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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 5, 1864.

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 Alsjesty 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 first night of
its meeting should not allow the circumstance 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 they are in a
state of utter confusion. (Laughter.) I see everything in 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-
tion 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 these 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 establish 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 sooner 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-
went 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 far, 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 hon. 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 good understanding existed between England and
France. Notwithstanding many rebuffs, notwithstanding
Mexico, ra twithatanding our refusal to mediate between the
contending powers iu 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 France existed. A
good understanding between England and France is simply
this—that, so far as the influence of those two great Pm; ere
extends, the aff,irs of the worll aro to be conducted by their
co-operation instead of by their rivalry. But co-operation
requires not merely identity of interest but reciprocal good
feeling. In public as well as in private matters a
certain degree ot 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 Lone in a kind manner, (A laugh.) 'f he feelings of 1
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 not fulfil, and be had been
worsted in a diplomatic enecunter.:lf 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 Frenchlwas
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 mancouvre. Amid
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 t,it 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 freaty of Vienna—there may have been great raodi-
fizations of it, but its scope and policy have not altered. li
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 maintain, d only, by the
sympathy of his people—a people proud, imperious, and apt
to be 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 recognised 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 be 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 sympas hy 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 house, 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 exbibired 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 been 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
Dt nmark 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 effect—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, ane fifth paragraphs of the Si eeeh from the
Throne—the three most important paragraphs—are, in fact,
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 .41ntanach 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 maintained, 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 each only, " Her Majesty will continue her
efforts in the interests of peace." The logical conclusion of
these three paragraphs is co be found in the Speech which
the noble lord made on the last day of last Session—(hear,
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 format 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 istened 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.) Ard is Denmark alone ? (Loud cheers.) Be-
fore I touch oa 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 success on of the present King of Denmark,
and, therefore, the differences existing between Denmark
and Germany have mthing to do with the matter, as is alleged
to be the case. (Hear.) No, sir, these pompous premises are
drawn up to prepare us tor what, no doubt, in the opinion
of the noble lord, is the logical consequence to be found in
the speech which h 3 male 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 me at the present time her
Majesty's Government entirely Appreciates, and that is that
when the Ministty 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 Parliament
will support her Majesty, though, at the same time, they
will take the constitutional opportunity to express their
opinion on the policy of the Government, to bring in-
formation on the subject, and to throw light upon the cir •
cumstances which will bo 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 manner 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 affairs 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-
bers of the French Chambers and their master. (Cheers.)
Humiliate us if 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 a' tension 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
look 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 Ministers 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 caa be defended. (Cheers.) Let us
know what is the opinion of the Government; and I more
particularly wish lo know the opinion of the Government,
because what occurred in th- recess is not such as to induce
or authorise an Opposition to give a blind confidence on a
question of foreigr. policy. (Hear, hear.) It could hardly
have been in our expectation when last we met—when we
were listening to 'lose bold words of the noble lord on the
position of Denmark, and the determination of England to
uphold II enmark, 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 bo pissued 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 lose the cordiality of
France.
e t
o say of m
(H ear. ) That
woa,
having brought masterpiece.Butwhatarc
se w
about
two such opposite results, should now be within an ace
of going to we:. 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 elf tira hava boon properly con-
dusted, when, a crisis having arrive, we find ourselves

literally without allies ? (Hear.) Even if the Government
were without allies, but had a clear course fermeri, and ap-
pealed to the House of Commons, the House of Commone
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 Commone, Might be
supported by France, by Russia, or by Austria ; but when
the Government comes betore us in as desolate a condition
in respect to our foreign relations as any Cabinet can be,
they are boned 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 N inisters 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 se ?" I will tell the noble lord that when the opportu-
nity is fitting we will of course challenge the opinion of
Parliament. 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 wilt inform us the
necessary papers which are not even promised in the Speech
(hear)—we will form an opinion upon the m. We are told,
indeed, that her Majesty "actuated by the same desire to
preserve peace" has been unretni ting 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 con,gratutation. 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 wilt 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 besides 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 not
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 tear, and we have declared more
than once that her Majesty's Government protess to act, and
intend to continue to ace, 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 ate 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 arc
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 Rus-
sia 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 ,f the man-
ner in which the proposal of 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. Tnere 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 tile had swept away everything that French
Conquest had established in lieu of what had existed before.
It was necessary that Europe should be rearranged, and
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. But 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, suggeeted 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, and 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 the 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.) Oft
course, when the Governments of two great countries are in
communication upon matters of great 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 roust not be supposed that a roan 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 coldness
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
France, But have we expressed the slightest jealousy, the

slightest disfavour towards such a proceeding? (Hear, hear.) •
we stated fairly and cordially that if the French Govern-
relent ceuld establish order and regular government in
eten 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. And therefore, far from being an instance of cold-
ness or distrtist between the two Governments, the right
hon. gentleman might hate mentioned the case of Mexico
as en instance of confidence on ottr part, well deserved and
well merited by the Government of France,. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman stated generally that sarcasm
was a very fit instrument to use in debate. (A laugh.)
He might have recollected that sarcasm is not a test of
truth—(hear, hear)—and, though very alseful as a floar;ah, it
does not establish an argument unless it is accompanied by
something more solid and substantial. The right hon. gen-
tleman addressed himselt mainly to the Schleswig-Holstein
question, an, 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 ho 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 or half expectation that he would offer some suggestion,
but ultimately disappointed us. He promised us support
whenever cur 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 whether 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 tailed
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
negotias inn 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 by the Diet, and the Diet in exercising
their powers decreed that troops should go into Holstein,
being pert 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 movements 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; but, 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.
(blear.) We deny altogether that the Diet has anypower or
any authority whatever to determine who should be Duke
of Holstein. (Hear, hear.) There is not ono 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
—(heara—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—l 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
the Austria
a nt that
Danish
Ga
stateno and
admitinagws t
htuost
regardbr
iea atnhdteo
rsjrcuuhssltseis.awdsieuglamn(doHaneeadorf.
rm. ent
summonsto r e v
wasok e
snt
ohni
limitedeotm tcCpodoou osnl
nsdsi
ebt
lneyui
tot
ypicuooon andmi
pi
a;
upt
tl
(i)but,efydot threaten
wmur
sinetefhlot
v.hrvetai unfortunately,
nl
Hiei
natnet
waseat
el
(Hear.)
the
oPfruthsei
vthereni
tp.whhayhtse inicmaylployous
( impossiblesicieabal lrl.i for;y i
Such
c h
was the menace
wrong.
of Austria and
Prussia. Well, we, in conjunction with France, Russia,
and Sweden—we have no policy as the right hon. gentle-
man says---(a 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-
tio S
n. Unfortunately, that advice has not been complied
with. The Austrian and Prussian
troops have entered
Schleswig violently, although the Danish Government, at
our urgent request and that of the other Powers whom I
have, mentioned, formally promised to lose no time in con-
voking 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
as it was practicable to do so, they have forcibly entered
the territory of 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
done:somehow or other. (Hear, hear.) But after the two
Powers had refused to givo Denmark the time necessary to

1011

make the
b arrangements by which alone that Conatit,ti,t!
You
ask
to erevoked we made this proposal .—We said, .°9,
take Schleswig as a material guarantee. That isf,
most dangerous
r principle. The taking of the territer9 O.o_
ower
with b y ad
emstrongaud Powerdemands
a parsi
use materiali
complianceindeendenc.e of every small State in Europe. (geidh'imeoe
It ispa r.
p inciple which was acted upon by Buttaitt 97.--esteo
took
for possession of the Principalities as a material gilar--„.,
demands made on Turkey, and it ended in the Crittl`-
war." (Hear, hear.) But ev, e added, t'We offer yoa‘
diplomatic security. We propose that a protocol, which.nis
equivalent to a treaty, should be signed in London 139 n.
representativesitus. of England, France, Austria, rt11.981_,9:1
Sweden, and Denmark, and that by that prot,eti
Denmarksia' Pie dangerous toil
ar.)
y. should promise to take the earliest etepa tor %et,
uarantee
thet r
eking the Constitution of Nov mber ; that time should
given her ; that England, France, Russia, and Sedfcr
should be, as it were, pledgee to Austria and Prussia to
the fuifilment of that condition, and that Atotria Or. 7
Prussia should accept that treaty guarantee in lieu feat,) D 6
territorial guarantee which they demand. alear',etet
Well, they told us that it was too late; that 1111"41
arrargements had been made ; that troops °°.,l".g
not be kept waiting on the frontiers a Schley
perils;
until the Danish Parliament should assemble, and
it would not revoke the Constitution after all, and theta'
fore they must go on. We said, "We cannot bli°°°;ott
the Parliament, when assembled—considering the .f.,°tB„isit
danger in which the country is, and how the " - it
Monarch is pledged, will refuse. All we can say is, II
agree to that and Denmark fail, Denmark will be faille
in the wrong, and you can get assietance, moral and Twit
1 rial, from any Power whatever." (Hear, hear.) . oa
sir, that is the present state of things with AustrOtio
Prussia. We think they are not 'ustified in entering' Pa 0
territory. (Hear, hear.) One motive, nos doubt, b
0 tagra
weighed with them. They think the winter s° -• be
favourable to their operations than the *rine, wonbitt.eror
De that in the winter it would be difficult if not irepossi
other
nmark to receive military or naval aid from sore tier
coPower, however disposed to render it, and therefore at
to they haveeud nowua a
formaldeclared
declarationthat they mt mean as thnesider the present movement peculiarly favournblvoa' lelit
abide bye
tile
Vey°°ll ag
treatypa of 1852, that they will maintain the integritY°ll'ose
evernish monarchy, that the invasion of Schleswig'be dr
Ilamentable it may be and however ouch t° „JO
pthoered, is not undertaken for the purpose men
tattoo
Danish monarchy, and that they are comnlitted
cuate Schleswig whenever the conditions which theldlseet)
to the entrance shall have been complied with* Ltpor
The right hon. gentleman complains that we have '-'0,41e
amiredd the papers. Well,we thought the speech 1°13g:41100
ben that it was unnecessary to say that the PaPatiosblot
produced. Of course we shall lay the papers °ll -eh theill'
and we only wish any man joy who wades throue- roe
(A laugh.) I have given many hours to them'
..rgetsber,,
my noble friend may not think it necessary t° `erer e"
thebe table with all that we have had to read. Bet tote
of enough given to enable the house to ascertaia wieridee
events, and the part which has been taken Its of tlie,
jesty'si Government. Well, sir, the last colnlit Speed
right
thhtehon. gentleman is that there is nothing in the l
Royal Commissioners which enables /lira t°,;:ifii/g'
amendment. Well, I must say that is a verYl°-41silk
circumstance, and one of which he is entitled to '73:00e1
(A laugh.) It may be said that, in a Parlian3el'tauepasoeill
if
fhile it is the duty of the Oppositionto move suesarahe Oa
that possible, it is part of the fair game on both sid the
the Government shall furnish the Oefoleif,,il; withth,l°lll
on which they may hang an amendment. 1"-If t sr,c
.wanting in the present instance, and so far I hav" °polls"
gise to the right hon. gentleman' for the oniissol3,ll,oo tee
the house is thereby saved on the other Wawa- 0011;
lteicligthy debate which an amendent, founded at a;id OA'
or unguarded expression in the Speeeb, nolelli'of
for. occasioned. Well, sir, thanking the right hon. g oitts,
his very courteous, frank, and uncenalicerd ig
0°8_1::
supportau whenever we come down on a tu'-_ecv Pl' :
devdesletaptmeenout roptocliucyr,
future
Ituarme
policy
yuaded that 'l'lli.o ;
port and acquiescence. It, however7
hesitation on • the right hon. gentlemans Pa14„.0 IDs
leave to remind •
him of the assurances that he "" to r".
night. (A laugh.) In the 'lp I vetittne 014
that the policy we have announced, and 1711_,Aicilt f34)4frdes:
ovf peace—(hear, hear)—of laborious ardurtre'l:7od ';el
aeons
to reconcile differences, to prevent Valle"- eish a-of
between the States of Europe--a pith
etrisl3-,01
contend,th a real policy, and in accordance with 1000,"0
unefclountry, will receive the approbation of tlit coat-ri.
anything to the contrary, Idaho!d my e colP
will restlhear
satisfied that this will be the '
f
ver
(Loud cheers.) polici°o
Alr. S. FITZGERALD remarked that if bii :11tIodPPre
abroad,
non-intervention it was meant that whateverl33:oottr es
affroad, unless the material interests of this c- sae' ar
ected, nothing would induce d W the
util
lusto ra tot oia
could understand will
therere c6hevjuittocislibl,,o 0::
it, but if that were 0 thel 3'1% pocier ty
maasnene_hdne_iwadreo
isawel
dangerous
andtha t not. Thebe conductgiving counsel u
theilse lot 0 :ell; -406: i toi iltee et
Mr.
agirgae-rnlletuDoal Schleswig-Holstein
rupeieisat.ci ovencewrf
nEaesruyoannptedr.amd i
re
.t Orr:
.to
0" .
eii,f
tfiohiloarri
ltoshwtteeheiednr.eq JVII°
dal
el o,,fir
CHANCELLOR of the EXCOIS So' °
h of t/1
which wu eassrt
that sheshouldihaotnen' #0 PO ,
advice
given ._ O,
uy;Gfiadolnivychersrnai oamenindeignnattgthhheeenaa
d:ua
let
absi Cabinet eat
do Oa
itib-i
seit
s tithe!:3:
Lord J. MANNERS asked what was the of
1)(011,B ii°
declaration of Austria and Prussia spoken of by
pow
merston, Lord Russell having stated that Me?, 461
reliance on it, and could scarcely understand l'eeednee
T .., flip
Mr. PEACOCKE and Mr. H. BAILIPS he w
to the
Government for its too great deference lit 4'
States. e the °soil,'
a Sir J. PAKINGTON said he underatoo- , tn 11- pe
stating that Austria and Prussia would entericlo,;footar
udchieederwsafttrihoonmceouft adherence to the treaty of I.° lantai 4/6
Mr. ICI:
Mr. LA.
ipnocwuerr.
in
hu e
Ed
ua
rnegpeer aid Pni
00- 0.
GAd
tRi
At
Di
OoKnprEsepawodhshoitthipicoeehadd.detsehppaarttigad,:ivtheorniefhtualeeol:oisod de
.0t
tl'
1e,,,,
waouwldarbefrloomst.any 14 P$Cl $ fP.
After
a few observations from fir' - sil 0- ti
A' olg
Address was agreed to, and the house A--. 1
minutes to 12.
--------
fear that ie-

Ts'
COUNTRY ball°
e ao'!'
~..„ , y
BIRMINGHAM—TifunspO 04 I,- avow
i
—English
eish wasw haealtawirasehsoowldoaft w4'ollseatot t.:6-scii:osvi'
rtilt, ieorS;
to 42s per 36 stone for red. 13arleY, l' olat to v
00, to ,
40s per qr ; grinding, 24s to 28s ~ 380
per 30 stone ; Irish, 18s to 240. .13e'" '
Peas, 36s to 42s per 36 stone.

--1% ujill
........." „0,. ~,, 9
BURTON-ON-TRENT--Tfaat, ,iv' to 4,,0i
Old_ white wheat..4ss to 47s I Old red whe1".,..",90: to Ll 4
New do. ..43s to 46s I New . do. ~; toy
Malting barleY....3ss to;3Bs I Oats ...... ••" :,3°
Grinding d0.....28s to 32s I Beans .... li
1)0°
---
. BRISTOL—TunnsrO• goo i'ooo
`..et, t 0
A moderate supply of English wheat, '' sooti
the prices of this day se'nnight. Voreigo
change. Beans and peas dull.
..-----. etli
c 8. 3' ,11 ,dl3l ter
EDINBURGH GRAIN 5 floc u-
To. day A per 4 oe
there was a large show of whew 1 offarrolol.
ready sale, and fine qualities advanced °
from last week's prices. Barley sold freeli Olot to'
hanced prices. Oats 6d advance, with 5 brieol"
descriptions. Flour dearer. Deans a slow ni OP'
less money. , Ott 'ido
Wheat on the top Os 9d down ...... sacra 0 oar
Barley on the top 2s 6d up. .... . .. "
averageavrag) 00 pap
Oats on the top 9d up.... • ...... • • •,oges ti 9 a 03.1
Beans on the top 4s Od up ..•••• • •°i'''" '''.oo''
Average Prices.
•...,..::3"
Wheat .............. 39s 2d I Oats .......
..,,..
Barley ............. .29s id I Beans ..... •
Total Supply and fro
stdes.,, 100 ~
Wheat ..... ...1171 qrs ........ gooi,d, Jo/ ,c 1,..,
Dar1ey........1936 qrs ........ sold 17S
2219 re 04
Oats ........ 2076 qrs ........ ~_id 390
8ean5........ 275 qrs ........ "...`. ,ittrao/
Flour sells as follows :—Whites, 4113,0 d '
superfine, 37s Od ; fine, 35s Od.
tto
Births•
gro•l'' cent,
BURNAND.Oa the 4th inst., at Croydon' 400
Burnand, of a daughter. --, I/ Por/4"' .or
Coos.—On the 3d inst., Mrs. James uool gel
10 °f
Worthing, of a son.o
the /11 ' '
ELLts.—On the Ist inst., in Dublin, .4 1V
Ellis, 60th Rifles, of a daughter. . 4. SaT.
WELBY.—On the 3d inst.. at Albio?°:oi ti OP
wood, the wife of John Henry lrie'w
1 11P
0 0
Marriages. .„,,ceo wilt d,
, 0 flp 4100 .VI C)
GOODWIN--FUGE.—On the 4th inot.tto snicwo,e, of
Goodwin, H.M. Bengal Engineers For 4./
Fuge, daughter of the late Mr. J'•
stead's-t
mouth. ~ Asitii., of
GosCIIEN—LEVICK.—On the Sci inwst.irousc.beir Pl'i''
Charles Hermann, third on of . 1,01 '
es
Ann Helen, eldest daughter of .103
Hookfield-grove, Epsom. /
Anerld
Death.
jortiett, °l.' to
8 Cl°ll
• t 1.
BARTLETT.—On the 2d ins ./ oteorg of
Surrey, aged 75. iog Cole
CLOVER.—On the 2d inst., at Biriceolle6cl'
Yen° 0,
Esq., aged 75. Vied* bridp
c oLEs. —On the 2d inst., a r Jingo,
TO el
, ,ar,,, tbe
Esq., aged 75. # 130110 V B-rj3Sr"
HARDING —On thßird
inst.,
well, the Rev. Charlesa_li'a-aece;sged..Bo4,i.l3l4,9it;
brother of the late Viscount fl
arreeliftliiiN_ ;3; Pe'
inst., It" ° 004.°
MG,Pennzernaslorrt.Alo‘.Pnhtel3rseori2,d C 13., colone. eft
OP' •
Infantry, aged 71. josoll ettl)t
'ns, Jereiaell
RIPLEY.--On the 4th ' d 'ivied 77. dgo so.
of West-end, Harapstea ~ ipilYiv°,,° c,, wed
Tomß.—On the 2d inst.,
zus,,‘_o, ~,,h, 1/4.• _
~,----:,',1,;;r:.•
co. Wicklow, George To u '''' '
___, --.,":010:,, lici
--- liV. ce P 914
'-'---------"-----------------------179113---11;---C1 " Viril)tijii °ICQVIgj
London: PriliZ4d and r at.
inter, a o
oy,
jo ~
of No. 112, Strand, Pr t ;;•00.1. p•
Strand, na the rreeilio,.t fins/ 5, 10
ui 0ut50,--yridaY, YeVi"