The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-09 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—A question vastly more simple than the
, general character of the Debate would seem to imply
has been settled by a division happily more decisive
that we had been led to expect. In a very full
House, a majority of 18—just twice as large as the
majority the other way in the Lords—has vindicated
toe intentions and indemnified the failures of her
Majesty's Government. In the course of a debate
which has exhausted every conceivable fact, every
argument, and every mode of treatment, " from
grave to gay, from lively to severe," it is some satis-
faction to find that nobody has ventured to impeach
the motives and temper of the Cabinet. It has not
entered into the head of either honest foe or candid
friend to insinuate that Lord Palmerston and Lord
Russell have had any other object in view than
" righteousness and peace"—that Denmark, as we
have known it for ages, should still be Denmark;
and that there should be no appeal to arms. They
have been put on their trial, not for any sin of in.
tention, not even for want of diligence, for indiffer-
ence, for carelessness, or any of the secondary faults
said to be more mischievous than the cardinal vices,
but merely for failure. Had the members of the
Cabinet been so many simple-hearted missionaries
put on their trial by their savage converts for the
failure of the fishery and the potato crop which they
had prayed for in vain, they would have received
much the same sort of trial as that just witnessed
in the precincts of Westminster-hall. Had Govern-
ment—not this Government or that, but any Go-
vernment since 1848—done nothing at all, but let
the mischief take its course, we presume that would
have escaped censure. Had the present Cabinet, on
taking office, consulted the family lawyer, and re-
solved to repudiate the datnnosa hereditas of the
Schleswig-Holstein negotiation, that, too, would
have accorded with the views of most of their present
accusers. Had they threatened war, and fuifulled
heir threat, then they would have come under that
popular definition of the English gentleman's duty,
which consists in meddling with your neighbour's af-
fairs because you are ready to fight him. Nay, if they
had tried, but suffered another sort of failure • if they
had landed on the Danish peninsula and sailed into
Ihe Baltic, single-handed, in order to make their
word as good as their deed, but had lost as much as
we did in the Crimean war, without even that paste
able amount of success, then a respectable majority
of the House of Commons would have been ready to
do fall justice to the honest intentions and generous
spirit which had impoverished England, filled her
homes with mourning, and ruined Denmark into
the bargain. But the coarse actually taken had no
redeeming grace in the eyes of the gentlemen who
have constituted themselves protectors of the public
interests and guardians of the national honour. The
monster indictment has pursued the delinquents not
only through every act and word of their own offi-
cial lives, but also the whole of the previous trans-
actions followed up by them and presumably
adopted. It has searched into the remotest acts of
their former and non-official life. It has done every
thing but charge upon them what they ought to
have done. As the subject, was the most complex
it was rossible to imagine, it had to be met with a
variety of treatment adapted to each part of the
case. But as everything has failed, so everything
has been wrong, and the error is as multiform as
the case. It was first attempted to settle the diffi-
culty by the solemn concurrence of the great Euro.
pean Powers, including the two that claim to speak
and act for Germany. That has not answered, and
was therefore wrong. It was attempted to change
the law of succession in Denmark, so as to bring
the three States under the same dynasty in
future. That failed, and was therefore wrong. As
the three States would not amalgamate, it was
attempted to create three constitutions under one
sovereign, with provision for their harmonious
action. This failed, and was therefore wrong. But
one error only succeeded another in a case where all
interference was assumed to be wrong, whether
into the self- government of a State or its relatione
with its neighlnurs. To decline to enter a Con-
grtgs upon all the past difficulties and possible wars
of Europe was wrong ; and it was not less
wrong to propose a Conference with a view to the
solution of an existing difficulty and the stopping
of actual bloodshed. It was wrong to propose a
new boundary ; it had been wrong to unite, so it
was wrong to dismember; it was wrong to stand
out, and wrong to give way ; it was wrong to pro-
pose an arbitration ; it was wrong to encourage to
resistance, and wrong to advise concession ; it was
wrong to prepare for giving material assistance,
and then wrong not to assist. The eventual failure
brands every stags of the proceeding. A struggle
of unexampled versatility between two large and
wealthy States, all powerful on land and a small
and poor State, subsisting by its humble maritime
resources, and dealing with a political entangle-
ment surpassing all that is known of border cliff•
colties, presented a good many new situations, each
of which had to be met in its own fashion. This
change of ground was itself a crime, or worse than
a crime, for it did not answer. What are we to say
of the morality of an accusation which assumes all
failure to be wrong? It has not once been even
hinted that any mixed motive interfered with the
simple benevolence of this friendly intervention.
Faults of manner have been ascribed to it; it has
been called fussy, pragmatical, " meddling and
muddling," and a good deal more; but there has
not been a suspicion of malice, or self-interest, or
jealousy, or reversge, or any of the feelings apt to
prompt grathitous interference. Had there been
any such motive, and had the Cabinet been beaten
in a policy which promised some advantage, the
world would have lorgiven a bad speculation. The
crime in this case has been pure and simple peace-
making—about as successful as peacemaking usually
is on any seals, great or small. Had Parliament
really pronounced a stigma on such a course, it cer-
tainly would have put itself in collision with ant ho-
rides end traditions which England is accustomed to
venerate. Fortunate as we are in our own unex-
ampled unity and peace, it is not an amiable weak-
ness, but a legitimate inference from our own expe-
rience, that prompts us to communicate these bles-
sings to our neighbour& by every persuasion, and at
any sacrifice. There was not even novelty in the
task in this instance. We were not proposing to
constitute a new State—to make another Denmark,
either large or less, or of fresh materials. We were
simply labouring to keepDanmark as much as pos-
sible as it wan,and we have failed,—failed for the
present, and for that failure Government has been
put on its trial this week. Happily for the sake of
Peace, the. verdict has been on the side of honesty
and good intention, though not gilded by success;
and England, we trust, will not be compelled to
desist from her function as a kind and honest peace-
maker.
POST.—About two o'clock this morning the two
Houses of Parliament divided almost simultaneously
on a vote of want of confidence in the Government.
In the House of Lords Ministers were put in a
minority of nine; in the House of Commons they
commanded a majority of 18. In the House of Lords
123 out of 242 peers presentvoted with the Govern-
ment, the balance, 119, giving their votes in favour
of Lord Malmesbury's address. Of the proxies, 45
were given to the Government and 58 to the Oppo-
sition. In the House of Commons 295 members
voted in favour of Mr. Disraeli's address, and 313
against it. With this result the Ministry have
reason to be satisfied. No majority in the Upper
House would have counterbalanced the smallest
minority in the Lower one, and the substantial ma-
jority given to the Government in the House of
Commons must be accepted as the decision of the
country. That Ministers would be victorious in
the House of Commons no one entertained a doubt ;
it was only in respect to the numbers of the ma-
jority that a diversity of opinion existed. It is by the
people of the country, through their elective repre-
sentatives, that a Government must be judged, and
by their verdict it must stand or fall. 'I he appeal
has now been made, and by the result, as shown in
the division lists this morning, the Ministry are wil-
liog to abide. To the general tenor of the most re-
markable debate which for many years has taken
place in the House of Commons we will only briefly
alityle. It was a great party contest. Each side
summoned forth all its strength, and fought
bravely, and, we would say, fairly, for the prize of
victory. The debate was warm, and at times up-
pu ched to fever heat; but if it had not done so
lit would have been unworthy to rank beside those
Parliamentary contests to which the present
ggerenaetr,a-tion
-ooks back with pride. Men are not
occasion!
.like the recent one an
machines, and on which, perhaps, at
amount of license is peilnissio
hit truly eloquent
other times had best be withheld:
desires to ex-
man speaks from his heart,and ,
indignation, csannot cast
press feelings of anger or
about in search of those honeyed phrases Nchich the
usages of society require to be employed in or
nivarY
conversation. When on Thursday evening the
Under. Secretary for Foreign Aff. aW irs, h
.stnnfegilhiroatan
101} hic
unquostionably strong express

~y~~~

/,,e-,?_ _

PR1CE......,.. 4d.
STAMPED ....sd.

I the lips of an opponent, called him to order, he for-
got that expressions no less strong had been used
, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had been
repeated by himself. The Speaker, with great
judgment, declined to interpose on either omit:ion,
and his discretion entitles him to the thanks of the
House. The English House of Parliament has wit-
nessed many stormy debates; and, in the interests
of the country, we hope it will witness many more.
Nothing would be more intolerable to the feelings
of Englishmen than to see established in either
house that censorship in respect to language which
is so constantly exercised in the French Chambers.
It is of the very essence of our constitution that
there should he two factions in the State, and when
these factions come in collision it ie natural to ex-
pect that heavy blows should be interchanged.
But, measured by those precedents with which
Hansard is filled, the debate which has now come
to a close is, we think, notable no less for the mode-
ration than for the ability exhibited by those
who took part in it. It seems natural to the
human mind to exaggerate in respect to matters
beyond its ken, and it has always been the habit
of an existing generation to regret the glories of
those which have preceded it. But we doubt if a
keener or more ably conducted contest was ever
waged within the walls of the House of Commons
in the time of the younger Pitt or of Canning than
that which resulted at an early hour this morning
in the defeat of the Opposition. The eloquence of
Gladstone, the sarcasm of Disraeli, the studied des
clamations of Horsman, the humour of Osborne, the,
taunts and raillery of Hardy, and the calm self•
reliance of Palmerston, not to mention the ability
evinced by the: many other skilful debaters who
gave their voices as well as their votes to theft' party,
must surely lead even those inveterate praisers of
the " good old times " to reconsider the judgment
which it is their habit to pass upon the epoch in
which they live. The debate on the foreign policy
of the English Government in connection with the
Deno-German war must, and will always, hold a
remarkable place in the annals of our Parliamentary
history. Now that tellers have made their obei-
sances to the Speaker, and declared the result of the
division, let us consider how far that result may be
considered as expressive of the opinion of the country.
The prospect of the dismemberment, if not the an-
nihilation, of Denmark has unquestionably made a
very strong impression upon the ,nation, and led it
almost unconsciously to regard with disfavour those
to whom it has now for five years entrusted the
conduct of its affairs. And the feeling was further
increased by the circumstance that, whether rightly
or wrongly, many chose to believe that England
was bound to give material assistance to her unfor-
tunate ally. The tone adopted by the Government
in the earlier stages of the dispute between Denmark
and Germany was unfortunately not of a nature to
dispel this idea, and when fully it became known
that in any event England would do nothing to
avert the destruction which threatened Denmark,
the nation experienced a sense of disappointment
not nnmingled with shame. The English, as a
people, are peculiarly sensitive in respect to the ful-
filment of obligations, and the insinuation that they
failed in their duty to a small State which relied on
their good offices and national assistance caused no
little irritation. Not that England was desirous
of going to war, but that having been told by every
one about her that she ought to have gone to war,
she wanted to know how it was that she remained
at peace. It was in this frame of mind that the
nation watched the debate of the past week. But
before the indictment against the Government had
been read through by those who prepared it, it be-
came manifest that, no matter in whose hands the
administration of the State lay, this country would
have pursued a peaceful policy, and no matter to
whose hands it should be entrusted, the policy would
remain the same. But when once the supposed en•
gagement to afford Denmark material assistance was
disposed of, the sole question which remained was,
whether the country would prefer being governed
by those who at present occupy the Treasury
benches, or by those who sit on the other side of the
Speaker's chair. On this point we consider that the
vote of last night is decisive. Owing to circum-
stances which are notoriously foreign to the point
at issue, the majority in favour of the Government
was not considerable; but still the fact that under
those circumstances the Government did command
a majority is a convincing proof that, in the mines
of the people of Great Britain at least, Lord Pal-
merston and his callecgues are the men best fitted
to goverc the State.
HERALD.—Lord Palmerston gave his defence last
night, in a house that thundered with ewhusiaent.
It followed a full debate, in which Mr. Osborne end
Mr. Walpole acted with effect the leAding parts,
and it han with a double falsification—that Lord
Russell Cpad been selected as a special mark for
slander, and that the national name had been vili-
fied and trodden into dust by the Conservative
party. The Premier is a master of magnificent
commonplaces. He can always secure a cheer by
a loud and lofty appeal to the clap-trap patriotism
of benches occupied by men who fear that other
appeal which will bring them face to face with
the constituencies. Commencing thus, he imme-
diately proceeded after the folio of encourage-
ments by Lord Russell, to prove that Denmark
was as deeply in the wrong towards her Duchies
as Holland was towards Belgium before the separa-
tion—a statement as utterly incompatible as any
statement imaginable, with the subsequent indigna-
tion of the British Foreign Secretary. Certainly,
however, Lord Palmerston was the only member of
the Government, Mr Gladstone not excepted, who
proved himself capable of even a plausibility in re-
ply to Mr Disraeli, and although his explanation of
the now infamous phrase " Denmark shall not stand
alone," excited laughter, it was at _least more respec-
table and original than the audacities of Mr Layard
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He coloured
the policy of the Government with considerable
artistic skill, and was strong in his challenge to the
votes of the Whig faction, taking care to divide the
responsibility of all that happened among the lead-
ing Powers of Europe, and insinuating that Minis-
ters never designed or promised to act alone. Fall-
ing back on the case of Poland, he felt his way,
first in the track of Mr Horsman, then, in that of
Mr Cobden, as if the question was simply one of
peace or war, and next treating the proposal of a
Congress by France as a show of insanity. The
country will not care to pursue the First Lord very
minutely through his analysis of French motives or
objects, for its interest is concentrated on the part
which England has taken throughout these trans-
actions ; but the speech became important when
it dealt with the position of Great Britain re-
latively to the other Powers of Europe, because
that problem has for us, in its solution, a terrible
significance. It declared to the house that Eng-
land had acted in concert with the other Govern.
rrents from the outset until now, with a view alone
to preserve the peace of the world, and it gave a
singular history, adroit and picturesque, in the
Premier's unique manner, of the transactions which
he and his colleagues have been so perilously forced
to defend. The question, Lord Palmerston affirms,
had been reduced before he proposed arbitration
to a narrow difference between two frontiers
—and he pleads not guilty to the failure of
an attempt which, he boasts, had it succeeded,
would have deserved the approbation of all man-
kind. He accused Mr Disraeli of having far.
ratted out extracts from the blue book, in order to
debate an European interest in a party spirit. He
asked, what is the use of English influence if Eng-
land is never to interfere, thus applying himself to
an issue which was never raised,- at all events by
Mr Disraeli. He brought forth the antique to k
about the balance of power and the rights of weak
states, until he seemed to be listening to the echoes
of 1850, with Roman citizenship in the foreground.
In fact, the placid statesman, making himself out to
be a political warrior who had campaigned triumph-
antly in the four quarters of the world, and who
meets every allegation, however elaborately sup-
ported by evidence, with " I deny it," designates as
a libel the statement that the just influence of Eng-
land has been diminished. We think the public,
ig,:e morti fi -
carefully examining his answer to the Opposition,
will be compelled to regard it as a tissue of etattPl.
sophisms. For example, begging the svhtol
eeq, 3 bLei :
Om) of a diplomacy at once futile, arroga
and evasive, and pretending to despise
a'tnilefd the
spatches which have been so calam
nd science, without
protocols which have merely recor .
cations, wealth, literature, a. why our authority
sted, prostituted, an ex_
pointing a slyvl
el a balievt ori
ift.chiiqeuheAe disastrous:said
n I:l3wrranetaidcoan:hwaie)srdobbteae::
been
in Europe has been so wasted,
lis ust ed.
ourselves, if attacked ; ,
increased commerce ; we have
successful at home, d
reduced taxation an
llntruth, except the very thing
ataid has not been done—upheld
the honour of the nation on the Continent of Europe.
dwhiec lnelrry
Disraeli
.
point in Lord Palmerston's case
I wast weak
that bethe
sought theer
cheers of his party upon topics
utterly irrelevant to the subject of debate. He
vaunted of national strength which has crouched
to foreign defiance, and, instead of justifying Lord
Fussell, flattered the volunteers. Denmark has
ben betrayed, Mr Disraeli says. Portsmouth is
safe, replies Lord Palmerston. The blue book;