The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-08 00:00:00

of its policy, and when Denmark and England had proposed
a certain line as an ultimatum, and that proposal was re-
- • ••,, Government proposed an arbitration,
",4 accept.

reotea, Iler 4unjoov,,,

Which it ought to have known Denmark cowu

Now, how Was the Government going to tneet this question ? I
The atheridraeht Which was to be sttbmitted to the house
evaded the pith and sense of the original motion, to which
indeed it might be added as a rider. (Opposition cheers.)
It was certainly true that the peace of England is at this
moment inviolate, but then it should be borne in mind that
that was not the object of the negotiations. After all their
threats and failures, the Gcvernment were trying to back
out, on the plea that England is at peace. He believed that
this country had been lowered in the opinicn of Europe by
the course pursued by the Government. He deeply re-
gretted that she had been brought to such a condition; but
the gentlemen on his side of the house maintained that the
present Government were responsible for it. They (the
Opposition) had menaced throughout the whole of the
session, they had now struck the blow; and they were
now ready to take the responsibility which might follow,
(Loud cheers from the Oppositi,2.)
Mr HO IiSMAN rose to explain that he had never said,
as the hon. gentleman seemed to suppose, that the Germans
were a set of bullies.

Sir F. GO LDS MID owned that he found a great diffi-
culty in deciding what to do. He could not say " No" to
the resolution of Mr Disraeli, yet he could not give a vote
which would assist to place the Opposition in office. Under
these circumstances, although he entirely differed with Mr
Kinglaire in his amendment, he would accept it as the only
mode of escaping from the horns of a dilemma.
Mr G. W. BE NTINCK thought it was the duty of the
House of Commons to look to the honour of the country
and not to be influenced by sentiment either in favour of
Denmark or against Germany. The resolution of Mr Lis-
raeli was only a truism, and under present circumstances
had become a platitude. It was impossible to deny that the
policy of the Government had lowered the reputation of the
country in the estimation of European nations. Nothing,
in fact, could have been more untortunate ; but although
he was prepared to censure it he would not support the re-
solution if he believed that any compact existed between
the Opposition and the Ultramontane party below the
gaUgway.

Mr COGAN denied that the question of peace or war
was at issue. The real question which the house ha.t to
decide was in what manner it could best vindicate the honour
of the country. Our foreign diplomacy had, i.. his opinion,
reduced us to such a state that we were neither loved nor
feared. To have made Earl Russell the head of the Foreign
Office was a great mistake—a cruel joke on the part of the
Premier, and had been most disasrrous to the country. The
policy of the iovernment towards I. eland was almost as
unfortunate as that pursued in reference to Denmark. They
had outraged and insulted the people of Ireland by sending
Sir R. Peel to direct their affairs. As an Administration
their diplomacy abroad had failed as lamentably as their
policy at home, and in voting ,ensure upon them he would
do so, not in urder to place a Conservative Administration
in power, but to purify the Liberal party.
Mr PEACOCKE also spoke in favour of the reso-
lution.

The A rTo RNEY- GENERAL observed that the argu-
ments of the hon. gentlemen who supported the resolution
meant that Eugland must no longer negotiate unless she
had her hand on her sword, and unless she was prepared to
go to war if her counsels were discarded. It a majority of
the house were to sanction such a policy, it would go forth
to the world that England would on all occasions act upon
the principle of following up the language of remonstrance
with armed interference, He maintained that the words ot
the Government which had been characterised as menacing
were not menaces, but the mere denunciations of the honest
truth—the cowing wereing ot mischief and danger. Earl
Russell, in his conduct of the foreign afflirs of the country,
had pursued an honest, etraigbtlorward course, and any
failures .hat had occurred were .o be attributed to the infir-
mity of humanity, and not to any miscarriage of the policy
watch the Government had laid down for their guidance.
He contended that Eegland had been as cautious ana re-,
served in Lot encouraging Denmark or holding out expec-
tations of help as ai.y ot the other Powers which had
entered the Conference. The resolutions submitted by Mr
Disraeli were, in his opinion, a lame and impotent conclu-
sion to the premises and arguments by which they were
supported. It there had been a breach of faith on the part
ot the Government, it was not by getting rid of the Minis-
try that we were to be relieved from our engagements. 'lhe
tact was that there were no such engagement, as ha.; been
alleged, and the real object of the vote ot censure was to
displace a Gov. rnment to answer the purposes of a party
irrespective of the effect upon foreign countries, Such a
course was not worthy of the reputation of a great party,
and he though., it would be tar more honourable and satis-
faetory it they did their best to maintain the faith of treaties
than to succeed to power by availing themselves of
the " chapter of accidents." He could not understand
how hon gentlemen opposite, with all the letters material
to the question betcre them since the 3d of March, should
be content to watch and wait for toe course of evens, and
then coat- down to the house with a motion, not complain-
ing or the non-tulfilm,nt of pledges on the part of England,
not condemning the Government for not going to war, but
blaming them for having c •mpromised the chances of peace.
(Cheers.; He admitted it was proper and patriotic for an
Opposition, when the Government• were honestly and ear-
nestly conducting rE_.gotia!ions, to wait until such ne-
gotiations were either successfully concluded or failed;
but it was not consistent with patriotism to stand by it they
saw the honour 01 the cJuntry was compromised. Ii the
Opposition thought, ef.er France ana Russia had ueclined
to co-operate, that Eaeland should go to war, that was the
tune tor them to &elate that the country should not be
invoived in war, The course pursued by the Opposition
was one which he believed the house would not endorse o
approve, but he was sure it would be more satisfactory to
the Government to fail on the present occasion than to suc-
ceed to power by availing themselves of the chapter of acci
dents. (Cheers) There was no advice given by her
Majesty's Government that had not beuu given by France
and Russia. These Powers had equally declared that,
under certain circumstances, they might be induced to take
part with Denmark, but for reasons of their own they had
not adhered to that promise. Her Majesty's Government
were willing to adhere to it if the other Pow, ra did, and it
teey had the assistance of France and Russia they would
have given material aid in stopping the war. But, al-
though France and Russia had acted in a precisely similar
manner, the conduct ot these powers was represented as
honourable, while her !Majesty's Government was consi-
dered worthy of censure, (Hear, hear ) He believed the
honour of this country had not suffered from the manner
in which these negotiations had been conducted. He be-
lieved the only way to maintain the influence of the coun-
try was to do right, and advise others to do right, and not
to enter upon useless and unnecessary wars. (queers.)
Whatever might be the opinion of that house at the present
moment, he was sure that the verdict of posterity would
not endorse those imputations upon the Government which
end formed the main style of the arguments in the present
debate. (Cheers,)

Lore J. MANNERS expressed his surprise at the sub-
lime audacity 01 assertion into which the learned Attorney-
General had allowed himself to be betrayed. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer and the Under-Secretary for Foreign
Affairs had been bold enough in their statements, but the
zAI of the hon. and learned gentleman had carried him
further, and enabled him to improve upon those statements.
The Attorney-General had totally misunderstood the len•
guage of the address. Ali that they said was that it was not
right for England to encourage resistance on the part of
Denmark, either directly or indirectly, unless they had. pro-
posed to carry out their threats and fulfil their promises.
Five years ago the noble lord had come into office, in order,
in the first place, to carry a democratic Reform Bill, and in
the next to raise the name of England to a height which it
had not attained under the wise and temperate management
of Lord Derby. (Laughter on the Ministerial benches.)
Well, how had the noble lord redeemed that boasted pledge?
How had he maintained the honour and character of Eng-
land in those transaction; ? Why, trout every foreign news-
paper, from every foreign capital in which an unfortunate
Englishman might happen to reside, trom every foreign
Court to which the Government had addressed its ster le
complaints, there tame one and the came answer. More
than that, the very speech of the Royal Commissioners at
the commencement of the session admitted that, whereas
in 1859, when Lord Darby's Government succeeded to the
management of affairs, England was loyal to all the other
Powers of Europe, in 1864 she stood in a position of im-
potent isolation. (Cheers.) Why was it that great States
like Prussia, and small States like Saxony, equally repu•
dieted our interference ? The cause was not deep. It
had been reserved for Lord Russell to combine a
parody of the language of Lord Chatham with en exagge-
ration of the policy of Sir Robert Walpole. But it was said
they were not concerned with Lord Russell alone, but with
the whole of the Government. He admitted that, and far
be it from him to fellow the example of the noble earl him-
self in 1855. when he made one of his colleagues responsible
for the guilt of the whole Administration. He, therefore,
would not charge Lord Russell alone with the failure of
these negotiations. He must say that, having been in the
house on that memorable July morning of last year, whoa
the noble lord at the head of the Government delivered
nimself of that famous statement to watch such frequent

reference had been made, he could not but accuse the noble
lord of a singular blindness in regard to the threatening

aspect of this quarrel. In spite of the warnings which he
rmoeived, the noble lord rose in his place in the end of July,

and said that he saw no danger to Europe under those °fr.

cumstances. They were now told that the dignity of that
house would suffer ii it gave expression to the universal
voice of the country If the House of Commons failed to
give expression to that voice, they failed in the discharge of
one of their most sole= and most important duties, The
time, he thought, had crone when this house mush express

its opinion on the conduct of the Government. (Hear,
hear.) It, having expressed the threats they had expressed,
they had pursued a bold and vigorous policy in the outset,
they might have stifled this iniquitous war in its bud; but,
instead of that, it appeared to him the Government had
neither known how to maintain, the peace of Europe, nor
now to uphold the dignity of England. (Heal, hear.)
It appeared to him that the one had, been and was still

imperilled, and the other was tarnished , in the keeping of
her Majesty's Ministers. He ad perused these doeu-
m.nts with pain and regret, and it was with pain and with