The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-05 00:00:00

sia and Austria that the treaty ce 1852, by nearly which all
Europe was bound, was nothing more than a part ee the
same transactions with the special conventions of 1851-2
between Germany and Denmark; and that unless those
covenants were Waled the treaty of 1852 would be null
and void. That was the formidable doctrine which at that
time into view. On the 28th of November, I think it was,
that language began to be held by the German Powers
which greatly altered the position of the case. As long as
they recognised what we have always held to be their obli•
gations under the treaty of 1862 there was comparatively
little danger; but when they held themselves free to mako
the treaty of 1852 dependent upon the condition of fulfil-
ment or non-fulfilment of which they were competent to
pronounce—for it was a separate engagement between them
and Denmark—then it became obvious that the dangers
were greatly thickening round us, and that it was a ques-
tion whether the treaty of 1852 would be fulfilled in its
loyal end intended sense. Undoubtedly it was at that pe-
riod that her Majesty's Government undertook the gravest
responsibility which has been laid upon them at any stage
of this difficult question. They did make application to
France and to Russia on the sth of January, on the 10th,
and on the 18th, which applications contemplated the for•
mation of an alliance to give aid and assistance to Den-
mark, to uphold it in the Duchies against foreign force and
intrigue. The right hon. gentleman, who has found
it necessary to censure everything done by the Go•
vernment, felt it necessary to censure also this. He
said that on the 18th of January you wrote a letter
which would have put Europe in a Haze. Sir, the letter to
bring about the concert and co-operation of France and
Russia with England, he says, would put Europe in a blaze,
though 15 minutes afterwards he maintained that Franca,
England, and Russia being united, war was impossible.
(Cheers and laughter.) I must say I was surprised, con-
sidering the disproportionate weight which the right hon.
gentleman laid upon a point of trifling moment, that, when
he came to this great passage of European policy, he satis-
fied himself with breaking out into ill-considered reproach
of her Majesty's Government. We did write this letter.
We believed that it was for the interes a of Europe that the
treaty of 1852 should be supported. and we stand here re-
sponsible for having acted on that belief. (cheers) Has
the right hon. gentleman an opinion on the policy, or has
he not ? (Cheers.) I wish we could dive into the recesses
of his mind. (Laughter.) I complain of the reserve of the
right hon. gentleman. He is as bad as a miser with his
money—one cannot get out of him the smallest inkling of
what is to be the future policy of the country He talks a
great deal of the policy of the Government, but when it
touches a question of policy he will not give an opinion.
(Cheers.) He has brought forward a motion which aims at
giving a mortal blow to the Government. Here is by far
the most important proceeding which the Government has
taken, this letter of Jan. 18, the proposal fur the co-oueration
in support of the treaty of 1_852, and yet the right hon. gen-
tleman who asks the House of Commons to condemn the
Government in the capital article of their conduct, passes
this by in silence because lie cannot give an opinion with-
out intimating something about his policy. (Cheers.)
The Government have no desire to have that passed over.
Th -y thought it their duty to make those efforts to obtain
co-operation for the purpose of preventing 'hat which has
happened—from a treaty being set aside by external force
—and they invite a verdict upon their conduct. (Cheers.)
I am not here to blame the Governments who declined to
concur in that proposal. I think that in the case of
an engagement like the treaty of 1852, the persons
really responsible for the failure, and all the consequences
of failure, are those who recede from their plighted faith,
(Cheers.) The Emperor of the French was entitled to say,
when one party had abandoned the treaty, "I must look
at the interests of France." He did look at that, and we
cannot and do not blame him for the resolution which he
took. Although we freely and frankly admit that the
peculiar positron of Russia with reference to Prussia some-
what impairs her independence and dignity, and the
strength of her position in all European questions where
the German Powers are concerned, yet we do not accept_it
as a matter of charge or blame imputable to us that we
made a serious effort to rally the Po veers of Europe in sup-
port of the treaty of 1852. I may be wrong, but it seems
to me that this singlehanded intervention of England in
European questions is a course of proceeding which can be
justified. A system has grown up of late, of which the
treaty of 1852 was a notable example, where the Powers of
Europe have formed themselves, as it were, into a police,
fur the maintenance of the general peace, apart from all
separate and selfish objects, and with the single view and
purpose of putting down the wrongdoer, whoever he may
be. This in one sense was the meaning of the treaty of
1852. I think that was an honourable course, that the
community of interests should be recognised in the form of
these great international facts and conventions, which aim
at keeping pence by the use of the collective forces of the
civilised world, which is the best guarantee that it can pos.
sibly receive. (Hear.) Therefore let it be clearly understood
that, if the right hon. gentleman were to challenge the con-
duct of the Government in their endeavours to enlist
France and Russia for the preservation of European peace,
let him say so. (Hear, hear.) We are ready to abide by
the judgment of the house and of the country upon that
tesue. Then, says the hon. gentleman, having got into
Conference, you provided fur the integrity of Denmark
by cutting off Holstein and part of Schleswig, and placing
it under the tutelage of alt the Powers of Europe. There
is a great deal of weight in that description; but we do
not at all disguise that, after the failure of that application
to France and Russia, our tone was lowered. If you
find fault with the tone of my noble friend before this,
my answer is, that language welch we held at first was
uniform with the language of France at the some period—
and that it was in contemplation of the contingency which
afterwards was not realised—viz., that the Powers would
find themselves in a condition to co-operate for the main-
tenance of the treaty, Where does the right hon. gentle-
man find the language of menace after the date at which
we became Aware that menace could not be practically car-
ried into effect? lam not aware of a single word which
has been ascribed to my noble friend as being likely to be
construed into a menace by ,the German Pewers after we
once became aware of the fact that a European com-
bination could no longer be relied upon in support of the
treaty of 1852. The right hon. gentleman, I think, said we
were right in declining to go to war single-handed: In the
Conference, having found that it was impossible to give full
effect to what we conceived to be the spirit of the treaty of
1852, we did the best we could for Denmark. (Cheers.) No
doubt, gentlemen would have done better, but we did as
well as we could, as well as France could, as well as Russia
could, as well as Sweden could. As long as we can show
that the proceedings which we took were proceedings of
the neutral Powers who represented the public sentiment
of Europe, and the impartial judgment of the world, I do
not think the right hon. gentleman will succeed in driving
home the deadly weapon which he has aimed at our breast.
(Cheers,) The treaty of 1852 contemplated securing a com-
bination under the Crown of Denmark, after a new accession
to the throne, of all the territories that were attached to the
Crown under Frederick 11, Now the treaty of 1852 would
have been perfectly satisfied by what is called a personal
union. If we had advised Denmark to pursue the phantom
of literal compliance with the treaty of 1852, we should
have advised her to do that which she was deter-
mined not to do. Therefore, if the right hon. gentleman
charges us with having been parties to proposing in the
Conference a reduction of the Danish territory, 1 say we
&el that which was not only most in accordance with the
interests, but that which was also most agreeable to the
wishes of Denmark, for if she could not have a virtue

incorporation of the whole of Schleswig, she Wanted to have
an incorporation of a portion of Schleswig. The proposal
of the line of the Schlei was first made by us with the con-

currence of the other neutral Powers ; and I think that

proposal was more agreeable to Denmark than any other
which could have betn made with the slightest hope of bind-
ing the German Powers. The house is aware there are

ample reasons why England should not undertake what

might fairly be celled the Quixotic enterprise of waging
single-handed the war which offered itself to us under the
circumstances. (Ministeiial cheers.) The tax upon the Eng-
lish energies would have been totally disproportioned to the
object in view. The want of support and special interests,
in the absence of positive engagements, was a matter which
it was the absolute duty of the Government to consider.
But if England were to make that war, and to make it with

_ .•
effect, it was aware that it could not be confined to Denmark
only. Its limits must have been vastly extended. It must at

once have gone down to the Adriatic—(eheers)—it must
have become a general war in Europe. And although there
might be objects which the Government might believe would
be among the possible results of such a war, and which
might be of great value to humanity, yet that responsibility
was a responsibility from which the boldest man would
shrink. (Ministerial cheers.) And then England might,
more than any other nation, have found this a most deplor-
able position, for she might ultimately discover that the
judgment she had taken of the justice of the case was a
different judgment from that of the population of the
Duchies themselves. (Cheers.) What British House of
Commons would have sustained a Government who endea-
voured to thrust down the liberties of a people ? (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman has, with marvellous adroitness,
contrived to avoid every possible topic or issue involving the
slightest question as to what ought or what ought not to have
been our line of policy. The right hon. gentleman has put
to the house a motion which I will now proceed to examine.
Having met his charges, and I hope fairly challenged
the judgment of the house un the subject, I hold myself tree
to take my turn as a critic and a judge. (Hear, hear.) This
is in many resp cts a remarkable motion. (Laughter.) It
is a motion the productiou of which has been heralded, like
the birth of Julius Cesar and other great men of old, by
omen and prophecy. On an early day iu the session the
right hon gentleman came out as a prophet and said, " We
will question the foreign policy of the Government," On
another day the member for Huntingdon took up the para-
ble of the right hon. gentleman, and at a late hour ono even-
ing he announced--" I give you my word you shall have a
motion on the foreign policy of fhe Governtneh:," And a
third solemn announcement was made, which is interesting
because it proves that since the commencement of the ses-
sion—that is, for about five months—this motion has been
in the course of incubation, and the terms of it have had the
advantage of being revolved over and over again in all the
brains of all the wisest gentlemen la the country, namely,
those who are sitting oppoite. (Cheers and laughter.) •
The right boa, gehtleman, has made a motion of which wo