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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 5, 1864.

nett day by Lord Cowley, representing the opinions of the
French Government. He said—"As to the Four Powers
impressing upon the Diet the heavy responsibility that it
would it .cur, if by any precipitate measures it should break
the pee ce before the Conference which had been proposed
by the; British Government for considering the means of
sett. log the question between Germany and Denmark, and
then eby maintaining the peace, can be assembled. M.
Drot tyn de Lhays observed, that he had not forgotten that
whet a Russia had been warned by France, Great Britain,
and Austria, of the responsibility she was incurring by her
cond:uct towards Poland, Prince Gortachakoff had replied
that "Russia wee ready to assume that responsibility before
God altd man.' He, for one, did not wish to provoke ano-
ther answer of the same sort, to be received with the same
indifference." The interest of the drama deepens. The
next day Lord Russell writes to Lord Cowley, and pro-
poses concert and co-operation with France. Lord Cow-
ley writes the next day to Lord Russell that the French
Governm ant want to know what "concert and co-opera-
tion" me: an. Lord Russell writes that "concert and co-
operation" mean, if necessary, material assistance to Den-
mark. ( Opposition ironical cheers.) That must have
been about the same time that the Cabinet was sitting
to draw up her Majesty's speech, and when we were
being assumd that negotiations were continued in the in-
terests of pe ace. (Renewed Opposition cheers and laughter.)
Now what was the answer of the French Government, when
at last En gland had invited France to go to war, in order
to settle tl to questions between Germany and. Denmark?
The right hon. gentleman then read a despatch from Lord
Cowley Earl Russell, eetting forth that while the French
Emperor recognised the value of the London treaty, a war
with Germany was the most burdensome and hazardous
that France could undertake, especially when he (the Em-
peror) remembered that he was an object of mistrust and
suspicion to Europe, on account of his supposed projects re-
lative to the. Rhine. For these reasons the Government of
the Emperor declined to make any engagement on the sub-
ject of Denmark. Well, after having received that despatch
—although it may be very hard to convince the Secretary of
State—the noble lord might have begun to suspect chat the
great influence of England was lowered in another quarter
of Europe. i(flear, hear.) I have now brought events down
to the point of the meeting of Parliament—but I will not
dwell on -selaat then occurred. When we met there were no
papers b' afore us. I asked for papers, and I felt at the
time that on neither side of the house was there a sufficient
sense of the great importance of the occ sion, and of the
singular circumstance that papers had not been presented to
us. I remember it turned out afterwards that it never was
intended that papers should be presented at the meeting of
Parliament. Subsequently, however, the noble lord at the
head of the Gavernment, treating the matter in his jaunty
manner, said, "You shall have papers, and I wish you joy
of them." That was the tone in which the First Minister
spoke of the most important diplomatic correspondence that
has been presented to Parliament since the treaty of Amiens.
Weeks and weeks elapsed before we were really masters of
the case; but during the interval most alarming and distres-
sing circurstances had occurred—circumstances involving
the great est perplexities. You all remember Jutland ; you
all remember the inquiries made on the subject, and the as-
sarau ces given by the Government. It was impossible for
us to act, because al that time we had not these papers be-
fore us, and the moment we had the Conference was an-
-.flounced Now, one word about the Conference. I myself
had no hope that the Conference would arrive at any advan-
tageous results ; and, after reading these papers, I cannot
fail to perceive that no side wished for a settlement of the
question—except, of course, her Majesty's Government.
(Laughter.) The Conference lasted six weeks, or rather it
wasted six weeks, It lasted as long as a carnival, and, like
a carnival, it was an affair of masks and mystificaions.
(Laughter and cheers.) The summary of the Conference
was this—Her Majesty's Government made considerable
proposals to the Conference. They proposed, first, the dis-
memberment of Denmark. (Opposition cheers.) So mach
for its integrity. (Continued cheering.) They proposed,
secon ily, that the remainder of Denmark should be placed
under the joint guarantee of, the great Powers. They would
have created another Turkey in Europe—the scene of the
same rival intrigues and the constant source of misappre-
hension and frequent wars. Now, I ask the house what is
its opinion with respect to the management of these affairs ?
I have shown at the beginning that this interference of
England originated in a treaty in which we incurred no
obligations different from those of France. I have shown
you, upon the evidence of the Secretary of State himself,
that the position of Franca in regard to Denmark is one
quite magnanimous and free from all perplexities. I have
:shown you, on the other hand, that the position of England
is mast embarrassing, intolerably difficult, and full of humi-
liation. (Cheers.) I have narrated to you how your affairs
are managed—and now, what is your opinion ? Do you see
in the management of these affairs that capacity which is
adequate to the occasion—that sagacity, that prudence,
that dexterity, that quickness of perception, and those con-
ciliatory moods which you always hold to be necessary for
the transaction of your foreign affairs ? (Cheers.) Is that
the knowledge of human nature, and especially that pecu-
liar kind of science most necessary in these affaioi—aknow-
ledge of the character of foreign countries and of the chief
actors on the scene ? For my own part I find all these qua-
lities wanting, and in consequence I see that three results
have accrued—lst, that the avowed policy of England has.
failed; 2d, that our great influence in the councils of
Europe has been lowered—(cheers)-- and 3d, that in con-
sequence of our great influence in the councils of Europe
being lowered, the securities for peace are diminished,
These are the three consequences which have oc-
curred owing to the want of qua.itiee to which I have alluded
and in consequence of the management of these affairs by
the Governm-nt. I need not trouble the house with addi-
tional argument to prove that the Government have failed
in accomplishing their avowed policy of upholding the in-
dependence and integrity of D almark. (Hear, hear.) The-
result rray for the present be thrown aside. I come, there •
fore, to the second. By the just influence of England in
the councils of Europe I mean an influence contradistin-
guished from that which is obtained by intrigue and secret
understandings—l mean the ii:fluence that results from the
conviction of foreign Powers that out resources are great
and that our policy is moderate and stedfast. (Hear.) Since
the settlement that followed the great revolutionary war
England,who obtained at that time, as she deserved to do—
for she bore the brunt of the struggle—all the fair objects
of her ambition, England has upon the whole proceeded on
a Conservative foreign policy. I do not mean by a Conser-
vative foreign policy a policy that would disapprove, still
less oppose, the natural development of nations, but I mean
a foreign policy that is interested in the tranquillity and the
prosperity of the world, whose normal condition is peace—
(cheers)—and which does not ally itself with the revolu-
tionary party of Europe. (Hear, hear.) Other countries
have their political systems and their public objects, as
England has, though they may not be obtained by them
The position of England is, therefore, in the conduct o
public affairs andein the councils of Europe, essentially that
of a moderating and mediational Power. Her interest and
her policy are, when changes are inevitable and necessary,
to assist, so that these changes, if possible, shall be accom-
plished without war, or, if war occurs, that its duration and
its asperity shall be mitigated. That is what I mean by the
just influence of England. It appears to ma that this just
influence of Europe has been—l will not say forfeited, but
has been Bimini-het. Within 12mcnths we have been twice
repulsed at St. Petersburg ; we have supplicated more than
once at Paris ; we have menaced Austria, and Austria has
allowed our threats to pass over like the wind. (Hear, hear.)
We have threatened Pt uesia ; Prussia has defied us. Oar ob-
jurgations have rattled over the heads of the German Diet,
and the Getman Diet has treated them with contempt.
During the last few months there is scarcely any form or
diplomatic interference that has not been suggested and
adopted by the English Government, except a Congress,
(Laughter.) A Conference of Vienna, a Conference of
Paris, a Conference of London, all in their turn have been
suggested. Joint mediation, sole mediation, original
notes, relative notes, ieentic notes, sole notes, or notes
joint and separate. (Laughter.) Couriers have been
scou ins Europe in exuberant rapidity ; and last, and most
r
of all, a Conference was held in the Cabinet of our Queen,
over which the chief Minister of our foreign relations
presided, which was attended with all the pomp and solem-
nity requisite for so great en enterprise ; but we find that
its sittings have been perfectly barren, and the chief Mini-
sters of the Crown closed the proceedings by quitting the
battle .scene of their exertions, and appearing• in the two
Houses of Parliament to tell the country we have no allies,
and because we have no allies England cannot act alone
(Loud cheers by th% ConeervatiYee.) I do not undertake
to do justice to the eaniting boast of the Secretary of State,
in the bitterest rnoraent of his discomfiture, when he seemed
to take consolation for the moment even in the sympathy
and politeness of the neutral powers. I do not grudge
Lord Russell the sighs of Ramia or the smiles of France ;
but I regret that, with the characteristic indiscretion in his
present forlorn state, he should have quitted the Cjnfer-
ence, and to hays taken his seat in the Rouse of Lords to
denounce the peifily of Prussia and to uiZurn over the
ficklene-s of Austria. There wanted but one touch to com-
plete the picture, and it was supplied by the noble lord the
First Minister of the Crown. I listened with astonishment
—(loud cheers by the Conservatives)--1 listened with
netonishment to the noble lord 39 lie denounced the vices
of his victim, and inveighed at the last moment over
te
obstinacy of unhappy Denmark; Denmark which would
rot submit to an arbitration, an arbitration which the
German Powers would not have accepted. And what
ecurity had Denmark, when in the Conference she
could not be assured that the neutral Powers
would have recourse to force to secure her the line of
the Schlei—what security had she that any other line
wou d be secured to her by an unknown arbitrator?
(Hear, hear.) It does appear to me impossible to deny
that, under these eircarnstances, the influence of England,
the just influence of England in the councils of Europe, is
lowered. (Cheers.) Nova I ask, what are the consequences
of this just influence in the councils of Euros• having been
lowered? I say the consequences are, to use a frequent
phrase of despatches, "most serious" because, in exact pro-
portion as the just influence of England in the councils of
Europe is lowered, I say the securities of peace are dimi-
nished. (Hear, hear.) I lay this down as a great principle
which cannot be controverted, in the management of our
foreign affairs. If England has resolved ou a particular
policy, war is not probable; if there be, under the circum-
stances, a cordial alliance between England and France, war

is most difficult ; and if there be a thorough understanding
between England, France, and Russia, I say war is impos-
sible. (Conservative cheers.) These were the ha, py con-
ditions under which her Majesty's Ministers entered upon
this matter, and which they enjoyed when they began to
Manage this question of Denmark. (Hear.) Ts o years ago,
and much less, there was a cordial understanding between
England, France, and Russia upon that question, or upon
any question that might arise. They might look forward
to the future with every confidence in the enjoyment
of peace. (Hear, hear). They might look forward
to a period when they would have accomplished all they
could have desired for the public good. Bat what has hap-
pened ? They have alienated Russia, they have estranged
France, and then they call Parliament together to declare
war against Germany. (Cheers.) Why, such a thing
never happened before in the history of this country ; nay,
more, I say never can happen again. I look upon it as one
of those portentous occurrences that sometimes take place
to humiliate the pride of nations, and to lower their confi-
dence. (Loud cheers.) As difficulties increased—as ob-
stacles before them mounted—as they were multiplied, as a
consequence of their perpetual errors and constant mis-
takes—yet more piteously have they exhibited themselves.
You always find that her Majesty's Ministers are near war.
As in private life you always find that it is the weak who
are violent, so it is with her Majesty's Government, So
long as the cordial feeling with the great Powers existed
they spoke with moderation—they counselled with dignity ;
but, like all incompetent men, the moment they are in
extreme difficulties they conduct themselves in a way that
is ludicrous and false, and the affairs of the country cannot
be arranged by the resources they possess. See the de-
spatches that have been written—that memorable despatch
which was sent to St. Petersburg in January about going
to war against Germany. Then we went twice to Paris,
entreating the Emperor to assist us in consequence of our
mistakes. It is only by giving them credit, as I do through-
out, for complete sincerity of expressions and conduct, that
the behaviour of the Government is at all explicable. As-
sume that their policy was a war policy, and it is quite in-
telligible, but when difficulties arise, then they instantly
have recourse to violence in every word they utter. Every
despatch they write seems to look to a scene of collision.
What is the state of Europe at this moment, produced by
the mismanagement of our affairs ? I know not what other
hon gentlemen may think, but to me it seems most serious.
I find the great German Powers openly avowing that they
have not the capacity to fulfil their engagements. I find
Eurape impotent to vindicate the public law, because a great
alliance has been broken up; and I find a Government of a
great, proud, and generous nation like England, with the
reserve of magnanimity, shrinking from the responsibility
of undertaking war, and sensitively smarting under the im-
pression that her honour is stained, and stained by pledges
which I maintain ought not to have been given, and expec •
tations which I maintain ought never to have been held out
by wise and competent statesmen. (Cheers.) It appears to
me, therefore, obvious that her Majesty's Government have
failed in their avowed policy to maintain the integrity and
independence of Denmark. It appears to me undeniable that
the great influence of England in the councils of Europe
has been lowered, and it appears to me that the consequence
of this lowering of our influence is t o diminish the security
for the maintenance of peace. (Cheers.) And what defence
have we ? If a criticism is made en his ambiguous policy,
the noble lord says to me, " What is your policy ?"
(Ministerial cheers and counter-cheers.) I say my
policy is the honour of England. (Laughter and
cheers.) The honour of England and the peace of
Europe—and the noble lord has betrayed both. (Conser-
vative cheers.) I can understand a Minister coming to
Parliament when there is a question of domestic interest
of the highest character—the emancipation of the Catholics,
the principle on which our commercial code is to be esta-
blished, or our representative system founded. I can under-
stand a Minister, though I think it a weak point, saying
upon these questions he would leave Parliament to decide
what should be their policy. Parliament is in possession of
all the information on these subjects that is necessary or
that can he obtained. Parliament is as competent to come
to judgment as the Ministers themselves upon such ques-
tions. But it is quite a new doctrine in Parliament to ap-
peal to Parliament to initiate a foreign policy. (Cheers.)
That is a prerogative of the Crown, exercised under the
advice of responsible Ministers, It is devised, invented,
carried on in secresy, and justly and wisely so. What do
we know what is going on in Downing-street at this mo-
ment ? For aught I know, the noble lord may have made
this morning another propcsiticn which may light up a
general European war. (Hear, hear.) It is for Parliament
to inquire, to criticise, to support or condemn our foreign
affairs, but it is not for them to initiate a foreign policy, in
absolute ignorance of the real state of affairs. As well might
you ask them to set a house on fire. I go further. He
is not a wise, I am sure he is not a patriotic man, who, in a
crisis like the present, would accept office under conditions
which might be found not only unwise but impossible to
act upon. No, sir, we must not allow her Majesty's Mi-
nisters to escape from their responsibility. (Cheers.) That
is the meaning —that is at the bottom of all these demands
of what is your policy. From the first night we met, on the
4th of February, that has been the question. Parliament
was called together by Ministers in distress to give them a
policy. Parliament has maintained a dignified and discreet
reserve, and now you find in what a position these Minis-
ters have pl,,ced the country. It is not for us to help these
Min'sters in their foreign relations. The most we can do is
ro tell the noble lord what is not our policy. We will not
threaten and then refuse to act; we will not lead on our
allies with expectations we do not intend io fulfil If it
ever be the lot of myself and those with whom I act to
carry out I he important negotiations of this country, as the
noble lord and his colleagues have done, I trust we shall
not at less; carry them on in such a manner as it will be
our thy), to come to Parliament and announce that we have
no ally, aed then to declare that England can never act alone.
(Cheers) These are words which ought never to have es-
caped the lips of any British Minister. (Cheers.) They
are sentiments which ought never to have entered his heart.
(Cheers.) I repudiate and reject them. (Cheers.) I re-
member that there was a time when England had not a tithe
of our resources, when, actuated by a patriotic course, she
triumphantly encountered a world in arms. (Cheers) And,
air, I believe now, if the occasion were fit.ing—if our inde-
pendence and our honour were attacked and assailed—if our
empire were endangered—l believe England would rise in
the magnificence of her might, and struggle triumphantly
for those objects for which men live and nations flourish.
(Loud cheers.) But, sir, I for one will never consent to go
to war to extricate Ministers from the consequences of their
own indiscretion. And it is in this spirit that I have drawn
up this address to the Crown. I have drawn it up in the
spirit in which the Royal speech was delivered at the com-
mencement of the session. I am ready to vindicate the
honour of this country when it is necessary, but I have
drawn it up in the interests of peace. (Cheers.) Sir, I beg
leave to move the address which stands in my name. (Loud
cheers from the Opposition.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who rose
amidst loud cheers, said—Sir, I will venture to assure the
right hon. gentleman that he shall have no ground to com-
plain of any attempt on the part of her Majesty's Govern-
ment to disguise or to escape from their responsibilities.
(Hear, hear.) Whether, indeed, he his rightly discharged
the duties of an Opposition—whether he has successfully
vindicated the large motion he submits to the house—is a
matter, I think, fairly open to inquiry; but as I admit
honestly and fairly that his charges against the Government
are bold and palpable, the first demand is that we should
offer a defence. Therefore I make no apology to gentlemen
who have placed amendments cn the paper, although I can
well understand that the hon. member for Bridgewater (Mr
Kinglake) and the hon. member for Warwickshire (Mr
Newdegate) should, in the interests of England, substitute
questions which really do involve a policy for a motion
which involves none. (Hear.) At the same time it is our
duty, while wholly refraining from any attempt to check
free discussion, to meet the accusations which he has
lavished upon the conduct of her Majesty's Government.
Ndw, sir, it is as well to have something to agree on, and
I am glad to find there is a starting-point which the right
hon. gentleman and her Majesty's Government possess in
common—l mean the starting-point concerning the pro-
ceedings of last summer and early autumn, and the decla-
ration made by my noble friend at the head of the Govern-
ment in the month of July, as being an euthoritative an-
neuncenient by my noble friend of his own opinion that the
Treaty of 1852, entered into for the purpose of maintaining
the independence and integrity of Denmark, would receive
that support from united Europe under which it had origi-
nally Leen framed. I agree likewise he has fairly proved
that my noble friend, in giving that opinion with respect to
the probable conduct, the anticipated conduct, of the other
Powers, patties to that treaty, likewise implied the readi-
ness of the Ministry of which he was the head to take their
part in it. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman has likewise
stated, and fairly stated, that at that period France and
Russia were of the same mind. Up to that simple paint
the right hon. gentleman and the Government are agreed,
and 1 now set on a long and dreary journey of dissent. The
right hon. gentleman says, in the month of September,
there was a total change in the policy of France. I do not
know that it is necessary or expedient that we should enter
at this period upon the course taken by her Majesty's Go-
v rnmrnt wi!la respect to the Polish question. As far as I
know, the Parliament of this country did not in either
house act with regard to Poland on the principle of extreme
reserve, On the contrary, both in the House of Lords and
in the House Commons members did lift up their voices cn
behalf of suffering humanity. (Hear, hear.)
Sir. DISRAELI—Not by us only.
Mr. GLADSTONE—Not in the least ; but I will add
that the most pronounced charge with respect to the
auPposed
conduct of her .)ajesty's Government in
regard to Poland was this—that the noble lord the Secre-
tary of State for Foreign Affairs had, by his declaration at
the commencement of the discussion that we would not
take up arms for Poland, entirely destroyed and crushed the
hopes of the Poles. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentle-
man says there was a change in the policy of France in the
month of September. Was there such a change f The right
hon. gentleman has undoubtedly quoted a despatch of Mr.
Grey to support the staternent which he has made ; and the
right hen, gentleman gracefully apologised to the house for
troubling it by quoting from despatches. I am more dis-
posed to complain of the sins of omission than the sins of
commission. (Laughter, and hear, hear.) But the right
hon. gentleman, while professing to disregard and pass over

the immaterial and irrelevant portions of those despatches,
refers to the mortification which France felt on account of
the refusal of the joint application of the three Powers b'
Russia, and he fairly quoted the resolution of rralace—a re-
solution at which none cant *cinder and none can complain
—to avoid repeating a diplomatic measure of the same cha-
racter as that which had exposed her to the refusal of Rus-
sia. But the right hon. gentleman gave the house to under-
stand, or left it to be inferred, that the meaning of the de-
claration on the part of France was this—" Do not look for
any more co-operation from me with respect to Denmark—
our policy is changed; but if you had stood by us lit the
case of Poland, I would havestood by you in that of Den-
mark. Inasmuch, however, as you abandoned me in respect
to Poland, I will leave you to conduct your own affairs in
reference to Denmark." (Cheers.) Sir, I will give again the
very words of the despatch referred to by the right hon:
gentleman, and you will see whether the words of Mr Grey
were not very definite, and whether they did not bear an
interpretation the most remote from that given by the right
hon. gentleman. The words were written at the time that
he says France was adopting a policy of inaction in refer-
ence to Denmark. What were the words of M. Drouyn de
Lhuys ?—" France may not (his excellency said) be indiffe-
rent by any means to the maintenance of the integrity and
independence of Denmark, and it was not from any indiffe-
rence that he disapproved of your lordship's suggestion;
that he had already represented to the German Powers that
if they invaded Holstein for the purpose of effecting a revolt
in Schleswig, and if they went further and invaded Schleswig
itself, they would be infringing on the rights of an inde-
pendent sovereign, and entering upon a grave question
affecting the balance of power in Europe, to which France
could not remain indifferent." (Applause.) And is it not
the fact that all these expressions, when they came from the
pen of my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, are treated as menaces, which are to bind us to go
to war; but that, when they proceed from the mouth of the
French Minister for Foreign Affairs, at the very moment
when, as the right hon. gentleman says, France was re-
nouncing all co-operation with us, with regard to the
Danish question, they are not considered in that light at
all? (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman went on from
the September stage to the November stage in these com-
plicated proceedings, and he referred to the discourteous
terms in which the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs treated the proposal of the Emperor of the French
for the assembling of an European Congress. My noble
friend is a man of truth and honour, given to speak out with
as little of circumlocution as circumstances would permit.
(Laughter, and hear, hear.) Bat what course did the right
honourable gentleman himself pursue ? Did he pursue
a course calculated to mend our manners ? How did he
describe the proposal made by the Emperor of the
French ? On the 4th of February, 1864, this master
of diplomatic courtesy—this statesman so caretul
of the fine feelings of our neighbour, so sensible of the value
of the aliiance between the two countries—somewhat curtly
and somewhat succinctly, as I venture to think, described
the proposition which had been made by the Emperor of the
French for an European Congress as an " adroit manoeuvre.'
(Oh, oh, and loud cheers.) I refer to this matter in order
that I may meet the inferences which the right hon. gen-
tleman proceeded to found on our refusal to join in the Con-
gress, just as he found baseless inferences on our proceed-
ings in regard to Poland. He stated that we had refused
the Congress in a manner that could not but be exceedingly
disapproved of. He said that France, on the death of the
King of Denmark, resolved to take no part in the question,
and he quoted a despatch, dated December 19, from Lord
Wodehouse to Earl Russell, in which he says General
Fleury, the envoy at Copenhagen, had had instructions
from the Emperor not to take part in any negotiations there,
but to tell the Danish Government explicitly that, if Den-
mark was inclined to go to war with Germany, France would
not come to her assistance. I am astonished that the hon.
gentleman, bewildered, I suppose, with the study of these
fifteeen hundred pages—most anxious, because his
candour is well known to the world, and giving the
fullest powe s of his mind to these papers—yet by
some unlucky fate, some ill-natured star that crossed
his good intentions, has almost in every case—
and I will make good what I am now stating—has mis-
represented the real effect of those papers even which he has
quoted. What did he say in this instance with respect to
General Fleury ? It is true we received this statement
from Copenhagen, and on receiving it we determined to
verify it by referring to Paris. Accordingly, we referred it
to Lord Cowley, who returned from M. Drouyn de Lhuys,
with this important addition—for the right hon. gentleman
says France had definitely reftried to take any part, in the
question—M. Drouyn de Lhuys stated positively that no
declaration had been made either by or to the K Mg of Den-
mark which did not leave the Emperor free to take any
course which he might think fit. (Cheers and counter-
cheers.) Do hon. gentlemen opposite really mean that that
is not a material part of the statement ? (Cheers.) Is that
a policy of absolute renunciation. It was a very wise
course on the part of the Emperor of the French, and it
might have been wise and prudent on his part that he
would not lend to Denmark his military support ; but that
is not the policy which was enunciated by the right hon.
gentleman, and it is totally d,ff,rent from the effect of the
statement of General Fleury quoted by the right, honour •
able gentleman, bec :use it is expressly stated that
the Emperor of the French fully reserved to himself the
right to enter into the Danish question as freely and as
fully as he should think fit, (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I
now come a step further in the statement of the right lion,
gentleman, which I think contains an important point. The
right hon. gentleman says, that in all cases where the Go-
vernment found themselves strong they were moderate in
their lau_Tuage, but when they found themselves weak they
became violent; and en that principle he accounts for the
letter written on Dec. 25, for the purpose, he says, of me-
nacing the Diet in case they proceeded to Federal execution.
Her: again I am sorry to say that the right hon. gentleman
has not quoted the document fairly or truly. I am in the re-
collection of the house, and in the presence of the right hon.
gentleman. In quoting the letter of Dec. 25, which he de-
scribes as one of great violence, he makes a mistake in one
sentence of considerable importance. He says my noble
friend menaces the Diet in case of their proceeding to Fede-
ral execution. He read the words generally and commented
upon them. He read the wcrris "any precipitate action on
the part of the German Confederation at the present moment
may lead to consequences fatal to the peace of Europe."
(Hear, hear.) But what is the preamble to that letter?
Why, sir, it is not with respect to Federal execution at ail—
it does not once mention Federal execution, nor has in any
reference to it, which was the inference sought to be con-
veyed by the right hon. gentleman. But what was the pre-
amble to which I have referred ? The Diet sitting at Frank-
fort appears to claim a right to decide on questions of sus•
cession in the several States composing the Confederation,
and to be bent on asserting such a right in the present case
—the case of Holstein. Therefore, I do not hesitate to say
that the quotation of the right hon. gentleman does not
give him a tittle of foundation for his argument. The
question has no reference to Federal execution, but it had
to the claim of deciding as to succession, which had been
more or less made at diffaient periods by the German
Diet, but which were not admitted to be part of their regu-
lar attributes and jurisdiction. Does any hon. gentleman
imagine that the claim of the German Diet to determine
the succession of Austria or Prussia would be allowed for
one moment? But it was to this significant claim of the
German States, and not to Federal execution, that the
letter referred which was quoted by the right hon. gentle-
man, and quoted, I may say, in a manner which entirely,
falsifies its purpose and effect. (Oh, oh, from the Opposi-
tion benches.) I say he quoted it for the purpose of illus-
trating our menaces against Federal execution ; and I speak
in the pretence of hon. members who can judge of the words
of the right hon. gentleman and the inference which was
sought to be conveyed by the quotation. I now come to
the despatch quoted by the right hon, gentleman, and here
again I am sorry to say I cannot speak of his quotation in
any other terms than those which I have already used. (Oh,
oh, and hear.) I come to what I may call the lugubrious
despatch of Dec. 29. The house will remember that in
quoting the despatch the right hon. gentleman resorted to
the fa!lest use of his comic powers of description—(loud
laughter, and oh)—of voico and of warning. We all re-
member the plaintive tones with which he described her
Majesty's Government as addressing itself to France. Her
Majesty's Government, he said, were most sincerely desir-
ous to act with the Imperial Government on this question.
This letter referred to the proposal m ide by the British
Government for a Conference on the Danish question ; and
the right hon. gentleman read on, and said that when M.
Drouyn de Lhuys expressed a general desire to co-operate
with England Lord Cowley remarked that it would be a
curious thing if a difference of opinion prevented co-opera-
tion, and that no answer was made. He said that he had
made an application to France to join us in a European
Conference on the affairs of Denmark, to which Lord Cowley
could not get an answer from M, Drouyn de Lhuys; and
that, finding that he could not obtain an answer, he felt
himself bound to wind up the conversation with the ex-
pression of a hope that the difference of the opinion about
the Congress in reference to Poland would not prevent co-
operation with regard to the affairs of Denmark. There the
right hon. gentleman stopped, but what was the inference
he drew ? Was it not that France had rejected the proposal
of the Conference? Unless it had that meaning, it had
none at all, for the whole gist of his argument was to show
that long after Franco had resolved on a course of action,
and had announced it to Denmark, we went to Pads, bor-
ing France and pestering her with proposals to which she
would not listen or consent. Again I say he has misled the
house ; and whether he has or not the house will judge for
itself when I have read a few words from the despatches
which were quoted by the right hon. gentleman. In the
conversation of Lord Cowley and M. Drouyn de Lhuys,
Lord Cowley says :—" I presume I may give them assurance
that the Emperor's Government are not prepared to reject
the motion of the conference;" and M. Drouyn de Lhuys
replied—'. The Imperial Government are anxious to prevent
a war, and if i, saw its way to prevent it through a Con-
ference, it would not refuse to take part in it." (Cheers,)
The right hon. gentleman described what he called the Em-
peror's policy of renunciation. But Lord Cowley says, "I
have derailed, as far as time will permit, the general tenor
of the conversation with M. Drouyn de Lhuys, and his ex-
cellency expressed an opinion that, if your lordship should
also insist on knowing the intentions of the great German
Powers, it would aid in bringing this question to an issue."
That is what the right hen, gentleman thought fit to de-

scribe as a policy of absolute and positive renunciation and
refusal. (Cheers.) Now I come to the revocation of the
patent. The right hon. gentleman says the Danes revoked
the patent on the recommendation, and abandoned resistance
in Holstein on the recommendation of herMajesty'sGovern-
ment, and that they approved the new constitution when we
asked them to do so. I am not here to bring an indictment
against the Danes. When we recollect that the throne of
Denmark is occupied by a sovereign who succeeded to it
under eircumstances of great difficulty; and With an inheri-
tance of embarrassment caused by the Conduct of his prede-
cessor and the policy of the Ministers whom he found in
power, I for one am not able to say with confidence that it
was within the means of the present King of Denmark to
unravel the difficulties with which he found himself beset;
but at the same time I beg to say with respect to this, as
well as to the other main allegations of the right hon. gen-
tleman, they are without the slightest foundation—(oh, oh)
—and are not borne out by any of the quotations which he
has made. He says that the Danes did this at our instance,
My answer is that they did it at the joint instance of the
Powers. He says they did it when we requested them to
do so. My answer is, they were not done until the conces-
sion was too late, and was valueless for the purpose for
which it was required. Now, let us see how the truth
stands. I say, for the sake of wounding the Government,
he fixes on the country responsibilities which she does not
bear. Du not let it be supposed that this is a matter to be
settled between party and party in the House of Commons,
because England is bound by the engagements of her
Ministers—(hear, hear)—and if the engagements are made
by us, the right hon. gentleman, on his accession to power,
would be bound to fulfil them in the sense which we attach
to them. He says Denmark revoked the patent on our re-
commendation, and that that constituted a quasi-engage-
ment on our part. What is the fact ? On the 7th of October
the British Government remonstrated against the patent,
and advised its revocation. When was it revoked ? On the
7th of December, two months after; and not two months
measured by time in the ordinary way, but by events of the
greatest consequence. The new constitution had been
passed, and the revocation of the patent when it came, as
plainly appears from the conversation of Lord Wodehouse,
was of the smallest importance. So much for the revocation
of the patent. I think I heard the right hon gentleman say
that M. Hall offered to revoke the patent in the month of
October. I am aware that art offer was made in October to
revoke it, but it was a conditional offer, for M. Hall stated
that one of the conditions en which the patent would be
withdrawn, would be that England and France should give
the Danish Government a formal promise of ca-operation. In
pint of fact, the revocation was withheld during the time it
was of use, and granted only when it was of the smallest
possible importance. The right hon. gentleman also said
that on three great subjects Denmark had also acted upon
our edvcie, and that contrary to her policy. bid the
right hon. gentleman mean to say that Denmark acted
upon our advice alone? (Hear, hear.) If he means to
say that, I affirm that there is not the smallest founda-
tion for the statement. If he moans to say that Den-
mark acted at the instance of other Powers also, there is
not the slightest force or value in his statement, because
the concession made by Denmark was at the recommenda-
tion of all, and therefore there is no separate responsibi-
lity, as the right hon. gentleman would endeavour to show.
I think it is pretty clear, first, that the advice to the
Danish Government was common advice; and, secondly,
that it was advice in regard to which they were dis-
tinctly informed that her Majesty's Government could
not be responsible for the consequences of the decision
Denmark might take with respect to Federal execution,
It is just the same with regard to the new constitution.
The right hon. gentleman says that England was selfishly
silent upon the subject of the new constitution. He gave
the House to understand that when good might have
been done by remonstrance—England left Denmark to
take her own course; and subsequently, when it became
difficult for Denmark to recede, then England came with
inopportune advice, and desired that the new constitution
might be revoked—selfishly silent at that critical moment
when the King of Denmark had just come into his too
burdensome heritage, and even with this unhappy and ill-
omened bill waiting hie decision. I think it was on Nov.
15 that he came to the throne, and on the 17th my noble
friend (Earl Russell) wrote to Lord A. Paget, unwilling to
force advice upon the King at that critical moment, but
indicating that his advice would be that the new constitu-
tion should be suspended. The right hon. gentleman
quoted the despatch in support of his statement, and con-
tinued—Unhappily that advice was not acted upon. Un-
happily, the position of the King, in the face of the popu-
lace of Copenhagen, appears to have been such as to make
it impossible for him to take the course which, in the
opinion of her Majesty's Government and in the opinion of
the other neutral Governments, international obligations
strictly interpreted required. Consequently the complica-
tions which existel underwent great and serious aggravation.
Unhappily, the revocation of the constitution, like the other
concession, altholigh made, was made too late. (Cheers.)
On 2, ov. 17 Earl Russell suggested suspension of the con-
stitution , the Danish Parliament was still sitting, and
would have had power to revoke it, but unhappily the
Danish Minister, who, I fear, has unintentionally been one
of the worst enemies to Denmark, permitted the Parliament
to be dienoived without touching the constitution, and so
let the King into a state of hopeless embarrassment. At
last, on Jan. 19, when Federal execution was far advanced
in Holstein, and when the Prussian and Austrian forces
were about to enter Schleswig, then it w is that for the
first time au offer was made by the Danish Minister, Bishop
Monrad, to call together the Rigsraed, and revoke the con-
stitution. The statement therelore of the right hon. gen-
tleman is either wholly .allacious, if it be not directly the
reverse of truth. These are the specific allegations made by
the right hon. gentleman, and I will now, with some diffi-
dence and apprehension, venture to explain what I take to
have been the principles and policy of the Government in
this matter. The right hon. gentleman stated with truth
that a considerable change was effected in the position of
this question by the death of the King of Denmark. The
death of King Frederick VII. altered the position of affairs
in respect to the treaty of 1852. It immediately laid the
whole strain upon that treaty and upon its construction. As
long as Frederick VII. was alive there was nothing but a
question of international engagement. The matter in dis-
pute was whether international covenants had been fulfilled
or not. There was no question of disputed title ; but when
Frederick VII. died, and King Christian IX. came to the
throne, the question of succession, connected with various
constructions of the treaty, immensely aggravated the quest-
Lion. The policy of her Majesty's Government under Fre-
derick VII. had been to endeavour to bring the Danes to
fulfil the treaty of 1852, and to bring the Germans to be
moderate in their views. But the right hon, gentleman ap-
pears to make it a charge against the present Government
that they should have taken, as it were, gratuitously, and
needlessly, a prominent part in the settlement of those
matters. He says truly that England has no peculiar in •
terest in these questions. It has been said by my noble
friend (Earl Russell) more than once in these despatches,
that the interests of England in the Dano-German question
are the interests of Europe, We can conceive that France,
for traditional association, and also for her peculiar relations
with Germany, might have a special and direct interest in
any such questions as would be involved in the absorption
of Denmark into Germany ; we can conceive that Russia,
principally dependent upon the Baltic for access to the great
ocean countries of the world,
might feel a very strong and
peculiar interest in the question whether Denmark and
Sweden were to be united into one Scandinavian kingdom;
but England has no special and separate interest. Why then
did she take—it was certainly a prominent—part in these
negotiations ? She took part on accenat of
what I hope will
ever be dearer to England than her interests,—viz., on ac-
count of what she thought her honour and her duty.
(Cheers.) Gentlemen must look to the previous stages of the
question if they wish to appreciate the position of England
during the recent complications. At
the period of the
war, in 1819, the mediation of
England was invited by the
contending parties—(hear)--erieinally at the suggestion
of Prussia, and adopted by Den:ark, and forwarded to my
noble friend (Earl Russell), who was then Secretary of
State, and by him undertaken. That was a
great responsi-
bility, but was it a barren one? On the contrary, it ended
in the cessation of the shedding of human blood, being in
terms of pacification, in treaties which were deemed by both
parties honourable and satientetery.
The rignt hon. gentle-
man quoted the expressions of thankful acknowledgment to
Lord Palmerston from Denmark for the successful result of
hrs efforts, and continued: After proceedings of that kind
so beneficial to both parties, and so honourable to this coun-
try—(cheers) —it was not possible for the representative of
England to recede from the
prominent post in which he had
been placed by no act of his own, but by the obligations re-
sulting from former transactions
of the most satisfactory and
beneficial kind. Here, I think is a full and ample explana-
tion of the conduct and general position assumed by my
nTohbelerigfrhietnhdonw.itghontrieogruarada
stays o the Danish negotiations.
(Cheers) I really wish the right hon. gentleman, in attack-
ing his opponents, would remember his country. (Laughter.)
that it was to Russia that
settlement was due. I have quoted the authentic words
which show that my noble friend
was the person who was
regarded by Denmark as the principal. Upon the acces-
sion of the new King the duty and endeavour of the Bri-
tish Government was to maintain the treaty of 1852. Was
that right or wrong ?
Nov, is it honourable to Parliament
that the right hon. gentleman should come down here, and
in mimic voice hold up to ridicule the conduct of the Ad-
ministration, because they instruct their representatives
abroad to apply to France and Russia--co-signataries—for
assistance in giving effect to a great treaty ? Why, the right
hon. gentleman in one of his declamatory bursts towards
the close of his speech, totally forgot the argumentative
part where he exhibited it as preposterous meanness on
the part of England that she should apply to France and
Russia. Li the declamatory part he came round to better
sense than he exhibited in the logical and argumentative
part, for ho said that with England and France united
war is difficult, and with England, France, and Russia
united, war is impossible. (Cheers, and counter cheers.)
Well, but the whole of the steps taken by her Majesty's
Government, almost without exception, were steps taken to
endeavour to bind together the powers of Europe for the
fulfilment and maintenance of an important European en-
gagement. (Cheers.) For some time after the death of the
late King there was no great reason to suppose that the
Treaty of 1852 was in serious danger. It was only at the
end of November that the now doctrine was coined in Prus-

sia and Austria that the treaty of 1852, by nearly which all
Europe was bound, was nothing more than a part of the
same transactions with the special conventions of 1851-2
bet Ween Germany and Denmark; and that unless those
covenants were fulfilled the treaty of 1852 would be null
and void. Thal, was the formidable doctrine which at that
time into view. On the 28th of November, I think it was,
that langnage began to be held by the German Powers
Which greatly altered the position of the case. As long as
they recognised what we ha%'e always held to be their obli-
gations tinder the treaty of 1862 there was comparatively
little danger but when they held themselves free to make
the treaty of 1852 dependent upon the condition of fulfil-
ment or non-fulfilment of which they were competent to
pronounce—for it was a separate engagement between them
and Denmark-athen it became obvious that the dangers
were greatly thickening round us, and that it was a ques-
tion whether the treaty of 1802 would be fulfilled in its
loyal > nd intended sense. Undoubtedly it was at that pe-
riod that her Majesty's Government undertook the gravest
responsibility which has been laid upon them at any stage
of this difficult question. They did make application to
France and to Russia on the sth of January, on the 10th,
and on the 18th, which applications conteXelated the for•
mation of an alliance to give aid and assistance to Den-
mark, to uphold it in the Duchies against foreign force and
intrigue. The right hon. gentleman, who has found
it necessary to censure everything done by the Go.
vernment, felt it necessary to censure also this, He
said that on the 18th of January you wrote a letter
which would have put Europe in a blaze. Sir, the letter to
bring about the concert and co-operation of France and
Russia with England, he says, would put Europe in a blaze,
though 15 minutes afterwards he maintained that France,
England, and Russia being united, war was impossible.
(Cheers and laughter.) I must say I was surprised, con-
sidering the disproportionate weight which the right hon.
gentleman laid upon a point of trifling moment, that, when
he came to this great passage of European policy, he satis-
fied himself with breaking out into ill-considered reproach
of her Majesty's Government. We did write this letter.
We believed that it was for the interests of Europe that the
treaty of 1852 should be supported, and we stand here re-
sponsible for having acted on that belief. (Jheers.) Has
the right hon. gentleman an opinion on the policy, or has
he not? (Cheers.) I wish we could dive into the recesses
of his mind. (Laugthter.) I complain of the reserve of the
right hon. gentleman. fie is as bad as a miser with his
money—one cannot get out of him the smallest inkling of
what is to be the future policy of the country He talks a
great deal of the policy of the Government, but when it
touches a question of policy he will not give an opinion.
(Cheers.) He has brought forward a motion which aims at
giving a mortal blow to the Government. Here is by far
the most important proceeding which the Gaverament has
taken, this letter of Jan. 18, the proposal for the co-operation
in support of the treaty of 1852, and yet the right hon. gen-
tleman who asks the House of Commons to condemn the
Government in the capital article of their conduct, passes
this by in silence because he cannot give an opinion with-
out intimating something about his policy. (Cheers.)
The Government have no desire to have that passed over.
They thought it their duty to make those efforts to obtain
co-operation for the purpose of preventing that which has
happened—from a treaty being set aside by external force
—and they invite a verdict upon their conduct. (Cheers.)
I am not here to blame the Governments who declined to
concur in that proposal. I think that in the case of
an engagement like the treaty of 1852, the persons
really responsible for the failure, and all the consequences
of failure, are those who recede from their plighted faith,
(Cheers.) The Emperor of the French was entitled to say,
when one party had abandoned the treaty, "I must look
at the interests of France." He did look at that. and we
cannot and do not blame him for the resolution which he
took. Although we freely and frankly admit that the
peculiar position of Russia with reference to Prussia some-
what impairs her independence and dignity, and the
strength of her position in all European questions where
the German Powers are concerned, yet we do not accept,it
as a matter of charge or blame imputable to us that we
made a serious effort to rally the Po wers of Europe in sup-
port of the treaty of 1852. I may be wrong, but it seems
to me that this singlehanded intervention of England in
European questions is a course of proceeding which. can be
justified. A system has grown up of late, of which the
treaty of 1852 was a notable example, where the Powers of
Europe have formed themselves', as it were, into a police,
fur the maintenance of the general peace, apart from all
separate and selfish objects, and with the single view and
purpose of putting down the wrongdoer, whoever he may
be. This in one sense was the meaning of the treaty of
1852. I think that was an honourable course, that the
community of interests should be recognised in the form of
these great international facts and conventions, which aim
at keeping peace by the use of the collective forces of the
civilised world, which is the beat guarantee that it can pos.
sibly receive. (Hear.) Therefore leait be clearly understood
that, if the right hon. gentleman were to challenge the con-
duct of the Government in their endeavours to enlist
France and Russia for the preservation of European peace,
let him say so. (Hear, hear.) We are ready to abide by
the judgment of the house and of the country upon that
issue. Then, says the hen, gentleman, having got into
Conference, you provided for the integrity of Denmark
by cutting off Holstein and part of Schleswig, and placing
it under the tutelage of all the Powers of Europe. There
is a great deal of weight in that description; but we do
not at all disguise that, after the failure of that application
to Franca and Russia, our tone was lowered. If you
fled fault with the tone of my noble friend before this,
my answer is, that language w,ich W 3 held at first was
uniform with the language of France at the some period—
and that it was in contemplation of the contingency which
afterwards was not realised—viz , that the Powers would
find themselves in a condition to co-operate for the main-
tenance of the treaty, Where does the right hon. gentle-
man find the language of menace after the date at which
we became aware that menace could not be practically car-
ried into effect? I am not aware of a eingle word which
has been ascribed to my noble friend as being likely to be
construed into a menace by ithe Garman Pewers after we
once became aware of the fact that a European com-
bination could no longer be relied upon in support of the
treaty of 1852. The right hon. gentleman, I think, said we
were right in declining to go to war single-handed. In the
Conference, having found that it was impossible to give full
effect to what we conceived to be the spirit of the treaty of
18b2, we did the best we could for Denmark. (Cheers.) No
doubt, gentlemen would have done better, but we did as
well as we could, as well as France could, as well as Russia
could, as well as Sweden could. As long as we can show
that the proceedings which we took were proceedings of
the neutral Powers who represented the public sentiment
of Europe, and the impartial judgment of the world, I do
not think the right hon. gentleman will succeed in driving
home the deadly weapon which he has aimed at our breast.
(Cheers,) The treaty of 1852 contemplated securing a com-
bination ander the Crown of Denmark, after a new accession
to the throne, of all the territories that were attached to the
Crown under Frederick 11. Now the treaty of 1852 would
have been perfectly satisfied by what is called a personal
union. If we had advised Denmark to pursue the phantom
of literal compliance with the treaty of 1852, we should
have advised her to do that which sae was deter-
mined not to do. Therefore, if the right hon. gentleman
charges us with having been parties to proposing in the
Conference a reduction of the Danish territory, 1 say we
&el that which was not only most in accordance with the
interests, but that which was also most agreeable to the
wishes of Denmark, for if she could not have a virtual
incorporation of the whole of Schleswig, she wanted to have
an incorporation of a portion of Schleswig. The proposal
of the line of the Schlei was first made by us with the con-
currence of the other neutral Powers ; and I think that
proposal was more agreeable to Denmark than any other
which could have been made with the slightest hope of bind-
ing the German Powers. The house is aware there are
ample reasons why England should not undertake what
might fairly be called the Quixotic enterprise of waging
single-handed the war which offered itself to us under the
circumstances, (Ministerial cheers.) The tax upon the Eng-
lish energies would have been totally disproportioned to the
object in view. The want of support and special interests,
in the absence of positive engagements, was a matter which
it was the absolute duty of the Government to consider.
But if England were to make that war, and to make it with
effect, it was aware that it could not be confined to Denmark
only. Its limits must have been vastly extended. It must at
once have gone down to the Adriatic—(cheers)—it must
have become a general war in Europe. And although there
might be objects which the Government might believe would
be among the possible results of such a war, and which
might be of great value to humanity, yet that responsibility
was a responsibility from which the boldest man would
shrink. (Ministerial cheers.) And then England might,
more than any other nation, have found this a most deplor-
able position, for she might ultimately discover that the
judgment she had taken of the justice of the case was a►
different judgment from that of the population of the
Duchies themselves. (Cheers.) What British House of
Commons would have sustained a Government who endea-
voured to thrust down the liberties of a people ? (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman has, with marvellous adroitness,
contrived to avoid every possible topic or issue involving the
slightest question as to what ought or what ought not to have
been our line of policy. The right hon. gentleman has put
to the house a motion which I will now proceed to examine.
Having met his charges, and I hope fairly challenged
the judgment of the house on the subject, I hold myself free
to take my turn as a critic and a judge. (Hear, hear.) This
is in many resp cts a remarkable motion. (Laughter.) It
is a motion the production of which has been heralded, like
the birth of Julius Caesar and other great mea of old, by
omen and prophecy. On an early day in the session the
right hon gentleman came out as a prophet and said, " We
will question the foreign policy of the Government." On
another day the member for Huntingdon took up the para-
ble of the right hon. gentleman, and at a late hour ono even-
ing he announced--" I give you my word you shall have a
motion on the foreign policy of fhe Government." And a
third solemn announcement was made, which is interesting
because it proves that since the commencement of the ses-
sion—that is, for about five months—this motion has been
in the course of incubation, and the terms of it have had the
advantage of being revolved over anti over again in all the
brains of all the wisest gentlemen in the country, namely,
those who are siting opposite. (Cheers and laughter.)
The right hon. gentleman has made a motion of which we

quite understand the meaning and purport. I will show
that it is not so plain spoken as it ought to be; but still it
is intended to put an end to the existence of the present Go-
vernment. And now perhaps the house will pardon me if
I relate an anecdote. There is in a beautiful churchyard in
Kent an epitaph which commemorates a lady and gentle-
man who were murdered by a domestic servant, and the
writer of the epitaph, in his anxiety to give it a pious and
Christian tone, has written that it was a very great advan-
tage to them, after all, to be got rid of by this summary
method of proceeding, as they were freed from the incon-
veniences and discomforts that usually attend dissolution in
the ordinary course. (Loud laughter.) When I read this
it occurred to me that the right hon. gentleman was about
to perform for the Government the kind office which the
domestic servant performed for the old lady and gentleman.
(Renewed laughter.) But, looked at from another point of
view, the right hon. gentleman has raised a purely per-
sonal matter. We have heard the tone of the right hon,
gentleman to-day. He looked at the noble lord, and spoke
of his miserable incapacity. Again, I find the memory of
the right hon. gentleman a short memory, because by and
bye he went on to descrioe what had been the foreign policy
of this country since the peace of 1815, and he described it
as a successful policy. Did he recollect that the man whom
accused of miserable incapacity had been the main agent
that policy for more than half the time which
in condue-"ng
peace of 1815 ? (Ministerial cheers.)
has elapsed since the
motion ? It is to get us out
What is the meaning ot:. his
of our places, and to let them corn,: into them. But when
that issue is raised without reference to colicy, it is a dis-
agreeable motion for discussion by those whostill have
clinging to them any remains of the modesty of their yoth.
The right hon. gentleman, however, has no such difficulty.
(Laughter.) He has applied to us the term "miserable
incapacity."
Several Hole. MEMBERS—He said "intense incapacity."
Mr. DISRAELI—What I said was " utter incapacity."
(Opposition cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—WeII,
utter incapacity, intense, or miserable, or whatever it may
be, he at all events challenges a comparison with those who
may succeed them. He says, "By your gross mismanage-
ment you have offended all your allies," (Opposition
cheers, and counter-cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
He seems to think that that is true because we have failed
in averting a war. The right hon. gentleman might have
a little compassion from a recollection of h.s own career.
(Laughter.) There was a war when he was a Minister,
which the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Malmesbury, did
not succeed in staving off. On the 18th of April, 1859,
the right hon. gentleman told us that he was well satisfied
there would be no war ; but on the 22d the Austrians
commenced the war. (Ministerial cheers.) I appeal to
the memory of their own transactions as a justification
of what was done in the case of Denmark.
In point of fact, the motion means this : —" Let
the noble lord and his colleagues get out of the
way, and let us get in, and then everybody will be
well-behaved, and all will go on smoothly." It reminds
me of the appearance of 2Eneas amongst the shades of the
old Greek heroes, when they began to run away from him :
"At Danaum proceres, Agamemnoniceeque phalanges,
Ut videre virum, fulgentiaque arma per umbras,
Ingenti trepidare metu ; paro vertere terga."
(Laughter.) Then the right hon. gentleman gets on the
high horse, and refuses to give us the slightest idea of his
policy, beaause that, he says, would be accepting office on
conditions. (Cheers.) He has contrived a motion which is
full of animosity and poison towards the life of the Govern-
ment; but look at it as a declaration bearing on the public
policy, and it is pale and colourless as a ghost. The chief
allegation is that the just influence of England has been
lowered. Now let me deal with that. In the first place I
deny it; and in the second place I hold that, if it were, it is
not a seemly declaration to be recorded by Parliament.
(Loud Ministerial cheers.) Why is the just influence of
England said to have been lowered ? Is it because we have
failed in averting war ? If there has been a failure there
have also been honest, upright, generous efforts made to
prevent great masses of mankind from injuring and destroy-
ing one another. (Cheers.) Ministers who in vain endea-
vour to calm troubled waters may at the time reap no other
reward than in resentment and disapprobation; but yet the
recollection will abide that the voice of England was raised
for moderation and justice. (Cheers.) The effort of the Go-
vernment was to teach wisdom to those who were obstinate,
and mercy to those who were tyrannous and strong. It is
said that this case is without parallel, Let me, however, go
back to the case of Mr Cameing. Never was there a more
conspicuous failure, so far as the itidgment of the moment
was concerned, than that of Mr Canning in the case of the
invasion of Spain by FranCe, but there is ne more honour-
able chapter in the whole history of the foreign Tolley of
England. (Ministerial cheers.) Let us therefore look a little
beyond the present moment, and let us discard if u'e
can the Epicurean temper which is so strong in its
vision of those things which lie near, but is blind as
a bat to everything that pertains to the future.
I repeat that I do not believe the just influence of this coun-
try has been lowered. (Cheers.) By whom is that lan-
guage held? Why, by a certain portion of the foreign
press ; and when I read the motion of the right hon. gen-
tleman, it seems to me to be an echo, and nothing better
than an echo, of the almost ribald language of a few obscure
journals on the continent. (Ministerial cheers.) It is from
them that this intending Minister draws his inspiration; it
is from that quarter that the lessons of English policy are
to be learned. I have denied that the just influence of Eng-
land has been lost, and, as far as my knowledge goes, this
is the first occasion on which the British House
of Commons has been called upon to record, for
the purpose of displacing a Government, the degradation
of their country. (Loud cheers.) Why cannot the right
hon. gentleman speak plainly ? Why cannot ho adopt the
language used by our forefathers on these occasions, and
move au address to the Crown that the Government did not
deserve the confidence of the house ? The right hon. gen-
tleman was afraid to raise that issue. He did not dare even
now to resort to the old and constitutional form of a vote of
want of confidence. And because he was not bold he
thought he was wise. (Laughter.) All I can say is that
the right hon. gentleman has never so poisoned the minds
of any combination of gentlemen in this house as to induce
them to place on record that which must be regarded as dis-
honourable to their country, Go back to the times of Sir
Robert Walpole, of Lord North, and of Mr. Fox, and
never will you find a sterile, jejune affair like this proposed
to the House of Commons. Whatever was then raised by
the Opposition was spoken outright in the good old Eng-
lish manner. (Cheers.) I think I have now detained
the house long enough. I have endeavoured to avoid lead-
ing them into the almost innumerable phases of this long
correspondence, and I have followed the right hon. gentle-
man on every point he chose to submit. And I do not know
that there is any portion of it which ho might have com-
mented upon, where it would not have been equally
practicable to follow him. Whatever may be his argu-
ments, I am confident that the house will not be led
astray by the motion. Let him, if he pleases, sheL er
himself under the irresponsibility of Opposition ; but that
doctrine will not bear being pushed to extremes, and never
has it been pushed to such an extreme as it has been to-
night by the right hon. gentleman, In vain does the right
hon. gentleman say, " You must place me on that bench,
and then let me tell you what I propose to do." I do not
think the country will consent to a change on these condi-
tions. Nay, more, I feel the most confident conviction that
the house and the Gauntry will approve of the course taken
in these difficult negotiations by her Majesty's Govern-
ment I and that the house will reject a motion which both
prudence and patriotism emphatically reject. (The right
hon. gentleman was loudly cheered as he resumed his seat.)
Mr NE WDEGATE moved, by way of amendment, to
substitute for the second paragraph in Mr Disraeli's motion
the following words :—" To submit to her Majesty the opi-
nion of this house, that the independence of Denmark and
the posseesions of that kingdom, on the terms proposed by
the representatives of the neutral Powers in the recent
Conference, ought to be guaranteed." He was not prepared
to admit that this country stood degraded before the world,
although there would be no doubt that, by the confession
of the Government, she was isolated from her allies on the
question of Denmark. He moved his amendment to the
resolution, because the right hon. gentleman had disavowed
on his own part any intention, had he been in office, of in-
terfering in defence of the Danish monarchy; and if that
would have been the right hon. gentleman's policy the house
was right in continuing its confidence to her Majesty's Go-
vernment. He by no means intended to advocate war; and
the object of his amendment was that the house should de-
clare its readiness to co-operate with our allies before the
evils ensued which Lord Palmerston recently foreshadowed,
the bombardment of Copenhagen and the capture of the
King, events which seemed to be not far distant, judging
by the violent conJuct of the German Powers.
Tho amendment having been seconded by Mr. GOZE-
LANOTON,
Mr. KINGLAKE objected to the amendment, that inas-
much as the disputed territory north of the Schlei was now
in possession of the German forces, to propose to guarantee
that territory was simply to propose war, and create a Ha.
bility to war to all time. In the decisf on at which the
Government had arrived he entirely concurred; and with
regard to the house he contended that there had been a long
acquiescence on its part in the foreign policy of the Go-
vernment up to the very period at which Mr. Disraeli had
given notice of his motion.
General PEEL, whilst disclaiming all party considera-
tions, gave his most cordial support to the motion. The
Ministry, he said, ever since they threw over the Reform
Bill, had existed solely upon their foreign policy and the
popularity of the Premier; but the only result was that
the Foreign Secretary had offsnded everybody, and shown
that he had one policy for the weak and another for the
strong. The Prime Minister had stigmatised the invasion
of Jutland as an outrage upon the independence of Den-
mark. There was a time when a declaration like that
would have been looked upon by all foreign Powers as bind-
ing as if it had been delivered by the most despotic
monarch. This war of words was neither safe nor honour.
able. If the policy of the country was to be peace at any
price, silence and non-interference would have become us
better. If we were too rich to be drawn into war by any
amount of provocation, it would be beat to say so at once;
but what would bs said of a man who declined to defend
his honour because oe was too rich to be shot at ? If this
were the language held by England we should indeed de-
solve to b 3 called a nation of shopkeepers; but the shop-

keepers of the last generation l n
uy how to defend l their
honour, and he himself was proud to have sprun g from
9
such a race. He regretted to say h.9' Majesty's G overn-
mour and renown
meat had done nothing to maintain the .
of England in a critical conjuncture, On tri, contra ry, they
had made her the open scorn of her enemies e lid the shame
and derision of surrounding nations.
The LORD ADVOCATE maintained that the, "e vea s no
ground whatever for the censure which the res, 'lnt ions
implied upon the Government. He argued that they 1. lad
not held out delusive promises to Denmark, but from fit at
to last that their language had been of a totally dileres it
description. To Germany they had not addressed menaces.,
but language that was suited to the occasion. ‘Vhatev er
the expectations encouraged or warnings given, the Go
vernment had shown that theywer e ready to act up ter thetra,•
Under all circumstances, Ministers were perfectly right it
not going to war ; and he thought they were entitled to
look back upon the past with the feeling that they had done:
their duty.
Lord STANLEY said that the learned lord had taunted
General Peel with inconsistency in denouncing treaties of
guarantees, while he had been a party to the treaty of 1852.
But, in the first place. Gen. Peel was not a member of the
Cabinet of Lord Derby, by which that treaty was concluded ;
in the next place, it was not a treaty of guarantee; and in.
the third place, all the negotiations which led to it were
conducted by Lord Palmerston. He denied that the rcsolus
Lion was a war resolution. The right hon. gentleman the:
member for Bucks had distinctly told the House that if he:
had been in office he would have pursued the course taken;
by France. and told Danmark from the first that she had
nothing to hope for from us in the way of material as.;ist•
once. The Chsneellor of the Exchequer had condemned
881,et,..1y the terms of the resolution. He was very anxious
that, im,:ead of it, the Opposition should have proposed
a vote of censt,:re. No doubt that would have been very
convenient for the Government, because then, when hard
pressed on one subject, they could have fallen back upou
another. But he could see no reason why, if the
Opposition thought that foreign affa tie had been badly
managed they should not say so. The' ,resolution meant
that they thought the Government had
blundered their
negotiations from beginning to end, a
ud that they
asked the House to say so. Then the Cha
ucellor of the
Exchequer charged the Opposition wi tell striking
at the Government through the bosom of the coun-
try, and trading upon the humiliation of the country,
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman had re tCarkad
that the language of the resolution was =precede:a. 'ted.
(Hear, hear.) He (Lord Stanley) had not comedown to , the
house with a bundle of precedents to show what had take. u
place on former occasions of this kind, but he very much
questioned whether the language of the resolution, and thee
speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr Disraeli) were not.
mild and moderate compared with what had before been
used in that house in 1763, 1782, 1795, and 1796. Whatever
the resolution might be, it was not a resolution in favour of
a policy of drifting into war. If it were, he could only say
for himself, and he believed for many sitting on the same
side of the house, that no reasons would induce them to
support it. He should at once declare that to engage in a
European war for the sake of the Duchies would be an act
not of impolicy, but of insanity. He thought that a policy cA.:
peace was compatible with being respected and honoured in
Europe, and that we might have enjoyed such a position if
we had taken the precaution of saying to Denmark that we
would give her moral support, but that we would sot go any
further. What he complained of was, the total want of
policy on the part of the Government. He did not elieve
there had been at any time a deliberate determination to
adopt a policy either of war or peace, He did not profess to.
fear that we should drift into war as in 1853, for he believed
that the common sense of the country would be to) strong
for diplomatists who were disposed to do so. Still, it was
quite possible that such a policy might be adopted that we
must either support it with war or retire from it with dis-
credit. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) This was the
state of things with which the resolution of his right hon.
friend professed to deal ; and he thought that his right
hon. friend was justified in making the protest which he
had. (Cheers.) If an appeal was made from the decision
of this house to the country, their (the Conservative)
side of the house would face the appeal without fear.
(Loud cheers from the Opposition.) He did not think
that gentlemen on the other side would have much to go
to the country upon, except that France had been snubbed,
that Germany had been insulted, that Denmark lad been
abandoned, and Poland encouraged to revolt. (Loud cheers.)
Mr Cobden and Mr Roebuck both rose at the same mo-
ment, but there were loud cries of" Adjourn, adjourn," and
"No, no." After a brief interval,
Mr COBDEN moved the adjournment of the debate un—
til to-morrow (Tuesday), which was carried, and the majo•
rity of the members present at once left the hotse,
The house then adjourned at 20 minutes past one.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

-..............•,1,...+.,,...-.....

COLCHESTER-JULY 2.

--
At this corn exchange to-day there was a small show of
wheat, and in the few sales made former prices were about
realised. Spring corn unaltered.

Wheat, white. 42a 46s Beans, Mazagaz .. 28s 32::.
red 3Bs 42s middle & small.32s 36s
Barley
Oats .... ...,.20s:. 258 grey ......348 368