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

Oh, no, they dont go out on reform. (Loud laughter.) It
is only you who do that. (Renewed laughter.) Now, is it
not worth our while to consider these questions, and, at the
only time when we can draw serious attention to our foreign
policy, to try to enunciate a principle for our better guid-
ance in future. 'What is the ground of our foreign policy.
Why do we interfere in these affairs abroad ? There is not,
I believe, one treaty binding us to go to war on the Conti-
nent. There was only one treaty in the settlement of
Vienna, and that was a treaty entered into by England,
Russia, Austria, and Prussia, in which they bound them-
selves solemnly, in the name of the Holy Trinity, by force
of arms, if necessary, to prevent for ever any member of the
Bonaparte family from sitting on the throne of France. (A
laugh.) lam not aware of any other treaty. (An Hon.
Member—Belgium.) Then Belgium is an exception. Then
why do we trouble ourselves with these continental politics ?
We have no interest there territorially. We gain nothing
there by your diplomatic meddling. Our general excuse is
—it is a phrase which is stereotyped in the despatches of the
noble lord the Foreign Secretary—that we have a policy
founded on what is called the balance of power, which I
never could understand, but I believe it is a figment which
is supposed to have grown out of the settlement of Vienna,
which I call the great unsettlement of Vienna Can we, in
the face of these growing popular interests, any longer base
our foreign policy upon that treaty of Vienna ? We are not
bound to do anything by force to maintain that treaty. All
we are bound to do is not to violate its undertakings.
What has that treaty done for Europe ? I hold in my hand a
short extract from the writings of a great Italian, one of the
noblest, most disinterested most accomplished, and bravest of
the patriots of modern times, and who bore the heat and
burden of the day—the Marquis Massimo d'Azeglio.
Writing in 1847, he says—" I believe all the disturbances
which have agitated Europe from 1815 to the present time,
all the discontent and revolutions of those 32 years, and all
the moral inquietude which more or less agitates society,
have been caused by the unnatural and forced partition of
Europe by the Congress of Vienna. Its measures for the
establishment of peace and tranquillity in Europe were the
germ of all the wars and revolutions which have since oc-
curred, because the only interests then cared for were those
of dynasties, families, and privileged classes, without any
consideration of national feeling, or the inevitable wants of
that new state of society which the revolution has created."
Now, if that was written in 1847, and if you have since had
a period which convulsed all Europe, full of dynastic
changes and fearful revolution, two years afterwards, is it
not necessary that we should discard the idea of entering
again into negotiations abroad, with a view of maintaining
the balance of power as settled by the treaty of Vienna ?
(Hear, hear.) We all have our pet projects for interference
abroad. One party wishes us to interfere for Poland,
another for Hungary, and another for Italy, while some
would even have us go to America, and interfere in the
terrible struggle now going on there. Now, if we were to
take up a foreign policy for the redress of great wrongs,
and if I were called upon to say what would be my pro-
ject, I should say that Venice has the first claim on this
country, (Cheers.) Venice had for a thousand years a
glorious existence. She was a commercial nation, with a
career somewhat analogous to our own; and if her history
were fairly written, and a comparison was made between
her and other countries at the time she existed, she cer •
tainly had the best title to existence of any country cn
the Continent, and especially at our hands. And yet the
sign and seal of England is attached to the treaty which
assigned Venice to Austria, If there is one country which
has more claims upon us than another, it is the country to
which I have referred, But to undo the wrong we did to
Venice we should have to fight against our own engage-
ments and our own signature. Now where are we landed ?
We have here a country requiring peace. Some people
think it is very degrading and base that an Englishman
should speak of his'own country as requiring peace, and as
being entitled to enjoy the blessings of peace; and if we
allude to our enormous commercial and industrial engage-
ments as a reason why we should avoid these petty quarrels
and disturbances, then we are told we are selfish and gro-
velling in our politics. But I say we were very wrong to
take measures to extend our commerce unless we Rere pre-
pared to use those prudential precautions which were
taleniated to keep our vast commercial and manufacturing
operations from being troubled with unnecessary wars.
You have in this country engagements of the most extensive
and complicated kin I. You have enlarged your operations to
slieh an extent that you are how actually exporting three
times as much as you did 25 years ago. Your commerce
and manufactures have grown in a quarter of a century twice
as much as 'hey grew in a thousand years previously. Is
not this a motive why we should take all teanetzeble pre-
cautions for avoiding these Continental quarrels? And,
therefore, I say I am justified in laying this statement be-
fore you, in the hope that; outside of this party conflict,
something may come calculated to put us on a better foot-
ing with regard to our Continental relation. I have taken
very little interest in the party question at issue. I think
the greater questioh is the effect which this dilemma is to
have on our policy for the future. I maintain that we must
have a change in the relations of this country to our Foreign
Office and to foreign countries. The present system of dip-
lomacy has broken down. (Hear, hear:) Our Foreign Office
has lost its credit with foreign conutties. (Opposition cheers;)
From this time you cannot apprcaah a foreign country
on any question of foreign politics in which you will not be
looked upon with a want of consideration, and indeed with
mistrust. (Cheers.) And why ? Because foreign countries
feel that while they are dealing with the Foreign-office the
Foreign-office in fact had not the power, The power is
here; and foreign Governments more than suspect that our
Foreign Minister is often playing a game with them to suit
the policy and the prospects of the Government in this
House. (Cheers.) Such being the case, I maintain that it
behoves us to adopt a different policy, to let it be known
what that policy is, and to make the Government feel it was
necessary to act up to our views. I repeat, the present aye
tem cannot go on. It requires a change, not only in the
interests of this country, but in the interests of our neigh-
bours. Nay, it requires a change on far higher grounds, in
the interests of peace, civilisation, and humanity. (Loud
cheers.)

Lord R. CECIL remarked upon the fact that, notwith-
standing the speech just delivered by Mr. Cobden, it was
the intention of the hon. gentleman to give Ministers his
material support, in that respect reversing the policy of the
Government, who had been lavish of threats and menaces
in bohalf of Denmark, but when the time arrived for giving
her material aid withheld it and deserted their ally. One
thing he readily granted. lie believed that if Mr. Cobden
had been Foreign Secretary, instead of Earl Russell, this
country would have occupied a position proud and noble
compared with that it now filled. His complaint of the
policy of the Government was that it was founded upon no
definite principle, but was oscillating, vague, and fluctu-
ating. Referring to the recent speech of Lord Palmerston,
in which the noble viscount, casting aside all his previous
threats against Germany and declarations in favour
of the independence and integrity of Denmark, said
that if Copenhagen were subjected to the horrors of an
assault and the King were made prisoner of war, then the
Government would: "remsider" what was to be done in
the matter, the noble lord observed that a more melancholy
exhibition had never been witnessed since the time when
ancient Pistol swallowed his leek, buttered with the reflec-
tion that he did it for revenge. Henceforward we should
be unable to persuade foreign powers that we were in ear-
nest; and this loss of dignity and honour was not a loss of
a more sentiment, but of actual power—a loss of power
which wo should have to buy back hereafter at the cost of
the blood and treasure of England. With regard to the
future, he agreed with General Peel and Mr Cobden, that
if did not mean to fight we must not interfere, and that was
the only question involved in the censure which the reso•
lution passed upon the Government. If the house could
not save Denmark at Last it might rescue this country from
the danger of again suffering Eimifar dishonour by placing
the resolution of Mr Disraeli on its journals.

Mr. W. E. FORSTER observed-that Lord Robert had
not told the house what should have been the policy of the
Government, and what the Opposition would do. Mr.
Disraeli had dealt only in vague generalities. He would,
he had said, secure the honour of England and the peace
of Europe ; hut the house should know by what means,
The motion was a vote of censure, and it was
necessary that the house should mako up its mind
whether it had confidence in the Opposition or not. A vote
of censure for the past was a vote of confidence for the
future. In the consequences of the treaty of 1852,
and in the Schleswig-Holstein question, we had, he thought,
received a great lesson,— that it was oar business to. make
the rule of non-intervention the guide of our foreign policy,
The time had come to replace that meddling,dishonest sys-
tem of apparent intervention, but real non-intervention, by
an honest, a dignified, and an open system of non-interven-
tion.

Mr. B. JOHNSTONE, after replying to the speeches of
the Chanceilor of the Exchequer and the Lord Advocate
on the previous evening, complained of the mystery in
which the policy of the Government had been enveloped
during the late transactions. He did not defend the con-
duct of the German Powers, he said, which had been
marked by overbearing violence; but what the Government
ought to have done two years ago was to come to a distinct
conclusion as to whether this country should interfere or
not. Instead of that they had adopted a mysterious policy,
marked by a tissue of blunders, and the house, he thought,
was bound to record a solemn protest against the manner in
which our foreign policy had been conducted. •
Lord IL VANE ob3erved that the Government had been
blamed for recommending certain concessions to be made by
Denmark, whereas he was of opinion that those concessions
would have placed her in a better position. He could find
no proof of any hopes of assistance to Denmark held out
from this country. Our office had been that of a mediator,
and after the refusal of France, which was not unnatural,
all we could do was to remonstrate. He did not blame the
Opp sition for their motion, but they had not declared what
would be their policy. The Government had done all they
were called upon to de, and although they had not been
successful, he did not see that we had suffered any
humili Alen.

Mr. LIDDELL, in supporting the motion, observed that
the great argument of the other side was that the Opposition
had no poli y ; but it had been es2erted by them on another
occasion, that it was not the function of an Opposi •
Pion to declaro their policy. That the policy of the Go-
vernment was that of interference was, he considered, proved
by the papers, and he pointed out the evils which had been