The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-09 00:00:00

life ; that he had so disposed of all but £4,000 or £5,000 in
works of charity ; that he was 40 or 41 at the time of his
death in the Oratory; and that at his death he left this re-
sidue of his property to Father Faber, believing that that
reverend gentleman would use it for purposes after his own
heart. That bequest was now under the consideration of
the Probate Court of England, and it was a monstrou9 thing

I believe there never was an instance where so many impor-
tant papers have been subjected to such a clipping process
as in this Dano-German correspondence. (Hear, hear.) Ail
the important documents—and they must have caused my
hon. friend much trouble—have been what is vulgarly
called "through the mill" until they assume the shape of
elegant extracts. (Laughter.) These papers strongly re-
mind one of the therm:ter of the month which has just
passed. The correspondence in Parts 1,2, 3, and 4 was
oonducted by the Foreign-office with leonine vigour ; No.
5, sir, has concluded with most lamb-like ba-aing. (Much
laughter.) In studying what I may call the early style of
the Foreign-office I was impressed with fear lest the Go-
vernment, in their hysteric fusiness and irritating industry
in reading lectures to Germany and the Great Powers gene-
rally, might anticipate the suggestions of my hon. friend
the member for Swansea, and immediately send a fleet to
the Baltic. Luckily, No. 5 has been produced, and I am
relieved at least of that anxiety--(laughter)—for in those
papers their new style is perceptible, and I must say that a
more'striking contrast to the first four volumes, or a more
remarkable avidity for feeding on humble pie—(cheers and
laughter)—has never been displayed by any Government or
any Ministry which has swayed the foreign destinies of
this country. (Hear, hear.) Let not the house be led away
by the exciting statement of my hon. friend—(a laugh)—
but let the house certainly consider what have been the
results, I will not say of our policy, because it would be an
affront to the word, but of our bungling diplomacy. We are
told we are to have a conference, and the extraordinary thing
is that directly this conference fp announced the war, which
had hitherto languished, has become most sanguinary—so
much so that in the same telegram announcing that M.
Quaade and another Danish Minister are about to start to
attend the Conference the intelligence is continued that
Sonderborg has very nearly been laid in ashes. The im-
mediate effect of the approaching Congress upon the north
of Europe, which we seek by its means to pacify, has been
to lead the Prussians to redouble their attacks, adding im-
mensely to the slaughter. (Cheers.) Let us go a little
further and see what this Conference is- We are told that
the attendance of all the signataries to that remarkable
Treaty of 1852 has been promised , and, what is snore, that
a Plenipotentiary of the German Diet will attend—a Power,
by-the-by, which has been treated by the Government of
the noble lord heretofore very much in the light of a poor
relation—(laughter)—that is to say, not taken into account
at all. Suddenly—and let the house mark that it was at
the suggestion of the French Government, which declined,
if there be any truth in the papers contained in No. 5, to
be present without a plenipotentiary from the Danish Go-
vernment attended—we have a statement that a plenipoten-
tiary from the German Diet was also invited. Whether
that plenipotentiary will attend or not we do not know
exactly, but from the nature of the German Diet I think
that we can foresee that, whatever day the noble lord has
named for his Conference, the German Diet, by reason of
their sluggish mode of proceeding, will not be in a position
to send an answer to the noble lord's invitation for some
weeks, if not for some months later. They will have to
refer the matter to the 37 States which they represent—
(laughter)—these will refer it back again, and the subject
will then be entertained by a select committee—(laughter)
—so that at the end of the session, probably, the noble
lord will have an answer from the German Diet. The
French Minister, with more foresight than our own, sug-
gests that the protocol might be left open for the German
plenipotentiary ; and that, perhaps, might be the best
course to pursue. But, suppose the Conference meets,
I want the house calmly to consider what it is to do. It
appears to me that is nothing more nor less than a means
of escape for her Majesty's Ministers from their bungling
proceedings and uncalled-for meddling in the North of
Europe. (Cheers.) It is, in fact, a political pic-nic given
by the noble lord, to which every country will be allowed
to bring its basket of suggestions—(laughter)—with no
piece de resistance provided in the shape of a basis, but with
perfect freedom—and indeed argument—on the part of
each one present to differ upon every point from everybody
else. (Hear, hear, and renewed laughter.) All this time
when the noble lord is sending out his general invitations
—" At home" on a certain day—l want to know what the
Foreign-office are about to do with this Treaty of May 8,
1852 ? (Hear, hear.) 'We hear a great deal about this
treaty in the early style of the Foreign-office ; but by some
extraordinary transmutation in No. 5, as laid upon the
table of the House, the Treaty of 1852 has vanished alto-
gether from the consideration of her Majesty's Government.
So thoroughly is this the case, that having put upon the
paper a motion for the 19th inst. relating to the Treaty of
1852, I now am seriously at a loss to know whether that
treaty any longer applies to the treatment of this Dane-
German question. It is a curious study to trace what is
the main thought running through the mind of her Ma
jesty's Government in their handling of this subject. In
their place in Parliament I find them speaking what my
hon, friend called grave big words of menace to Germany,
and clinging with desperate tenacity to what I call that
ill-omened, unfortunate, and unjust treaty of 1852—(hear,
hear)—a treaty which I shall prove was made at the insti-
gation of Russia—(hear, hear)—which compromised the
interests of Denmark, and which I think compromised the
honour of this country, in ignoring the liberties and rights
of a free people. (Hear, hear.) I will not inflict upon
the house a passage from the Blue-book, but if they
will turn to page 732 of Part No. 5 they will per-
ceive that in despatch 1,0.10, of February 23,
the Foreign Minister, running away from his pre-
vious promises, wrote to Lord Bloomfield at Vienna,
proposing a conference without a basis. I leave it
to any sensible man to say, in the present state of
feeling between the Powers, whether there is any likelihood
of their:coming to an agreement at such a Conference, even
though the anxiety of the noble lord to get them all into
one room, like the Kilkenny cats, may be gratified. The
despatch to which I have referred was dated Feb. 23, and
on Feb. 26 a proposal in accordance with its terms was first
made to the Danish Ministers by Sir A. Paget; and what
was the state of things in the Danish Cabinet when that
proposal was made ? Why, so great was the consternation
created among those unfortunate Danes, whom we have
been leading astray all through with false hopes—(cheers)
—and' then deserting them in their extremity—(renewed
cheering)—so great, I say, was the consternation among
them, that they said to Sir A. Paget, "For God's sake don't
call on us for any immediate answer ; if we agree at once
to a Conference without a basis, not merely will our places
be at stake, but probably the dynasty which you have taken
so much trouble to set up." That is the feeling created at
Copenhagen among the Danish Ministry by this proposal
of a Conference without a basis. On the 9th of March a
fresh pressure was put on Denmark. It appears to have
been felt that affairs had come to such a point in this house
that her Majesty's Government could no longer resist tak-
ing action and putting a fresh pressure on Denmark. On
March 15 Austria declares to our arnbaesador that though
she had formerly agreed to the basis of the Treaty of 1852,
she will now no longer be satisfied with the fulfilment by
the Danes of the engagements of 1851-52 ; and that if she
meets in Conference she will demand further engagements,
On March 16 Denmark still asserts that she will only meet
in Conference on the basis of the engagements of 1851.52;
but she takes very little by this, for on March 17 Sir A.
Buchanan, at Berlin, announces to M.Bismark that her Ma-
jesty's Government had altogether given up engagements of
1851-52 as the basis for the meeting 'of the Conference.
(Hear, hear.) But what happens after that ? It is a most
extraordinary thing, and it must strike every hon. member
with astonishment, that whenever we want any real infer-
motion on foreign affairs we aro not furnished with it by
our own Government, who, while they do not pretend to
legislate for home affairs, yet appeal to us for our support
on account of the vigour and foresight of their foreign
Policy- Well, when anything remarkable is to be learnt
respecting foreign policy, we do not find it in this blue-
book. No. We must go to the foreign papers, and in the
second edition of the limes published yesterday there ap-
pears a despatch from the French Minister for Foreign
Affairs to the French Ambassador in London, which is not
to be found in the b:ue-book, though the despatch is dated
March 20. The contents of that despatch are of so extra-
ordinary a nature that I think that some detailed statement
is due from the noble lord, the Prime Minister, as to
whether the Government are agreed to take the suggestion
contained is that despatch as the basis of the Conference
The proposition of the French Minister involves such a
serious principle that I think the house should take it into
consideration if the Government does not. M. Drouyn de
Lhuya says he wishes to acquaint the Cabinet of London
the Conference; and he goes on
wveirthnmtheentcoiunrsreefeirnetnencedetdo to be taken by the French Go-
to say that, if the French Plenipotentiary attend, he thinks
' it is his duty to inform her Majesty's Government that ho
will propose as a basis for the consideration of the Con-
ference the propriety of consulting the wish of the popu-
lation of Schleswig and Holstein as to who should be their
Sovereign. I take it that this is really a bona fide de-
spatch, and that is the purport of it. I want to know, then,
why it is not given in the blue-book, and whether the Go-
vernment will lay a copy of it on the table of the house.
I wish, too, that the noble lord will tell the house whether
he, or the representative of the British Government at the
Conference is prepared to concur in that basis laid down by
the French Minister. In fact, the further we look into this
question of the Conference, it appears impossible to hope
that any good will result from it. None of the representa-
tives about to enter the Conference, with the exception of
the representatives of Austria and Prussia, appear to have
any settled ideas of any sort or kind, and they seem to have
given up all previous pledges to abide by the treaty of 1852.
The Conference, therefore, so far from settling the peace of
the North of Europe, is more likely to embitter matters, and
instead of localising the war, is likely to extend it over a
larger area. I would wish to draw the attention of the
house to the answer given by the noble lord the Foreign
Secretary of this country to the invitation to attend the
Conference, which was proposed by the Emperor of the
with equal force to
the
the t
French to be held at Paris. The very reasons given for
refusing tt
yis shortly to meet. I
will only read two passages from the despatch of the noble
lord, but they are of so much importance that I am sure the
aethcat
Conference
Congressfere nce which
haipephl
house will excuse the time I shall occupy in doing so. At
the same time I must say I shall always lament that the in-
vitation to attend the Congress was not accepted ; and I
think also that it might have been responded to with some-
what more courtesy, without the answer being first published
in the limes newspaper. Lord Russell stated last November
to Lord Cowley that the British Government would teal snore

that gentlemen of the highest character and devotion to
their religion should be thus assailed when the very question
upon which they were assailed was before a proper and com-
petent tribunal.
Sir G. BOWYER explained the circumstance of Mr.
Hutchinson's name on his tomb being different to his
baptismal name, by stating that he had changed his name
on being confirmed, which by the law of England he had
the power to do. He pointed out, too, that Mr Hutchinson's
will was not a death-bed will, but made three years before
his death.

Mr. R. LONG said that his hon. friend the membar for
North Warwickshire had not the right to reply ; but after
the speech of the noble lord opposite, in reply to an attack
upon monasticinstitutions, and not upon the Howard family,
it was necessary to say, on behalf of his hon. friend, that

nothing was further from his intention than for a single
moment to say anything which could be construed or
twisted, even by the ingenious power of a Roman Catholic
—(cries of oh, and order)—into an attack upon the Howard
family. (Hear, and oh.) His motion had been directed

. . .
against institutions, and not against persons, and if any-
thing painful had occurred, no one regretted it more than
the hon, member for North Warwickshire, The noble lord's

speech was a most ingenious perversion of his noble friend's
attack upon monastic institutions. If he (Mr Long) were
a Roman Catholic, he could not, after the statements which
were made with reference to the practices said to be carried
on in monastic and conventual institutions, oppose the
motion for inquiry. The house was entitled to have evidence
of the practices which were carried on in such establish-
ments. They had all received a printed paper which, if not
true, was a libel. It was entitled " Facts on Nuns and
Nunneries," and gave many instances of the maltreatment
of poor unfortunate females who were maltreated and
seduced, (laughter)—he did not mean practically seduced—
(renewed laughter)—into these places, which were prisons.
and not nunneries, where their property was confiscated,
and they were denied to their friends. If those statements
were falsehoods, let the Roman Catholics try the issue, and
disprove them it they could in committee. If the committee
was granted, his hon. friend, and those who acted with him,

would undertake to prove many such cues.
Sir P. O'BRIEN expressed the contempt he felt for the
statements of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down,

recommending- to him the study of the speeches of his poli-
tical leader, the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire
(Mr Disraeli), in one of which he would find it justly ob.
served that " insolence is not sarcasm, and violence is not
invective," _ _ _

Mr. NEWDEGA.TE rose to offer some explanation, bu
was stopped by cries of " Order."
The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For Mr. Newdegate's motion
Against
Majority —33
SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS OF DUBLIN.

Mr. GItEGORY called attention, in a speech of much
length and great variety of detail, to the condition of the
scientific institutions of Dublin which aro assisted by Go-

vernment aid.
Sir R. PEEL said the Government were prepared to
agree to the appointment of a select committee to inquire
fully into the character of these institutions.
The discussion was nevertheless continued by Sir E.
Grogan, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Vance, Mr, Lefroy, and Mr.
Adderley.

THE SUll, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 9, 1864.

apprehension than confidence from the meeting of a Con-
gress of Sovereigns and Ministers without fixed objects,
ranging over the map of Europe and exciting hopes and
aspirations which they might feel themselves unable either
to gratify or to quiet. But the noble lord goes further. Let
the house remember that the present Con Terence is to be
held during a state of war and without an armistice or basis
and then consider how applicable to it are these words, used
in reference to the Congress proposed by the French Empe-
ror. The noble lord the Foreign Secretary wrote in Novem-

ber last to Lord Cowley :--
"Indeed it is to be apprehended that questions arising
from day to day, coloured by the varying events of the hour,
would give occasion rather for useless debate than for prac-
tical and useful deliberation in a Congress of 20 or 30 repre-
sentatives, not acknowledging any supremo authority, and
not guided by any fixed rules of proceeding."
That language held by the noble lord in refusing to join the
Congress for the pacification of Europe, and for lessening
our armaments, is more applicable on this occasion than
when it was addressed to the Emperor of the French.
• •

(Rear, hear.) I am very much inclined to believe that this
whole Conference will only turn out a Parliamentary hoax,

and it would have been much better, instead of meeting on

the 12th April, if the noble lord postponed it till the lat of
April next, (Laughter.) But I really wish to know when
this Conference will assemble. At present it stands for the

12th April, but I see by the foreign newspapers that it has
no chance of meeting then. I want only to know what pros-

poet there is, if it does meet at all, of any report of its pro-
ceedings being made before the house is dismissed for the long
vacation. I can well understand that if this case is brought
before the house in any shape the plea will be urged that

it would be prejudicial to the public service to discuss the
question while the Conference is sitting ; but in my opinion,
and in the opinion, I believe, of a great many members of
this house who take the trouble to read the papers on the
subject, we should be strengthening the hands of the Go-
vernment by having a proper discussion on these question&
I want to know, and I hope the noble lord at the head of

- _
the Government will give some proper account to the house
as to what has become of this treaty of 1852. (Hear, hear.)
Does her Majesty's Government intend to abide by that
treaty, or are we to have another state of affairs by which
there will be a temporary patching up of this system on the
Continent, condemning these poor unfortunate Schleswig-
Holsteiners to what the noble lord calls the sway of their
lawful Sovereign, but whom they acknowledge as their
lawful Sovereign. It certainly is surprising that any man
who pretends to lead a liberal party should endeavour to
force a Sovereign on a people who have never be consulted
as to their choice. (Hear, hear.) I hope the noble lord wili
give an explanation, and not evade any of these points ; but
of this lam sure, that, whatever may be the present
opinion of the country, in ignorance of the transactions
which have taken placo, it will hereafter regret that Ger-
many has been irritated, Denmark cajoled, and England
humiliated. (Cheers.)
Mr. NEW DEGATE rose, but being greeted with cries
of " Spoken," resumed his seat.
Lord PALMERSTON said,—lt is difficult to satisfy my
hon. friend, for he finds fault with the past, with the pre-
sent, and with the future. (Rear, hear, and a laugh.) I
shall not, therefore, attempt to alter his opinions, but shall
simply answer the questions which have been put to me.
My hon. friend acmes her Majesty's Government of having
misled Denmark, and of having exalted expectations which

have not been fulfilled. I utterly deny these allegations
(Hear, hear.) There is not a syllable in the blue-books
with which my hon. friend pretends to be familiar, but
which I cannot believe he has read, which bears out the
assertion he has made. Our policy has been plain and
simple from the beginning, arid, as I think, honourable to
us. Our object has been first of all to prevent war, and,
hostilities having commenced, to restore peace. My hon.
friend says we have thrown over the Treaty of 1852. No
such thing. (Hear, hear.) Again, I say my hon. friend
has not read a word of the blue-books, for there is nothing
in them to justify such a statement. On the contrary, not
only do we maintain the Treaty of 1852, but every one of
the Powers who concluded that treaty equally maintain it.
Therefore my bon. friend must have been in a dream on
this matter—(hear, hear, and a laugh)—and comes down
here to expound his illusions, instead of telling us what he
would have discovered if he had perused those documents
which seem to weigh so much on his mind. My hon. friend
has fallen into some of those contradictions which men of
hi. genius and imaginative powers are occasionally apt to
stumble into. He has criticised the Conference and very natu-
rally, being of an inquisitive turn of mind, he wants to know
what the Conference will do when it assembles. I am not
able to gratify his curiosity. If he wishes to know the past
I furnish him with the blue-books. If he wishestoknow the
future he must apply somewhere else. (A. laugh.) My hon.
friend ridicules the Conference, which, by the way, he has
invested with a function which I was not aware naturally
belonged to it. He says the Conference cannot meet with-
out a basis. When two Governments begin to treat for
peace it is, no doubt, essential that the plenipotentiaries
should settle the terms on which they are to negotiate, and
agree whether it is to be on the principle of uti possidetis or
the status quo ante bellutn. It is not, however, the peculiar
function of a Conference to have a basis. The pleniptenti-
arias have different powers, and meet for the purpose of
ascertaining what is the state of things, and how they can
be set right. That is a Conference. (Hear, hear.) My hon.
friend objects to the Conference, which is to meet for the
to-pose of endeavouring to put an end to the hostilities
that are raging, but which he says will only create more
mischief. He pledges his political sagacity—and I beg you
to bear that in hind—(a laugh)—that the Conference can
lead to no good result. I can only say I trust that this day
next year he will not be able to remind us of what he has
now predicted as having been fulfilled. (Hear, hear.) My
hon. friend says we are wrong to agree to the Conference,
but that we wore equally wrong not to have agreed to the
Congress. He thinks the reason we gave for not going
to the Congress was absurd. I said there was no object.
Well, there was no object for the Congress, because there
was no war which it was to bring to a close, and there was
no particular subject to which the Congress was to direct
attention. Here, however, there is a distinct object—to en-
deavour to reconcile parties who are differing, and to put an
end to hostilities now raging. The cases are utterly dif-
ferent, and my hon. friend would, I think, have shown
more discrimination of mind if he had not drawn this dis-
tinction, which was exactly the wrong way. (A. laugh.)
I repeat that all the parties who concluded the treaty of
1852 agree in holding that they are bound by it to acknow-
ledge King Christian as the Sovereign of Denmark, and to
maintain the integrity of that kingdom You may say
that is not a basis; at least it is an agreement. (Hear,
hear.) The Powers have all agreed that that is the condi-
tion on which they enter into the conference with a view
to reconcile the differences which have arisen between
Denmark and Germany. My hon. friend confounds
two things which ate in themselves entirely separate
—the agreements of 1851-2 and the treaty of 1852.
There are differences between Germany and Den-
mark as to the agreements of 1852, the main facts of
which were that, whereas on the one hand the German
Powers agreed not to require the administrative and politica
union of Holstein and Schleswig, on the other hand the
Danish Government agreed not to do anything which could
tend to incorporate Holstein with Denmark. But these
agreements are totally different from the Treaty of 1852, and
it is quite essential to our understanding of the matter, that
the distinction should be borne in mind. The agreements
of 1851-2 may be settled either way, without infringing
the Treaty of 1852, and the Treaty of 1852 may be adhered
to by those who entertain different opinions as to the en-
gagements which preceded it. We have the assent of all the
Powers who concluded—l do not say of those who acceded
to—the treaty—France, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sweden,
and Denmark. The German Confederation was not a party
to that treaty. (Mr B. Osborne—The Confederation was not
asked.) No; and some of the Powers of Germany objected
to proposing to the German Diet to become a party to the
treaty. (Hear.) At one time Prussia was against it, although
she afterwards changed her mind and wished the treaty to
be communicated to the Diet. The other Powers, however,
would not consent to that. We have asked the Diet to send
a plenipotentiary to the Conference. Whether they will be
as long in giving an answer as my hon. friend imagines I
cannot say ; but in deference to the desires of Austria and
Prussia, who are anxious to give them a little more time to
consider their answer, the meeting of the Conference will
be postponed from the 12th to the 20th of April. France,
it is true, wishes the Diet to send a representative to the
Conference, but does not make that a sine qua non. Even
if the Diet does not appear in the Conference, it will still
be possible to proceed with it. My honorable friend
alluded to a despatch from the French Govei n-
vernment to the French ambassador here, containing the
suggestion of an appeal to the populatians of Holstein and
Schleswig. That is not, however, put forward as a basis,
but is thrown out merely as a suggestion. There are obvi-
ous objections which may be raised to any such proceeding,
and it is not likely that the other Powers will fall into the
suggestion; nor, indeed, does France require it. The French
Government state distinctly that they stand on the Treaty
of 1852, and hold themselves bound by its engagements.
Well, sir, that is the state of the case. My hon. friend has
his opinions; but I do not think they are partaken by the
country at large. (Hear) Although my lion, friend is very
abundant in his criticisms, I am really quite at a loss to
understand what he would have done if he had the manage-
ment of affairs, (Mr. H. Osborne—Let it alone,) My hon.
friend, therefore, would have been a party to a treaty (Mr.
B. Osborne—l would not have made it) by which this
country was bound to acknowledge a certain Sovereign as
King of the countries under the sway of the Danish. Crown,
and to respect the integrity of the Danish monarchy ; and
in spite of the general opinion that this country was bound
in honour and in interest to endeavour to maintain that
treaty, he would have done nothing but sit with his hands
in his pockets, as he is doing now. (A. laugh and " hear,
hear,") Ido not think that such a course would have been
to the credit of the Government or to the satisfaction of the
country at large. (Hear, hear.) We may be wrong and he
may be right, but such, at least, is our opinion on the
matter. (Hear, hear.) We endeavoured to persuade other
countries to fall into our views, and we trust we have
accomplished, or are about to accomplish, a considerable
step in assembling a Conference with the object of restoring
peace. (Hear,) My hon. friend who opened the ques
tion to-night referred to a transaction at Sonderborg which
I am afraid there is no reason to doubt really took place.
We have no official or authentic information, but W 9 have