The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-28 00:00:00

against them. We might have sufficient ground of
justification for such a course, if our object was merely to
show Austria and Prussia that they are vulnerable on
l,heir own ground. But it is the duty of the Government
to :show greater attachment to peace thaa Austria and
Prussic, not to allow the flame to extend all over Europe,
but to endeavour to confine it, as far as possible, within the
narrowest limits. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Govern-
ment that we should maintain the position we held before
the Conference, and that we should be neutral in this war.
I do not mean that contingencies might not arise in which
our position might not be different and our conduct might
be altered. It may be said, " Will you allow the German
Powers, if they should decide to go with their combined
forces to Copenhagen, and declare there that it is their ob-
ject to make Denmark assent to terms destructive to the
independence of Denmark. Would you be entirely indiffe-
rent on that subject ?" I can only say upon that question
that I think every Government of this country must retain
a certain liberty, so long as it has the confidence of Parlia-
ment, with regard to the decision which it may be called on
to give. All I can say is that if Government should think
it necessary to come to any fresh decision, if the war should
assume a new charaoter—if new circumstances should arise,
and such a decision have to be taken, it would be our duty,
if Parliament were sitting, undoubtedly to apply to Parlia-
ment, and if Parliament were not sitting immediately to call
Parliament together, that Parliament might judge as to the
conduct which her Majesty's Government should pursue.
In the meantime I have given you an outline of the course
of these negotiations, and of the efforts we have made for
peace, which, like those made by the Government of Lord
Liverpool in 1823, have not been crowned with success. If
any party in Parliament should think as Lord Grey thought
in 1823, that we should go to war, it will be competent for
them to ask her Majesty to interfere on behalf of Denmark.
If they think that we have in any respect failed in our duty,
it is competent for them to take any line they think proper.
But I say that we have maintained the honour of the country
—we have done all in our power to preserve the peace of
Europe—and although these efforts have failed, nothing has
been wanting on our part which was required for the honour
and interest of the country, or which it was our duty to do.
(Cheers )
The Earl of DERBY—My lords, the almost unprece-
dented attendance of your lordships on the present occasion
sufficiently indicates that you are deeply sensible of the im-
portance of the statement which has just been made by the
noble earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It is impos-
sible, my lords, to overrate the gravity of the matters in-
volved in that statement. Interests of such vast importance
are hanging in the balance at the present moment—the
peace of Europe—l do not say the present, but the ultimate
peace of Europe—is fraught with such fearful peril, and
anything that passes in this house may have for good or for
evil so serious an effect, that if I have risen to follow the
noble earl in the statement he has made, it is not for the
purpose of going through the various topics upon which he
has touched, or following him through the different portions
of his speech, but for the purpose of expressing my earnest
and anxious hepe that your lordships will see not only the
propriety but the absolute necessity of abstaining on the
present occasion from a partial and consequently an unsa-
tisfactory expression of opinion. The noble earl has entered
at very great length upon three distinct topics, which he
has treated no doubt with great ability and with great clear-
ness. He has entered upon a justification of the course
which the Government have pursued ; he has entered upon
a discussion of what has passed in the Conference, and he
has stated with at least sufficient explicitness for the mo-
ment what is to be the policy of her Majesty's Govern-
ment in the position in which we are now placed. My
lords, of the first part of the noble earl's statement I have
no complaint to make. It was perfectly natural, in laying
upon the table by command of her Majesty the protocols of
the Conference held is London on the affairs of Denmark,
that he should have brought under your lordships notice
the circumstances under which it was appointed, and the
position in which Europe stood at the period it assembled.
I do net complain of the general statement the noble earl has
made of that position, or of those circumstances, although
no doubt there were some very material facts which he
altogether omitted, and some circumstances to which per-
haps be gave a colouring with regard to which I cannot con-
cur. But, as I have said, lam not about to discuss the state-
ment of the position in which we are placed, still less (for
that is a more important and totally different question) shall
I discuss to what circumstance, to what conduct upon our
part, as well as on the part of foreign nations--to what
policy pursued by the Government it was owing that we
were placed, at the period of entering upon the conference,
in the unfortunate position in which we then stood. My
lords, that question may, and probably will, form the sub-
ject of further discussion, if not in this, at all events in the
other House of Parliament, and probably in both houses.
(Opposition cheers.) But upon the present occasion your
lordships will not deem it necessary to enter upon all the
phases through which the Schleswig-Holstein question has
passed since 1862. It is not expedient or desirable to enter,
upon the present occasion, upon a discussion, without any
ulterior or ultimate object, of all the various phases through
which that question, simple in its origin but complicattd in
its progress, has passed during these two eventful years.
But I must say that the noble earl has, I think, taken a
course this evening which is not in accordance with the ordi •
limy practice or procedure of the house in giving an ac-
count of the various matters which passed in the Confer-
ence, and in reading from papers which are not in the
han Is of your lordships, and with reference to which we are
bound to accept the statements of the noble earl. My lords,
the most important part of the question which Parliament
has to consider is the course of policy which her Majesty's
Government have pursued—whether they have taken the
course best suited to effect their own objects—namely, to
obtain a satisfact ,ry arrangement between the different
belligerents, and at the same time to maintain inviolate the
honour of England. While, however, this question is of the
utmost importance, it must have reference to an earlier
period—a period before the commencement of the Confer-
ence—to things which then had taken place, and of which
we now know nothing. For with all respect to those noble
lords and right hon. gentlemen who have stated that as
soon as you could get the plenipotentiaries assembled round
the table you would have no difficulty in coming to a satis-
factory conclusion, and without in the slightest degree dis-
paraging the ability and talent with which the two noble
lords conducted the affairs of England in the Conference, yet
I think I may venture to say that beyond the limits of her Ma-
jesty's government there were few who could anticipate, and
there were many who did not wish, a different conclusion
from that at which the Conference arrived—namely, a signal
and lamentable failure. Well, what were those circum-
stances ? There were at that moment eight parties called to
the Conference, which consisted of 13 gentlemen. Oi the
four belligerents three were engaged on one side and one on
the other. There were four neutrals—England, Russia,
France, and Sweden. With regard to the belligerents,
what was the position of affairs which they were invited to
consider ? It is true that with regard to the three belli-
gerents on the one side, their ends, their motives, their ulti•
mate objects were different, but they were all bent on
destroying the neighbouring kingdom of Denmark. All
three were not agreed as to the ultimate object with which
that spoliation should take place, or the persons who should
profit by a division of the spoil ; but the three were agreed
to carry war and spoliation into the Danish territory. It
was at that moment when, flushed with the triumph of their
arms, and the glory which had been gained by the enor-
mous numerical superiority of military, materials, munitions
and artillery— flushed with the glory which they thought
they had obtained, and seeing before them nothing but a
feeble and half-vanquished enemy, they consented most re-
luctantly to be arrested in that progress, and yielded to the
pressing solicitations, not of the four neutral powers, but of
England alone—(hear, hear)—for a temporary suspension
of hostilities, although they would not consent to an armis-
tice. On the other hand, there was the kingdom of Dol-
-1 n'ark—a small and gallant nation, who were fighting with
the utmost determination and with the courage of despair
on behalf of all that they held most sacred—on behalf of
their homes, their constitution, their king, their families—
fighting
against overwhelming odds; seeing themselves
the whole European community, from which,
deserted
by
whether with or without reason, they had no doubt
entertained a Bannoille hope that they should receive sup-
port. They found themselves pressed to the very utmost-.
They found that they were deserted by all, and I say, in
their position, the courage
of despair might have induced
them to refuse to enter upon
a suspension of hostilities un-
favourable at the moment to themselves, and to say—
" Rather than enter into discreditable and disgraceful terms
let us die in the face of day—let ua die in the face of Europe
—to the shame of Europe, that permits us thus to suffer."
with discordant
(Hear, hear.) These were the circumstances under which
the belligerents came into the Conference
views on the one side, and with a feeling on the part of the
small and weak kingdom of Denmark that they Were made
the subject of oppression and violence. The four neutral
powers entered into the question without the slightest
pre-
vious agreement between themselves either as to what he
should ask, recommend, or insist upon, The eight different
interests were collected together at the Conference in the
middle of the excitement of a war, without any previous
basis of negotiation being agreed upon, or anything being
settled, except that memorable basis which the noble lord
at the head of the Government is reported to have stated,
namely, that the basis of the Conference was to procure the
peace of Europe. Upon that basis they met, without any
previous communication or agreement or understanding,
and yet you profess to bs astonished that that Conference,
so inaugurated, has led to nothing but a confirmation of
the divers opinions entertained in it. (Hear, hear. ) There-
fore, although we have not the papers, that is a matter of
comparative indifference. The noble lords charged with the
interest of England at the conference may have conducted
its affairs with more or less ability, and with perfect since-
rity, I have no doubt, to maintain the peace of Europe ;
Prussia and Austria may have been more or less unreason-
able ; Denmark may have been more or less firm ; the Diet
may leave placed itself more or less in opposition to the pre-
vious declarations of the proper parties to that conference ;
but with respect to all this it makes no difference, because
from the time it began to sit it was in my judgment a doomed
conference, from which it was impossible to hope that any
beneficial results could arise. Therefore the absence of the
protocols does not place us under any disadvautage in judg-
ing of the policy which has brought the country into its
present position, Still, I will not now, upon the imperfect
statement just made, and with the imperfect information