The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-05 00:00:00

THE SeN, LCINDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY g, MCC

open. one finger at a time The Emperor of the French
treats his people in much tie same way—he opens one finger
at a time, but in doing so it is for the benefit of his people,
and I hope his Government will be maintained, and that,
'with his sagacity and his skill, it will be found possible
without a revolution, to give the French people greater
liberty and more in accordance with that which other coun-
tries enjoy. These are, however, difficult and great problems,
Wain this country are fret from them. We have long set-
tled our constitution, but : believe there will be serious and
gnat conflicts in Europe. I am happy to say that in France,
in Russia, and in this comtry, there is the greatest desire
to maintain peace, and if hree such powers are disposed to
maintain peace, I cannot believe that any long war is likely
to occur in Europe. It rill be the object of the Govern-
ment not rashly to comuit themselves to any policy which
may entail evils upon tlis country. But at the same time I
must, accepting what toe noble earl said, state that it is
the duty of the Government not to look to Parliament
for suggestions or seek advice from parliament, but to look
seriously at the situation of the country, and to avail them-
selves of all the light which they can obtain ; but having
so availed themselves, and then made up their minds to state
to parliament what is their policy, and to stand or fall by
the result—that is their duty. (Hear, and cheers.)
Earl GREY said the question for the Government to de-
cide was whether they would protect Denmark or abandon
her. Were we to permit a gross act of injustice to be done ?
After what had fallen from the noble earl he (Earl Grey)
could not help entertaining a suspicion that it might be the
apinion of her Majesty's Government that Denmark was
oppressed unjustly. If so, the oppression ought to be re-
listed, It was a most serious thing on the part of Govern •
nont to determine that they would look on quietly while an
:just act was being perpetrated. (Hear, hear.) He thought
tie Powers of the civilised world had a clear interest in pre-
anting injustice being inflicted upon any of their number,
aid the best security for the peace of Europe was the un-
derstanding amongst the great nations that if any one of
them were treated unjustly the other nations would stand
forward in its defence. He feared that the Government had
too long deferred coming to a definite conclusion on this
subject, and that the advice we had given Denmark had
created an impression that when the time arrived our aid
would not be wanting. If we had intended to withhold our
assistance we should have made that determination known
to Denmark at an early period. If the Government had
intended to interfere in the matter they ought to have
called Parliament together at an earlier time—(hear,
hear)—and asked for its support. That might have been
followed up by the despatch to Denmark of a British
force, Such a course would have had an enormous effect.
As it was her Majesty's Government had either done too
much or too little. With regard to America, he acquitted
the Government of all blame whatever, and he thought also
that the arguments for not engaging in a war on behalf of
Poland were perfectly conclusive, France naturally felt
that we had lest her in the lurch, and was offended accord-
ingly, He thought the Government were right in rejecting
the Emperor Napoleon's plan of a congress,:but that the
manner in which they did so was needlessly offensive to
that sovereign. The premature publication of the despatch
in which they announced their intention was also calculated
-o wound his Majesty's susceptibilities. It was a matter of
the highest importance that our relations with foreign coun-
ties should be conducted in such a manner as would, while
naintaining our own dignity and honour, conciliate those
Towers, and prevent the country from falling into the state
of isolation in which she was now placed. Nor is it imma-
terial to observe upon the drain upon the resources of the
empire which was going on in distant dependencies at a
time when, looking to the critical state of Europe, a demand
might be made upon our energies nearer home. Having
expressed his deep regret at the war in New Zealand, the
noble earl complained of the terms in which the Queen's
Speech referred to the operations in Japan. Contrary to
practice, it expressed a decided opinion that the Japanese
were to blame, and that we were not responsible for what
happened. Now, he for one looked with the utmost horror
upon the destruction of liagosima. The cruelty of the
proceedings of the Federals of Charleston were as nothing
to the burning of an enormous town, the inhabitants cf
which were innocent of all offence against us. He felt
sure, moreover, that unless there was a change in our
policy in Japan, a costly end bloody war with that coun-
try would soon commence. In China, also, there was a
state of things entirely unsatisfactory. So far as her
Majesty's Government were concerned, it was a mere
matter of accident that we had not been involved in the
greatest responsibility in regard to the Government of
China. Was it wise to involve ourselves in so many of
these affairs in different parts of the world, while Europe
was in its present critical state ? He knew he should be told
that it is not our fault. hut that is not so. No doubt the
barbarous people to whom we were opposed had become like
barbarians ; but we had in the first instance placed our-
selves in a position in which we were certain to receive
treatment which we should then be called upon to resent.
Our whole course of action with regard to these distant na-
tions had been marked with complete want of foresight.
Earl GRANVILLE did not intend to prolong the debate,
which had been very satisfactory to her Majesty's Govern-
ment, as it had, he thought, shown that the house generally
approved their policy. He wished, however, to refer to one
or two principles laid down by the noble earl who had just
concluded. One of the principles to which Earl Grey always
appeared most attached was a love of peace, and that he
frequently carried to an injudicious extent. But he (Earl
Granville) must pretest against the doctrine which he now
appeared to lay down, teat because we had large armaments
we were bound to redress all injustice, without regard to our
own interests or treaty obligations. The noble earl's speech
showed that he did not himself regard this principle as
sound, for as soon as he came to New Zealand or Japan,
when operations were necessary for the protection of the
lives and property of (=fellow subjects, he protested against
war. But with regard to Schleswig-Holstein he said that if
the representations of his noble friend in regard to the con-
duct of Germany were correct, the Government should have
called Parliament together in December, and told both
parties to the dispute what they meant to do. But he (Uarl
Granville) thought that we should never threaten what we
could not carry out. Now, from December three months
must have elapsed before we could have been of any use to
the belligerents whose cause we espoused. And it was not
prudent, therefore, to announce our intentions then, when
we could not know what might be the position of the belli-
gerents, or the intentions of other Powers, at the time
when the opportunity for action arrived. The noble earl
had accused the Foreign Secretary of acting discourteously
towards the Emperor of France in the publication of his de-
spatch declining to attend the Congress before it was actually
delivered to the Emperor. No discourtesy was intended,
nor did it ever enter the head of his noble friend to publish
it before its delivery. But it was at that time very desir-
able that it should be published as early as possible, in con-
sequence of the anxiety that was felt as to the course that
England would take. And its delivery to the Emperor hav-
ing been accidentally delayed for two days in consequence of
some misunderstanding with Earl Cowley, it happened that
it was published before the Emperor formally received it,
No discourtesy was, however, intended, and at the earliest
possible period an apology was made to the Emperor for the
apparent, but quite, unintentional, discourtesy which had
occurred. He hnped, he would say in conclusion, that it
was quite understood that the Government took on them-
selves the full responsibility of the affairs now in hand.
What they requested was that, if the house had not confi-
dence in them, let them say so, and dismiss them ; but if
not, let them not bind the hands of the Government, but
leave them that freedom of action without which they could
not satisfactorily conduct the affairs of the country.
Earl GREY, in explanation, remarked that what he in-
tended to say was, that if this country was going to inter-
fere, the sooner the decision was made known the better,
The Address was then agreed to, and the house adjourned
at twenty-five minutes to ten o'clock.

ROUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening,
The house assembled shortly before four o'clock.
NEW ME MBE RS.
The following new members took the oaths aua their
seats :

Sir RunNntLL PALMER (Attorney-General), on his re-
election for the borough of Richmond, Yorkshire.
Sir R. P. COLLIER (Solicitor-General), on his re-election
for the borough of Plymouth.
Mr. R. BATESON HARVEY, for Buckinghamshire, in the
room of the MIL W. G. Cavendish, now Baron Chesham,
in the House of Peers.

The Hon. F. Li Gov, for the western division of Worces-
tershire, in the place of Viscount Elmley, now the Earl
lhauchamp, in the House of Peers.

Major WATERHOUsE7 for the borough of Pontefract, in
the room of Mr. R. Monckton. Runes, now Baron
Houghton, in the House of Peers.
Sir COLMAN O'LoGHLEN, in the room of Mr. F. M.
Calcutt, deceased.
The, Hon. ,C, D. TRACY, for the Montgomery.
:hire burghs, in the room of Captain IST. Johnson, de-
Ceased.

Sir Wm. FRASER, Bart., for the borough of Ludlow, in
the room of Mr. Beriah Botfield, deceased.
Mr. J. PEEL, for the borough of Tumworth, in the room
of Viscount Ita-;nham now the Marquis Townshend, in
the House of Peers.
Mr. lionoAN TREHERNE, for the borough of Coventry,
in the room of the Right lion. Elward Ellice, deceased.
Mr. LLOYD, for the boroup•li of Barnstaple, in the room
of Mr. George Potts, deceased,
Mr. G. S. LEravna, for the borough of Reading, in the
roam of Mr. Sergeant Pigott, now one of the Barons of her
2,lftjesty's Court of Exchequer.
Colonel WYSE, for the borough of Windsor, in the room
of Mr. G. N. Hope, deceased.

3lr. C.
J. IL Lan

NEATE, for the city" Ozf,rd, in the room of Mr.
gston, deceased.

Mr. W. HUMPHREY, for the borough of Andover is the
Mr. William Cabitt, deceaBed. ,

im 01 11

NEW WRITS.

On the motion of Mr. BRAND a writ was ordered to issue
for the election of a member to serve for the city of utiiire
ham, in the room of Sir W, .Atherton, deceased,
On the motion of Colonel TAYLOR, a writ was ordered
to issue for the election of a member for Tewkesbury, in the
room of the Hon. Frederick Lygon, who had accepted the
Stewardship of the Chiltern HuLdrcds.
On the motion of Lord HOTHAM, a writ was ordered to
issue for the election of a member for Winchester, in the

room of Sir
.J. B. Earl, who accepted the Chiltern
Hundreds.

ENTRANCE OF LORD PALMERSTON.

On the entrance of Lord Palmerston, about 20 minutes
past 4 o'clock, his lordship was greeted with loud cheers.
Immediately after taking his seat, the nob:e lord walked
vigorously down the floor, and then returned and laid on
the table different certain treaties of convention which had
been entered into by her Majesty during the recess, and
which are specified in the Royal speech.

time when England, in a state of profound peace, has not
been assured by the Sovereign at the commencement of the
Session of Parliament that her Majesty has received from
all foreign Powers expressions of amity and goodwill.
(Cheers.) The singular omission of that passage renders it
necessary that the House of Commons on the Out night of
its meeting should not allow the eircumstance to pass un-
noticed, and forces us to consider the nature of our foreign
relations. I confess myself that, taking a general view of
our external relations at the present time, what strikes me as
their principal feature and characteristic is that th3y are in a
state of utter confusion. (Laughter.) I see everythingin an
inconsistent condition—sometimes approaching even to the
incoherent. (A. laugh.) Everything appears to be done
with a total want of system, and we are forced to ask our-
selves daily this question—what are our objects, and who
are our allies ? (Cheers.) I take an instance—because an
instance is always stronger than an argument—the instance
of Russia. It is very possible that her Majesty's Ministers
might have been of opinion that the power of Russia was
menacing to the tranquillity of Asia and the independence of
Europe, and that it ought to be checked and guarded. I give
no judgment on that opinion—I deprecate to-night any un-
necessary discussion on any controverted points ; but it is an
opinion which has been held in this age of eminent states-
men, and it is an opinion which might without extrava-
gance have been held by her Majesty's Government. Had
it been the opinion of the Government, their conduct last
year when the insurrection in Poland broke out would have
been perfectly intelligible. An insurrection in Poland,
accompanied as it perhaps might have been by an insurrec-
lien in Circassia—sanctioned, stimulated, and perhaps sup-
ported by the great Western Powers, would, no doubt, have
brought about results not insignificant. If that were the
opinion of the Government, their conduct was unintelligible ;
they excited the movement, they fanned the flame, and then
in the midst of the tumult and conflagration they suddenly
drew up. (Hear, hear,) Their conduct was involved in
perplexity and ambiguity; they never once relaxed into
frankness, except at last to declare that on no consideration
whatever would they ever go to war in favour of a policy in
which, in justice to Poland, they never should have engaged
unless they were in reality prepared to carry it out. But it
may be said by the Government—and I give them the fair
advantage of the objection—" We repudiate the hypotheti-
cal policy which you attribute to us with regard to Russia ;
we believe that it is the interest of Russia to maintain the
empire of Russia in its strength and integrity as a necessary
portion of the political balance, and as a bulwark against the
aggressive ambition of another European Power." Be it so,
But if that be really the opinion of the Government, if that
be their policy, how can they account for those mysterious
months of last autumn when the question of peace or war
was absolutely a struggle between the capitalists of Europe
and the secret societies—two very strong bodies, no doubt?
What we wanted then was some Prince or potentate, some
Sovereign or Minister, some of those individuals who affect
to guide the destinies of nations, should, under the circum •
stances, come forward to enlighten, strengthen, and direct
the public opinion of Europe. (Hear, hear.) Take the case
of Greece. Do we not see in what has happened in Greece
the same confusion arising from inconsistency of conduct
produced by a total want of system ? Last year gentlemen
on this side of the house—and I shared the feeling—viewed
with reluctance the surrender by her Majesty of the lonian
garrrisons—(hear, hear)—but I will freely admit that I
could conceive a British Minister in a position in which to
obtain great results and to favour a bold policy such a ma•
terial sacrifice might have been justified. To est•,blish a
strong Greek people, to obtain the gratitude and confidence
of the Greek people, that was an object so paramount as to
justify the proposal of that sacrifice, But then your policy
ought to have been complete. When the sacrifice had been
made, that was not the time to talk about the conditions to
be attached to it. And yet what is the state of the case ?
No sootier does the King of Greece arrive in his kingdom
than these conditions crop up. One day his fortifications
are to be raised—and another day he hears to his astonish-
ment that a portion of his new dominions is to be neutralised.
The neutrality of a portion of a kingdom is almost unpre •
cedented, and is always perilous, Instead of a magnanimous
policy, we find there is a policy of suspicion; instead of a
policy which would make the Greeks more powerful, we
find a policy which would make them more subordinate. In
what a position, in respect to his subjects, have we placed
that ingenuous youth, who, so tar, I may be permitted to
say, has shown no deficiency of energy and spirit. The
Greeks must consider him either as absolutely incompetent,
or as guilty of bad faith. I have seen many Greeks—and
I dare say other hen, gentlemen have also seen many—who
would say he was guilty of duplicity. (A laugh) Against
bad faith you may guard, but no human sagacity can
baffle the unconscious machinations of stupidity. (Loud
laughter.) When we parted we were under the impression
that a gcod understanding existed between England and
France. Notwithstanding many rebuffs, notwithstanding
Mexico, notwithstanding our refusal to mediate between the
contending powers in America, notwithstanding other in-
cidents and causes which will be fresh in the memory of
every member, there was a general impression that a good
understanding between England and Franca existed. A
good understanding between England and France is simply
this—that, so far as the influence of those two great Pon era
extends, the affeirs of the world are to be conducted by their
co-operation instead of by their rivalry. But cooperation
requires not merely identity of interest but reciprocal good
feeling. In public as well as in private matters a
certain degree of sentiment is necessary for the happy con-
duct of affairs, A kind thing, for instance, ought to be
done in a rough manner, and if possible a rough thing ought
to be cone in a kind manner, (A. laugh.) The feelings of
nations must be considered. Now the position of the Em-
peror of the French at the end of last year was, as every-
body knows, a very distressing one. He had held out ex-
pectations which he could net fulfil, and he had been
worsted in a diplomatic encounter.:7lf a Sovereign was ever
in a situation in which he might count on the sympathy of
an ally, in such a situation the Emperor of the Franchg was
placed, especially if he counted on the sympathy of an ally
who had very much encouraged him in the erroneous course
which he had taken. (Hear.) I look upon the proposition
for a Congress to have been an adroit manoeuvre. Amin
the burst of martial music and the peals of artillery the
Emperor of the French would have retreated with flying
colours; but I at the same time look on the proposition as
one deficient in soundness. There have been it is true very
great modifications of the Treaty of Vienna, but the scope
and tendency of the policy established by the settlement of
Vienna has not been changed, Whenever a settlement
takes place in Europe meant to be comprehensive and per-
manen ait is in the nature of things that there should be pe-
riodical variations in its conditions, but unless the scope
and tendency of the policy of such a settlement undergo a
change, no one, as experience proves, is likely to call for an
abrogation of the treaty itself. In the course of the 250
years which form diplomatic history, and the crowd of
conferences and congresses which have taken place,
we find only three settlements of a permanent
and comprehensive character—those of Westphalia,
Utrecht, and Vienna. if you examine the condition of
Europe 50 years after the settlements of Westphalia and
Utrecht respectively, I will be bound to say you will find
as numerous and as important modifications of those settle-
ments as have occurred during the almost 50 years which
have elapsed since the settlement of Vienna. But the scope
and tendency of the policy fixed at Westphalia and after-
wards at Utrecht was never changed, and no Power, not-
withstanding the many disturbances on the Continent,
called on Europe to advocate such a change. As it was with
the settlements which I have just mentioned, so it is with
the treaty of Vienna—there may have been great modi-
fications of it, but its scope and policy have not altered.
Under these circumstances, far from disapproving of her
Majesty's Government for declining to attend the proposed
Congress, I give them credit for the valid reasons which
induced them to take that course. I cannot, however, ex-
tend the same approbation to the manner and mode in
which their refusal was conveyed. (Hear, hear.) The
position of the Emperor of the French is peculiar. He has
publicly—almost ostentatiously—proclaimed that position
to Europe, and there can, therefore, be no indelicacy in re-
ferring to it. He is not, he has told you, like other Em-
perors. He is not, for example, like the Emperors of
Austria or Russia. He does not stand on traditions. He
is not hedged round by the magic of prescriptive rights.
He has been created, and can be maintained only, by the I
sympathy of his people—a people proud, imperious, and apt
to ba discontented. A considerate ally ought to have re-
membered this; but an ally which had encouraged the
Emperor of the French in the very policy which had in-
volved him in his difficulty—an ally which had been a par-
taker of his projects, and had fully shared in his diplomatic
discomfitures—ought not to have received his proposition
for a Congress in a spirit of cynical criticism. Sarcasm is,
undoubtedly, a great ornament of popular debates (laughter)
and has been recognized as an efficient rhetorical weapon
since the days of Quintilian ; but the natural language of
diplomacy is, I contend, conciliation, and it is, in my
opinion, to be regretted that a Secretary of State, when he
conveys to foreign Powers the decisions of his Sovereign and
Cabinet, should find no happier medium of expression than
a sneer. (Cheers.) What makes the conduct of the Go-
vernment so much to he deplored in the present instance
is that when this refusal couched in this spirit was given,
the Government must have been sensible that the time was
approaching for the solution of one of those European diffi-
culties in which the cordial sympathy and assistance of our
ally must prove of the greatest utility. This brings me to
the subject which absorbs the most important part of the
Speech which we heard from the Royal Commissioners to-
day. It cannot be said that in that Speech the affairs of
Schleswig and Holstein are passed over without notice.
They are, however, I maintain, only noticed to bewilder,
and if anyone reads the three paragraphs to which I am
about to call attention he will find that they do not place
the real state of the case before the !name, and that they
not only do not do that, but that they place the real question
in such a position that her Majesty's Government have
altogether evaded giving an opinion upon it. (Hear.) I
have shown the house that in the general conduct of our
affairs, whether with regard to Russia, Greece, or France,
there have been exhibited by Ministers a confusion and in-
consistency which can be productive of nothing but injuri-
ous consequences, and that there is in their policy an ap-
parently total want of system. Last year the house expected
an explanation of a despatch which had bean written by the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on this very question of the
relations between Denmark and Germany, and on the merits

or demerits of that document I am not now about to pro-
nounce an opinion. It was a very important State paper ;
but, although I do not at present propose to enter upon the
discussion of the views which it contains on a question
which be dealt with at some future day, and which cannot
be dwelt upon:in a desultory debate on the address on the
opening night of a session, yet I will say that I look upon
the policy which was recommended in that despatch,
considering the time at which it was published
and the place where it was penned, as calculated
to encourage the violent party in Germany—(hear, hear)
—and that I believe the general impression which it pro-
duced in Germany as well as Denmark was, that all the bias
of the British Government was in favour of Germany. Any
one who happened to be in that country at the time must be
aware that the despatch was for months looked upon as in-
dicative of the policy of the English Government, and that
a fresh impulse to force Federal Execution was the conse-
quence. To so great an extent did that feeling prevail that
the subject was brought forward in this house, though it
was the last night of the session, by my hon. friend the
member for Horsham. The Prime Minister made a speech
on that occasion, and I gave no opinion of the justice or
policy of the course which he recommended, any more than
on the despatch of the Secretary of State. I would, how-
ever, appeal to any one who listened to the speech in which
the noble lord declared that the independence and integrity
of Denmark was of great European interest, and in which
he declared that when the borders of Holstein were passed
Denmark would find that she was not alone in the quarrel
—to say whether the necessary effect of the noble lord's
language did not appear to be—that which we now know
was its efiect—to encourage a party which certainly never
required such encouragement—namely, the extreme party
in Denmark. (Hear.) Thus you see exhibited in dealing
with this question the same confusion, inconsistency, and
incoherency which I have already traced through the whole
of the diplomatic conduct of the Government. The despatch
and the speech having operated—the one to encourage Ger-
many to take an extravagant view, the other to support
Denmark in maintaining a view equally irrational—we now
find the question discussed in the Speech of the Royal Com-
missioners. I have no doubt that these three paragraphs
are now ;perfectly familiar to every hon. gentleman. The
third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of the Speech from the
Throne—the three most important paragraphs—are, in tact,
a statement of premises. They are premises drawn up with
great art, and no doubt for a great object. They were drawn
up to impress on the country and on Europe the solemn
and important engagements which had been entered into
by all the principal crowned heads of Europe. It
reads, in fact, like the .41manach de Gotha. (Laughter.)
First of all, there is the date of the treaty ; then the style
and names of the Sovereigns ; then the object is brought
forward that, for the preservation of the balance of power
and of the peace of Europe, the integrity of the'Danish
monarchy should be meintained, and that in order to do so
the acknowledgment of King Christian as successor to the
Crown should be made. Having brought forward all these
premises, what is the conclusion which is drawn from them
It cannot be found in the Speech—(cheers)—because the
third paragraph ends only, " Her Majesty will continue her
efforts in the interests of peace." The logical conclusion of
these three paragraphs is so be found in the Speech which
the noble lord made on the last day of last Session—(bear,
hear)—that, in consequence of this treaty, in consequence
of vital European interests being involved, according to the
opinion of the Government, in that treaty, if any act of
violence was formed against Denmark (for that was the
language of the noble lord), Denmark was not to find her-
self alone in the contest. (Cheers ) But here we have
these pompous premises, and what is the conclusion ? Why.
that her Majesty will continue her efforts in the interests of
peace. The interests of peace What would a stranger
think who had listened to the Speech of the Royal Com-
missioners, and knew nothing of public life and public affairs
until that moment ? Could he believe that the Eider had
been passed, that blood had been shed, and that perhaps at
this moment a great engagement may be taking place ?
(Cheers.) And is Denmark alone ? (Loud cheers.) Be-
fore I touch on the policy of her Majesty's Government in
that respect I must make one observation on these three
paragraphs, because they contain an incongruous expression
which may be found very inconvenient in future debates,
which are no doubt impending. The house will observe
that, having stated the treaty and the object to
it, which is to obtain the succession of King
Christian IX. to the kingdom of Denmark, it is said
" Her Majesty has been unremitting in her endeavours to
bring about a peaceful settlement of the differences which
on this matter have arisen between Germany and Denmark."
That is an entirely incorrect statement. There are no differ-
ences between Germany and Denmark on this matter. Not
even the Diet of Frankfort has come to any resolution to
question the succession of the present King of Denmark,
and, therefore, the differences existing between Denmark
and Germany have nothing to do with thematter,as is alleged
to be the case. (Hear.) No, sir. these pompous premises are
drawn up to prepare us for what, no doubt, in the opinion
of the noble lord, is the logical consequence to be found in
the speech which he made last year. But a new light has
fallen apparently on the Government. The convenience of
Parliament is appreciated in a free country. But there is
one advantage in Parliament which is not always under-
stood, but which it appears to we at the present time her
Majesty's Government entirely appreciates, and that is that
when the Ministry have not a policy it is convenient to look
to Parliament to find one for them. (Loud cheers,) What
I wish to impress on the house is that that is by no means
our duty. If there be a prerogative of the Crown, which no
one has ever challenged, it is the prerogative of declaring
peace or war, without the interference of Parliament, by her
Majesty alone, under the advice of her responsible Minis-
ters. (Hear, hear.) And if her Majesty's Government are
of opinion that this country ought to go to war for any
cause, or on any side, and advise her Majesty to take that
step, and her Majesty takes that step, and there is a war,
whether that war be just or unjust, no doubt Pailiament
will support her Majesty, though, at the same time, they
will take the constitutional opportunity to express the ir
opinion on the policy of the Government, to bring in-
formation on the subject, and to throw light upon the c•r•
cumstances which will be conducive to the formation of a
clear opinion upon the matter. (Hear, hear) I mention
this, because Ido not think her Majesty's Government
are eminent for courtesy in the mat ner in which they treat.
the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) It is only recently
we have been reminded, not by the noble lord, but by
writers whom he recognises as great masters of the English
language, that aff ti rs are carried on in a very satisfactory
way as far as the House of Commons is concerned ; that the
great departments are principally represented by Under
Secretaries ; that nobody much cares what they say or what
they do—(laughter)—and that the relations between the
Government and the House of Commons are fast drawing
to that satisfactory condition which subsists between mem
hers of the French Chambers and their master. (Cheers.)
Humiliate us it you like. Degrade us if we must submit to
it. But, at any rate, do not call on us to bear responsibility.
,Loud cheers.) If the relation of the House of Commons to
the Government is fast approaching the relation of the
French Chambers to their master we have a right to look to
the Government to do that which in the language of the day
is known as " taking the initiative." (Laughter.) No doubt
there are difficulties in the way of the Government coming
with a cut and dry policy to settle all the differences of
Europe. The condition of Europe is one, no doubt, of a very
grave character, and upon the conduct of the English Go-
vernment and on the conduct of Parliament much depends.
But the noble ;ord must feel that it is for the Government to
frame a policy which they think they ought to recommend,
and no doubt when it is brought forward, if it be a wise and
fair policy, the House will unanimously support them; for
I have always seen that whenever foreign affairs have occu-
pied the attention of the House there has always been an
absence of party strife and feeling in dealing with matters
of such high importance, (Hear, hear.) If we believe that
this country is engaged in a just and fair quarrel, Parliament
will support the Government, of whomsoever it may be
formed. (Cheers.) But let us be sure about the policy
which we are pursuing. Let us be quite sure, if we go to
war, first of all that it is a necessary and just war, and,
secondly, if now necessary, whether it should not have been
prevented by more astute and skilful management. (Cheers.)
I think I have shown some reason why the country should
lock with some suspicion on the foreign policy of the pre-
sent Government, I looked with some suspicion on it
last year. I thought I observed in it uncertainty, incon •
sistency, a variance between the courses recommended by
different Ministers, which seemed to portend the greatest of
all evils—namely, indecision in the treatment of our allies.
Her Majesty's Government, throughout this particular
business of Germany and Denmark, has been like a certain
Prince—not of Auguetenburg or Glucksburg—but that un-
fortunate Prince of Denmark who was infirm of purpose—
" The times are out of joint, oh cursed spite,
That ever we were born to set them right."

(Cheers and laughter.) But you are Minister; to set them
right, and I protest against your coming to Parliament in
a critical state of affairs without a policy. If you have a
policy, let it be brought forward fairly and candidly ; but
do not come masked or visored here without our knowing
whether in your opinion the claims of Denmark are just or
the claims of Germany can be defended. (Cheers.) Let us
know what is the opinion of the Government ; and I wore
particularly wish to know the opinion of the Government,
because what occurred in the recess is not such as to induce
or authorise an Opposition to give a blind confidence on a
question of foreign policy. (Hear, hear.) It could hardly
have been in our expectation when last we met—when we
were lietening to those bold words of the noble lord on the
position of Denmark, and the determination of England to
uphold Denmark, which is the only interpretation to be
placed on the declaration of the noble lord—it could hardly
have been in our belief that during the six months which
have elapsed a policy so profound, so adroit, so deeply skil-
ful, should be pursued by her Majesty's Government that
they could have contrived in that space of time alike to for-
feit the confidence of Russia and to Leo the cordiality of
Franco. (Hear.) That seems a masterpiece, But what are
are we to say of men who, having brought about
two such opposite results, should now be within an ace
of going to war with Germany ? (Hear, hear.) I say
then—l must end as I began—what are your objects; who
are your allies ? (Hear, hear.) I will not say you have
none; you have the King of Denmark, whom you are
not going to aid. But is that a position for England ?
Can we believe that our affairs have been properly con-
, ducted, when, a crisis having arrive I, we find ourselves

literally without allies ? (Hear.) Even if the Government
were without allies, but had a clear course f rmed, and ap-
pealed to the House of Commons, the House of Commons
would, I am confident, support them. This reserve and re-
ticence might be justified in the case of Ministers who with
singular ability had conducted public affairs, and, if they
were not supported by the House or Commons, might be
supported by France, by Russia, or by Austria ; but when
the Government comes before us in as desolate a Condition
in respect to our foreign relations as any Cabinet can bey
they are bolted to act with frankness, and to tell us what is
the policy which they recommend, confident that the coun-
try and Parliament will support them if their cause is just,
and I think equally sure that if, having brought our affairs
to this condition, they have at this moment no policy
what-
ever, they have not fulfilled their duty as Ministers of the
Crown. (Hear.) The noble lord will say to me—it is one of
the stereotyped passages of his speeches—" If you have no
confidence in the Ministers of the Crown why don't you tell
us so ?" I will tell the noble lord that when the opportu-
nity is fitting we will of course challenge the opinion of
Parliament. I No such opportunity is given by that docu-
ment which is in my hand. Would it be becoming in me to
move an amendment to the Address because there is incon-
gruous diplomatic language in these'three paragraphs? That
is not an issue upon which the questions now at stake
ought to be decided. But if the noble lord will inform us the
necessary papers which are not even promised in the Speech
—(hear)—we will form an opinion upon them. We are told,
indeed, that her Majesty "actuated by the same desire to
preserve peace" has been unremitting in her, endeavours
for that object. But what evidence have we that these la-
bours have been unremitting ? I should have thought that
the noble lord would have appeared at the bar the very first
night of the session and would have placed on the table
some volume for our enlightenment. What has become of
the mission of Lord Wodehouse ? (Hear.) I cannot suppose
that we shall be met with the pedantic reply that Lord
Wodehouse had no mission but one of congratulation. We
know that Lord Wodehouse went to Berlin, We know that
Lord Wodehouse went to Paris. We know that Lord
Wodehouse had a mission—a mission of the greatest im-
portance—which was eminently unsuccessful. And when
the House of Commons is told that there have been unre-
mitting efforts to maintain peace, and yet not a single paper
is placed upon the table, are we to be silent, and are we to
submit to the commonplace retort, " If you have no confi-
dence in the Government you ought to propose a vote of
want of confidence ?" Give us the documents that will
throw the necessary light upon the present state of public
affairs, now involved in obscurity, in perplexity, and in
mystery, and we will form upon those documents a fair
Parliamentary opinion, If the policy of the Government is
clear and well considered, they will be supported ; but if
they have no policy, if they are at this critical moment
without allies, looking to the vague sympathies of Parlia-
ment to guide and support them, I say that they are taking
an unworthy course, that they are unfit for the offices which
they fill and the place which they occupy; and if it is
proved that that is the state of affairs, I believe that Parlia-
ment will not hesitate to express its opinion upon their
conduct. (Loud and prolonged cheering.)
After the right hon. gentleman had resumed his seat
there was a short interval, during which no member pre-
sented himself to address the house. There were repeated
calls for " Palmerston," and at last, as the Speaker was
about to put the question,
Lord PALMERSTON rose. The noble lord, who was re-
ceived with loud cheers, said—l should much have preferred
to have heard the opinion of other members beeiles the
right hon. gentleman, who is always listened to with the
deference which his abilities and position entitle him to,
but as it appears that the gentlemen on that side of the
house have given him an unlimited proxy, I shall take
leave to deal with the speech which he has delivered. The
great complaint of the right hon. gentleman seems to be no
as to what the Speech contains, but as to what he thinks it
ought to have contained, and I think that I shall have no
difficulty in explaining to the house the reason why some,
or many, or all of those topics to which the right hon, gen-
tleman alluded were not introduced into her Majesty's
Speech. In the first place, he complained that no mention
has been made of the civil war in America. Why, we have
over and over again lamented and still continue to lamen t
the continuance of that war, and we have declared more
than once that her Majesty's Government profess to act, and
intend to continue to act, upon a principle of strict neutra-
lity in regard to that contest. Unless the house had
thought that her Majesty's Government were going to de-
part from that course, of which there is no indication what-
ever, it would have been matter of surplusage to have filled
the Speech with a repetition of the statements made on for-
mer occasions, and which are still binding upon her Ma-
jesty's Government. (Hear.) Then no mention has been
made of our relations with China. There is no need to
mention your relations with a country as long as they are
good, and as we continue to be upon relations of confidence
and amity with the Chinese Government, there is no occa-
sion to mention that circumstance. The right hon. gentle-
man also complains that this Speech does not contain the
repetition of that statement which has been found in other
Speeches as to the nature of cur relations with foreign
Powers,;Why, everybody must know that there have been
between her Majesty's Government and some foreign
Powers, discussions which even until within the last few
hours were not brought to a satisfactory termination, and
that was the reason why no mention was made of
them. It was unnecessary to state anything about Poland.
Every one knew that the efforts made by England, France,
and other Governments to induce the Government of Rua -
are to adopt some more humane and conciliatory course of
conduct towards Poland had failed; that the answer was
that until the insurrection was put down the Emperor could
not change his conduct, but that when the insurrection
should have ceased he was prepared to do those things
which we recommended; and there was no need to repeat in
her Majesty's Speech that which was perfectly well known
many months ago to this house and to everybody in the
country. The right hon. gentleman complains of the man-
ner in which the proposal or the Emperor of the French for
a general Congress was received and answered by her Ma-
jesty's Government. I totally deny that there was anything
discourteous in the answer. The habits of this country are
perhaps more plain and simple than those of continental
nations. We state our opinions and we give our reasons,
but we do not often abound in those superfluous expres-
sions of compliment which we are accustomed to hear from
our neighbours. Tbere was nothing in that answer which
can, with any semblance of justice, be called uncourteous,
uncivil, or unfriendly, or otherwise than was due between
two Governments which are upon a footing of reciprocal
confidence. (Hear, hear.) I don't think that the right hon.
gentleman was of opinion that the proposal ought to have
been accepted. He quoted instances in which the general
principles which had governed Congresses were maintained
for a great lapse of years, although many of the detailed
conditions of the arrangements had been changed. So it is
with regard to the, Treaty of Vienna. A Congress can only
with advantage take place under circumstances such as those
which existed in the year 1815, (Hear, hear.) At tha t
time the course of conquest, proceeding from the banks of
the Seine, had flowed to Moscow, and had overturned all
the previously existing arrangements in Europe. The re-
flux of the tide had swept away everything that French
conquest had established in lieu of what had existed before,
It was necessary that Europe should be rearranged, anti
there was power to rearrange it, because the Congress which
assembled consisted of the Governments commanding those
armies which were then in military possession of Europe.
(Hear, hear.) Nothing similar to that exists at the present
moment. You might assemble a Congress representing all
the Powers of Europe, and if the members of that Congress
were agreed upon any particular proposal, that proposal
would naturally be adopted. Bat if there was a dissen-
tient voice there would be no authority in the majo-
rity to bind the minority, and therefore the result of the
Congress would be absolutely nil. The Congress might
have met for the purpose of sanctioning by a new treaty the
present state of things. Could you have expected that the
present state of things in Italy, for instance, would have
been sanctioned by Austria ? Would you have asked the
King of Italy to sign a treaty by which he agreed to cir-
cumscribe his territories as now existing, and to forego any
future claim on Venetia and on Rome ? Why, of course,
you would not. Then, could the existing state of things
have been taken as a basis for introducing such changes as
the Congress might deem it expedient to make ? Those
changes would have involved a transfer of territory to some
new Power ; to that, of course, there would have been an
objection which could not be overruled by the opinion of
the majority. It was our opinion, therefore, that such a
Congress, instead of confirming and strengthening the
foundations of peace, would lead to the separation of its
members after rendering differences of opinion more pointed
and diversities of interest more irreconcilable. (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman, indeed, suggested an amendment
of our answer : whether it would have contributed to con-
firm the good feeling between England and France I do not
know, but he seemed to imply that we might have inserted
in our despatch that this proposal for a Congress was "an
adroit manoeuvre." (Laughter and loud cheers.) Well, we
really did not think that such was the state of the case. We
believed it to be a proposal made in perfect sincerity and
good faith by the Emperor of the French, who thought it
might lead to the good results he anticipated. We differed
from that view for reasons which we stated, end we trust
that our difference has not made any permanent or material
alteration in the good feeling between the two Governments.
(Cheers.) Indeed, I can give he house the assurance, be-
cause I have had recent communications to that effect, tha
the relations between the two Governments are as cordial
as they were before the correspondence. (Loud cheers.) Olt
course, when the Governments of two great countries are in
communication upon matters of groat interest to them and
to Europe, strong as may be their desire to act together,
each must have views and interests of its own ; and without
any interruption of friendly relations there may and must
often be differences of opinion as to the practical application
of principles upon which in general t hey concur. And,
therefore, if upon a particular subject the English and
French Governments may not take the same view of what
is to be done, it must not be supposed that a man is justified
in saying the relations between the Governments are less
friendly than they were before. Mexico has been mentioned
to-night. Is that cited as an instance of an occasional celancse
between the two Governments ? A jealous English Govern-
ment might have looked with disfavour upon the attempt to
establish in Mexico a monarchy under the protection of
I razce, But have we expiessed the slightest jealousy, the

slightest disfavour towards such a proceeding? (Hear, hear.)
we stated fairly and cordially that if the French Govern-
ment c ,uld establish order and regular government in
Mexico, even though that might be accomplished by a
French army, we thought the step would be for the benefit
of the people of Mexico and for the advantage of all the
nations of Europe having commercial intercourse with that
country. Aud therefore, far from being an instance of cold-
ness or distrust between the two Governments, the right
hon. gentleman might have mentioned the case of Mexico
as en instance of confidence on our parts well deserved and
well merited by the Government of Franc 6. (.Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman stated generally the sarcasm
was a very fit instrument to use in debate. (A latigh,)
He might have recollected that sarcasm is not a test of
truth—(hear, hear)—and, though very useful as a flourish, it
does not establish an argument unless it is accompanied by
something more solid and substantial. The right hon. gen-
tleman addressed himself mainly to the Schleswig-Holstein
question, and complained that the Government came down
to the house without a policy. First of all, I deny that, and
I will show him by and by that he is in error. But really,
from the manner in which he dealt with the subject, I was
every moment expecting that he would give us his policy.
(Oh, and laughter.) He kept dangling before our eyes a
sort of half expectation that he would offer some suggestion,
but ultimately disappointed us. He promised us support
whenever our policy should be declared, and for that pro-
mise we feel very thankful, and shall not fail to remind him
when the time comes—(laughter)—bnt he did not conde-
scend to tell us what he thought the policy of the Govern-
ment ought to be. He said the Government had no policy,
but he read a paragraph from the Royal Speech which con-
tains our policy. That has been to endeavour to bring to a
friendly settlement the differences which have arisen between
Germany and Denmark, connected with the Treaty of 1852.
He says there were no such differences. Why, does not the
right hon. gentleman know that many of the Governments
of Germany have repudiated that treaty and declared that
the Prince of Augustenburg ought to be Duke of Holstein,
in place of the King of Denmark ? Does he not know that
Bavaria was never a party to the treaty, and is therefore
free to act ; and that Wurtemberg, which became a party
by acceding to the treaty, has thrown it over and espoused
the cause of the Prince of Augustenberg ? Does henot know
that Saxony, also a party to the treaty, has pursued the same
course ; and that when the Federal troops entered Holstein
the royal arms were torn down and the Duke of Augusten-
burg declared Prince of Holstein ? And, knowing this, can
he say that there was no difference between Germany and
Denmark as connected with or arising from the Treaty of
1852? We have been employed in endeavouring to bring
those difficulties to a friendly settlement. Is that not a
policy, or is it a policy which, according to the tenor of his
argument, the right hon. gentleman condemns? He hints
that the Government were bound, and ought to have gone
to war immediately; that, instead of employing diplomatic
persuasion with a view of preserving peace, we were bound
by our former declarations to rush headlong into war for
the purpose of establishing the Treaty of 1852. That was
not the policy of the Government. (Hear.) We thought it
right and proper to exhaust the means of diplomatic persua-
sion, and to a great extent we have succeeded in that policy.
At the time the Governments of Austria and Prussia seemed
to be hesitating whe`her they would abide by the treaty or
not, there was a plea set up in Germany that those who had
signed or acceded to the treaty were released from its en-
gagements, because Denmark had not fulfilled another and
a distinct engagement entered into before the treaty in a
separate correspondence, not alluded to in the treaty as
forming one of the conditions, and, therefore, entirely dis-
connected from the treaty. We protested against that idea.
We said, " The Treaty of 1852 is plain, simple, positive,
and unconditional ; there is nothing in it which entitles you
to say that because Denmark has not fulfilled a prior en-
gagement—an engagement, namely, to incorporate Schles-
wig with Denmark—that, therefore, you are released from
your engagement to acknowledge King Christian as king
of all the territories held under the Danish sway. If you
had intended to couple these two things together you ought
to have done so in the treaty of 1852. You could have in-
serted a condition providing that you would only recognise
King Christian if the arrangements were made upon which
you insisted with regard to Schleswig and Denmark. You
did not do so, and you have no right to discharge yourselves
from the obligations of that treaty because the Danes failed
in another and a different quarter." (Hear, hear.) We
said, " The failure of Denmark gives you a right of war if
you do not choose to accomplish your object by negotiation
and persuasion— a right of war against the King whom you
are bound by the treaty to acknowledge ; but it does not
give you a right to release yourselves from that treaty and
to acknowledge the Prince of Augustenburg as Duke of
Holstein. (Hear, hear.) There has been a great deal of
negotiation and communication on the subject; and I am
happy to say that within the last very few hours we have
received information from the Austrians and Prussians
that they are prepared to declare that they abide by
the Treaty of 1852, and will maintain the integrity of
the Danish monarchy in accordance with the provi-
sions of that treaty. (Loud cheers.) We have no policy I
Is not that a policy ? I say it is ; that it is a sound policy,
and one which will be approved by the people of this coun-
try. (Cheers.) Speaking fairly and impartially, I must
say that while, on the one hand, I think the Germans have
been guilty of great and unjustifiable aggression, on the
other hand one must confess that the Danes have been
wanting in the fulfilment of their obligations. The patent
of March last was a violation in many of its details of the
Federal laws applicable to the States within the Confedera-
tion, and the Diet called on the late King of Denmark to
revoke that patent, The late King was advised by Minis-
ters who were many of them very able, but yet took too
exclusively Danish a view of matters, and the result was
that he did not and would not revoke that patent. Execu-
tion was decreed ty the Diet, and the Diet in exercising
their powers decreed that troops should go into Holstein,
being prat of the Confederation, for the purpose of compel-
ling the Sovereign to revoke the patent. Well, we foresaw
that if the troops of the Confederation, under the excite-
ment which existed in Germany after the death of the late
King, and in the midst of the demands which were made by
the smaller Powers to upset the treaty and dismemember
Denmark, should go into Holstein for the purpose of exe-
cution revolutionary movemeuts would be got up by the
active party in Germany, and the authority of the Sove-
reign would for the moment be overthrown. We therefore
urged the King of Denmark to lose no time in revoking the
patent, and to put himself in the right with respect to
Germany. He did so, bu', nevertheless• execution took
place. The Federal troops marched into Holstein for the
purpose of obtaining the revocation of the patent after the
patent had been actually revoked. (Hear, hear, and a
laugh.) Well, it is fair to say that, for reasons the force
of which we certainly admit, Austria and Prussia moved
in the Diet that that measure should be a measure of exe-
cution, instead of being, what the smaller Powers who
wanted to dismember Denmark recommended, a measure of
occupation—that is to say, occupying Holstein in order that
the Diet might determine who should be Duke. (Hear,
hear.) Well, Austria and Prussia by persuading the Diet
to send their troops into Holstein as a measure of execution
acted in a manner more friendly to Denmark than if occupa-
tion had taken place. We must admit there is force in that.
(Hear.) We deny altogether that the Diet ha: any power or
any authority whatever to determine who should be Duke
of Holstein. (Hear, hear.) There is not one word in the
Federal Act of 1815, which forms the earliest of the treaties,
which gives any such power or authority to the Diet of
Frankfort, nor anything in the final Act of 1820, which was
an Act of the Diet, which gives any such power; and,
therefore, we contend it would be an act of usurpation to
declare the Prince of Augustenburg Duke of Holstein.
(Hear, hear.) But the moment that Austria and Prussia
persuaded the Diet to send in troops by way of execution the
question, as far as Austria and Prussia were concerned, was
settled. (Hear.) Then came the other point—namely, the
Constitution of last year, which we must admit did virtually
if not actually tend to incorporate Schleswig with Denmark
—(hear)—because it established a Parliament for both ; and
in the negotiations which preceded the conclusion of the
treaty in 1852 two agreements were made, one balancing the
' other--an agreement by Denmark that she would not in-
corporate or do anything that would tend to incorporate
Schleswig with Denmark, and an agreement by Austria and
Prussia on behalf of Germany that they would forego all
those claims and demands which up to that time had been
made for an administrative and political union of Holstein
with Schleswig. (Hear, hear.) Well, Austria and Prussia
now claim the fulfilment of the first of those agreements.
But the Government of Denmark unfortunately—I will not
say why or how--sanctioned upon the accession of the
present King the Constitution of November,mwighhicthhwavaes
so objectionable, and the Parliament, which
revoked its own Act, was dissolved, and therefore
in December last there was no authority that
could legally and constitutionally comply with what
we admit to be the just demands of Austria and
Prussia with regard to Schleswig. (Hear.) In that state
of things Austria and Prussia summoned the Danish Go-
vernment to revoke the Constitution ; hut, unfortunately,
their summons was so limited in point of time that it was
physicallyimpossible it could be complied with. (Hear,)
When you call for an impossibility and threaten violence if
that impossibility is not done, you put yourselves in the
wrong. (Hear.) Such was the menace of Austria and
Prussia. Well, we, in conjunction with France, Russia,
and Sweden—we have no policy as the right hon. gentle-
man Yays—( laugh)—but it so happens by some accommo-
dation of circumstances, call it what you like—we and other
Powers who think with us urged Austria and Prussia to
wait and give the time necessary to assemble the Danish
Parliament and propose to it the revocation of the Constitu-
tion. Unfortunately, that advice has not been complied
with. The Austrian and Prussian troops have entered
Schleswig violently, although the Dauieh Government, at
our urgent request-and that of the other PoWers whom I
have mentioned, formally promised to lose no time in un-
yoking Parliament and proposing the revocation of the
November Constitution, (Hear, hear.) Nevertheless,
although the demands of Austria and Prussia are virtually
conceded, that is to say, they would be conceded as soon
es it was practicable to do so, they have forcibly entered
the territory ot Schleswig, and, as everybody knows, a
contest has arisen, most lamentably, and, as we think, most
unjustifiably, (Hear, hear.) We made many applications
to prevent this—we have no policy to defend—but it was
doee:somehow or other. (Hear, hear.) But after the two
Powers had refused to give Denmark the time necessary to