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 Denmarkwe 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

at the invitation of the Danish Government, in order to give to the arrangement relative to the succession an additional pledge of stability by an act of European recognition. If honourable gentlemen look to that treaty-and I doubt not that they are familiar with it-they will find the first article entirely occupied with the recitals of the efforts of the King of Denmark-and, in his mind, successful efforts to make the necessary arrangements with the principal estates and personages of his kingdom, in order to effect the requisite alterations in the lex regia regulating the order of succession; and the article concludes by an invitation and appeal to the Powers of Europe, by a recognition of that settlement, to preserve his kingdom from the risk of external danger.

Sir, under that treaty England incurred no legal responsibility which was not equally entered into by France and by Russia. If, indeed, I were to dwell on moral obligationswhich I think constitute too dangerous a theme to introduce into a debate of this kind-but if I were to dwell upon that topic, I might say that the moral obligations which France, for example, had incurred to Denmark, were of no ordinary character. Denmark had been the ally of France in that severe struggle which forms the most considerable portion of modern history, and had proved a most faithful ally. Even at St. Helena, when contemplating his marvellous career and moralising over the past, the first emperor of the dynasty which now governs France rendered justice to the complete devotion of the Kings of Denmark and Saxony, the only sovereigns, he said, who were faithful under all proof and the extreme of adversity. On the other hand, if we look to our relations with Denmark, in her we found a persevering though a gallant foe. Therefore, so far as moral obligations are concerned, while there are none which should influence England, there is a great sense of gratitude which might have influenced the councils of France. But, looking to the treaty, there is no legal obligation incurred by England towards Denmark which is not equally shared by Russia and by France.

Now, the question which I would first ask the House is this: How is it that, under these circumstances, the position

of France relative to Denmark is one so free from embarrassment I might say, so dignified-that she recently received a tribute to her demeanour and unimpeachable conduct in this respect from Her Majesty's Secretary of State; while the position of England, under the same obligation, contained in the same treaty, with relation to Denmark, is one, all will admit, of infinite perplexity, and, I am afraid I must add, terrible mortification? That, Sir, is the first question which I will put to the House, and which, I think, ought to receive a satisfactory answer, among other questions, to-night. And I think that the answer that must first occur to everyone-the logical inference -is that the affairs of this country with respect to our obligations under the treaty of 1852 must have been very much mismanaged to have produced consequences so contrary to the position occupied by another Power equally bound with ourselves by that treaty.

Sir, this is not the first time, as the House is aware, that the dominions of the King of Denmark have been occupied by Austrian and Prussian armies. In the year 1848, when a great European insurrection occurred-I call it insurrection to distinguish it from revolution, for, though its action was very violent, the ultimate effect was almost nothing-but when the great European insurrection took place, there was no portion of Europe more influenced by it than Germany. There is scarcely a political constitution in Germany that was not changed at that period, and scarcely a throne that was not subverted. The King of Denmark, in his character of a sovereign prince of Germany, was affected by that great movement. The population of Germany, under the influence of peculiar excitement at that time, were impelled to redress the grievances, as they alleged them to be, of their fellow-countrymen in the dominions of the King of Denmark who were his subjects. The Duchy of Holstein and the Duchy of Schleswig were invaded, a civil war was excited by ambitious princes, and that territory was ultimately subjected to a decree of that Diet with which now we have become familiar.

The office was delegated to the Austrian and Prussian armies to execute that decree, and they occupied, I believe, at one