The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 20, 1864.

while the greater Powers regard Its as en incorrigible bore.
(Hear, hem) Notwithstanding that, it was a little re-
markable that her Majesty's Government in another place
took very great credit for their pacific po:icy. I cannot help
thinking that this house has not been treated either with
courtesy or candour in regard to this question, because hon.
gentlemen will remember that in the Queen's speech on the
4th of February the following passage occurred :—" Her
Majesty has been unremitting in her endeavours to bring
about a settlement of the questions which hare arisen be-
tween Germany and Denmark, and to V; and off the dangers
which might follow the boginning of war in the north of
Europe." But oh the 18th January, 1864, the noble lord
was instructing Lord Cowley to ascertain whether France
would co-operate with England and Russia—(hear, hear)—
and, on the 24th January, Lord Cowley explained that
material assistance to Denmark meant a league. In fact, it
meant war. (Cheers.) Her Majesty's Government actu-
ally proposed to go to war with Germany, and were only
prevented by the wise and prudent conduct of France. If
ever a nation could, like an individual, exclaim, " Save me
from my friends,' it is the unfortunate State of Denmark.
It is said that Denmark had no reason to rely upon this
country. I deny it altogether. The obstinacy displayed
by Denmark proceeded from the hopes held out to her by
Ministers in this place. (Hear.) The ministerial papers dealt
not merely with the names of the regiments to be sent, but
I saw one of them which even gave the name of the com-
mander. (Hear.) These unfortunate Danes calculated, no
doubt, that they would have assistance direct from this coun-
try. The noble lord, in reply to a question put to him by
the hon, member for Horsham (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) made use
of these words—" I am convinced that if any violent at-
tempt were made to overthrow or interfere with the inde-
pendence of Denmark, those who made the attempt would
find in the result that it would not be Denmark alone with
whom they would have to contend." I think,that is pretty
strong for the First Minister of the Crown ; but he goes
on—" I do not myself anticipate any immediate danger, or,
indeed, any remote danger, which the hon. gentleman
seems to think imperils the peace of Europe arising out of
this Schleswig-Holstein and Danish question." (Hear.) I
think I can prove that the Danish Government did take
that as a promise. Sir A. Paget, in relating, Oct. 14, 1863,
a conversationwhich he had had with the Danish Minister,
states that the Minister said, "If the question must be
settled by an appeal to arms, it had better be now," and ho
went on to remark that "Denmark will not stand alone."
Why, these are the precise words which had fallen from the
noble lord. (Hear.) And again, in reply to a despatch
from the Danish Minister, on Feb, 11, 1864, Earl Russell
gives an assurance that the active assistance of England
will not fail them under the present circumstances. It
should not be forgotten that these despatches have been
considerably curtailed, and I am surprised that the noble
lord opposite (Lord R. Cecil) does not move that the Under
Secretary in this house should be dismissed for mutilating
them. (Laughter.) The pertinacity with which the noble
lord clings to the treaty of 1852—his latest child, the result
of diplomatic dalliance with Russia—(laughter)—is almost
ridiculous. Earl Eussell writes to Sir A. Malet, on 26th
Dec., 18()3, that if anybody has the impertinence to talk of
Christian IX. as a protocol prince he is to interrupt the
speaker. (Laughter.) Sir A. Malet is placed in a most
unfortunate position. and after the first week of interrup-
tion he writes, "It will scarcely be thought surprising in
England that her Majesty's Government exercises scarcely
any influence in Germany as regards this dispute with
Denmark. (Cheers and laughter.) And he goes on to tell
her Majesty's Government, " I have to inform you that
all the publicists of the University are engaged in demon-
strating the invalidity of the London treaty." (Laughter.)
Then, Sir H. Howard, writing to Earl Russell from Han-
over, says, " I regret to say that I have reason to appre-
hend that Count Pahlen is preparing to beat a retreat
from the Treaty of London of 1852." But there is some-

thing more than that. France had been a signitary to that
treaty, Now, what did the Emperor call it ? In a letter
which is open to all the world, he designated it an impudent
convention condemned by events. And there is another
opinion, which is very curious. Lord Woiehouse stated in
another place that ho not only condemned the policy of her
Majesty's Government, but doubted altogether the expe-
diency of such treaties as that of 1352. Treaties like this
must give way to inexorable logic and facts. In spite of
treaties, the noble lord has seen Cracow absorbed, Poland
partitioned, and Nice and Savoy annexed, He has seen the
Treaty of Paris broken through, by which this country
guaranteed that no descendent of Napoleon should sit upon
the throne of France, and he has also declared in this house

that the present dynasty was necessary to the peace of
Europe. (Cheers.) D 3 not, then, tell me that the London
Treaty of 1852 is more sacred in the eyes of this house than
the Treaty of Paris of 1815. Du.• now we have gst a Confer-
ence on the Danish question, and I want to know what is
the object of it. If it be merely to patch up the treaty of
1852, it will be a failure. (Hear, hear.) lam rather sur-
prised that the Government have withheld the replies of
Powers to the_ proposals for this Conference, for I think
there could be nothing more necessary for the information
of this house, and I hope that the house will insist that
those replies shall be laid upon the table. Now, with some
surprise and some regret, I see it is the intention of a dis-
tinguished leader on the other side of the house to move
the previous question. I hope he has entirely made up his
mind on the Danish question, and I think I am entitled to
ask her Majesty's Opposition what is their policy regarding
Denmark. (Hear, hear.) For if merely because Lord
Malmesbury signed the treaty of 1852, it is their intention
to patch up the treaty, and to make a league with France to
enforce the performance of it, then I say that no Govern-
ment, from whichever side of the house it is composed,
which pursues such a policy can hope to gain the confidence
of England. I think the noble lord beneath me (Lord Pal-
merston) may in the absence of any declaration of policy
on the other side of the house, say, in the words of Charles
IL, ° No man will get rid of me to put you in my place."

(Laughter.) I have endeavoured to speak on this question
from the English point of view, and to represent to the
house that this country has no interest in maintaining what
is called the balance of power in the north of Europe, and
interfering in the affairs of another State. However con-
tent the taxpayers of this country may be to pay the bur-
dens imposed upon them of old by foreign statesmen for
interference in foreign affairs, I am sure they are not now
prepared to boar any additional taxation for the sake of an
unjust attempt to meddle with the affairs of Northern
Europe. (Cheers.)

Mr. PEACOCKE moved as an amendment a resolution
approving the avowed policy of her Majest's Government
to maintain at the Conference the Treaty of London of
1852. He gave a brief history of the transactions between
the German Powers and Denmark, and complained of the
tone of some Lord Russell's despatches.
The amendment was seconded by Mr. A. EGERTON', who
expressed his concurrence in the policy recognised by the
Government, and deprecated the adoption of the doctrine
of nationalities.

Mr. G, DUFF thought the best solution of this difficult
question would be obtained by going into Conference, and
leaving the population of Schleswig and Holstein to decide
who should be their ruler.

Lord R. MONTAGU entered upon a long detailed nar-
rative of the transactions between the seTeral Powers, with
occasional comments upon the aetioa of Earl Russell.
Mr. C. BENTINCK accused the policy of the Foreign
Secretary of inconsistency, by applying different principles
of policy to similar cases.
Mr. COCHRANE said he could testify that this country
had lest immensely in moral influence in Europe since Earl
Russell had been at the head of the Foreign Office, his
policy having been contradictory and misleading; and he
read extracts of the correspoudenco in support of this remark.
He condemned the proceedings of the German Powers, and
expressed wong sympathy towards Denmark.

kp. NEWDEGATE urged the importance, political and
commercial, of maintaining the independence of Denmark,
to which our Government, he said, should not hesitate to
give its aid.

Sir H. VER NEY concurred in thinking it important to
uphold the independence of Denmark; the conduct of the
King of Denmark had, however, not merely justified but
obliged the German Powers, as a matter of duty, to obtain
for the Duchies their rights, and the fulfilment of her pro-
mises by Denmark.
Mr. LIDDELL likewise desired the maintenance of the
integrity and independence of Denmark; bui there was
more than one mode of securing them. He did not desire
that the object should be secured by maintaining the Treaty
of 1852. If it was said that that treaty was part of the law
of Europe, that law, which was hastily framed, should be
amended. He believed the treaty contained the seeds of
weakness to Denmark herself. With reference to the
approaching Conference he confessed he had little confi-
dence in the prospect it offered.

Mr. LAYARD confessed that he rose with great reluc-
tance to take part in the discussion. Upon the very eve of
the Conference, it appeared to him extraordinary that this
question should be made a matter of debate in that house.
(:dear.) Were it not for the fear of prejudging so important
a question, he might say a great deal more with respect to
it. Matters of such importance should be discussed with the
greatest calmness, and not dealt with in the rollicking the •
tonic of the hon. member for Liskeard. (Oh, oh.) The hon.
member had dealt with the question upon false principles,
and in a way utterly unworthy of discussion—(ch, oh)—as
he had said once 'before, " Oh, oh" was not en argument.
(Renewed cries of " Oh, oh.) The question of succes-
sion had more to do with the matter than the hon. mem-
ber supposed. It was involved in the greatest difficulty,
and it had puzzled the most learned heads in Germany.
The regulation of that question was the very thing wished
for by all the Powers in Europe, and the only object the
British Government had in view was not the accession of
the son of the Duke of Oldenburg, but what they required
was that somebody should succeed in case the king died
without diroct heirs. He explained that the treaty of 1852,
or any other treaty, was very distinct from a protocol, and
denied that the treaty bound the British Government to
anything like a guarantee. Far from having nothing to do
but sign that treaty, he had a good deal to do in the nego-
tiation of it, and was justly proud that he had done some-
thing for the peace of Europe. Earl Granville also advo-
cated the communication of that treaty to the Diet, but was
opposed by Austria, Russia, and Prussia on the ground that
it was giving the Diet a privilege it had no right to enjoy.
The hon, gentleman had taken great trouble to ascertain
what the attributes of Schleswig-Holstein were. Now, as
far as he (Mr Leyard) could understand, the States of

Schleswig and Holstein had no power whatever ; they were
merely provincial States, their powers were limited, and
they had no powers whatever in a treaty of this nature.
The treaty, however, did not settle the question of succes-
sion at all. At that period there was no Parliament in Den-
mark at all—the Rigsdag (not the Rigsrad) had the power,
and acted as the representatives of the peoples To that
Rigsdag the lave of succession 'Was referred, and after some
disagreement they agreed to repeal the lex regice. That was
the real thing which altered the succession in Denmark, and
not the treaty. That step was communicated to the Diet by
proclamation, and the question of succession was never
raised again until the last few months. With regard to the
position of the duchies and Denmark her Majesty's Govern-
ment had incessantly called upon Denmark to fulfil her
promises; but he admitted she had not done so. The en-
gagements she had entered into were difficult to fulfil. She
had engaged to give equal representation to Schleswig and
Holstein in the Parliament of Denmark ; and that would
have given much larger respresentation to the duchies than
to Denmark. The house had been reminded of an answer
given by the noble lord last year that, under circumstances,
Denmark should not be left alone. Well, the weight given
to that answer was much greater than it deserved. (Ironi-
sal cheers and laughter.) That answer was given before
the death of the King, and when Germany had no legiti-
mate ground of complaint against Denmark on Dee question
of succession. Supposing there had been a wanton aggres-
sion on Denmark without any cause, the British Govern-
ment might have interfered ; but the state of things contem-
plated by the noble lord had never arisen. Her Majesty's
Government had been charged with having promised to
support Denmark, and then abandoned her. (Ironical
cheers from the Opposition.) They never gave Denmark
any promises of support. These papers showed that Lord
Russell never pronounced any encouragement whatever ; all
he promised was sympathy. (" Oh, oh I" and laughter
from the Opposition.) They distinctly told them all along
they would not give them material support. Reference had
been made to a despatch asking France and Russia whether
in the event of any attempt to dismember the Danish mon-
archy, they would give the British Government material
assistance. That result had neverarisen ; but, in consequence
of the representations of the British Government, Austria
and Prussia stated they had not in view the dismemberment
of the Danish monarchy, but, on the contrary, they in-
tended to preserve its integrity. (Hear.) Under these cir-
cumstances, would the British Government have been jus-
tified in going to war with Germany ? As long as they
declared they had no intention of dismemberment of the
Danish monarchy, we had no right to go. [An hon. gentle-
man opposite : No, no.] The hon gentleman gives an
ironical " No ;" and what does that mean but that we ought
to go to war ? (Ministerial cheers, and n cry of " No.")
Well, then, he asked, what did the hon. gentleman mean ?
(Laughter.) Was he to understand that when Austria and
Prussia invaded Danmark the British Government ought to
go to war. (No.) When he said "go to war" it was re-
ceived with ironical cheers, and he asked, What did they
mean ? (Ministerial cheers.) It was said they had dis-
honoured and humiliated the country. (Opposition cheers.)
These assertions were difficult to deal with in that house,
but he confessed he did not see any humiliation in endea-
vouring, as far as possible, to keep this country out of war.
(Counter cheers.) If the hon. gentleman who had given
him those ironical cheers would get up and answer his
speech, let him do so. They were not principles in the
case—they had not been meddling. (Cries of "Oh, oh,"
and laughter.) There was a great deal of difference between
mediation and intervention, and there had been no inter-
vention at all. Unfortunately, her Majesty's Government
had not been able to prevent the war from becoming
generalised into a great European war. He believed that
was what the country thought, and that would be also the
opinion of the house when the question came to be impar-
tially considered. (Hear, hear.)
On the hon. gentleman resuming his seat, Mr. Disraeli
and Mr. Kinglake rose together. There were some calls for
the latter gentleman, but he eventually gave way.
Mr. DISRAELI said—l wish to express to the house
the reasons which induced me to give notice of moving
the previous question on the motion of the hon. member
for Liskeard. lam anxious, on the part of myself and of
many who sit on this side of the house, to take as early
an opportunity as I can to give those reasons, because it
has been stated that proposing the previous question in
this discussion implies a certain degree of confidence in
the foreign policy of her Majesty's Government ; but, as I
am very much indisposed to gain votes under false pre-
tences, I beg to state that I have no confidence whatever in
the foreign policy of her Majesty's Government—(hear,
hear, and laughter)—and that it is not from being animated
by any sentiment of that character that I have given notice
of this contingent amendment. I think the foreign policy
of her Majesty's Government, especially during the past
year, has been such as very justly to occasion great anxiety
and great apprehension in this country. I think that the
course which was pursued in regard to the insurrection in
Poland—a matter which is intimately connected with this
affair of Denmark—was one which certainly disentitled it
to the confidence of this house. I have before referred to
the total want of system which seemed to characterise the
management of foreign affairs by the present Administra-
tion, and I think the climax of mismanagement was reached
in the conduct of her Majesty's Government with respect
to the Polish insurrection, and its diplomatic communica-
tion on that subject both with France and with Russia.
The noble lord (Palmerston), on both occasions when I ex •
pressed that opinion, said that I was dissatisfied with the
Government because they had not gone to war with Russia
in the interests of Poland. I should have thought that if
the Government of England had gone to war with Russia
for Poland, although I, as every other man in this house,
look upon the partition of Poland as one of the most de-
plorable events of modern times—(hear)—still I should
have looked upon the fact of England last year going to
war with Russia for the sake of Poland to have been an
act of insanity—not less an act of insanity than going
to war with Germany, which her Majesty's Ministers
appear to have been quite prepared to do only a few
months ago. In conducting those negotiations, we held
out expectations to France of co-operating with her in
regard to the Polish insurrection, which we were not jus-
tified in doing, because the course which we apparently con-
templated was opposed to every principle of English policy
which any English Minister was authorised at any time to
contemplate. Her Majesty's Government took a line with
regard to the insurrection in Poland which anticipated the
traditionary policy of France ; and when France—encou-
raged by those representations, by speeches in this house,
by despatches out of every regular course of diplomatic com-
munication, and by extraordinary statements made by Earl
Russell—was taking a line and preparing to follow a policy
which she believed to be perfectly consonant with her in-
terests, we were under the necessity of suddenly drawing
back and leaving France in a position which she has can-
didly acknowledge(' was ono which impaired her dignity and
self-respect in the eyes of the world. I say we were not juse
titled in taking such a course, It has been one of the gravest
errors of modern times so to have managed our negotiations
with Russia with respect to Poland, that we should have
placed a Power like France in so false a position. The in-
direct consequences of that act in influencing the position of
Denmark aro great and deplorable. This question of Den•
mark and the duchies, originally a small question, consider-
ing their population and resources, it is impossible to sup-
pose could have reached the present deplorable condition if
there had been what there was originally, a thorough
understanding and a sincere similarity of opinion on the
matter between England, France, and Russia. That un-
derstanding, as regards France, had been destroyed by your
haughtily and even rudely refusing her proposition for a
Congress. Almost within 48 hours of that refusal you were
obliged, as it were, to appeal to her for assistance in this matter
of Denmark and the duchies, which has led to the serious
result of a bloody and destructivo war, which has shaken
the peace of Europe, and may not even now be settled with
out a general outbreak of hostilities. That being the state of
affairs, it may possibly be said to gentlemen on this side,
If these are your views,
why have you not brought this
state of the management of our foreign relations before the
consideration of the House for their adjudication ? I think
myself, the answer to that is perfectly satisfactory. The
state of affairs I have sketched existed before Parliament
met. It was after Parliament was prorogued last sear that
the crowning absurdities of our negotiations with Russia
were accomplished. It was during the recess that the
estrangement with France, on account of our refusal to as-
sent to the Congress, occurred ; and it was before Parlia-
ment met that the state of affairs with regard to Denmark
the table of the house, and which are
had assumed their most critical character, 'When Parlia-
ment met, we were without the documents which are usually
placed immediately on
the only foundation upon which you can with success move
in a matter of this kind in the House of Commons. It is
very well for the hon. member opposite (Mr. B. Osborne)
to get up without any responsibility, make a notion, and
say to me, or to other gentlemen on this bench, " Why did
you not come forward and declare your policy ? and if you
disapprove of the foreign her Majesty's Govern-
ment,policy of
why did you not ask the opinion of the house upon
it." At no time should a vote amounting to a vote of
want of confidence be lightly brought forward ; but I
maintain that in the present state of Europe, and in the
present position of nearly balanced parties, to bring
forward a question innugning the foreign policy
of the Government, without at the same time having
every reasonable chance and condition of success, would be
an act of the greatest imprudence and of the most unjus-
tifiable character. In bringing forward such a question,
the two conditions which I hold to be absolutely necessary
to any chances of success were, first, that we should have
all those documents which the House of Commons has a
right to expect from the Government in explanation and
vindication of their policy; and, secondly, that we should
be in possession, of sufficientinformation, and that the Mini-
ster should not be able to answer us by saying, "Negotia-
tions are going on; you are interfering in those negotiations,
and you must take the responsibility of such a course."
Now, how have we been placed in regard to these two con-
ditions ? In regard to the possession of papers, it was nearly
four weeks after Parliament met that we had what may be
called the first batch of papers. It was not till after Easter
that we got the remainder, and then we were told that the
prospects of a conference amounted almost to a certainty.
Under these circumstances, I say that gentlemen on this
side were not justified in bringing forward a formal vote of
censure on the foreign policy of the Government, (Hear.)
The Conference is to meet to-morrow, and I shall not be

surprised to hear that an armistice is the first thine to be an-
nounced. It is a necessary consequence of events which
consider disgraceful and deplorable—(cheers)—but which
still are events of great magnitude. We are on the eve of
this Conference. It is to meet in this city, in this parish,
within the sound of the bell which we hear at the present
moment—(a laugh)—and this is the moment when we are
asked to gite an opinion on the present state of affairs. The
motions before the house are suggestions of ,bases for the
Conference. Now, I beg leave to say that, though I should
bo the last man to diminish the attributes and functions of
the House of Commons, I do not think the House of Com-
mons is exactly the place where the basis of a Conference
ought to be devised. (Hear.) Then what course ought we
to take ? My opinions on public affairs have been intimated
pretty freely since Parliament met, although I have not felt
justified in asking the house to pass a formal censure on
the Government. But I reserve to myself the right. (Op-
position cheers.) The session is not yet at an end, and why
should we hurry to a decision. Before Easter we were
taunted because we did not ask the opinion of the house on
the foreign policy of the Government. It is the fashion
now to taunt the Oppoehion because they have not a policy;
but_it should be remembered that we are the con stitutiona'.
critics of public affairs. The originators of measures—the
individuals who come forward with schemes and sugges-
tions for public approbation—are not the Opposition, but
the Ministers of the Crown ; and we sit here to criticise the
suggestions which they bring forward, (Hear.) With fe -
gard to the management of Danish affairs, my opinion is
the same which I have expressed. It appears to me that
it is entirely owing to the conduct of their negotiations with
regard to Poland that we have come to this deplorable con-
dition which we have now occupied for many months. As
to the argument of the Under-Secretary, "Are you for
war, or are you not ? there is the issue," I deny the whole
affair. (Cheers.) Things have been so managed by the
Government that they are brought into a position which, if
they had managed affairs with earnestness, and at the same
time with conciliation, they would never have occupied.
And this position of the Government is one which may
some day or other drift us into a war. And now I have
given to the house the reasons why it has not been in
our power to raise the question of confidence in the Go-
vernment of the country with those fair conditions of
success which a man who counsels such a course in Par-
liament would be mad if he did not command. (Op-
position cheers.) It would have been an act of absolute in-
sanity for us to have brought forward such a motion if the
Government could say, ",You have not got the requi-
site information, and you are bringing forward the ques-
tion when we are about to carry on negotiations for its
settlement." Now that this conference is about to assemble,
and, as I hope and believe, with a speedy if not an imme-
diate announcement of an armistice, I cannot undertake the
responsibility of challenging the Government and throwing
additional obstacles in the way of the difficult task they have
to accomplish. (Cheers.) But at the same time I do not
want our situation to be misunderstood. We reserve our
right, as we have done from the first, to ask the house to
give their opinion on the course taken by her Majesty's
Government with respect to the management of their foreign
affairs. (Opposition cheers.) It is, I think, one of the first
duties of those who are the leaders of parties to take care
not always to fight their battles on ground selected by their
opponents. (Cheers.) We consider that wo are the best
judges of the question; but do not let the house suppose
that, in making this motion of the previous question, any
degree of confidence is implied on our part in the conduct
of foreign affairs—(laughter)—and do not let the noble lord
and his colleagues for one moment suppose that we shall
not take the first fitting opportunity to ask the house to give
its judgment on that policy, (Loud cheers,)
Lord PALMERSTON—I should have hoped that the
right hon. gentleman had been sufficiently aware of the
feeling that we have with regard to his judgment, and the
judgment of those who follow him, in respect to our con-
duct. We never could have fallen into the delusion of
supposing that he reposed confidence in us. (Hear, hear.)
We do not expect it ; it is not in the nature of things
that we should ; and I can assure him that the dis-
claimer on his part was by no means necessary.
(Laughter.) But it it had been in doubt, that which had
fallen from the right hon. gentleman would have been well
calculated to dispel it, and to give us a right view of the
matter. I did not, however, expect that, in a debate on
Danish affairs, we should have been called upon to discuss
the question of Poland or the question of the ,:ongress. But
the right hon. gentleman, in blaming our conduct through-
out the whole of the transactions to which ho has referred,
has omitted, so far as I can follow him, to explain what it
was we ought to have done. He has blamed us for what
we did, but he has omitted to state in what a• pect our con-
duct might have been altered for the better. The right hon.
gentleman has blamed the conduct which we putsued in re-
gard to the affairs of Poland, but ho has said that it would
have been insanity in the English Government to have gone
to war with Russia on behalf of Poland. Well, then, what
other course would he have had us to pursue ? Are we to
infer that,while on the one hand he considered war to be in-
sanity, on the other hand he thought silence could have been
prop-r? It was impossible that the English Government
could have been silent on the affairs of Poland, for scarcely
a foitaight passed last year without an expression ea the
part of members of this house, and more especially of mem-
bers on the other side of the house—(Ministerial cheers)—
urging the Government to take steps to remonstrate with
the Russian Government upon what was believed to be a
violation of the engagements of the Treaty of Vienna with
regard to Poland. And we were urged not only to express
our own opinion, but the opinion of this house and of the
country; and we were urged not only to express English
opinion, but also to endeavour to oollect in a body the
opinions of all the Powers of Europe, in order
that the affected opinions of Europe might sway
the Government of Russia, and induce them to
do that which they ought to have done. The steps we took
with regard to Poland were steps which were urged upon
us by the opinion of this house and the public opinion of
the country, and we should have been liable to a vote of
censure if we had not done that which the unanimous
opinion of the house and of the country called upon us im-
peratively to do. Therefore, sir, until the right hon. gen-
tleman tells us what we ought to have done, we are
entitled to say that the conduct we have pursued with
regard to Poland does not deserve the censure which he has
passed upon us. War, as he said, would have been unfit-
ting. Diplomatic interference was repeatedly urged upon
us, and we were told that we ought to endeavour to collect
the opinions of all the other Powers of Europe. We did
so, and we failed in our object, but the failure was not our
fault. And when the right hon. gentlemen says that we
allured France to a position which led her to humiliation,
I utterly deny that statement. (Hear, hear.) There was no
humiliation for France. Like Spain, Austria, and Prussia,
France joined with us in urging upon the Government of
Russia the fulfilment of the obligations of the Treaty of
Vienna. Russia admitted the obligations, and said she
would perform theta when peace and tranquillity were re-
stored, and we, therefore, gained a point, and there was no
humiliation suffered by any of the Powers concerned. That
which we did was in harmony with the wishes of this house
and of the country; and, so far from France being humi-
liated, I say that she acted a part on which she may look
back with satisfaction, although it was not attended with
the desired result. Well, sir, then as to the Congress.
We are brought back to a discussion on that subject.
I think when the question was discussed in this
house, we gave unanswerable reasons why we should
not accept the offer which was made to us; and as
for our giving a rude answer, I utterly deny that there was
anything rude in our answer. We put forward a plain state-
ment of the reasons why we thought the Congress would
lead to no useful result, and why we did not feel ourselves
at liberty to accept the offer made to us. So far as regards
that which has gone by. No, Sir, the right hon. gentleman
has at considerable length stated the reasons why he, and
those who act with him, have not thought fit, in respect to
this Danish affair, to call upon the house to pronounce an
opinion as to the policy of her Majesty's Government. I, in
all sincerity, think the right hon. gentleman has made out a
case to the satisfaction of his own party—(laughter)—for I
admit that there has been no moment at which, consistently
with parliamentary practice, and with the real interests of
his party, he could properly have called upon the house to
express an opinion on the transactions which are going on.
But that was no fault of ours. (Hear, hear.) We gave him
the papers as soon as they were ready to he presented, and
we gave him the papers up to the latest moment. But these
transactions were going on from week to week and from
month to month, and consequently there was no moment at
which we could give him up to the very time all papers
which had passed up to that moment. We could only give
them by instalments, and the right hon. gentleman was
right in saying that, having these papers always iu arrear,
he would al ways have been met by the statement that cir-
cumstances had changed since the period up to which the
papers came, that negotiations were going on, and that
any discussion on the subject might be prejudicial. The
right hon. gentleman stated two reasons why he could not
hope for success in such a motion; and I quite admit the
weight and justice of those reasons. Perhaps, however,
I may presume to suggest a third reason, which may
not have occurred to the right honourable gentleman's
mind—that the opinion of the house and of the couatry in
respect of these negotiations is such, that he could not hope
for success; (Cheers and laughter.) I think the right hon.
gentleman is right in the course which he has pursued, or
means to pursue this evening. For the reasons stated by
my hon. friend in the outset of his speech, it is exceedingly
difficult for a member of the Government, on the eve of a
Conference consisting of the representative of different
Powers duly aesembled to discuss a great and important
European event, to speak without the greatest reserve upon
matters which are to be the subject of discussion and delibe-
beration in that Conference. 'Therefore I am precluded by
the condition in which we stand from following my hon.
friend the member for Liskeard in the long and elaborate
discussion which he made at the beginning of the evening
on the general question connected with Danish affairs and
the treaty of 1852. All I can say is, that I repeat what my
hon. friend the Under Secretary has said—that perpetual
confusion arises from not defining and bearing in mind the
distinotion between a protocol and a treaty—a protocol being
simply an engagement by plenipotentiaries, which may be
disc vowed by the Government, and a treaty being a docu-
ment not only signed by the plenipotentiaries, but ratified
by the hands of the sovereign, and therefore binding upon
the state whose sovereign has signed the treaty. The treaty

of 1852 is a document of that description, and my noble
fribrid et the head of the Foreign Office is perfectly justified
in telling his plenipotentiary, when anybody talked of the
treaty of 1852 as an instrttrnent which may be violated,
that he must remind them that it was a treaty which every
sovereign who had ratified it was bound to observe.
(Hear, hear.) All the Powers who are parties to that
treaty, and whose plenipotentiaries are to meet to-mor-
row, acknowledge the validity and obligation of the
treaty of 1852, and therefore the case which is contem-
plated by the questions and answers to which allusion has
been made, of the intended dismemberment of the Danish
monarchy, has not arisen. As fares any share which fell to
my lot in the preparation of that treaty, I am proud to have
had anything to do with the conclusion of that arrange-
ment ; but the merit of concluding the treaty rested with
the Government of Lord Derby. Lord Malmesbury signed
and concluded the treaty itself; and, therefore, if there is
merit it must be divided between us, and if there is blame
the right hon. gentleman must share it. (I laugh.) I think
then the course which the right hon. gentleman proosed to
take is the right course for the house on the present ques-
ti,n. I think that for this house, on the eve of the meeting
Othe Conference of the different Powers who concluded the
treaty of 1852, for the purpose of endeavouring to restore
peace and establishing an armistice—l think that any strong
expression of opinion of this house would tend to impede the
successtul result of the negotiations which are going to tette
place. Therefore I concur with the right hon. gentleman,
that the course which this house can most usefully take on
the present occasion will be to concur with him in his mo-
tion for the previous question, and I am prepared to be his
follower upon this question—(laughter)—and so far to give
him that omfidence which he refuses to give to me, and fol-
low him into the lobby on the motion of the previous ques-
tion. (Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. KINGLAKE said it was with the greatest reluc-
tance he found himself obliged to rise to address the
house after the two leaders of the house had spoken.
He merely rose in conseqaence of having an amend-
ment on the paper. The noble lord began by say-
ing that the near approach of the Conference
was a circumstance which forced upon him so great
reserve that anything like free discussion was impossible.
But the amendment which he (Mr. Kinglake) had given
nutice of was founded upon the noble lard's want of reserve.
It was founded on the fact that the noble lord, a few days
ago while knowing that the Conference was impending,
came down to that house and stated that the present King
of Denmark was to be declared to be in the Conference the
lawful Sovereign of the people of the duchies, He entirely
agreed with what had fallen from the Under-Secretary
when he stated that there was no justification for a war
with Germany on the part of England in this matter. Now
that it was known there was to be no war, this country was
open to the taunts of those enemies who said that England
was acknowledging by her acts that she was bound in
honour to go to war for Denmark, but not do so in reality.
He could no; but think that it was a lamentable state of
things to establish, and :one that was attended with
danger. He thought that it was of great importance for
the honour of this country to show that it did not cling to
peace for any base motive, but because a war would be alto-
gether unjustifiable. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, the
hon. member deprecated their misinterpreting the principle
of nationality—a principle for which in other cases England
had shown such respect, and placing themselves in antagon-
ism to Europe, not in order to prevent war, but to obstruct
peace. (Hear, hear.)
No other member rising to address the house, the Speaker
was about to put the question, when

Colonel W. PATTEN invited the right hon. gentleman's
attention to the fact that there were three amendments
before the house—(cries of No, no)—and he wanted to
know what would be the effect of their votes. For his part
he intended to vote for the previous question, and in order
that that amendment might eventually come before the
house, he believed their proper course was to vote for the
motion of the lion, member for Liskeard in the first instance
Mr. B. OSBORNE—I believe I shall simplify this
question by saying that I am so satisfied with the dis-
cussion which has taken place—(ironical laughter)---s 0 satis-
fied with the reserve displayed by the Under Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, in his new capacity as the representative
of decency and delicacy—(much laughter, and cries of " Oh,
0110)-80 satisfied with the reserve of the noble lord—and,
abuve all, so convinced that this treaty of '52 is a dead letter
(loud cries of hear, hear, and no, no)—which will never
patch up the so-called integrity of Lew:nark. (No, no.)
Well, we shall see that; I am content to be justified by the
event. But so satisfied am I upon all these points, that I
shall simplify the course of matters by—like the noble lord
—becoming a follower of the right hon. gentleman opposite
for this occasion. (Laughter.)
Mr. PEACOCKE —ln that case I do not press my
amendment.

Mr. B. OSBORNE—I beg to say that I withdraw my
motion. (Cries of no, no.)
The SPEAKER said that if the hon. member was not
permitted to withdraw his motion, that would be the oppor-
tunity to move the previous question.
Mr. DISRAELI then moved the previous question,
which was eventually carried ; Mr. Osborne's motion being
negatived without a division.
COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND).

Mr. O'HAGEN moved for leave to introduce a bill
amending the constitution and the procedure of the Irish
Court of Chancery, which was grounded upon the report of
the Irish Law and Equity Commission.

After some discussion,
Mr. P. HENNESSY moved the adjournment of the
debate.

The house divided. The motion wfje lost by a majority
of 23, the numbers being 28 for the motion and 57
against it.
Mr. WHITESIDE then moved the adjournment of the
house.
Colonel DUNNE seconded the motion.
Mr. O'HAGAN, under these circumstances, declined to
press the introduction of the bill then.