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

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

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

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

there are exigencies in all parties; there may be'people who
are disagreeable—still we can't get rid of them (laughter) ;
and I believe that is precisely the present mind of the noble
lord. (Renewed laughter.) The noble earl had been sent to
another place, where it was supposed he might retire from
power, and if that had been the case I am quite sure the
noble earl would have found himself a very happy man,
and I am equally sure that the country would have been
happy too. (Laughter.) That is my opinion of the con-
duct of Earl Russell, (Hear, hear.) Then we come to
the motion of the right hon. gentleman. To support that
motion it is not enough, for me to say that I find fault
with you (pointing to the Treasury bench;, I must have him.
(Hear, hear.) Now I honestly say that, with all the faults
of the present Administration, I would rather have them
than those who seek to supplant them. (Cheers upon the
Ministerial bench.) I don't think that will be satisfactory
to gentlemen on this (the Opposition) side; still such is my
feeling, and such is the reason why I intend to vote for the
noble lord opposite. (Ministerial cheers,) It is not because
I believe his Government is the best that the country can
afford, (An hon. member : " Roebuck.") Ido not think
that interruption courteous—it is hardly fair, and therefore
I pass it by. (A laugh.) Ido not think the Government
of the noble lord the beat the country could form ; but I

think it a better Government than the one that would take
its place if this resolution were passed. I find fault with
what they have done. I think they have come short of
what they might have done in many things, both in their
home policy and their foreign policy. But, with all their
shortcomings, I prefer them. Sir, there is something more
I wish to say on the subject. (Laughter, and ironical cries
of " Hear, hear," en the Opposition benches.) I think I
have said enough to make my opinions plain. I don't be-
lieve I please gentlemen on this side—l don't believe I
please gentlemen on the other side—of the house. But,
with all that, I feel my country goes with me in what I
have uttered. (Hear, hear.) I think many things might
have been done which would have prevented bloodshed
upon this occasion. I think if the noble lord had the power,
as he has the wish—if he had taken a bold stand at first—
he might have put an end to the arrogance and injustice of
the German Powers. My notion is that if you had told
the German people the moment they attacked Denmark
they must expect England for a foe—if you had steadfastly
acted upon that, and sent your fleet to the Baltic, you would
have had no more trouble with Germany. (Cheers.) Yen
may talk about the effect of railroads; but 1
want to know, is there any people—and more especially
the German people—who can maintain themselves without
foreign commerce? Oar fleet would have swept from the
sea the whole mercantile navy of Germany. With that
threat I believe they would have been wise in time, and
would have abstained from that injustice which they have
now perpetuated, and which they will long deplore.
Mr HOB,SMAN observed that the motion contained two
propositions—one, that the policy of the Government had
failed ; the second, that the failure had been so injurious to
our national influence that the Government ought to be
blamed. The first was admitted ; the facts, in his opinion,
did not justify the second. The House, he contended, had
acquiesced in the policy of the Government, it had even
directed that policy. He insisted that, according to consti-
tutional principles, it was the duty of the House to scrutinize
our foreign policy as much as a bill upon a domestic subject.
By holding their peace the Opposition incurred a complicity
in every act of the Government, and a responsibility fur the
consequences. The policy of the Government was only
ministerial, and if the country had been dishonoured it veal
not by the Ministry, but by Parliament. Aftet alluding to
the conduct of the Opposition upon the Polish question, he
discussed the doctrine of non-interference in the domestic
government and the internal arrangement of other nations,
and to this construction of the phrase he gave his full and
unqualified assent. But Mr Cobden's definition went a great
deal further,and he (NlrHorsman) could not consent to place
this country in a state of isolation and seclusi'on. He then con-
sidered the position of this country in relation to the Danish
question, and condemned the policy adopted by the Go-
vernment as an injudicious and dangerous policy, whiCh
had plunged them into difficulties. The Treaty of 1852
was a bad measure, but the Government could not have
repudiated it. They ought, however, to have proposed to
the contracting Powers to annul it, and substitute a decla-
ration binding the parties to defend Denmark. Unfor-
tunately, they took their stand upon the treaty, and rashly
plunged headlong into all the embarrassments of the ques-
tion; our diplomacy was unskilful, and a stroke of Lord
Russell's pen let loose an army of German fillibustere upon
Denmark. He pursued the history of these transactions,
pointing out, as he proceeded, what he regarded as the
errors of our policy, but for which, he thought, the free soil
of Denmark would never have been polluted by German
troops. Then it was sail the Conference had been a failure.
Did not the Opposition know it would be a failure ? Would
it not have been better to have denounced it at the time?
But Mr. Disraeli not only did not originate a discussion
upon the subject, but ho would not allow of a discussion,
but threatened to strangle a motion to raise a discussion by
" the previsus question." The Government, he observed,
had made mistakes, but their opponents had endorsed
them; 60 the parties were pretty much upon an equality.
The motion bore upon the face of it two objects—to con-
demn the Government as much as possible, and to compli-
ment their opponents as little as possible. It affirmed no
principle, it enunciated no policy. He was afraid the Go-
vernment had established no claim to confidence ; but for
the mistakes of a Government there was always an excuse.
The. Opposition had, however, done nothing to prevent or
remedy these mistakes, but endeavoured to use them as a
steppingstone to power. Public policy did not re quire that
at that critical moment the present Government should be
displaced in order to make way for those who had shown
more weakness and less courage.
Mr. S. FITZGERAL ll—Late as the hour is, I trust that
the house, after the somewhat personal allusion which the
1-1; hon. gentleman has made to me, will permit me to
rigs— observations. I must confess that among the
address a Se.. -needles which I have heard the right
Man/ eernerkahle be eeech which he has delivered '
to-
hon. gentlerhett make the ee 19 (Opposition cheers.)
night has been the molt ternerkae...
For nearly two hours he I:trig mddrente, the house, and I
think until the concluding sentence ollefe s Keen there must
have been members who were perfectly ignotmet as to e hat
the tote was which the right hen. gentleman was abnset to
give—(cheers)--because with singular impartiality, he first
blamed the Governnstent—he told them that their adminis-
tration was disastrous, that their conduct had humiliated
England, and then he turned round to the Opposition and
said " You have no responsibility, but you are just as bad,
and I hwie as little confidence in you." But if his speech
was singular in this teerteet I think it ev e somewhat more
singular in the very novel theory he has offered to the
house as to what in this country should be the conduct of
foreign politics, because he has told us that in questions of
foreign polities the rifles of Government was merely Minis- ,
terial—(Opposition cheers)—until the House of Commons
were possessed of the facts with which the Government had
to deal. In seeking thus to convert the House of Com-
mons into a foreign office, in seeking thus to transfer to this
house the conduct of foreign affairs, I think the right hon.
gentleman has shown (as the hon, and learned member for
Sheffield did before him) what the effect of such a transfer '
would be. What, according to the hon. and learned gen-
tleman (Mr. Roebuck) is to be the nature of the diplomatic
language of this country ? The hon. and learned gentle-
man thought by transferring the se great questions in this
house we should conciliate foreign powers, and best consult
the dignity of this country ; and he exemplified the theory
by applying to other nations the term of highwaymen and,
I think swindlers ; while the right hon. gentleman hafesaid
that one party with whom we have to deal were robbers, and
the others hypocrites and filibusters, The right hon gentle-
man's theory of the administration of foreign politics is
novel and unconstitutional, and I venture to think that the
results of such an administration as he looked to see estab-
lished would be most unsatisfactory, and dangerous to the
interests of the country. But before I come to deal with
the question more directly before the house, I should 117;0
to put the right hon. gentleman right as to the statement
he made in reference to the course pursued by hon. gentle-
men on this side of the house with rc'erence to the case of
Poland last year. In the first place the right hon. gentle-
man says the course pursued by the Government was forced
upon it by the Opposition. Is that so ? The dates prove
that the right hon. gentleman is wrong ; and 1 think the
right hon. gentleman, in assuming to be the censor and
mentor of the whole House of Commons (laughter and
cheers), might as well make himself acquainted with the
facts of the case before he offers such statements. (Cheers.)
First as to dates. The discussion upon the motion of the
hon. member for King's County took place on Feb. 27.

Mr. HORSMAN—I said so.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD—What was the date of Lord
Russell's condemnation of Russia ? The 21st February.
(Cheers) 'What was the date of that letter which has been
so much complained of with reference to the conduct of
Prussia ? It was the 18th February. What was the date of
the despatch of Lord Russell asking for concert and har-
monious action with France ? It was the 27th February,
the very date of the debate. (Opposition cbeers,) Now,
when the right hon. gentleman again attempts to defend a
Government upon the ground that a course of policy has
been forced upon it by the Opposition, I hope he will take
care to be more correct in his dates. The right hon. gen-
tleman is equally wrong as to the course pursued by the
Opposition. lie says that I was one of those who forced
upon th 3 Government that course of conduct which was
afterwards so disastrous and unsuccessful. I beg the right
hon. gentleman's pardon. I certainly spoke—and I hope
I shall never hold my tongue when I think I am called
upon to speak in this house —my true and honest senti-
ments with reference to the case of Poland. I urged
then strongly that the house should adopt the motion of
my hen. friend the member for King's County, be-
cause 1 thought it would be a way of avoiding war,
and might prevent France from putling herself at the head
of a great European movement in favour of Poland, and
tht-A it would lead to d;plomatic action in concert with this
country and Austria. Eu.t granting, then, that that was
the position we took, is it because that is what we recom-
mended to the Government, the Opposition are to be re-
spomible for the bungling and incapable manner in which
they carried out that policy? What we find fault with the
Go vernment for is this, not that they expressed the honest
sentiments of this country in fa—our of Poland, but that,
after inducing France to act with them, they fLed language
more violent than that of France and more violent than
that of Austria, (Chc.'cre,) And then we have the an-

nouncement by the Foreign Secretary that this violent hen-1
guage was to go for nothing, and that England would never
draw the sword for Poland. We do not find fault with the
resolution on the part of the noble lord that this country
should not draw the sword for Poland ; but what we do find
fault with is this—that he should have used language so
violent and extravagant, and, having induced his allies to
join him, that he should then paralyse them in the middle
of the transaction by the announcement that England would
not draw the sword for Poland. I will now pass that by
and come to the question before the house. Sir, I must
confess that the debate has, in some respects, been an in-
structive debate. We have often known members denounce
a government, and then afterwards to be found with and
supporting them. But this is the first time we have been
in a debate of this character. We have now been discuss-
ing this question for two nights, and, with the exception
of the noble lord the member for Hastings, although there
have been many members who have addressed us on both
sides of the .house, independently of official members
and members of her Majesty's Government, no member
has ventured to say one word in defence of the
policy of the Government. On every hand there has been
a chorus of condemnation, and it seems to me as if hon.
members have tried to rival each other as to who could
apply the strongest blame and censure to the Government.
This we have known often in the case of those who are the
regular supporters of Governments. The question is treated
by the Government as one of confidence—that is the posi-
tion in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put it,
not as a question merely regarding the success of particular
negotiations, or regarding the conduct of affairs in particular
and difficult circumstances, but as a vote of want of confi-
dence in their foreign policy. Then what astonishes me is
that it should not be those who are the regular supporters,
of the Government, but those who call themselves indepen-
dent members, who often are the first to censure the Go-
vernment; and who now, when a question is brought for-
ward involving confidence in the Government,ma ke speeches
saying they have not the slightest confidence, that the Go-
vernment have disgraced and humiliated the country, and
brought us to the point of war, and then, headed by the
hon. member for Rochdale, notwithstanding all this, give a
vote of confidence in the Government. (Cheers.) Well, I
see opposite the hon. member for Bridgwater (Mr Kinglake),
who assumes also, and justly, I believe, the position of an
independent member. The hon. member for Bridgwater
blames the resolution of my right hon. friend the member
for Bucks as being remarkable for its reservation ; but the
amendment of the hon. gentlemen is one of extreme reserve,
because it seeks to pass by the whole transactions of the last
few months, transactions with respect to which the conduct
of the Government is challenged. The hon. member for
Rochdale says he shall not vote for the motion of my right
hon. friend the member for Bucks, because he can adopt the
words of the amendment of the hon. member for Bridgwater,
and that those words announce peace—an object dear to all
of us. But behind us is the member for Warwickshire, and
that hon. gentleman says he will vote against the resolution
of my right hon. friend—not on the ground of peace, but
because the noble lord has left open the door of escape
from war. Sir, of all the speeches delivered in this debate
none I think has been more remarkable than the speech of
the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
(Hear, hear.) I must confess that nine times out of
ten when that right hon. gentleman addresses the house he
fairly puzzles me. (Laughter.) When the right hon. gentle •
man addresses us on commercial subjects all must admit his
lucidity; but into other subjects, foreign or domestic, the
right hon. gentleman introduces so much subtlety, and
draws such fine distinctions, that I hardly know whether
he deceives himself by his ingenious fallacies or intends to
deceive others. (Cheers.) A remarkable instance of this
faculty occurred in the speech of the right hon. gentleman
last night ; for, in language more forcible than courteous—
(hear, hear)—he took exception to my right hon, friend the
member for Bucks, because, as he said, he made quotations
which were not fair. (Hear, hear, and counter cheers, and
hear from Mr Layard.) The hen. member for Southwark
(Mr Layard) endorses that view, and he not only endorses
it, but the temper and style of the speech in which it was
conveyed. (Cheers.) Then the right hcn. gentleman at-
tempted to explain away the famous words of the noble lord
at the head of the Government, which he uttered in reply to
a question from me at the end of last July. The right hon.
gentleman said that at that time France and Russia were
in accord with us, and that if Denmark were attacked she
would not stand alone, and that the right hon. gentleman
meant to say that France and Russia held the same senti-
ments with the English Government. floes the hon. mem-
' ber for Southwark, as a candid man—(cheers)—mean to
say for a moment that that is the sense in which those
words were used ? (Uheers, cries of "Yes," and counter
cheers.) If these words were placed before any number of
plain-spoken, plain-thinking Englishmen, I will undertake
to say that they would not interpret them in the non-
natural sense. I would much rather believe that they were
spoken by the noble lord in that spirit which has always
distinguished him—in a spirit of generosity for the week
beaten down by the strong, and that they could only be sub-
verted by events over which he had no control. The right
hon. gentleman accused my right hon. friend of omitting
that part of the despatch in which M. Drouyn de Lhu}s
said that in declining the proposal of England no indiffer-
ence was felt for the cause of Denmark. The right hon.
gentleman does not see that that makes the case much
stronger against the Government—(hear, hear)—because
M. Drouyn de Lhuys said that he declining the proposal
England must not think that he disagreed with her, but
that he declined because in the case of Poland we had led
the Emperor into difficulty incompatible with hi's position
with Europe. I say therefore that my right hon. friend
quoted the despatch fairly, and that what he left out would
have told with greater force against the Government.
(Cheers.) The right hon, gentleman also said that this
country want along cordially with the neutral Powers, and
held exactly the same position with respect to giving notice
to Denmark that she must not expect material assistance;
but the despatch the right hon. gentleman quoted in confir-
mation did not bear him out in his assertion, because from
that despatch of Lord Wodehouse it appeared that France
said she would not give material assistance ; but the Eng-
lish Government said that if Denmark did not follow her
advice she should not be assisted. There are several other
noints on which the right hon. gentleman misquoted my
ti' hon. friend, but at this hour it would be irksome were
I to go ova: them. But one I desire to point out. Through-
out the whole course of his speech the right hon. gentle-
man, though he admitted that the Government had failed,
and had given disastrous ajvice, said the Government were
only partly to blame, as they had acted in common with
the other neutral Powers. (Hear, hear.) Was that the
case. Was our position towards Denmark the same as that
of France or Austria ? Did Prince Gortsd2akoff or M.
Drouyn de Lhuys ever tell Denmark that she would not
stand alone? (Hear, hear.) Did they ever make such a
promise as that made by Lord Wodehouse at Copenhage:ll
and say that probably other countries would interfere. No.
Paring the Conference, though the neutral Powers might
assent to the various proposals, it was England who made
them, and it is idle to throw the responsibility on the
neutral Powers. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman said that
the proposal made by Earl Russell at the Conference was
in every respect the proposal of the neutral Powers. That
was not the ease. Two communications had passed be-
tween the neutral powers on the subject, but when the line
of the Schlei and the Dannewerke was proposed, Russia
refused its assent, and would have preferred the line of the
Eider. As regards the second proposal, I do not think that
any one who has read the statement of the Danish Minister
made in his place, and the statement of Earl Russell made
in his place, can look back at the proceedings of the pleni-
potentiaries at the Conference without feeling that a gross
breach of faith had been committed, and the Danish pleni-
potentiaries ware brought into a dangerous position.
According to the statement of the noble earl, the Danish
plenipotentiaries informed him that they were willing to
accept the line of the Schlei and the Dannewerke without
modification, but that they were not willing to accede to a
Pie
eilongation of the suspension of hostilities, unless Earl
Russet; undertook on the part of the English Government
that he would himself propose nor support any other
frontier line. How
was that engagement evaded ? The
noble lord says that what he proposed was that somebody
if that is in the spirit of
else should form that line. I ass
the engagement entered into with the Danish plenipoten-
tiaries. (Hear, hear.) The Conference bs-eke up. Who
was to blame but the German powers who refuso to accept
the line proposed. The Government wished to be aNe to
say that they could not assist the Danes, owing to their
refusal of the line, when the truth was the British Govern-
ment had pledged themselves not to support any other line.
It was not agreed to by Russia, and, therefore, the right
hon. gentleman's statement that the other neutral Powers
were as much to blame as ourselves, is totally devoid of
foundation. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman has made
curious objections to the resolution of my right hon. friend.
He calls it unpatriotic, and the moment he said so the gen
tleman on the benches behind him cheered. In the depth
of their abasement they seemed glad to find an excuse
which would speak to English hearts. (Hear, hear.) I
have yet to learn that an assertion in this house that the
course of a Minister has lessened our influence can
be truly called unpatriotic. In the great and glo-
rious days of Parliament much stronger expressions were
used without challenge. The resolution not only declares
that the influence of the country has been lessened ; but
that is not the object of the resolution. It calls on Parlia-
ment to censure and condemn those who had reduced it to
such a position. (Cheers.) In my opinion the conduct of those
who object to such a resolution ought rather to be considered
unpatriotic. (Hear.) The amendment of the hon. member
for Bridgwater implies fleet the house should pass over in
silence the conduct of Ministers. (Hear.) When the motion
was first brought forward a number of friends on the other
side said it would not be carried ; but if it was it would not
do to go to the country upon it, as it would fix on this side
a desire fur war, and that they on the other side would get
credit for wishing for peace. I assured them that when the
discussion came on they would not find it easy to say so. I
said it was not true. I also said, if their cry was to bo
" Palmerston and Peace," that I did not think the noble
lord would thank them for coupling his name with that
word. (Hear.) I want to know whether you are a peace
Government. I know that on several occasions you have
been inviting other countries to join you in war. (Cheers
and laughter,) Is that a mark of a peace Government ?
(Cheers.) In thecourse of the discussion the Foreign Minis-
ter had stated that ho had renewed the application to the

Government of France ; and he (Mr. Fitzgerald) heard the
noble lord say that within 24 hours he had received the
reasons ef the French Government for not going to war.
(Hear.) But more : in the whole of the discussions what
had been the excuse of the Government for not going to war?
Not that they loved peace, not that they had never medi-
tated war, but that they dared not go to war. (Heart
hear.) They said that they had tried to induce foreign
Powers to go to war with them, but that they would have:
gone to war it they could have ebtained support. (Hear,
hear.) Then, were the Government entitled to call them-.
salmi a peace Government ? Could they fix upon the
oppos tion the character of being a war opposition ? What
was the complaint of the last speaker? That they could get
nothing out of the opposition with regard to their policy—
not that they would have encouraged war. (Hear,) What
was there that would justify the imputation on the Conser-
vative side of the house of being more anxious for war than
those who sat on the Ministerial side ? (Hear.) The hon.
member for Bradford said he had listened with the greatest
pleasure to the speech of the hon. member for Hun.'ingdon
and that of the noble lord the member for King's Lynn.
But how did the hon. member for Bradford argue? He
said he agreed with every syllable that fell from the noble
member for King's Lynn, except one phrase of two words.
That was the only reason given by the hon. member for
Bradford for fixing on the opposition a war policy. This
was not an accurate statement. He had not heard a single
member of the house, nor had he heard a private individual
assert that England was bound by treaty to defend Den-
mark. Therefore, neither did the Government deserve the
character of a peace Government, nor did the opposition
deserve the character of.a war opposition. It had been said
that the opposition ought to have pointed out a policy. This
had been sufficiently answered. It was not the duty of the
Government, and it never had been the practice for the
opposition to indicate the line of policy they intended to
adopt if they succeeded to power. Weeks or months might
elapse before they would be in possession. tof tte informa-
tion which alone could enable them to form an oidnion even
of the past policy of the Government ; it was, therefore,
impossible to indicate what would be the future policy of
the new Government. He believed that the opposition had
strictly performed their duty in challenging the verdict of
the house on the conduct of the Government, and he be-
lieved that nine members out of ten cordially agreed in the
words of his right hon. friend's resolution. But of this he
was sure, that if the hustings were to be appealed to, as was
threatened, the constituents would believe that the Opposi-
tion had performed their duty in challenging the verdict of
the House of Commons and asking their answer to the
question whether the policy of Ministers had not "lowered
the just influence of this country in the counsels of Europe,
and thereby diminished the securities of peace." (Cheers.)

Mr B. OSBORNE and Mr LAYARD both rose to move
the adjournment of the debate. The motion was carried ;
and it is understood that Mr Layard has caught the
" Speaker's eye," and that he will consequently resume the
debate on Thursday.
PETTY OFFENCES LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
STREET MUSIC (METROPOLIS) BILL.
This bill, as amended, was considered.
INDIA STOCKS TRANSFER AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill passed through committee,
PILOTAGE ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL
This bill was read a second time.
DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS

(IRELANL) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES
(AMENDMENT) BILL.
This bill was also read a third time and passed.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES (VOTING PAPERS)

BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1858) AMENDMENT

BILL.

This bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr BERKELEY obtained leave to bring in a bill to
alter and amend the Poisoned Grain, &e„ Prohibition Act,
1863.

Mr BARING obtained leave to bring in a bill for con-
tinuing various expiring acts.
The house then adjourned.