The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-08 00:00:00

tienally incapacitated. A man of sun pereonai
arrogance can never hope to bring any great politi-
cal party into sufficient subordination to his master-
ship. He deals about him language of too much vio-
lence. He it was, in effect, who was at the bottom of
the whole of these proceedings. He it was who had
the coarseness, the grossness, the vulgarity to accuse
the right hon. gentleman the Leader of the Opposi•
tion of foist' tying the despatches by his (Mr.
DISRAELI'S) mode of quoting them. When the
insinuation was originally thrown out, it was felt to
be an outrage to the gentlemanly bearing of the
House. It was passed by, however, at the moment
with a sort of scorn—after eliciting from the
House itself one ejaculatory burst of indignation.
The third night of discussion, however, that
is to say, last evening, found the vulgar taunt,
picked up—like a stale piece of mud that had
caked and fallen to the ground—found it picked
up anew by congenial fingers and hurled,
to all appearance, against the Opposition gene.
rally, but, in reality, still individually against
the Leader of the Opposition. The Under-Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs, when undertaking the
vindication of the policy of his chief, had the
effrontery to assert that "his noble friend had been
greatly misrepresented and wrongfully accused
—that against him had been brought garbled
extracts, and to use the words of his right hon.
friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, falsified
extracts from despatches." (Cries of " Oh, oh,"
from the Opposition benches.) Hence, i❑ fact, later
on in the sitting--during a very brilliant speech of
the hon. gentleman the member forLeominster—the
shameful scene which disgraced the House of Con-

mons last evening.
Twice during the early part of Mr. HARDY'S
speech that gentleman was grossly interrupted by
a point blank denial of the accuracy of his state-
ments. First, by Mr. HORSMAN. Secondly, by Mr.
LAYARD. In justification of Mr, HARDY, it will be
sufficient, however, to direct attention here to the
simple fact that later on in the evening both Mr.
HORSMAN and Mr. LAYARD found it necessary to
apologise. The right hon. gentleman, the mem-
ber for Stroud, as became him, apologising like a
man, frankly, and in terms as point blank, and
as unconditional as the statement for the
of which he found it neces-
sary thus to apologise ! The Under Secretary for
Foreign Affsirs, on the other hand, contented
himself with a merelypartial, evasive, or conditional
semblance of an apology after all! Before even this
could be elicited, occurred the incident already cha-
racterised by us as nothing less than disgraceful to
the House, discreditable to the Government, and
disrespectful to the Speaker—especially disrespect-
ful on the part of the Government—,but, most of
all, on the part of the Leader of the Government
and his principal lieutenant—on the part, namely,
of Lord PALMERSTON and Mr. SLADSTONE.

utterance

That the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs,
himself violated the rules of the House, himself vio-
:ated the rules of Debate, the Speaker defined as
plainly as Speaker of the House could define any.
thing, when he (Mr. SPEAKER) decided that " A des-
pateh must be on the table of the House before it can
be quoted." That by the way. But this insubordi-
nate stickier for the maintenance of the rules of
the House, for the conforming of every one to the
laws of debate, the rules and the laws he himself
was conspicuously and pertinaciously violating--Mr
LAYAItD must needs fling out second-hand the
shameful taunt hurled, in defiance of all the rules
of courtesy, against a formidable opponent by a
man of as rash a tongue and of as irritable a
temper as himself, a min, however, of much greater
powers, and of much greater position also,
namely, by the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. It was in reference to this that the
member for Leominster remarked last evening,
"The hon. gentleman has used language with
respect to gentlemen on this side of the House
that does no credit either to him or the GJvernment

ho represents, and now when the hon. gentleman
is convicted of a misstatement which has been
made in the hearing of the House—a calumnious
statement " (oh, oh, and Conservative cheers)—
Hereupon, interjezrs Mr. LAYARD, "I rise to order.

I move that the words just used by the hon. gentle

man be taken down. I refer to the words, 'cal=

nions statement " (cries of " order," " Mr,

HARDY added, " If I am not out cf order I shall be
eery"—But here interposes no less a personage than

—The SPEAKER himself with, " There dirt not appear
to me to be anything calling for my interference"
Whereupon—and no wonder !—(tremendous cheer

ing from the Oppositi:n.) Remember, the decision
here, was the decision of the Speaker of the House
of Commons—of the Liberal Speaker of the House

------
:
of Commons ! And it was against this decision that
first of all Lord PALMERSTON, and afterwards Mr,
GLADSTONE: had the crowning indecorum to rise to

order ! A more outrageous incident than this hal

perhaps never blotted with its record the pages of
Hansard. It will in no way advance the failing
fortunes, elevate the lowered reputation, or brighten

the sullied honour of the Go7ernment.

It cannot always be with feelings of doubt and
suspicion that any initiated observer of events re-
gards any communication that bears the signature
of Herr VON BISMARK. That crafty politician has
BO often exhibited himself as the friend of despo-
tism, the enemy cf freedom, and t':3 uncompro-
mising upholder of those wily acts of policy
which often do more to undermine the welfare of
a State than more open and exposed actions.:As if
conscious of the bad repute which he bears, and
desirous of disarming the criticism which the carry.
ing out of his designs has brought upon his country,
his despatches are almost always on the defensive.
It is quite evident that his addresses are meant as
explanations, defences, or accounts to pacify or con-
tuse those who may have expressed themselves
strongly on the subject referred to, or whose
opinions are well known without any avowal
having been lately made. In this instance an
" identical note," has been addressed by the Cabi-
nets of Vienna and Berlin to the representatives
of Austria and Prussia at the Courts of London,
Paris, St. Petersburg, and Stockholm. Its object
is to explain the conduct of the States alluded to
at the Conference. It cannot be said that the bad
cause is made much better by the very flimsy dis-
guise which is thus thrown over its real purpo.e,
bat it is most likely that the concocters of this
despatch are persuaded that they have done a great
deal to do away with awkward impressions, and to
vindicate their own characters frcm the charges
brought against their policy, and the imputations
that have been so freely made against their objects
from the first. It has often been said diplomacy is
Conducted on very fallacious principles, and it needs
but to peruse one of these documents at a crisis like
thepresent to confirm such on opinion. Here is all
Europe
layea
bya state of
just indignation at the perfidy
disp
prosecuted the war, and the insin-
in
which
they Prussia and her ally, the cruel mode
cerity that they
exhibited at the Conference, After
all this, it
seems a perfect mockery for M.BISMARK
to tell us that the Government of the ICING went
to the Conference "animated by the earnort desire'
to put an end to the conflict. When all the policy
of Berlin up to the present moment has been one of I
aggression throughout, what, in the at Ime of com-
mon sense, is the We of this peraistec cc in deceit.