The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-06 00:00:00

nouncement by the Foreign Secretary that this violent lan-
guage was to go for nothing, and that England would never
draw the sword fcr Poland. We do not find fault with the
resolution on the part of the noble lord that this country
ihould not draiV the sword for Voldnd ; but what we do find
fault with is this—that he should have used language so
violent and extravagant, and, having induced his allies to
join him, that he should then paralyse them in the middle
of the transaction by the announcement that England would
not draW the sword for rebind. I will now pass that by
and come to the question before the house. Sir, mitst
confess that the debate has, in some respects, been an in-
structive debate. We have often known members denounce
a government, and then afterwards to be found with and
supporting them. But this is the first time we have been
in a debate of this character. We have now been discuss-
ing this question for two nights, and, with the exception
of the noble lord the member for Hastings, although there
haVe been many members who haVe addressed us on both
sides of the house, independently of official members
and members of her Majesty's Government, no member
has ventured to say one word in defence of the
policy of the Government. On every hand there has been
a chorus of condemnation, and it seems to me as if hon.
members have tried to rival each other as to who could
apply the strongest blame and censure to the Government.
This we have known often in the case of those who are the
regular supporters of Governments. The question is treated
by the Government as one of confidence—that is the posi-
tion in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put it,
net as a question merely regarding the success of particular
negotiations, or regarding the conduct of affairs in particular
and difficult circumstances, but as a vote of want of confi-
dence in their foreign policy. Then what astonishes me is
that it should not be those who are the regular supporter,
of the Government, but those who call themselves indepen-
dent members, who often are the first to censure the Go-
vernment; and who now, when a question is brought for-
ward involving confidence in the Government,tuake speeches
saying they have not the slightest confidence, that the Go-
vernment have disgraced and humiliated the country, and
brought us to the point of war, and then, headed by the
hon. member for Rochdale, notwithstanding all this, give a
vote of confidence in the Government. (Cheers.) Well, I
see opposite the hon. member for Bridgwater (Mr Kinglake),
who assumes also, and justly, I believed the position of an
independent member. The hon. member for Bridgwater
blames the resolution of my right hon. friend the member
for Bucks as being remarkable for its reservation ; but the
amendment of the hon. gentlemen is one of extreme reserve,
because it seeks to pass by the whole transactions of the last
few months, transactions with respect to vehicle the Conduct
of the Government is challenged. The hon. member fai
Rochdale says he shall not vote for the motion of my right
bon, friend the member for Bucks, because he can adopt the
words of the amendment of the hon. member for Bridgwater,
and that those words announce peace—an object dear to all
of us. But behind us is the member for Warwickshire, and
that hon. gentleman says he will vote against the resolution
of my right hon. friend—not on the ground of peace, but
because the noble lord has left open the door of escape
from war. Sir, of all the speeches delivered in this debate
none I think has been more remarkable than the speech of
the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
(Hear, hear.) I must confess that nine times out of
ten when that right hon. gentleman addresses the house he
fairly puzzles me. (Laughter.) When the right hon. gentle •
man addresses us on commercial subjects all must admit his
lucidity; but into other subjects, foreign or domestic, the
right hon. gentleman introduces so much subtlety, and
draws such fine distinctions, that I hardly know whether
he deceives himself by his ingenious fallacies or intends to
deceive others. (Cheers.) A remarkable instance of this
faculty occurred in the speech of the right hon. gentleman
last night ; for, in language more forcible than courteous—
(hear, hear)—he took exception to my right hon. friend the
member for Bucks, because, as he said, he made quotations
which were not fair. (Hear, hear, and counter cheers, and
hear from Mr Layard.) The hon. member for Southwark
(Mr Layard) endorses that view, and he not only endorses
it, but the temper and style of the speech in which it was
conveyed. (Cheers.) Then the right hen. gentleman at-
tempted to explain away the famous words of the noble lord
at the head of the Government, which he uttered in reply to
a question from me at the end of last July. The right hon.
gentleman said that at that time France and Russia were
in accord with us, and that if Denmark were attacked she
would not stand alone, and that the right hon. gentleman
meant to say that France and Russia held the same senti-
ments with the English Government. Does the hon. mem-
ber for Southwark, as a candid man—(cheers)—mean to
say for a moment that that is the sense in which those
words were used ? ((sheers, cries of " Yes," and counter
cheers.) If these words were placed before any number of
plain-spoken, plain-thinking Englishmen, I will undertake
to say that they would not interpret them in the non-
natural sense. I would much rather believe that they were
spoken by the noble lord in that spirit which has always
distinguished him—in a spirit of generosity for the weak
beaten down by the strong, and that they could only be sub-
verted by events over which he had no control. The right
hon. gentleman accused my right hon. friend of omitting
that part of the despatch in which M. Drouyn de Lhuys
said that in declining the proposal of England no indiffer-
ence was felt for the cause of Denmark. The right hon.
gentleman does not see that that makes the case much
stronger against the Government—(hear, hoar)—because
M. Drouyn de Lhuys said that in declining the proposal
England must not think that he disagreed with her, but
that he declined because in the case of Poland we had led
the Emperor into difficulty incompatible with his position
with Europe. I say therefore that my right hon. friend
quoted the despatch fairly, and that what he left out would
have told with greater force against the Government.
(Cheers.) The right hon, gentleman also sa;d that this
country want along cordially with the neutral Powers, and
held exactly the same position with respect to giving notice
to Denmark that she must not expect material assistance;
but the despatch the right hon. gentleman quoted in confir-
mation did not bear him out in his assertion, because from
that despatch of Lord Wodehouse it appeared that France
said she would not give material assistance ; but the Eng-
lish Government said that it Denmark did not follow her
advice she should not be assisted. There are several other
points on which the right hon. gentleman misquoted my
right hon. friend, but at this hour it would be irksome were
I to go over them. But one I desire to point out. Through-
out the whole course of his speech the right hon. gentle-
man, though he admitted that the Government had failed,
and had given disastrous advice, said the Government were
only partly to blame, as they had acted in common with
the other neutral Powers. (Hoar, hear.) Was that the
case. Was our position towards Denmark the same as that
of France or Austria ? Did Prince Gortschakoff or M.
Drouyn de Lhuys ever tell Denmark that she would not
stand alone? (Hear, hear.) Did they ever make such a
premise as that made by Lord Wodehouse at Copenhagen,
and say that probably other countries would interfere. No.
During the Conference, though the neutral Powers might
assent to the various proposals, it was England who made
them, and it is idle to throw the responsibility on the
neutral Powers. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman said that
the proposal made by Earl Russell at the Conference was
in every respect the proposal of the neutral Powers. That
was not the ease.' Two communications had passed be-
tween the neutral powers on the subject, but when the line
of the Schlei and the Dannewerke was proposed, Russia
refused its assent, and would have preferred the line of the
Eider. As regards the second proposal, I do not think that
any one who has read the statement of the Danish Minister
made in his place, and the statement of Earl Russell made
in his place, can look back at the proceedings of the pleni-
potentiaries at the Conference without feeling that a gross
breach of faith had been committed, and the Danish pleni-
potentiaries were brought into a dangerous position.
According to the statement of the noble earl, the Danish
plenipotentiaries informed him that they were willing to
accept the line of the Schlei and the Dannewerke without
modification, but that they were not willing to accede to a
prolongation of the suspension of hostilities, unless Earl
Russell undertook on the part of the English Government
that he would not himself propose nor support any other I
frontier line. How was that engagement evaded ? The
noble lord says that what he proposed was that somebody
else should form that line. I ask if that is in the spirit of
the engagement entered into with the Danish plenipoten-
tiaries. (Hear, hear.) The Conference broke up. Who
was to blame but the German powers who refused to accept
the line proposed. The Government wished to be able to
say that they could not assist the Danes, owing to their
refusal of the line, when the truth was the British Govern-
ment
had pledged themselves not to support any other line.
It was not agreed to by Russia, and, therefore, the right
hon. gentleman's statement that the other neutral Powers
were as much to blame as ourselves, is totally devoid of
foundation. (Hear) The right hon. gentleman has made
curious objections to the resolution of my right hon. friend.
He calls it unpatriotic, and the moment he said so the gen •
tleman on the benches behind him cheered. In the depth
of their abasement they seemed glad to find an excuse
which would speak to English hearts. (Hear, hear.) I
have yet to learn that an assertion in this house that the
course of a Minister has lessened our influence can
be truly called unpatriotic. In the great and glo-
rious days of Parliament much stronger expressions were
used without challenge. The resolution not only declares
that the influence of the country has been lessened ; but
that is not the object of the resolution. It calls on Parlia-
ment to censure and condemn those who had reduced it to
ue co tnosfi
dt he
roesde
hintir°allththere ctomibde
ws uhcoh
object
ee t positiont o s
u.
hC haeers. )
resolutionln m yought
gp
unpatriotic. (Hear.) The amendment of the hon. member
for Bridgwater implies that the house should pass over in
silence the conduct of Ministers. (Hear.) When the motion
was first brought forward a number of friends on the other
side said it would not be carried; but if it was it would not
do to go to the country upon it, as it would fix on this side
a desire for war, and that they on the other side would get
credit for wishing for peace. I assured them that when the
discussion came on they would not find it easy to say so. I
said it was not true. I also said, if their my was to be
" Palmerston and Peace," that I did not think the noble
lord would thank them for coupling his name with that
word. (Hear.) I want to know whether you are a peace
Government. I know that on several occasions you have
been inviting other countries to join you in war. (Cheers
and laughter,) Is that a mark of a peace Government ?
(Cheers.) In thecourse of the discussion the Foreign Minis•
ter had stated that he had renewed the application to the