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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 6, 1864.

caused by foreign interference in the Dano-Germanic quar-
rel, which, while it irritated Germany, had rendered Den-
mark obstinate and more determined to resist. Mischief,
he said, had resulted from foreign interference in the Con-
ference, where the question of the frontier would have been
settled but for the interference of the neutral Powers.
Lord R. MONTAGU maintained that the motion did
not recommend a war policy. The policy of the Opposition
was one of non-interference ; that of the Government was
a policy of meddling with the affairs of other nations, and
this was the reason why the name of England was exe-
crated, as he knew it wa3, abroad.
Mr WHALLEY opposed the motion.

Mr ROEBUCK—Sir, I will endeavour to recall the house
to the subject under discussion. I must say I almost feel a
terror in approaching this great subject, because I feel that
every word of common sense uttered in this house may find
an echo outside, and perhaps lead to terrible consequences.
But amid the multitude of words that have been published
on this matter I have felt that there was a very small quan-
tity of truth. The Confe!ence has met together, a great
ceremony has been performed, and men appeared to wear a
mask—a mask which was so smiling that men have seemed
to wear the same over a smile of courtesy, while deadly
hatred was at the heart of most of those who met together.
Men seem to shrink from touching the real matter in hand.
I can understand the motion of the right hon. gentleman.
It is a motion directed against the Government. The real
meaning of it is, " Get you out, and we will come in."
(Hear, hear.) A very natural motion to make. Ido not
find fault with it, though I do not think much of the wis-
dom of the proceeding. :Hear, hear.) But still I ask the
house whether the real question has been put before it. The
hon. member for Rochdale came very near it, but even he
seemed to shrink from the real matter in dispute. We are
all wonderfully cautious in speaking ill of our political op-
ponents, and the real culprits on this occasion seemed to
escape animadversion. I thoroughly understand the re-
sponsibilities of my present position. f have not the respon-
sibility of an official in the matter, but merely that of a mem-
ber of the house. I belteva I shall act up to the responsibility
best by telling what I believe to be the truth in the matter.
What is the debate abort? First and foremost I would
state the parties I coaceive to be concerned in the
matter. I conceive then to be five in number. First
of all, Denmark; next, the people of the small German
States; next, the Princes of those States; next, Prussia;
next, Austria. I leave out of consideration Holstein,
Schleswig, and the Duke of Augustenburg, because I believe
they are merely pretexts in the matter. The real question
is this—the people of the small States of Germany have
gone mad—(cheers)—upon the feeling of nationality; the
people of Denmark, with the Ring at their head, have en-
deavoured to maintain what I will term the doctrine of
empire. They have endeavoured to hold together a nation
composed of separate peoples. The people of the smaller
States of Germany have been impelled by the principle—a
very miathievous one—the principle of nationalities, to in-
vade the Danish kingdom. Under the influence of these
cliques, the Princes, fearing that their people might turn
against them, have been glad to divert the feelings and
wishes of their people into a channel that would affect their
own rower. Then comes Prussia, and she has three sepa-
rate objects in view. First, a wish to obtain territorial
aggrandisement-she wishes to get a port in the Baltic ;
and next she wishes to divert the consideration of her people
from their own internal matters—(cheers)—and thirdly, to
fight for what they called, talking Greek, hegemony, that
is, be headship of Germany; and these three are the objects
of the Prussian Government. On the other hand, Austria,
fighting for the headship of Germany, sees Prussia going
on her course of political aggrandisement. She feels she
cannot allow Prussia to undertake that course without fol-
lowing, and she enters also into the contest. Now, the
character of Prussia is a precious compound—a compound
of the pedagogue, the drilasergeant, and the highwayman.
(Cheers and laughter.) mat has been her character from
the beginning ; they have been robbers from the bee:ninng,
and they are only acting ep to their beginning. And they
are endeavouring to acquire from weak Denmark that
port on the Baltic which shall one dap or other raise
up what they call a Gemoan navy. Some months ago,
when at Vienna, I taked with an illustrious states•
man on this matter of Denmark. I raid to him, "How
can your Austrian Miniaers take the lead in this crusade
for nationalities ? lint you no consideration of Hungary,
of Transylvania, of Ediemia, and Italy 2" He said—" I
feel as you, but the Ggmans have gone mad. I will tell
a saying we have in Germany. " When a Frenchman goes
mad, he becomes mischievous—when a German goes mad,
he becomes silly." I lnwed to him and said, " Sir, on this
occasion I think the Germans have co habined both charac-
ters. The real matter is this, that Prussia and Austria and
the other States of Germany interfered in the internal
matters of an independeet nation. And it is all very well
for gentlemen here, who take up what they call the Ger-
man side of the sluestign to talk about the oppression of
Holstein and Schleswig.; but I want to know if there be a
kingdom in Europe that h not composed of different, not to
say hostile, nationalities. Look at our own country. (Hear,
hear, and oh.) We conquered Wales, and Welshmen hates
I England now. (Oh.) It is quite true. (Oh, and laughter )
We conquered Ireland, and Iva have injured Ireland almost
from that Lime till 1830. fend let one say, with all courtesy
to hon. gentlemen who come from that countil, that Ire-
land hates us now. And if we were to adopt what the Em-
peror of the French wants us to adopt, we should be turned
out of Ireland to-morrow. What is the rule for ourselves
I wartt to be the title of o.hers. When Napoleon interfered
with Irish people I want to knoW That words there were
that were strong enough :o express our indignation; and
did he not say that England oppressed Ireland, and was it
not true ? England has conquered Ireland, has b laved ill in
Ireland, and has been Oust to Ireland. Ated I want to
know, what England weld fay If any' one interfered be-
tween her and Ireland because of her injustiee. I aeennee for
the moment that Denmark was unjust to the Duchies. I
assume it, but Ido not lelieve it. Denmark was an inde-
pendent ration, and 'VI at right had the German people to
interfere ? I pu: it broelly. I say that as a great principle
to interfere With the internal concerns of a nation is to mi-
litate against one of tin greatest principles of the peace of
this world I say that Germany, headed by Prussia and
Austria, has done a gnat deed of wrong to interfere with
nationalities, whatever may be the conduct of Denmark to-
wards any portion of its people. ton talk of nationalities.
I ask where is the unity of Germany? I want to know
when a nationality was anything bat a principle to separate
a people. Look the wild over, and if you find a nationa-
lity united, I give up tie point. Look at the Gerruens—
where is their unity? Every State fighting against another,
and the pretence of a Government b 3 a Diet. What is the
meaning of that? Why do they not go to war over Stras-
burg ? Because they are afraid. And then there is their
great feeling of Fatherland bursts forth, and they pour over
the petty nation of Denmark. Do they say anything to
Austria? Do they dare say anything to Austria f' Sup-
posing the Emperor of Austria annihilated the constitution
would the Diet of Frankfort dare say a word of
disapproval ?
It is a farce—a mischievous farce_beginning in farce and
ending in tragedy. (Cheers,) These are what I call the
facts of the case. lam not now pretending to discuss what
Denmark has done in Schleswig and Holstein. I believe
that what Denmark intended to do, and what every wise
nation would attempt to do, was to unite the several parts
of her country into one, just as re overrun Scotland—not
merely personally, but by the union of the people. And
we got Ireland to do the same. Will any inan tell me
that the course pursued by Mr Pitt and his Government
in the union of Ireland with our people was done with the
approbation of the Irish people ? Was there any appear-
ance of such a thing ? Were the people of Ireland con-
sulted ? And yet I hear people talk as tif we had not done
anything like the people of Denmark which really gave a
good constitution to Schleswig, you'say that the King of
Denmark endeavoured to change the language. If he did,
I think he did very wisely, There are silly people who
wish to continue the language of
Wales. (Oh, and a laugh.)
But any wise man would say, let us put out the wonderful
light, the Welsh language, if We can. If a people is to be
homogeneous, one great means is to make their language
the same. Therefore, Ido not blame the Government of
Denmark for attempting to
spread the Danish language
over the whole area of Denmark. So far for the doings of
Denmark. Then steps in Germany,
ought England to do ?
where she ought not
to step in ; and now, I ask
We are told we ought not to interfere. I want to know if,
in the history of Europe, from the time that Europe was a
combination of nations -
if it has been possible fur us to
, what
isolate ourselves, and say, We will take no care of what is
passing? We are here to talk about it—l cannot speak of
it in that farcical way—we
are here to talk about it as
statesmen ought to do. lam not going to take my states•
manship from those whole only object is merely to make
money. Ido not think that a counting-house is the best
portico for a statesman, If we are to consider what the
communities of Europe are doing, I want to know if there
is a more dangerous thing for us than to permit a strong
nation to interfere with the internal and domestic affairs or
a weak nation, I know it has been done, and done in spite
of the good feelings of the people of
England. We have
done many silly things,
but I do not think we did a
silly thing in preventing Spain overrunning Portugal.
I say what has happened in Wales may happen in Den-
mark, and the, we have a right to eutsPoso that the nation-
ality of Denmark will not be overrun by the greater nation-
ality of Germany. And remember this, Denmark is only
a part of the :anger nationality of Scandinavia; and again,
let me ask, is the multitude of nationalities in Europe, who
will say which is to be the predominant ? So much for what
I believe was intended to be done by England. But now I
come to the manner of the doing. (Hear, hear.)i None
of the words I have heard uttered are too strong to express
my utter disapprobation of the manner in which our foreign
policy has been conducted by Lord Russell. (Opposition
cheers.) He seems to me to have mistaken his vocation ; he
was intended for a schoolmaster, but fortune made him a
,
statesman. (filush laughter.) Id is great object seems to
have been to write lectures to all Europe (hear, hear) ; but
Europe very properly said
We don't intend to be lectured.
(Hear, hear.) I believe there is no ono feels that more than
the noble lord at the head of the Government. [Lord Pal-
merston expressed his dissent.] I knew the noble lord would
shake his head-1 was quite sure of that. (Laughter.) Still
it seems to me that Earl Russell is like the Old Man of the
Sea upon the noble lord's back. (Renewed laughter.) • I
have no doubt myself that if our foreign policy had been
conducted according to the wishes of the noble lord we
should not be in the position we are in now. (Cheers.) But