The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-09 00:00:00

of the treaty went, remain united under the Danish sceptre,
And it was thought that arrangement was secured by the
change in the law of succession in Denmark, and the re-
nunciation of the Duke of Auguatenburg's rights to the
succession of Holstein. 'Well, sir, we know that the reason
why that arrangement failed, was that on the one part the
Danish Government did not treat the German subjects of
Schleswig with that administi wive system to which they
were entitled, and that the late king committed the same
errors which the King of Holland did with regard to Bel-
gium, namely, interfering with their language, laws, and
religion, and all that was dear to man, That has been the
constant source of expostulation oa the part of Germany,
and those expostulations were not attended to in the way in
which they ought to have been. The result of that was,
that when the late king died, those discontents which had
been smothered during his reign burst forth as to the dis-
puted succession to Holstein; and then came the execution
in Holstein, for the purpose of compelling the king-duke to
revoke his patent ; and that brings me to the point to which
I have often been referred—the answer I made to the hon.
member for Horsham (Mr S. Fitzgerald), at the end of
last session. Well, it is said that we began at that time to
threaten war in Germany. I deny that what I said was a
threat of war on the part of England. The words which
lam going to read I think will prove it, What I said
in answer to the hon. member was, " I have said we
entirely concur with him, and with every reasonable man
in Europe, including those in France and Russia, in de-
siring that the independence, and the integrity, and the
rights of Denmark may be neeintained. We are con-
vinced—l am convinced at least—that if any violent
attempt were made to overthrow those rights, and to in-
interfere with that independence, those who made the
attempt would find in tie result that it will
not be Denmark alone with when they will have to con-
tend." (Cheers and counter cheers.) But the contest shows
that when I talked of every man in Europe, it is quite evi-
dent I did not confine myself tc this country. (Cheers and
Opposition cries of "No, no.") And what was the passage
which preceded that ? I had just said before, " It is impos •
sible for any man who looks at the map of Europe, and who
knows the great interest whice. the Powers of Europe feel
in the independence of the Danish monarchy, to shut his
eyes to the fact that war begun about a petty dispute con-
cerning the constitution of Holstein would, in all probabi-
lity, not end where it began, aid might draw after it conse-
quences which all the parties who began it would exceed.•
ingly regret to have caused." (Hear, hear.) What I was
pointing to was a European war, and not simply a war be-
tween this country and Germany. But then, what was it
which the hen. gentleman, who is so much against all in-
terference and anything that mihates against the rights of
Germany—what was it he said that called forth what I am
quoting? When the hon. gentleman stated that he appre-
hended danger from the execution in Holstein, he said that
the entrance of the Federal troop 3 into Holstein might in-
volve consequences fatal to tie independence and integrity
of Denmark. And he contineed, " If the Government would
say that, under pretence of Federal rights, the Confederation
were not to interfere with the rights of the Danish Crown,
and if France and Russia would hold similar language, the
danger to which he had adverted might be diverted." The
hon. gentleman therefore wanted the English Government
to say to the Diet, You shall not go into Holstein for the pur-
pose of executing Federal law; and he said if England could
persuade France and Russia t 3 say the same thing, the dan-
ger which he apprehended wculd be averted. Well then, I
say it is not for the hen. gentleman to tax us, and say that
our representations and expostulations with Prussia, Aus-
tria, and the Diet against the course they were pursuing,
eaere justifiable, since he world have had us take a higher
meaenre, viz., tell the Diet teat they were not to do that
which by the law of Germany and the law of Europe they
had a perfect right to do. (lelinisterial cheers.) But we did
not do that ; our representations were of a different charac-
ter. When that occupation took place the Danish Govern-
ment was recommended, not by England alone, but by Eng-
land and other Powers, not to resist. They did not resist;
and when the farther invasion of Schleswig was threatened
we endeavoured to persuade the King of Denmark to take
steps to revoke that constitution which was made the
ground of that occupation of Schleswig as a guarantee of
the revocation, The King ?remised to do all that he could
and as early as he could for the purpose. Well, what was
the time when, according to gentlemen opposite, who com-
plain so much, and at the tottom of whose thoughts lies the
notion that we ought to interfere by force—(cries of No, no,
from the Opposition benches, and cheers from the Minis-
terial benches)—what was the time when that interference
ought to have taken place ? The German troops entered
Schleswig about the middle of winter. Well that was not a
time when any naval or military operations could have been
undertaken. What did we do? From the beginning we en-
deavoured to persuade France and Russia to concur with us
in every step we took. (Hear, hear.) But menacing lan-
guage is said to have been used. (Hear.) Why, the me-
nacing language was warning the German Powers of the
danger to Europe and themselves which might arise from the
extension of the war beyond the quarter where h had arisen.
The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) in his speech ap-
proved of our conduct up to September. He said it was wise
and judicious, because was France was with us. He went on
to say, however, that after September a change took place,
and then you disgusted France. How was that ? It was on
account of Poland and :he Congress—that we abondoned
France about Poland. What was our course about Poland?
Were we not told in this house over and over again that we
ought to interfere diplomatically in favour of the Poles.
(Fleur.) Did not the hon. member for King's county (Mr
Hennessy) repeatedly urge us in that direction, and was
not his urging backed and supported by hon. members op-
posite ? Even the mode of representation was pointed out.
We were told, "Do not content yourselves with simple
remonstrances on the part of England, but get France,
Austria, Prussia, and all the Powers of Europe, to concur
in repreeenting to Russia the expediency of dealing leniently
with Poland, and of acting in accordance with her engage-
ments." Well, we did not do that which we never under•
took—to make war for that purpose. My noble friend and
myself avowed that was not intended, but the right hon.
gentleman acknowledged the perfect justice of our course
upon that occasion ; for he said some little time ago to have
made war for Poland would have been an act of insanity.
Could, therefore, the French Emperor have found fault
with the English Government for not committing an act of
insanity? Then, again, as to the Congress, the right hon.
gentleman said we were quite right in declining the Con-
gress. No man with a common understanding could imagine
that a Congress could, under such circumstances, have been
attended with beneficial results. The right hon. gentleman
said that a Congress ought to follow action, not precede it,
which is a very great distinction, Well, then, to say that
France was influenced by such considerations in her conduct
towards Denmark was to impute conduct to the French
Government perfectly inconsistent with what ought to be
expected from a Government acting upon great and generous
principles. (Hear.) France was actuated by quite different
motives, and she never concealed them from us About
that time we were led to expect that France and Russia
would join us in pressing strongly upon the German
Powers the impropriety of their conduct towards Denmark.
But France very finely told US, " War for you on behalf of
Denmark would be a naval war, for us it would be a land
War ; we have Germany upon our frontier, and war, there-
fore, would be a great undertaking, costly both in men
and treasure. We are not disposed to undertake it,
especially for an object which is not a French
object—an object which interests neither the dignity, inde-
pendence, nor welfare of France." I think then we had ro
right to press upon the French Government the adoption of
the course which we most approved, We, therefore, lost
the support of France, except morally and diplomatically.
Well, Russia was applied to; bu, Russia gave us an answer
also declining any co-operation with us. And when one
comes to consider the union which exists between Russia,
ved.
Prussia, and Austria with
- regard to the Polish question,
one cannot be surprised at Russia not being willing to take
up arms against her neighbours. Well,
up to September, the right hon, gentleman admits our po-
licy was wise and judicious. And I contendl say, step by step
that from that
time our policy was likewise wise and judicious, and ho-
nourable to the country. (Cheers.) We laboured to per•
suede the parties to come to an agreement; we remonstrated
with the German Powers on their conduct towards Den-
mask; but at last a Conference was proposed. The pro-
posal came from Prussia first. We agreed. Some time,
however, elapsed before the Conference could assemble. and
a question arose whether an armistice should precede the
Conference. We should have preferred an armistice before
the Conference, but failing in that we stipulated that it
should be the first subject of discussion, We found it im-
possible to obtain an armistice, and then we said let us have
a Conference as soon as possible. Well, sir, our influence
was lowered—we had no influence
Europe. (Opposition
cheers.) Why, first of all we were invited to take steps to
bring the Conference together, and in that Conference step
by step every proposal made by
England was supported by
France, Russia, and Sweden. Nothing was done or pro-
posed by England which was not previously agreed upon
and previously concerted with these Powers, and therefore
am at a loss to understand I
what you mean when you
say that England is a degraded Power—(cheers)—and that
you have no eonfidence in the Government. We are
accused in that Conference of having departed from the
provisions of the treaty of 1852. Those provisions
have certainly been departed from, but it was necessity tha t
compelled us to depart from them. When the Conference
assembled all the Powers bound themselves to abide by the
provisions of the treaty, That was the starting-point; but
we did not make it the basis of the Conference, because we
knew that there was an objection to it on the part of Austria
and Prussia, and the German Confederation. But the real
ababsaissiws afosrftohrethceonpfuerrpeonsceeotfhaart riving at a peaceful solution
of the question, and of restoring
peace to Europe. Was that
an unworthy object. (Cheers.) If it was obtained, was it not
might lead to satisfactory
results ? The parties Were asked to state what the terms
were upon which they were willing to complete peace. They
proposed terms of a,personal union, with details, which the
Danish Government were willing to accept. They made
another proposal, which was to separate Holstein from Den-

mirk and the whole of Schleswig. That was objectionable.
They were induced to relax from that pretension, and at last

the parties were brought toth is, that the Danes consented to
the proposal made to. them, on the part of Germany, that the
question should be settled by
the separation of Holstein from
Denmark, together with the German portion of Schleswig,
Well, no doubt that was a departure from the treaty of 1852;

but I am not sure that it would 'net be to the advantage of
Denmark, which has long been crippled by the people of
Schleswig,who have been long discontented with her,as was
shown at the time of the Royal marriage, when they refused
to contribute to the dower offered by the King, in order to
show their dissatisfaction. So the parties were brought to-
gether, and they agreed to a division of Schleswig, a part to
be united to Holstein; and the only question at last was
where the line was to be drawn. It was found impossible to
bring them to an agreement. We then proposed arbitration,
If the parties accepted it, and if the arbiter was empowered
peremptorily to decide the point, and that the two parties
agreed to it, instead of a vote of censure, instead of con-
demnation so lavishly bestowed upon us in this debate, all
would agree that our exertions had been crowned with suc-
cess, and that we had made an honourable arrangement
between the two parties, and that the peace of Europe was
secured. (Cheers.) It was not our fault that the two parties
objected to the arrangement. The proposal was a most
reasonable one. It has been said that our Minister pro-
mised Denmark that if she agreed to the line of the Schlei
he walld not propose another line. He did make that
promise, but that was not to fetter his hands when he
found it was impossible to bring Germany down to the
Sehlei, nor to bring Denmark up to the Apenrade, But if
the Conference had broken up, would it not be said to us,
" Why did you not propose arbitration ?" I say it was
proper, and our duty as a last resort to propose arbitration,
which if accepted would have restored peace. (Cheers.)
The French plenipotentiary proposed another solution—
namely, an appeal to the population of the disputed
districts, but it was not acceptable to Denmark or to
Prussia; and that proposal, although honourably made,
was not acceded to. Well, then, I say when hon. gentle-
men, not looking to the main features of the transaction,
only pick out sentences from the blue books and found upon
them a vote of condemnation against the Government, I say
that such a proceeding, although it may suit the purposes
of a party who want to blacken and disgrace the Govern-
ment, I am persuaded that the country will not think this is
the way to treat great European questions (cheers), and
that it will not approve the condemnation which is proposed
by gentlemen opposite. Now, let us examine a little what
is the resolution which the right hon. gentleman proposes.
I speak not of the first and second sentences, but the last.
He proposes that this house should affirm that the influence
of England is lowered in the eyes of the world—(cheers)—
and that thereby the security for peace is diminished. That
is supported by a great number of gentlemen who maintain
that we are never to interfere in anything beyond our own
shores. that is the use of our influence if we are not to in-
terfere ? (Cheers.) And how is the peace of Europe to be
endangered by the loss of our influence if that influence is
to be confined within those walls. (Cheers.) This doctrine
is altogether unsound, for our interests are affected by mat-
ters which happen in every part of the world, and a coun-
try like ours cannot be passive or indifferent to what passes
among other nations ; that she has interests which require
vigilant watching, and that we must interfere in some way
or other in transactions in which we are not directly or ab-
solutely concerned. But then we are told that the balance
of power is exploded. Why, the balance of power is
founded upon the nature of man. (Hear, hear.) The
balance of power means that, in the community of nations,
no nation should acquire such a preponderance of
power as to endanger the security of the rest; and it is'
for the ad vantage of all that the smaller Powers should
be respected in their independence (Opposition
cheers)—and not swallowed up by their more powerful
neighbours. That is the doctrine of the balance of power,
and it is a doctrine worthy of being acted upon. I say we
have done our best to rescue Denmark from the dangers to
which she was exposed by counselling her to set herself
right upon those matters where she was in fault; advising
her aggressors to adopt a more moderate course ; and by
inducing the neutral Powers to join with us in advising the
same course. but what said the right honourable
gentleman upon the subject ? He said if England had a
policy, and that England and France were upon cordial
terms, war would be very different; but if Russia, France,
and England had come to a good understanding, war would
be impossible. Well, we tried to make it impossible, but
France and Russia would not combine with us, and there-
fore war became possible, and took place. The right hon
gentleman had therefore pronounced a panegyric upon our
policy, and he ought to vote against his own resolution.
(Cheers and laughter.) We adopted the best means of ren-
dering war impossible, and the failure was not our fault.
At the time I answered the question of the right hon gen-
tleman opposite we had reason to believe that Sweden was
going to conclude a treaty offensive and defensive with
Denmark, but it was not carried out. Well, then, I deny
utterly that the influence of England has been lowered. I
say that there is no proof of it. The assertion must belong
eiiher to the period before the Conference or to the period
afterwards. But to the period before the Conference it could
not apply, because by the influence of England that Confe-
rence was assembled in the capital of this country. It can-
not apply to anything subsequent to the Conference, because
nothing has taken place. (Hear.) Well, then, I say that
it is a gratuitous libel upon the country. (No.) It is a
libel by a great party upon the country which they wish to
govern. Why, such a resolution being recorded, foreign
Governments would say to that party, you have put itupon
record that your country is degraded, and whether it is or is
not, you are not the parties to restore it. (Hear.) I say
therefore that is a most urpatriotic course, which I trust
will not receive the support of the house. It would be
a libel upon the country to which we all belong to record in
Inc votes of this house that which is not a fact—that the
influence of Eugland had been lowered, (Hear.) Sir, the
influence of a country depends upon other things than pro-
tocols and despatches. (Hear, hear.) The influence of a
country depends upon its power to defend itself, its wealth,
its prosperity, its intelligence, and upon the cultivation of
mind and the development of arts and sciences, and upon
all those things which make a country great and powerful.
So long as England retains these conditions, so long I defy
any one to prove that her influence has been lowered or
degraded. (Hear.) Well, then, I contend that the reso-
lution of the right hon. gentleman is not one which is fitting
for this house to adopt. Reference has been made to the
amendment of the hon. gentleman the member for Bridg-
water, and it has been said by some that it was an escape
from voting upon the resolution of the right hon. gentle-
man. (Hear.) Well, I have no hesitation in saying that
for my part I regret that the hon. member (Air. Kinglake)
has moved that amendment, because I should have been
better pleased to have come to a decision on the resolution
of the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks. But
we were told just now by the hon. baronet (Sir S. North-
cote) that that resolution, with the amendment of my hon.
friend, embodied entirely the statement which I made to the
house not long ago in stating the results of the Conference.
Surely if that is the case, gentlemen opposite cannot be sun
_ _

prised that we should accept that amendment, and be pre-
pared to vote for it. No man can say that by voting for that
amendment we are shirking the resolution of the right hon.
gentleman. At the same time I did express to my hon. friend
a wish that he would not put his amendment, so that we
might vote on the resolution of the right hon. gentleman.
He, however, declined to withdraw it, and we are now pre-
pared to take the vote upon his amendment. (Hear.) In the
course of this debate the real character of the right hon.
gentleman's motion has been more plainly dilated upon by
some who have taken part, more especially by the hon.
member for Tipperary. It has been fairly avowed that this
is not simply a censure upon one individual act, but upon a
course of action. It is fairly an issue to test a vote of con-
fidence in the Government. It has been intended to oust
the Government. Ida not complain of that object, but I

complain of the mode, because I think it would have been
more manly, open, and straightforward, to have put the
issue in the constitutional mode of a resolution, rather than
to endeavour to wrap it up in the 1,500 pages of a blue
book. (Hear.) It would have been much more consistent
to say, We have borne this Government for five years ; it
is too much for human endurance ; everything must have
its limit; the time is come when we wish Parliament to
declare plainly, aye or no, will they retain the present Go-
vernment, or not ? I have not the slightest reproach to
make to them, except that they have not fairly avowed and
put their object in plain hinguage. They complained of our
despatches not being in plain language ; but I think their
resolution is not in plain language, and it would be much
better, and more according to usual custom, to put it in the
plain way. (Hear.) Then the member for Tipperary said
very truly that this being the case, the house ought to look
not simply to this limited action of the Government on the
Danish question, but to look to their general conduct on
other matters. That would be quite proper and fair, because
if a vote of no confidence had been moved, of course it would
lead to a discussion of all th 3 measures of the Government.
I contend that if the house take that view of the matter, they
will find in the five years that we have been honoured by the
house, and have carried on the Government of the coun-
try this country has been in an unexampled state of
prosperity—(cheers)—that more has been done in everything
connected with the material interests of the country than
perhaps ever was done in the same space of time before.
(Hear.) On that ground at least we may stand unscathed,
and defy any attack which may be made upon us from any
quarter whatever. I know that details applicable to this
argument would be encroaching too much on the time and
patience of the house : but I now ask leave to state one or
two minor facts weich bear on this question, to show what
has been the conduct of the Government, and what have
been the improvements in the country during our adminis-
tration. (Cheers.) Between 1859-60 and 1861—(cries of
"Question" and cheers)—we have listened very patiently
to the abuse of hon, gentlemen opposite. I think now it is
but fair that they should listen to the reasons that we think
may be fairly stated in our general justification. (Hear.)
We have reduced, between 1860 and 1864 twelve millions

of taxation. We have concluded, with the assistance of the
hon. gentleman opposite (Mr Cobden), that treaty with
France which has so wonderfully increased the commercial

relations between the two countries—(heat, hear)—for
whereas in 1859, the imports from France were in value jq

millions, in 1863 they were 24 millions, The eicports also
have increased in a greater degree, for while in 1859 they
were only 9i millions, in 1863 they were £22,900,000. It
must be obvious that this great development of the corn'
merce of the country must have been of the greatest advani,
tage at a time when we were suffering so severely from the
failure of the supply of cotton from America. (Cheers.)
In the meantime we had reduced the national debt by
eleven millions, that is to say, 3ve millions had been
actually paid off, and six n
In-dono had been converted into

terminable annuities. The private personal income of
the country has increasel to such au extent that the assess-
ment to the income tax has increased by 27 zillions in
the course of that time. Between 1860-61 and 1864 65, the
expenditure has been reduced by 3 miilions, Meanwhile we
had not been unmindful of interests and considerations very
important to the country, viz,, the national defences ; our
primary object being to make the country unassailable from
any quarter. I willingly give hon. gentlemen opposite the
credit of originating the volunteer movement, but that sys-
tem of defence has been wonderfully developed under the
present Government. (Hear.) Onr dockyards are now in
course of being made secure; so that we no longer hear of
pamphlets about the perils of Portsmouth. Portsmouth and
our other naval stations will soon be in a position to defy
attack. The foreign trade of the country has increased to a
very great degree, having risen from 377 millions in 1861 to
444 millions in 1863. An increase of 67 millions in two
years I It is not necessary for me to go into the details of
the improvement of a savings' banks, although those are
matters which are of deep interest to the working classes.
(Hear.) We have got through that great calamity, as it
was expected to be, of the cotton famine without any of the
disturbance which might have been expected through the
losses and privations of those who suffered by it. We
have not been solely occupied with the concerns of the
United Kingdom ; for my right hon. friend who has the
management of India has done great things in regard to
that country. And an important matter that is, because
I recollect it was said when ft change took place in the
Government of India, that although India was indebted
to England then, tlee time might come when England
would be indebted to India. In 1858, the deficit in
the Indian revenue amounted to £14,000,000; but it
1864 there was a suplus of £813,000; so that, in con-
sequence of the instructions of my right hon. friend, a
large deficit in the Indian revenue has been converted
into a large surplus. The contentment of the people of
India was known to everybody. Railways, telegraphs, and
every improvement which modern times have produced
have been introduced into that country. The exports from
India in 1858-9 were £29,000,000; in 1862-3 they amounted
to £46,000,080. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, I say that all
the indications of national prosperity that now exist—(An
hon. member: In Ireland I))—amongst the subjects of the
ueen have g ood foundation, and that the Government of
the Queen during the five years they have been charged
with the conduct of the affairs of the country have not been
inattentive to any interest to which their attention ought to
be directed, but we have been the promoters of general
improvement in all the matters which constitute the gene-
ral interest of the country. Well, but we have during that
period of office preserved this country from war. (Hear.)
There were many people ready to urge us to take an active
part in the war in America. (Hear, hear.) We were not
without motives which might have been supposed to in-
duce us to take part in the contest going on in that country.
We abstained from it. (Cheers) No doubt there are some
who thought we ought to have leant more to one side, and
others who thought we ought to have leant more to the
other, but our condttct has been that of rigid neutrality, and
we have saved the covntry from the calamities of that war.
(Cheers.) There are many gentlemen in this House who do
not entirely approve of the policy that we pursued in China.
(Hear, hear.) That may be a subject of discussion, but
there is certainly a great development of our trade with
China, and we have a good understanding with the Go-
vernment of China. Therefore, whatever may be thought
of the steps by which we have arrived at that conclusion,
no man can deny that the result and conclusion have been
advantageous to the country. We have preserved pacific
relations with all the countries of Europe. It
has been said that in the last speech from the
Throne for the first time was omitted the sentence, " I con-
tinue to receive friendly assurance of peace from all foreign
Powers." (gentlemen who make that assertion are but little
read in Queen's speeches, because this is not the first time,
that foolish and unmeaning passage has been left out, and I
trust it will never appear again, because those "friendly
assurances" never were given or received. (Laughter.) The
only meaning of the passage was, that the Sovereign was on
good relations with foreign Powers. We could not say that
entirely here—(hear)—because we had differences with
Austria and Russia, which rendered it impossible to make
that assertion; but when those differences are over—(a
laugh)--I hope•that it may be shown in the Queen's Speech
that it is owing to the way in which for a great many years
the affairs of the country have been conducted. Although
that is the case, I quite admit that the hon. gentlemen
opposite are perfectly entitled to make a great struggle and
a great fight for power. That is an honourable feeling,
which 1 do not mean to reproach. I think that a great party
comprising a great number of men of influence and ability
in the country, are perfectly entitled—when they think the
prize is within their reach—to strive for it. (Hear, hear,)
But, on the other hand, I do not think we have done any..
thing to deserve that that prize should be taken from us.
(Cheers.) I think we have conducted the affairs of the
country, during the five years we have had these seats, with
honour to the country, with advantage to the country, and
with credit to ourselves, and deserving the approbation of
the house and the confidence of the country. (Cheers from
the Ministerial side, followed by counter-cheers by the Op-
position.) Although hon. gentlemen meet that assertion with
" No, no," I am inclined to think whatever the decision of
this closely packed assembly may be to-night, the country at
large will answer in the affirmative—(cheer s and counter-
cheers)—and will re-echo the assertion I have taken the
liberty of making. (No, no, from the Conservatives.) Well,
then, I say there has not been any special ground made for
the motion now before us. It evades and shirks the objects
of the movers. They ought to have come manly forward
with a vote of want of confidence. I think that is not a
motion which is founded upon justice and facts; and 1 am
confident, whatever may be the decision of the house this
night—and I trust it will be a rejection of the motion and a
substitution of that of my hon. friend, which will in fact be
a negative—whatever the decision may be, I am satisfied and
believe it will be in our favour, and I am sure that if it is
not in our favour, it will not be in accordance with the gene-
ral feeling of the people of this country. (The noble lord, on
resuming his seat, was loudly cheered.)

Mr. DISRAELI—Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I moved
an address to the Crown,thanking her Majesty for the papers
of the late negotiations which had been placed on our table,
and at the same time in that address I made three state-
ments which I wished the house to accept. The first was,
that her Majesty's Government had failed in their avowed
policy, which was to uphold the integrity and independence
of Denmark. The second point was an expression of regret
that the just influence of this country in the councils of Eu-
rope was lowered. The third proposition was that, by that
lowering of the just influence of this country in the councils
of Europe, the securities of peace were diminished. In in-
troducing that address to the consideration of the house, I
had, as is inevitable under such circumstances, to quote con-
siderably, though in as small proportion as I could arrange,
from a gloat many diplomatic correspondence that had been
placed on our table. I have observed always under similar cir-
cumstances when the opinion of the house has been asked, as
on the affairs of China, in which Sir James Graham took part,
there are always accusations on both sides of extracts being
garbled, 1 our not conscious of being guilty of anything of
the kind. I have listened with great attention to the present
debate, which has lasted four days, and having read the
despatches referred to by members on both sides of the House
who have drawn from extracts quite different inferences, I
am bound to say I did not observe any quoted in any unfair
manner, and it is my belief that fa'r quotations is the inva-
rible practice of this House. Indeed it appears to me one
of the most silly things in the world, totally irrespective of
any other consideration, for any person who attacks her
Majesty's Government on occasions of this character, wil-
lingly to managle or misrepresent these documents. What
could be the position of such a member, when he knows that
hon. gentlemen opposite, having the original documents, are
in the possession of the means of correcting him ? Every
gentleman has the papers, and can refer to the page from
which the despatch is quoted ; and therefore it is absurd to
suppose that any gentleman would attempt to misquote or
misrepresent any document. (Hear, hear,) I was impressed
with the weakness of the case of the Government when the
most distinguished orator of the Treasury benches rose to
answer me at once—l will not say vulgarly, but certainly
with a taunt which ought not to receive the sanction or the
approval of the House. (Hear, hear.) He it:media! ely
accused me of misquoting—(Opposition cheers)—with mis-
representing; which was as much as to say,—You are a
person totally incompetent, and you must be a very silly
person to attempt to address the House on this occasion,
and bring forward a case founded on misquotations. (Cheers.)
I should not have said this, but I thought it due to my-
self. (Hear, hear.) With reference to the despatch which
was from Earl Russell to our chargé d'affaires at Paris, I

copied it myself, and quoted from the copy. I read as much as
I:thought sufficient to prove my case, and what I omitted was
only to save the time of the house; but, in fact, that part
which I did omit went to support my ease. (Hear.) The
Chancellor of the Exchequer and other gentlemen assumed
that my object in quoting from Mr Grey to Earl Russell,
giving the conversation with M. Drouyn de Lhuys, was to
show that the Emperor of the French would not act with
the English Government. But I never supposed that any
and
I would have acted from a feeling of pique, nd
I should think that the Emperor of the French was the last-
person who would so act. But I again say
that
thatma epithet,
in
which I omitted would, if given, have further provedthe part
my
case.e
of
falsifying(ll ear . ) a
Thestatement. Chancellor of
(Hear,the
hear,Exchequer
from
th
the
cocpuis3o.
Ine d
xeleteergtuheer graciousrenalled
nn
which
de 110
nt ho
et
dBCiehtsia:rnnee.)teolleg However,
Chancellor
imfhtheEhthe slightest pain orannoyance. (Hear.)
It is true that I may have inadvertently described the de-
'etch as referring to Federal execution;
that the menace referred to Federal I may
lut"
"I'l
e.xecution ; but 'what it
I did? (Hear, hear.) It was an i
yet upon the strength of
of misquoting. Again, the Cha
it a charge passage, and
says that in the first place I ge vuts made against me
Ilcellor of the Exchequer
Make out that the English
Government was acting in a
ner ; that they were
Germany threatened
gnglish Gover
Otellacdtigrrehgeurlearanadndniamjaplionligticthmearne -;
ay and Denmark the other, and
done by the other great nnineuetnratl Pdiodwenrest,hbiyngFbrauntcwhat d wbays
Russia. This was broadlycaar,
hear.)etate by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and sine repeated. But not a tittle of proof
was given of it. ‘,,a
We have had plenty of
proof that England
had no menaced and cajoled, but we have
proof, kinWithstawling the short declaration