Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the Second Session Thirty-eighth Congress, Part II
Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the reception of despatches numbered from 948 to 961 inclusive, with the exception of No. 956.
The accounts of the advance of General Grant and of General Sherman have been received here with great disappointment. Efforts are, however, steadily made in the Times and other newspapers following that lead to keep up distrust of their correctness, and to sustain the public mind in the confidence of our ultimate failure. There is no longer any sort of disguise maintained as to the wishes of the privileged classes. Very little genuine sympathy is entertained for the rebels. The true motive is apparent enough. It is the fear of the spread of democratic feeling at home in the event of our success.
The progress of the conference towards a solution of the Danish question is slow and uncertain, The debate in the House of Commons on last Monday evening, a report of which in the Times is herewith transmitted, exposes, with sufficient distinctness, the mortification felt here at the position in which Great Britain has been placed. * * * * * *
Under these circumstances, it becomes pretty clear that the fate of Denmark will depend on other contingencies than the action of England. It is not unlikely that the real arbiter will prove to be Russia. Germany may yield to the one, what she would have no fear of refusing to the other. A few days must now determine the question. The procrastinating policy is pretty much worn out.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, &c., &c., &c.
Extracts from the debate in the House of Commons.
THE CONFERENCE.
lord h. lennox’s remarks.
Lord H. Lennox then rose and said: I wish, sir, before you leave the chair, to ask my honorable and gallant friend, the member for Liskeard, whether he is satisfied with the tenor of the reply which the to-night received from the prime minister. If he be, the is, I venture to think, the only man in this house who is so, and I feel assured that to-morrow morning, when the newspapers convey intelligence of our proceedings throughout the country, there will not be many of their readers who will sympathize with the answer of the noble lord. [Hear, hear.] The noble lord and his colleagues have ever since its commencement discouraged anything like an attempt to ascertain what is going on in the conference, [hear, hear,] and if at the present moment complete secrecy prevailed throughout Europe as to what is taking place in the council chamber in Downing street, I should be one of the last to undertake the responsibility of impressing upon my honorable and gallant friend the expediency of taking any course which would jeopardize the satisfactory issue of the deliberations which are there being held. But although her Majesty’s government maintain silence on the subject, the journals of Vienna and Berlin are not slow to furnish their readers with news of what passes, or is supposed to pass, at these deliberations. The noble lord at the head of the government, and his noble colleague in another place at the commencement of the session, came down to their respective houses [Page 90] night after night and declared it to be their firm intention to abide by the treaty of 1852. The noble lord on one occasion also announced that the efforts of the government had been successful in bringing about a conference, which was immediately to meet to settle the most difficult and perplexing question to which I am now referring. The noble lord added, amid the sympathizing cheers of his party, that the conference was about to assemble on the basis of maintaining the integrity of the dominions of King Christian IX. Now, what, under those circumstances, I wish to ask my honorable and gallant friend is, whether he will give the house an assurance that he will on an early day call its attention to this subject, and will endeavor to elicit from the noble lord some information as to whether the statements contained in the foreign journals with regard to it are or are not true, and whether it is the fact that while the government in the early part of the session declared themselves to be frantically in favor of the treaty of 1852, and the upholding the integrity of the Danish dominions, they are now sitting in a conference which would not sit to-day or next Thursday unless upon the understanding that the treaty of 1852 should be annihilated, [ Cheers.]
mr. osborne’s remarks.
Mr. Osborne. I do not know what assurance I can give the house on this subject. I should wish honorable gentlemen opposite to give me some assurance that, in the event of my again resuscitating the discussion on the treaty of 1852, I shall not be met by the “previous question.” [Hear, hear.] The course which I have hitherto taken in this matter has not met from them with very great encouragement. My noble friend now asks me whether I feel satisfied with the answer which I to-night received from the noble lord at the head of the government, and I may say, in reply, that so far as my own private opinion is concerned—though I am thankful for the smallest favor [a laugh]—I do not feel exactly satisfied with that answer. I may add that it struck me from the first that this conference was instituted rather to preserve the integrity of the treasury bench, [hear, hear,] and to prevent the dismemberment of her Majesty’s ministers [cheers and laughter] than to maintain the integrity of Denmark. I would remind the house, too, that we have been going on in this way from day to day, and from week to week, and that we seem likely to go on in the same manner until at last the month of July will have arrived, when honorable gentlemen on both sides will be leaving town, and this question will be likely, to die a natural death. [Hear, hear.] For my own part, I am surprised at the reticence in the matter which the house has observed. Up to a certain point the government were probably right in deprecating the discussion of the subject, and I, perhaps, was wrong in bringing on my motion when I did. Now, how-ever, that we have arrived at the 6th of June, and we see that the question is allowed to drag its slow length along from day to day, I think the house of Commons ought to be put in possession of some definite information with respect to it. [Hear, hear.] What, I would ask, is the present position of the house and of the country generally? Why, that while the lowest inhabitant of the most petty capital on the continent learns from his paper what is taking place here, we, the subjects of a constitutional sovereign, are the worst-informed persons in Europe on this subject. [Cheers.] How long, I should like to know, is this to continue? If I were to use the word “farce,” sir, in connexion with these proceedings I should, I believe, be called to order by you; but this I may say, that the House of Commons is placed in regard to them in a most humiliating position, [hear, hear,] and is being tricked into silence by the members of the government, [hear, hear,] who appear to have taken the vows usually taken by the monks of La Trappe. [A laugh.] Whether they are digging their own grave is a different question; but of this I am certain, that if we submit to be put off day after day with evasive answers, in which the noble lord, the member [Page 91] for Tiverton, is so great a proficient that he would be eminently qualified on that score alone for the degree which he took the other day at Cambridge, [laughter,] we shall be digging the grave, not only of the dignity of the House of Commons, but of the national honor. [Cheers.]
mr. disraeli’s remarks.
Mr. Disraeli. I hardly know anything in our parliamentary system which to my mind is more to be admired than the reserve which obtains in Parliament when it is known that her Majesty’s government are engaged in important negotiations’ upon which the question of peace or war may turn. It is a characteristic of our system which marks it out from all other attempts at parliamentary government, and is one of the surest guarantees for the endurance of constitutional rule. But I must say that, after listening to the observations and accepting without annoyance the taunt of the honorable gentleman who has just addressed us about moving the “previous question,” having moved the “previous question” on a former occasion, when I thought it was for the interest of the country and due to her Majesty’s government—I must say that I was disappointed by the answer which the noble lord gave to the question which was put to him to-night by the honorable gentleman. Wishing for the sake of the highest considerations, for the advantage of the country, to acknowledge in the fullest spirit the sound privilege which attaches to a government in the position of carrying on negotiations, and negotiations by a conference, I think that, in the circumstances in which we now found ourselves, it would have been salutary, and it would have been wise and politic on the part of her Majesty’s government to have shown more candor and frankness than has been exhibited by the noble lord to-night. Because you must remember that parliamentary reserve under these circumstances depends upon one constitutional condition, and when that is observed the parliamentary reserve is perfectly intelligible and eonstitutional. The condition of the reserve of Parliament when a government is engaged in negotiations is that Parliament is acquainted with the principles upon which the negotiations are conducted, and approves the general policy of the government That is the condition which has always been acknowledged, and on which the salutary system of parliamentary reserve under these circumstances is founded. But what the House of Commons is alarmed about, what at this moment agitates the house is, that they are not convinced that the policy which was frankly announced by the government before these communications commenced is the one which they are now pursuing, [cheers;] and the house and the country, too, are becoming anxious because they are not satisfied that the condition of parliamentary reticence any longer exists and is observed. I do not want to penetrate the secrets of the conference, but it has been well said by the gentlemen who have addressed us that there is not that reserve in other countries which is observed in England. I myself read in a German paper the other day an absolute account of what took place on a most critical day in the conference, and that not by way of rumor or on dit, but with all the forms of diplomatic accuracy, and I have reason to believe from subsequent inquiry that it was an authentic document. [Hear, hear.] Although the House of Commons and those who sit on this side of the house are more than desirous, when these critical and important questions arise, not to interfere with the course of her Majesty’s government or to embarrass negotiations, it is utterly impossible, it would be most pedantic for us to pretend that we are entirely ignorant, or believe that we are entirely ignorant of what is taking place within a few yards of the house in which we are assembled; and there are rumors—rumors which appear to us of an authentic nature—which are enough to disquiet and disturb us all. No one could expect that while conducting negotiations of this kind the noble lord would enter into any details; we should not expect minute communications [Page 92] from a government who are conducting negotiations upon matters of detail which must change almost every day or even hour; still, it would have been satisfactory to the house if we had been informed by the noble lord that, though the negotiations were not concluded, though the conference was sitting and might sit for some time, still he could assure the house that the principles of policy which he had announced to the country were those upon which the government entered into the conference, were those which were guiding and animating their councils; that he believed that there was a fair prospect that they would succeed, and that if they did not succeed her Majesty’s government would have had the opportunity of vindicating, as far as their opinion was concerned, the policy which they recommended, and would appeal with confidence to the candid consideration of Parliament. [Hear, hear.] But when we hear, as we do hear, that the course which the government is pursuing is one exactly contrary to that which was announced in this house, [cheers,] it is impossible to expect from an assembly in which the popular element prevails to so large an extent as it does in the House of Commons that we upon these benches should hold ourselves in dignified reserve, and should not expect from the ministers whom, under such circumstances, we are inclined and prepared to trust some communication to guide and enlighten public opinion. I therefore very much regret that the noble lord has not said something which the house had a right to expect. I think that when we are informed that the question now in agitation is the continuation of the suspension of hostilities, the noble lord ought to have given some general assurance to the house as to what had been the course of negotiations. It would certainly have been satisfactory to the house to have heard something that would have persuaded us that what every man says in the city is not correct. I should have been glad to hear something from the noble lord which would have assured us that her Majesty’s ministers are not pursuing in the conference a policy directly contrary to that which was announced in this house as the basis of their negotiations, [cheers,] and by the announcement of which, allow me to remind the house, they have obtained this parliamentary reticence and reserve. [Hear, hear.] It is because the noble lord frankly declared what was the policy of the government that he obtained that reserve. It was not because we are indifferent. It was because when such great interests were at stake the general policy of the government was satisfactory to our convictions and to the conscience of the nation that we felt it was our duty to be silent; but I must say that the silence of the noble lord and his answer to the question that was asked at the commencement of the proceedings this evening fill me with great anxiety and apprehension.
If the policy of the government has been entirely changed—if at the moment when the renewal of the suspension of hostilities is in debate that policy has been entirely changed—I say that it is due to Parliament that some announcement should be made. [Hear, hear.] We all know what was the general policy of her Majesty’s government. In matters of this kind no one wishes to pin the ministry to minute particulars. The noble lord told us frequently, he told us continuously, that the policy of her Majesty’s government was to maintain the treaty of 1852, [hear, hear,] or, rather, I should say, describing as he did the scope and tendency of the policy of 1852, it was to maintain the integrity and independence of Denmark. [Hear, hear.] That was what the noble lord has constantly told us, and because he went into the conference to maintain that policy, and to uphold the integrity and independence of Denmark, the House of Commons has been silent, and it has in my mind exercised a wise and salutary parliamentary reticence, so that it should not be said that we interfered and threw obstacles in the way of a happy solution of these circumstances of great difficulty and peril. But if, as rumor tells us, it is now otherwise—which appears to me too incredible to accept [hear, hear;] if it be true that the government [Page 93] who but five months ago were making overtures to the Emperor of the French to stir up a European war in order to maintain the integrity of Denmark, [hear, hear;] if, incredible as the fact may be, the men who followed such a policy—I think,,at that time, a most dangerous, but at least a candid policy— should be the men who, having at last succeeded in calling together a conference, are themselves accomplishing the destruction of the integrity and independence of Denmark, [ loud cheers,] then I say that some explanation is due to the House of Commons, and the noble lord may rest assured that neither Parliament nor the country can long be silent under the circumstances. [Cheers.] No one wishes to interfere with the course of her Majesty’s government, if that course is a frank one; but no minister is entitled to ask for parliamentary reticence and reserve during the progress of negotiations if he has not first fulfilled the great condition of such parliamentary reserve—that his policy shall be known to the country and generally approved by Parliament. If he follows a policy totally contrary it may be right, it may be possible to justify it; but when that change takes place, especially at a moment like the present, when the continuation of an armistice is in question, he is bound to come forward and frankly tell us, “Our policy is changed. We are perfectly prepared to vindicate our course. All we ask is that you should continue your confidence to us, or at least that you should call our conduct in question, and let it receive either the sanction or reprobation of the House of Commons.” If the hypothesis, which I should call wild were it not for the authentic rumors and, I fear, accurate information which have reached me, is correct, I must say that it is impossible that any body of men should have been more elaborately deceived and mistaken than the House of Commons has been. [Hear, hear.] Is it that we have relied merely upon the assurance of the government? Is it merely that the noble lord has come forward and told us that the policy upon which he was conducting his negotiations, that the basis upon which subsequently he entered into the conference, was to maintain the integrity and independence of Denmark? Is that all? If that had been all, we might have said that the noble lord might be able to allege circumstances which might explain his conduct, that we might have misconceived him, that we might have placed too favorable a construction upon the declaration of’ the minister. But that is not all. The noble lord brought, as it were, Europe into witness and testimony of his policy. When I pressed the noble lord for information he was always ready with assurances that “It was not merely the English government that are prepared to maintain the integrity and independence of Denmark. Austria is equally anxious; Berlin is now desirous to maintain the integrity and independence of Denmark. So futile are your fears that I myself have this moment received a despatch.” He told us one night, I remember, when I asked for some information, and the house was delighted to hear it from so high an authority and from so authentic a quarter, that Prussia was as desirous to maintain the integrity of Denmark as was the noble lord himself. [Cheers.] I should think the House of Commons and the country generally must have been surprised at the attitude maintained towards the government. I do not regret it, for I would rather we should err on that side—nay, I think the noble lord, with his long experience of difficult matters, must himself have been a little startled at the temper shown by the House of Commons. [Hear, hear.] When on any evening he came into the house and found it anxious and agitated in consequence of news which had reached it, the noble lord could hardly have speculated on the felicitous conclusion of his own management. Let the house remember what has occurred, and then let them contrast with that the silence and reserve which have been observed— silence and reserve not arising from indifference, from want of sympathy with others, from any want of feeling as to the magnitude of the conjuncture, or any want of perception as to the great interests at stake, but arising from a sentiment of patriotic prudence on both sides of the house, and a determination, [Page 94] under the circumstances, to assist the government. Let me remind the house of some of the great incidents which it was the duty of the noble lord to announce, and the replies which the noble lord gave to appeals that were addressed to him. First of all, the house will remember the anxiety felt when the subject was first brought under our consideration. Parliament was about to be prorogued, when we had an assurance from the noble lord that sent us all to our constituents without a care; I am sure it must have made every heart in Copenhagen happy and serene when the House of Commons was assured by the premier that if difficulties ever arose Denmark would not find herself alone. [Loud cheers. J There are many like myself who, I will not say trembled, but hesitated, when they heard that war might be imminent, remembering, on the one hand, that grave national interests, and, on the other, that national honor, were concerned. But we were soon informed that we need not be nervous, for the noble lord, whose prescience as a politician is celebrated, while he informed Denmark that she would not be alone if attacked, assured England that there was not the slightest probability of any such eventuality. [Hear, hear, and laughter.] When we met again the federal execution, which before had been ridiculed, was impending. The house was prepared to declare, if that execution were carried out on constitutional principles, that it would not interfere with the action of the Diet in Holstein, and I do not believe that we should have done so. But then came the passage of the Eider. That was a great point on which the house and the country had fixed their attention, and there was a general understanding that if the Eider were passed her Majesty’s government must take such steps as would assert the spirit of their policy. [Hear, hear.] But the Eider was passed, other rivers were passed, and at last Jutland was invaded. The house cannot have forgotten the answer which the noble lord gave to my question on that subject. He said the invasion of Jutland was an atrocity. [Cheers.] That was the language used by the head of the government—language which might rank with some of the great invectives that are recorded, and it shows what was the spirit of the government at that time. After those various occurrences we found ourselves in the midst of conferences and negotiations. And the house, notwithstanding the disappointments to which it had been exposed, notwithstanding matters afforded ground for the belief that the conduct of the government was very far from satisfactory, generously supported her Majesty’s government the moment that a conference was called. The House of Commons did so because the noble lord told us frankly and candidly, and repeated the statement, that the government entered into that conference for a definite object and with a definite view. [Hear, hear.] We do not want to hold the noble lord pedantically to the fulfilment of any announcement which he may have made at such a moment. All we want is that the spirit of his policy shall be observed and maintained. It was because we credited the noble lord with this assurance that we were silent. A suspension of arms took place for a month, and that I held to be an incident of great importance, having ventured to remind the house that a conference without an armistice or cessation of hostilities is generally unsatisfactory. The month has now expired, or is about to expire; and were there no rumors or suppositions, no cause to justify men in thinking that that is happening which is not for the honor or the interests of England, were there no causes existing to make the house suppose that the policy of her Majesty’s government has in any way changed; were everything as smooth as a summer sea, and were there no grounds for anxiety and dark mistrust in the public mind, it would still, I maintain, have been the office and duty of the minister on an occasion such as the expiration of an armistice to come forward and give some account to Parliament of the progress of those negotiations. He ought at least to have reassured the public mind and given them some confidence in the conduct of those discussions, and have reiterated the spirit of that policy which Parliament had sanctioned, [Page 95] if not by a formal vote, at least by its silence. [Hear, hear.] The house will see that the noble lord ought to be called to account, even if there were no cause for anxiety. But, if what I have ventured to call a wild hypothesis be true, if it be the fact that her Majesty’s government in this interval have entirely changed their policy, if they themselves are participating in the partition of Denmark, [loud cheers,] which only five months ago they were stirring up an European war to prevent, then I say it is a mockery of the House of Commons if under such circumstances the noble lord is silent. [Loud cheers.]
lord palmerston’s remarks.
Lord Palmerston. We have just heard a magnificent display of virtuous indignation [loud cries of “Oh!” and cheers] from the right honorable gentleman, who knows that he is attacking me in a position in which I cannot go into the defence that he challenges. He is like a man that attacks another who has his arms tied behind him. [Laughter and cheers.] He knows that, because he has been in office. He knows that I am tongue-tied at the present moment, and that I cannot enter into an ample reply [loud cheers] to the attacks which he has showered upon me. The right honorable gentleman declares that he has a policy; he always moots this policy, and reproaches us, who, he thinks, have not a policy. Well, I challenge him to say what his policy is. [Loud cheers.] Let him tell us fairly what he wants the government to do; and let him ask this house to give a vote in support of her Majesty’s government if they will adopt the policy which he thinks they ought to carry out. [“Oh! oh!”] Let him propose that this house will support the crown by all the means that may be necessary to give effect to the policy he contemplates. [Cheers and an ironical laugh.] When he does that I shall say he is sincere in the course that he adopts in this house. We know what a negotiation is, especially a negotiation carried on with a great variety of powers having different views and different interests; and the right honorable gentleman ought to feel that to state from day to day what have been the points of difference, [“No, no!”] what have been the results of this interview or that conference, must endanger the result which everybody who is anxious for the peace of Europe must desire to see attained. [Cheers.] And therefore, in spite of the taunts of the right honorable gentleman, I shall not be induced to violate what I consider my duty, and to throw impediments in the way of a successful result by telling the honorable gentleman that which I dare say would be satisfactory to him, and which I can quite understand would be satisfactory to the house, from day to day, and from meeting to meeting, what each member of the conference has proposed, and what each member of the conference has objected to. [Cries of “Oh!” and cheering.] Yes, that is what the right honorable gentleman asks, [“No, no!”] that is exactly what he wants. [Loud cries of “No.”] The foreign papers tell him certain things, and he wants me here to go into those very details which he sees in the foreign papers. [Hear.] There is a great difference in statements made by a minister of the crown in this house, and reports which are circulated through Europe, and are told in the foreign newspapers. [Cheers.] The right honorable gentleman may take as much or as little as he pleases of those statements. But though I have the greatest desire to show every possible respect to this house, and though I am quite aware they ought to be informed of everything which can with propriety towards the public interests be communicated to them, I will not, even to gratify the desire of this house, depart from what I consider to be my duty. When members calmly reflect on the motives which prevent her Majesty’s government in the present state of affairs from going into details which they are anxious to hear, I am sure they will see that we are acting rightly. [Hear, hear.] When the negotiations now going on have arrived at a stage at which, consistently with the national interests, the government [Page 96] can make known what we have agreed to or proposed, I am quite satisfied we shall be able to convince the house that in this matter we have acted in accordance with our duty, and with the soundest opinions that we have been enabled to form. [Cheers.]
mr. s. fitzgerald’s remarks.
Mr. S. Fitzgerald and Lord R. Cecil rose together, and there were loud cries of “Cecil.” The latter, however, gave way, and
Mr. S. Fitzgerald proceeded to say that the house, having listened to the noble lord who had just sat down, must have seen how completely he misrepresented the speech of his right honorable friend. [Hear.] There was such a thing as reticence based on the ground that premature disclosures would be injurious to the public service. But there was also a reticence and a reserve which it was prudent for ministers to observe when frankness might be injurious to the government. [Cheers.] It was not true that his right honorable friend or the house wished the noble lord day by day to give the house details of all that occurred in the conference, or to state what was said by this or that plenipotentiary. That was not what his right honorable friend had demanded, or what the house or the country required from the government. When the conference was first proposed, he had himself put a question to the noble viscount as to the basis of the conference. The noble lord replied that, to avoid hurting the susceptibilities of some of the powers, his noble friend had merely asked the conference to meet in order to restore peace to Europe. [Hear.] Yes; but the noble lord added (and he would trouble the honorable gentlemen who cheered to cheer this also,) that the only principle of the government in going into the conference was that of maintaining the integrity of Denmark. [Loud cheers.] Was that all? They all knew that the noble lord at the foreign office had addressed a despatch to the governments of Austria and France, inviting them to act in concert and co-operation in order to settle the affairs of Denmark. And when the noble lord was asked what he meant by concert and co-operation, he said distinctly that he meant the offer of material assistance to Denmark by the three great powers. [An honorable member.—“What was their answer?”] The noble lord was asked under what circumstances the material assistance was to be given. He said that it was to be given to Denmark if any proposition were made for the dismemberment of the monarchy. [Cheers.] It was now stated, in such form and on such authority that the house could not but believe it, that not only had the government taken the matter into consideration, but that they themselves were the parties to propose the very dismemberment of Denmark which they had denounced a few months ago, which they declared would be a just cause of war, and which they said they were ready to join France and Austria in giving material assistance to prevent. What the house wanted to know was whether the government had really taken that course. [Hear, hear.] Having declared that they went into the conference for one object, had they been the parties to recommend an opposite policy? Had they taken up a position that five out of every six men in the house and in the country would consider a humiliation and a disgrace? [Cheers.] The house wished to know, before they agreed to continue their confidence to the government, whether the statement so generally believed was true, that the government had been parties to take a course which, before the conference met, they were the first to denounce. [Cheers.]
lord r.cecil’s remarks.
Lord R. Cecil said he regretted that no member of the treasury bench had thought fit to answer his honorable friend, [hear,] and that the government seemed determined to bring the debate to a conclusion without giving the House [Page 97] of Commons any of the information which it desired to have. The noble lord had told the house calmly to reflect upon the motives of her Majesty’s government. He had done his best calmly to reflect upon them, and he had come to the conclusion that the answer to that appeal was that they had now arrived at the 6th of June. [A laugh] The noble lord knew that if by answers such as he had just given he could veil himself behind his position as a negotiator—if he could put off from day to day the necessity of giving the House of Commons the account which he was bound to render—if he could put off any explanation until the summer was so far advanced that he could not be called to serious question, his government would be safe at least for the present year. [Cheers.] And to the noble lord and those who sat with him the welfare of Denmark, the maintenance of treaties, and the upholding of the pledged word of England were trifles compared with that which was paramount in their minds—the advanced state of the session. [Cheers, and cries of “Oh!”] He thought that the noble lord was making an experiment upon the patience of the house and the country which would not be justified by the results. [Hear.] It was idle to talk of details. They all knew that the noble lord had made a complete change of policy. [Hear, hear.] They all knew, from sources which they could not doubt, although they were not official, that the dismemberment of Denmark had been approved, nay, proposed, by her Majesty’s government itself. [Hear, hear.] It was idle to attempt to withdraw their conduct from the judgment of the country and the House of Commons. The reason why the house and the country were beginning to be impatient at the length of time that the conference had dragged on, and were beginning to intrude on the sacred reserve which the noble lord claimed for the position of negotiator, was that they were made to suspect that under the auspices of the noble lord, England, under the pretence of saving and defending Denmark, was in reality betraying her. [ Hear, hear.] England had pushed her from concession to concession. She first forced her to retire from Holstein, then to abandon Rends burg, then to consent to an armistice, then to abandon Schleswig south of the Schlei, and now there were rumors that the noble lord intended to yield to the extravagant and flagitious demand of the German powers, and to hand over a Danish population to German rule. He ventured to say that the House of Commons and the country would not long submit to the silence which the noble lord wished to impose upon them, and that they would require from him the account which he was bound constitutionally to render, and not permit him to stifle discussion, under pretence of friendship for Denmark, by asking the house not to interfere while negotiations were going on. [Cheers.]
mr. kinglake’s remarks.
Mr. Kinglake thought it would be lamentable if the language which was used on that and the other side of the house should succeed in extorting from the government any disclosures perilous to the cause of peace. [Hear, hear.] He fully appreciated the argument put forth with great force by the right honorable gentleman, (Mr. Disraeli,) that the silence of the house during several weeks had been purchased by the declaration made by the government of the views and principles with which they were going into the conference. He must, however, call upon the house to remember the discussion which took place at a later period of the session. Just before the conference was held the government were asked as to the basis on which it was about to be held. The government at length stated, but with the greatest reluctance, that the parties to the conference were meeting without any other basis than a common desire to restore peace to Europe. Surely that was a retractation of the other and impossible principle which the government announced to the house in the earlier part of the session; and it became those who valued the peace of Europe rather to welcome the retirement of the government from a position which seemed to be untenable than [Page 98] to render that retirement difficult by taunting them with the words they had used at an earlier period of the session. [Cheers.]
mr. d. Griffith’s remarks.
Mr. D. Griffith said that there was a fear lest the .delay would be injurious chiefly to one party, and that the weakest. The present period of the year was more favorable than any other to naval operations in the Baltic, and it might be said by the friends of Denmark that the conference were tying the hands of the weaker party by further postponement. It was plain that the noble lord’s expectation was that the weaker party would be brought to consent to a prolongation of the armistice. The noble lord, however, in taking such a course was undertaking a great responsibility. The policy pursued by the noble lord’s government exposed them to the imputation that the delays which were unfavorable to Denmark were favorable to her Majesty’s government. If the armistice was prolonged so as to be carried into July, her Majesty’s government might deal with the matter almost as they pleased. Being pretty familiar with the feelings of the Danes upon the subject, he (Mr. Griffith) knew that what they wanted was some geographical boundary line, which would separate them permanently from a people so unfeeling and unscrupulous as the Germans had proved themselves to be; and if the government, without extending the armistice too long, were able to discover such a line, he, for one, would not complain, but would rather rejoice at the separation of two nations who were now as hostile to one another as the Russians and the Poles.
sir h. verney’s remarks.
Sir H. Verney was glad to hear the honorable gentleman speaking of the separation between the different portions of the disputed territory. Any union whatever of the German population of Schleswig and Holstein with the crown of Denmark would not lead to permanent peace. Whatever was to be done should be done with the assent of the population, otherwise permanent peace would not be secured. It would not do for that house, or any other authority, to deal with the people of the duchies without ascertaining their wishes by means of a constitutional vote of the people, or of an assembly elected for the purpose. He hoped Holstein would not receive any accession of Schleswig territory which might contain a hostile population, nor, on the other hand, would it add to the strength of Denmark if an unfriendly population were united to it.