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

• there are exigencies in all parties; there may be people who
are disagreeable—still we can't get rid of them (laughter) ;
and I believe that is precisely the present mind of the noble
lord. (Renewed laughter.) The noble earl had been sent to
another place, whore it was supposed he might retire froin
power, and if that had been the case I am quite sure the
noble earl would have found himself a very happy man,
and I am equally sure that the country would have been
happy too. (Laughter.) That is my opinion of the con-
duct of Earl Russell, (Hear, hear.) Then *e come to
the motion of the right hon. gentleman. To support that
motion it is not enough, for me to say that I find fault
with you (pointing to the Treasury bench), I must have him.
(Hear, hear.) Now I honestly say that, with all the faults
of the present Administration; I Wottld bather have them
than those who seek to supplant them. (Cheers upon the
Ministerial bench.) I don't think that will be satisfactory
to gentlemen on this (the Opposition) side; still such is my
feeling, and such is the reason why I intend to vote fer thb
noble lord opposite, (Ministerial theeis.) It is not because
I believe his Government is the best that the country can
afford, (An hon. member : " Roebuck.") Ido not think
that interruption courteous—it is hardly fair, and therefore
I pass it by. (A. laugh.) Ido not think the Government
of the noble lord the best the country could form ; but I
think it a better Government than the one that would take
its place if this resolution were passed. I find fault with
what they have done. I think they have come short of
what they might have done in many things, both in their
home policy and their foreign policy. But, with all their
shortcomings, I prefer them. Sir, there is something more
I wish to say on the subject. (Laughter, and ironical cries
of " Hear, hear," cn the Opposition benches.) I think I
have said enough to make my opinions plain. I don't be.
lieve I please gentlemen oa this side—l don't believe I
please gentlemen on the other side—of the house. Bat,
with all that, I feel my country goes with me in what I
have uttered. (Hear, hear.) I think many things might
have been done which would have prevented bloodshed
upon this occasion. I think if the noble lord had the power,
as he has the wish—if he had taken a bold stand at first—
he might have Vat an end to the arrogance and injustice of
the German Powers. My notion is that if you had told
the German people the moment they attacked Denmark
they must expect England for a foe—if you had steadfastly
acted upon that, and sent your fleet to the Baltic, yoit Would
have had no more trouble with Germany. (Cheers.) You
may talk about the effect of railroads; but 1
want to know, is there any people—and more especially
the German people—who can maintain themselves without
foreign commerce ? Our fleet would have swept from the
sea the whole mercantile naVy of Germany. With that
threat I believe they would have been wise in time, and
would have abstained from that injustice which they have
now perpetuated, and which they will long deplore„
Mr HORSMAN observed that the motion contained two
propositions—one, that the policy of the Government had
failed ; the second, that the failure had been so injurious to
our national influence that the Government ought to be
blamed. The first was admitted ; the facts, in his opinion,
did not justify the second. The House, he contended, had
acquiesced in the policy of the Government, it had even
directed that policy. He insisted that, according to consti-
tutional principles, it was the duty of the House to scrutinize
our foreign policy as much as a bill upon a domestic subject.
By holding their peace the Opposition incurred a complicity
in every act of the Government, and a responsibility fur the
consequences. The policy of the Governteent was only
ministerial, and if the country had been dishonoured it was
not by the Ministry, but by Parliament. After alluding to
the conduct of the Opposition upon the Polish question, he
discussed the doctrine of non-interference in the domestic
government and the internal arrangement of other notions,
end to this construction of the phrase he gave his full and
unqualified assent. But Mr Cobden's definition went a great
deal turther,and he (MrHorsman) could not consent to place
this country in a state of isolation and seclusion. He then con-
sidered the position of this country in relation to the Danish
question, and condemned the policy adopted by the Go-
vernment as an injudicious and dangerous policy, which
had plunged them into difficulties. The Treaty of 1852
was a bad measure, but the Government could not have
repudiated it. They ought, however, to have proposed to
the contracting Powers to annul it, and substitute a decla-
ration binding the parties to defend Denmark. Unfor-
tunately, they took their stand upon the treaty, and rashly
plunged headlong into all the embarrassments of the ques-
tion ; our diplomacy was unskilful, and a stroke of Lord
Russell's pen let loose an army of German fillibustera upon
Denmark. He pursued the history of these transactions,
pointing out, as he proceeded, what he regarded as the
errors of our policy, but for which, he thought, the free soil
of Denmark would never have been polluted by German
troops. Then it was said the Conference had been a failure.
Did not the Opposition know it would be a failure ? Would
it not have been better to have denounced it at the time?
But Mr. Disraeli not only did not originate a discussion
upon the subject, but he would not allow of a discussion,
but threatened to strangle a motion to raise a discussion by
" the previous question." The Government, ho observed,
had made mistakes, but their opponents had endorsed
them ; co the parties were pretty much upon an equality.
The motion bore upon the face of it two objects—to con-
demn the Government as much as possible, and to compli-
ment their opponents as little as possible. It affirmed no
principle, it enunciated no policy. Ho was afraid the Go-
veratnent had established no claim to confidence ; but for
the mistakes of a Government there was always an excuse.
The Opposition had, however, done nothing• to prevent or
remedy these mistakes, but endeavoured to use them as a
steppingstone to power. Public policy did not require that
at that critical moment the present Government should be
displaced in order to make way for those who had shown
more we tkness and less courage.
Mr. S. IF ITZ GE D—Late as the hour is, I trust that
the house, after the somewhat personal allusion which the
right hon. gentleman has made to me, will permit me to
address a few observations. I must confess that among the
many remarkable speeches which I have heard the right
hon. gentleman make the speech which he has delivered to-
night has been the most remarkable. (Opposition cheers.)
For nearly two hours he has addressed the house, and I
think until the concluding sentence of his speech there must
have been members who were perfectly ignorant as to what
the vote was which the right hon. gentleman was about to
glove—(cheers)—because with singular impartiality, he first
blamed the Government—he told them that their adminis-
tration was disastrous, that their conduct had humiliated
England, and then he turned round to the Opposition and
said " You have no responsibility, but you era just as bad,
and I have as little confidence in you." But if his speech
was singular in this respect I think it was somewhat more
singular in the very novel theory ho has offered to the
house as to what in this country should be the conduct of
foreign politics, because he has told us that in questions of
foreign politics the office of Government was merely Minis-
terial—(Opposition cheers)—until the House of Commons
were possessed of the facts with which the Government had
to deal. In seeking thus to convert the House of Com-
mons into a foreign office, in seeking thus to transfer to this
house the conduct of foreign affairs, I think the right hon.
gentleman has shown (as the hon. and learned member for
Sheffield did before him) what the effect of such a transfer
would be. What, according to the hon. and learned gen-
tleman (Mr. Roebuck) is to be the nature of the diplomatic
language of this country ? The hon. and learned gentle-
man tholight by transferring these great questions in this
house we should conciliate foreign powers, and beat consult
the dignity of this country; and he exemplified the theory
by applying to other nations the term of highwaymen and,
I think swindlers ; while the right hon. gentleman has said
that one party with whom we have to deal were robbers, and
the others hypocrites and filibusters. The right hon gentle..
man's theory of the administration of foreign politics is
novel and unconstitutional, and I venture to think that the
results of each an administration as he looked to see estab-
lished would be most unsatisfactory, and dangerous to the
interests of the country. But before I come to deal with
the question more directly before the house, I should like
to put the right hon. gentleman right as to the statement
he made in reference to the course pursued by hon. gentle-
men on this side of the house with reverence to the case of
Poland last year. In the first place the right hon. gentle-
man says the course pursued by the Government was forced
upon it by the Opposition. Is that so? The dates prove
that the right hon. gentleman is wrong ; and 1 think the
right hon. gentleman, in assuming to be the censor and
mentor of the whole House of Commons (laughter and
cheers), might as well make himself acquainted with the
facts of the case before he offers such statements. (Cheers.)
First as to dates. The discussion upon the motion of the
hon. member for King's County took place on Feb. 27.
Mr. 11ORSIVIAN—I said so.

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