spirit of England; but the Government, if it persists in its present policy, will only substitute for such a peace a lingering, fruitless and inglorious war. I ask the House, therefore, to support this motion, because one of its main objects is to put an end to this fatal union between diplomacy and aggressive

war.

So.

Sir, it has been said that the motion which I am about to make expresses distrust in Her Majesty's Government. Be it Is there any man out of this House that does not feel distrust in Her Majesty's Government? I beg the noble lord to understand that I do not say this by way of taunt. I know full well, and it is a most sorrowful thing, that this distrust is not limited to Her Majesty's Government, and that it has been occasioned by the policy of the country for the last two years. That distrust reaches our generals, although they are victorious; it reaches our officers, although during the war they have achieved deeds of unprecedented valour, and maintained among their troops unexampled discipline; it reaches our aristocracy, although they have poured out their blood like water in the conflict; lastly-and this is the worst of all among the dark suspicions that have, alas! been rife-that distrust has reached even the practical workings of our representative institutions. And will you, then, hesitate to support me to-night in this the first effort to breathe some feeling of life into this House, in the dangerous circumstances in which, believe me, the House of Commons is placed? Further forbearance on our part cannot be submitted to by our constituents. I speak frankly. I say that silence is by them considered to be an abrogation of our functions. You must say 'Aye' or 'No' to the motion I am about to propose. I cannot believe that you will allow any miserable amendments to evade the issue which I am about to place before the House of Commons. That issue, is this: Will you put an end to this diplomatic subterfuge and this ministerial trifling?' It is a simple issue, and it will be so looked upon, I believe, here and elsewhere. I am told that I am to be met by an amendment. I find Sir, that a right honourable gentleman has done me the honour of adopting five lines of my composition. The right honourable gentleman

(Sir F. Baring) is a miles emeritus in the great struggles of political life. I must congratulate the present ministry upon its good fortune in always having a Privy Councillor to rush to its aid; and certainly it ought to be a wise Government that has so many amateur and veteran colleagues. I read that Sir F. Baring is to move an amendment to my motion in these

terms:

'That this House, having seen with regret that the Conferences of Vienna have not led to a termination of hostilities, feels it to be a duty to declare that it will continue to give every support to Her Majesty in the prosecution of the war, until Her Majesty shall, in conjunction with her allies, obtain for the country a safe and honourable peace.'

The latter portion of this amendment is taken from the words of my motion. Is this amendment which Sir Francis Baring is to move the amendment of the ministry? If it is their amendment, it is an act on their part which vindicates to a certain degree the course I have taken, and in every sense condemns themselves. If the noble lord and his colleagues think that this House ought in the present state of affairs, in consequence of the failure of these negotiations, to express their determination to support Her Majesty in the manner I have described, how can the noble lord reconcile it to himself that he did not himself, like a loyal minister of the Crown, come forward and propose an address, thanking Her Majesty for the papers which she has so graciously placed upon the table. I can hardly recall the passage, but I remember reading of an example in the history of this country which the noble lord the First Minister might well study in regard to communications of this nature proceeding from the sovereign. It is to be found in Cox's 'Life of Sir Robert Walpole,' where it is stated that the Duke of Newcastle, then Secretary of State, brought down papers relative to the threatened invasion of England, and laid them on the table of the House by Royal command. In consequence of some papers on the same subject having been previously laid on the table, and the Crown having been addressed with regard to them, the Duke of Newcastle said that it would not be necessary a second time to address the sovereign. I can

remember the spirit if I cannot repeat the words of Sir Robert Walpole on that occasion, when he made the only speech he ever delivered as Earl of Orford :-'My Lords,' I think he said, 'is the English language so barren that we cannot find words to express our gratitude to His Majesty for every act of grace and condescension to this assembly?' And, continuing in this strain of flowing and indignant eloquence, he so shamed the ministry that, although the Government party had a great majority in the House of Peers, that august assembly rose almost in a body and decided that it should address the monarch, while the Prince of Wales, who was then in Opposition, although he had not for some time been on speaking terms with the Earl of Orford, crossed the House, and warmly embracing that nobleman, exclaimed, 'From this moment we are friends. I feel that you have vindicated the honour of the Crown, and represented the feeling of the country.' Well, then, here is the amendment of the right honourable gentleman. Is it the amendment of the Government? Will they have courage to support the amendment? If they have, it is possible they may yet take Sebastopol, for a more audacious act was never perpetrated by any minister. It is not: it cannot be. It is an amateur performance. I make this remark with regard, not to this amendment only, but also to some others of which I have heard. I wish to impress upon the House the difference between my motion and the shabby amendment that has been cribbed from my thoughts and clothed in my stolen language. What is the difference between them? It is this-both the motion and the amendment contain the assurance which I am sure honourable gentlemen on all sides will feel it their duty to proffer to the Crown of their determination to support Her Majesty in the war in which we are engaged; but in the amendment there is an omission of those words which, if they be adopted, will ring through England tomorrow, and will gladden the heart of many a patriot who is now discontented, but who will rejoice when he finds that the House of Commons have come to the issue I have just described and have decided by their vote to night that there shall be an end to diplomatic subterfuge and ministerial trifling.

81

VOTE OF CENSURE-DENMARK AND GERMANY. July 4, 1864.1

[On July 23, 1863, the last night of the session, Lord Palmerston had said that if the independence, the integrity, and the rights of Denmark were assailed, 'those who made the attempt would find it was not Denmark alone with whom they had to contend.' When Denmark, encouraged by this assurance, appealed to arms, she was naturally disappointed at not receiving assistance from England. All our Government could say was that they could not have gone to war with Germany except in conjunction with France, and that France had refused. The following speech is intended to show why France refused. Lord Russell had thrown over the Emperor about Poland, and this was the natural consequence. The motion for an address to Her Majesty' to assure Her Majesty that we have heard with deep concern that the sittings of that Conference have been brought to a close without accomplishing the important purposes for which it was convened; to express to Her Majesty our great regret that, while the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government has failed to maintain their avowed policy of upholding the integrity and independence of Denmark, it has lowered the just influence of this country in the councils of Europe, and thereby diminished the securities for peace,' was defeated by the small majority of eighteen. On the same night a similar resolution was carried in the House of Lords by a majority of nine.]

MR.

[R. SPEAKER,-Some of the longest and most disastrous wars of modern Europe have been wars of succession. The Thirty Years' War was a war of succession. It arose from a dispute respecting the inheritance of a duchy in the north of Europe, not very distant from that Duchy of Holstein which now engages general attention. Sir, there are two causes why wars originating in disputed succession become usually of a prolonged and obstinate character. The first is internal disThis speech is reprinted from Hansard's Debates by permission of Mr. Hansard.

cord, and the second foreign ambition. Sometimes a domestic party, under such circumstances, has an understanding with a foreign potentate, and, again, the ambition of that foreign potentate excites the distrust, perhaps the envy, of other Powers; and the consequence is, generally speaking, that the dissensions thus created lead to prolonged and complicated struggles. Sir, I apprehend-indeed I entertain no doubtthat it was in contemplation of such circumstances possibly occurring in our time, that the statesmen of Europe, some thirteen years ago, knowing that it was probable that the royal line of Denmark would cease, and that upon the death of the then king, his dominions would be divided, and in all probability disputed, gave their best consideration to obviate the recurrence of such calamities to Europe. Sir, in these days, fortunately, it is not possible for the Powers of Europe to act under such circumstances as they would have done a hundred years ago. Then they would probably have met in secret conclave and have decided the arrangement of the internal government of an independent kingdom. In our time they said to the King of Denmark, 'If you and your people among yourselves can make an arrangement in the case of the contingency of your death without issue, which may put an end to all internal discord, we at least will do this for you and Denmark— we will in your lifetime recognise the settlement thus made, and, so far as the influence of the Great Powers can be exercised, we will at least relieve you from the other great cause which, in the case of disputed successions, leads to prolonged wars. We will save you from foreign interference, foreign ambition, and foreign aggression.' That, Sir, I believe, is an accurate account and true description of that celebrated Treaty of May, 1852, of which we have heard so much, and of which some characters are given which in my opinion are unauthorised and unfounded.

There can be no doubt that the purpose of that treaty was one which entitled it to the respect of the communities of Europe. Its language is simple and expresses its purpose. The Powers who concluded that treaty announced that they concluded it, not from their own will or arbitrary impulse, but