King of Denmark, which took place before the Earl could make up his dilatory mind. He dwelt upon his menacing language, amounting in more than one instance, he said, to a distinct threat, and the evidence it afforded that the Government meditated resisting the Germans by England alone. The language of Lord Palmerston in July 1863, he contended, must be understood as a threat. If the considerations were sufficient to prevent England from engaging in war, they should have prevented threats, the non-fulfilment of which produced a loss of actual power that could be recovered only by future bloodshed. As to the future, if they could not save Denmark, they could rescue England from the risk of suffering similar dishonour. Mr. Layard, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said it was his office to justify the conduct of the department to which he belonged, and the character of the statesman who was chiefly responsible for it; and he proceeded to enter into a searching and comprehensive review of the facts and documents bearing upon this complicated question. Earl Russell, as he should be able to show, had been greatly misrepresented and wrongfully accused by means of garbled and almost falsified extracts from the despatches. The case, he said, had never been fairly put before the House and the country, and he briefly narrated the incidents which preceded the Treaty of 1852, which was not a guarantee, but a treaty of recognition of title. This treaty had been condemned on principle; but, if founded upon a bad principle, its sole object was in the interest of peace. The only real objection to this treaty was that it was not ratified by the Germanic Diet; but among those who had applauded the treaty most were M. von Bismarck and M. von Beust, now its most prominent antagonists. He proceeded to detail the transactions subsequent to the treaty, and to justify the acts of Lord Russell since the differences arose between the German Powers and Denmark, insisting that every thing done and written by Earl Russell at their commencement had been with the entire concurrence of France. The proposals made by him at the beginning, which had been accepted by all the Powers but Denmark, would have put an end to those differences, and it was a great calamity that she had rejected them. He vindicated the supposed threat of Lord Palmerston, in July 1863, from the construction put upon the words by the other side. The language of Lord Russell had been likewise unfairly strained into menace, and he read various extracts from the Earl's despatches to show that these documents had been misapprehended and misquoted, important passages having been left out in the citations. made by the critics of the Earl, -and he complained of these attempts to mislead the House. He pursued the history of the transactions from the carrying out of the execution and the entrance of the Prince of Augustenburg upon the field, and showed the course taken by Lord Russell as difficulties thickened, and pointed out other instances of suppression by his assailants of evidence in the correspondence essential to his vindication from the charge of fulminating threats. He showed that there was as little foundation for the assertion that Denmark had been led to expect material aid from England. He defended the conduct of Lord Russell at the Conference, and again complained of misrepresentations and mystifications. After a digression into the Polish question, and a spirited attack upon the opposite benches with reference to that question, he remarked that, although Mr. Disraeli had abstained from avowing a policy, one of his party, General Peel, had stated, amidst vociferous cheering, his policy, which was no other than a war policy. He closed a very effective speech by warning the House of the consequences to our foreign policy and to the country of a change of Administration. Mr. B. Osborne delivered a vigorous and animated speech, marked by much humour and ingenuity. He observed that the two questions before the House were the motion of Mr. Disraeli and the amendment of Mr. Newdegate. The latter had expired silently in its cradle. He was not anxious, he said, to pass a judicial sentence upon the proceedings of the Government in this Dano-German question between 1852 and 1864. He considered that their failure had to some extent involved the honour of the country, and, although he rejoiced at their return to the paths of peace, the country had no reason to be proud of the means. He was of opinion, however, that the person mainly to blame for complications and the failure was the First Minister of the Crown. After a hasty notice of the belligerent parties, in which he said Denmark had from the outset promised according to her hopes, and performed according to her fears, he came to the Conference, of which, he observed, great expectations were entertained, but which had turned out a most unfortunate and fatal failure. The speech of Mr. Cobden had laid down the true policy of this country. What had been the fruit of our interference-of our spirited foreign policy? We were isolated in Europe, and even the King of Ashantee was indifferent to our friendship. Mr. Osborne wound up a speech, which kept the House in constant merriment by its point and humour, by a whimsical description of the Palmerston Administration. "Let us see how this Ministry is constituted. There is the noble lord the First Minister. I wish to speak of him with every respect, because a more active and able man in the performance of his duty has seldom existed in this House. I may say of him, that 'panting time toils after him in vain.' He is certainly facile princeps, and is the liveliest, if not the youngest, man on the Treasury Bench. He deserves credit for his admirable management of affairs during a long course of years. He has acted with all sorts of men, and agreed with all sorts of opinions. Why, Sir, he has contrived a most extraordinary feat-he has conciliated both the Low Church and the high Tory party. The Record acknowledges his inspiration, and the hon. member for North Warwickshire bows to his influence. These are great feats. But what is his policy? In his domestic policy he is paternal but stationary. His foreign policy up to this day has been pugnacious and progressive. But now he is about to achieve the most wonderful feat of his life, for he is about to go to the country as the apostle and minister of peace, and will be supported by the member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). That is the most extraordinary feat of the whole. I do not think I have been unfair to the noble lord. Well, coming to the Cabinet, it is a museum of curiosities. There are some birds of rare and noble plumage, both alive and stuffed. But, Sir, unfortunately there is a difficulty in keeping up the breed of these Whig birds. They are a very barren breed, and it was found necessary to cross it with the famous Peelites. I will do them the justice to say that they have a very great and able Minister amongst them in the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and it is to his measures alone that they owe the little popularity and the little support they get from this Liberal party. But it cannot be said by their enemies or friends that they have been prolific in measures since they have been in office. Then there is my right hon. friend who is not connected with the Whigs by family (Mr. Gibson). He is like some fly in amber,' and the wonder is how the devil he got there.' The hon. member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) and the hon. member for Birmingham must have been disappointed, I think, in this 'young man from the country.' When he married into the family we expected some liberal measures from him, but the right hon. gentleman has become insolent and almost quarrelsome under the guidance of the noble lord. Well, what are we to expect? We know by the traditions of the great Whig party that they will cling to the vessel, if not like shipwrecked sailors, at least like those testaceous marine fish which adhere to the bottom, thereby clogging the engines and impeding the progress. Should a vote of this House displace the Administration, what are the Liberal party to do? If I might advise the Liberal party, I should say they may be perfectly happy as to the issue of this great duel. They are somewhat in the position of Iago, when he exclaims, 'If Cassio kill Roderigo, or Roderigo kill Cassio, or each do kill the other, every way makes my gain.' Even should this Parliament decide on terminating its own and their existence, they will find some consolation that the funeral oration will be pronounced by the hon. member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and that some friendly hand will inscribe on their mausoleum, Rest and be thankful.""" Mr. Walpole, after adverting to the cause of the war and to the conduct of Austria and Prussia in allowing themselves to be borne along with the revolutionary torrent, denounced the mode in which the Treaty of 1852 had been got rid of, to the injury of public law and national rights. His charge against the Government was founded, he said, upon the manner in which they had interfered during 1861 and 1862. The Government had not, what they ought to have had, a definite, distinct policy; they placed themselves in a false position by irritating Russia and France, and they had lost influence in Europe. Lord Palmerston said if any doubt could have existed, when the motion was first made, as to its object and importance, that doubt must be dispelled, for the House had been told plainly that it was intended as a vote of no confidence in the Government. Efforts had been made in the discussion to separate Earl Russell from his colleagues. This was an unconstitutional course of proceeding. The Ministers were all equally responsible for what the Foreignoffice had done. He regretted for his country the pains taken to vilify and degrade her. He maintained that the country stood as high as ever in the estimation of Europe. The motion asserted that the just influence of the country had been lowered. This was not the fact; it was a gratuitous libel upon the country by a great party that hoped to rule it. He read a statement of what the present Administration had done during their five years' tenure of office, in the reduction of taxation, the diminution of the National Debt, and the reduction of the expenditure; and he showed the vast increase of the income of the country and of its foreign trade, and other tokens of the national prosperity. This being so, he contended that the Government had administered the affairs of the country with honour and advantage, and with credit to themselves, so as to entitle them to the approbation of the House and the confidence of the country. Mr. Disraeli made a lively and amusing reply, in which he defended himself against the charge of having misquoted documents. Preparations were then made for a division, and great excitement prevailed. The amendment of Mr. Kinglake was put from the chair, and was declared to be carried by a majority of 18-the numbers being, for the amendment, 313; against it-in other words, in favour of Mr. Disraeli's original Resolution, 295. The majority for the Government was rather greater than had been anticipated, and was felt, notwithstanding the adverse vote of the Lords, to be a decisive triumph for Lord Palmerston. The result unquestionably contributed not a little to strengthen his Ministry, and to improve their prospects of an extended term of office. CHAPTER V. FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POLICY-Debates on the foreign policy of the Government THE limited intervention of the British Government in the civil |