when the
Constitution is revoked ; but we have the assurance in our
own minds that they are two Powers which must think their
character for good faith of some value. The ground, and
the only ground, on which I apprehend they have entered
Schleswig and occupied it, as a material guarantee, was to
obtain the revocation of the Constitution of November, as
far as it relates to Schleswig, And, therefore, I think,
they will find, when that demand has been complied with,
that they are bound by honour and good faith to give up
that occupation which they undertook simply for the pur-
pose of obtaining that revocation.
ASH-WEDNESDAY.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Lord PALMERSTON, again rising, said—lt is usual for
this house on 'Ash -WfArlesday to meet at two o'clock, in-
stead of at the usual time. I understand, however, that
there is really no business for to-morrow, the hon. and
gallant member fur the Queen's County having postponed,
or consented t 3 postpone, the motion of which he had given
notice. It will, therefore, I think, be more convenient that

the house, instead of meeting at two o'clock to-morrow,
should adjourn till Thursday. (Hear, hear.)
SCHL ES W IG-HOLSTEIN.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD—I cannot avoid ta'c't g the op-
portunity which this tucti-on gives me to edress u fete
words to the house upon the extraordin try armer which
was given with reference to the Danish papers by the hon.
gentleman the tinder-Secretary f7,r Foreign Affairs. That

is a question upon which the heart of this country is set,
which agitates nearly every portion of the Continent, and
upon which this house and the country are aiieed in de-
manding the most complete information, not only as to the

facts that are passing,
but as to the conduct pursued from
day to day by her Majesty's Government, and the course
they have pursued for weeks past. (Hear.) The hon.
gentleman being asked when we may expect information
on these points quietly tells the house that no papers at all
can be given before a period of three weeks. (Cheers.)
Three weeks I why, what may have happened in three
weeks ? In the spaceof three days we have seen the Duchy
of Schleswig overrun, we have seen a gallant people beaten
down by an overpowering force. (Loud cheers.) And yet
on such a question as this the Government tell the House

of Commons that they are to remain contentedly in the dark
for a period of three weeks I Now, I beg to point out to
the house that as regards Japan papers were promised in
her Majesty's Speech ; but respecting Denmark complete
silence was observed, and no information was promised to
the House of Commons, And as to the difficulty of pub-

- -
lishing these papers the noble lord at the head of the Foreign

Office when he chooses to do so is at no loss for means of

giving information to the public about his policy and the

course which he is going to take. We know very well that
in the course of the autumn the noble lord, before the ink of
a particular despatch was dry, hurried it off to the London
Gazette, and in the columns of the Gazette it was published

even before it reached the Power to whom that despatch was
addressed. (Cheers.) I think the house will conceive from
the answer of the hon. gentleman and from the course taken
by her Majesty's Government on this subject that they fear
discussion. (Hear, hear.) They know very well, with the
feeling which always prevails in this house, that there will
be no discussion until the house has had ample means of
forming an opinion; and they hope by delay to tide over
the critical time, and to avoid a discussion of their policy,
and of the course they have pursued. I therefore appeal to
the noble lord at the head of the Government to rectify what
I may almost call the tortuous policy of the Foreign-office,
and to give, at the earliest moment, the most complete and
most ample information to the House of Commons. (Cheers.)
Mr. LAYARD—I think the hon. gentleman has wasted
a good deal of virtuous indignation. (Cries of No, no.)

There is no desire on the part of the Government either to
avoid discussion or to waste time in this matter. The hon.
gentleman has filled the office which I have the honour to
fill at present, and ought to be aware that there is great diffi-
cul'y in publishing a complete set of papers upon transac-
tions of this kind. In the first place, the hon. gentleman
knows we cannot lay on the table of the house documents
communicated by foreign Powers without first consulting
them as to whether or not they wish them to be published.
That is a matter of courtesy, and it is a rule which is always

followed. I can only say that I saw the printer to-day,
and also communicated with the clerks at the Foreign-
office. The other night I stated that I hoped these papers
would be speedily produced, and I then hoped that they
would be produced next week, but they are so voluminous
that I am assured this is impossible if we wish to present the
papers in a perfect form. I have no doubt if the house desires
to have them in instalments portions can be furnished, but
I doubt whether the house will thus obtain the exact infor-
mation which it desires. I can assure the house that every
possible speed shall be used in expediting the production of
the papers. They shall be laid on the table at the very
earliest moment—l cannot give any other answer. But I
assure the house there is no intention on the part of the Go-
vernment to retard even by one day the publication of the
documents.

Mr. DISRAELI—I think we have not yet received a
satisfactory answer on the part of the Government. The
aff tirs of Germany and Denmark were of so grave a chars-
ter some time ago that it might have been a question for
the Government whether they should not have advised the
Sovereign to assemble Parliament at an earlier period.
(Cheers.) That was the feeling of men of very different
political opinions. But there are, I know, very grave reasons
which might operate to restrain the Government from giving
that advice, except under most urgent circumstances. How-
ever, if Parliament were not summoned earlier than usual,
I think her Majesty's Government were bound the moment
it assembled—(cheers) --to place in our hands the documents
necessary to form an opinion on this all engrossing and all
important subject,—a subject upon which the question of

peace or war, or even of a general war, may ultimately have
to be decided, and with regard to which at this moment we

are completely in the dark. The technical answer of the
tinder-Secretary is most unsatisfactory. He tells us he went
to the printer to-day. Welt, but the Under-Secretary ought
to have gone to the printer long before; he ought to have
gone every day and, if necessary, every hour before Parlia-
ment met to the printer for these papers. (Cheers and
laughter.) Re ought to have insisted on these papers
being ready to present to Parliament, the first night. I took
occasion on the opening day to notice the strange omission
from the Royal Speech of any promise that papers on the
subject of Germany and Denmark would be produced.
What was the answer of the noble lord ? He said his ob-
ject was that the Speech should no; be too long. (A laugh.)
Yet he found space to insert in that Speech a promise that
the papers respecting Japan—no doubt, an interesting and
important subject, but contrasted will' the European ques •
Lion of Germany and Denmark, a matter of comparatively
trifling importance—should be forthcoming. There was

room for that in the Speech. But when I pressed the noble
lord for these papers, he treated the matter with derision,
and said, " You shall have papers ; you shall have plenty
of them, and I hope hon. members will study them. I have
read a good many of them (said the noble lord) and I have
got a surfeit of them." It was clear to me at that time that
her Majesty's Government had no settled determination to
present these papers to Parliament—(cheers)—and, coup-
ling the tone of his address with the omission of any pro-
mise of the documents in the Royal Speech, I must say
the non-production of papers on such an important subject
was a great inadvertence, and one which I think it would
be difficult to vindicate. Practically, I take it for granted
that the mass of these papers, either in manuscript or
in proof sheets, are now prepared, and that permis-
sion to print them has been obtained from all the
foreign Powers. That is a mere mechanical affair. The
printer of the Foreign-office was rubbed up to-day for the
first time, and, frightened at th© mass of documents before
him, no doubt made the same sort of calculation which he
would have done if an ordinary thick pamphlet on the
Schleswig-Holstein question—and we have seen many of
them—were brought to him. He said they would require
three weeks to print. But if you have all the materials
ready, and the credit of the Foreign-office be at stake, you
must endeavour to compensate for former laches by dis-
tributing these documents into the hands of several
printers—(hear, hear)—and I will be bound to say, with
proper diligence, that you ought to produce these papers
to Parliament in eight and forty hours. The house ought
to insist on these papers being placed in their hands in 48
hours, or otherwise to relinquish the fulfilment of their
highest duty. (Hear, hear,)
Lord PALMERSTON said—Sir, I think that the right
hon. gentleman is taking a leaf out of the book of the Prus-
sian and Austrian Governments, who called on Denmark to
revoke a constitution in 43 hours, when that could only be
constitutionally accomplished by the instrumentality of a
parliament not then assembled. (Laughter.) I can assure
the right hon gentleman—he can believe me or not as he
likes—(a laugh)—l took it BO much as a matter of course
that papers on so important a matter as Denmark and Ger-
many must necessarily be presented to Parliament, that it
was totally unnecessary to mention them in the speech—if
it was an omission I am sorry for it. So far as its arising
from any doubt whether the papers should or should not be
presented, I might as well have doubted my own existence
as the obligation of the Government to lay them before Par-
liament, There was no doubt about it. The hon. gentle-
man is perhaps not quite so well aware as the hon. member
for Horsham of the labour of preparing an accurate print of
a 'vast mass of documents; it is not only the printing of
them, hut they must be looked over after by a competent
person to see that there are no mistakes of the press and
that all has been accurately done. The Under Secretary
stated to the house that if it is desired these documents may
be produced in parts, and perhaps this might be the most
convenient manner ; and if hon. members desire they may
have Part I. and then Part IL—(a laugh)—before they
come to the matter they intend to discuss ; but no delay
shall take place in laying before the house the whole of the
papers.
Lord J. MANNERS said—l can quite believe the noble
lord that there will be no unnecessary delay for the
future in the course of delivery of these papers; but,
certainly, a great and unnecessary delay had occurred in
the presentation of the papers up to the present time. It
was impossible to listen to what fell on a former occasion
and not see that however necessary it may be for the
noble lord opposite to lay these papers on the table at
the same time there was not that energy to lay these papers
before the house that was to be expected in a matter of such
vital importance. (Hear, hear.) No doubt these papers
have been kept back in the Foreign Office, and have not
whichpapers
they brought
w were
e
been brought forward in the state of preparation they should
have been. (Hear, hear.) I presume now we shall have these
beforeusintean mmuinchutleesssagtoim, thataentdhalnh)pcw
in
e
shall not be disappointed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENNESSY said he asked the Government two
nights ago whether the papers promised as to Poland would
contain the despatch from Earl Russell to Prince (mortecha-
keff, to which great importance was attached just now at
Berlin and Vienna for its bearing on the Danish question.
It was sent in the autumn, recalled by telegraph, altered,
and re-sent, When that despatch arrived it was nu derstood
that Count Rechberg and AI. Bismark called attention to
the declaration made by Earl Russell in his speech at Blair-
gowrie, to the effect that the dominion of Russia over Po-
land was forfeited by reason of the non-compliance of Rus-
sia with the treaty of Vienna; and the German Powersnow
state that that principle would in some degree apply to the
case of Denmark. They say that the treaty of London had
not been fulfilled by Denmark, and therefore the treat) of
London was void. Now it was very important to get that
despatch. He wished to ask whether the Government would