which were fit for no warfare whatever. Was this a satisfactory state of things, after spending 3,000,000l. and manufacturing 3000 guns? The hon. gentleman then referred to the recent great extension of the Government manufacturing establishments, and in doing so, enforced the principle that the Government ought not to be allowed to set up such establishments for the production of articles that could be purchased in the open market, and that when they had unfortunately got into a false system they should endeavour as far as possible to retrace their steps. With regard to the functions of the House of Commons in reference to this matter, he was of opinion that it might interfere with very great advantage, in prescribing the principle upon which the Executive should act, but that beyond that the House was impotent. He argued that the Government, especially in the manufacture of guns, could not place themselves in the position of a buyer, and do the work in a common-sense and judicious way; and that, if they were incompetent to purchase goods in the market, it was absurd to suppose that they were competent to produce them. He condemned the present system as altogether unsound, as being unaccompanied by any sense of responsibility, or those prudential motives which influenced the conduct of private individuals, and as impossible to be carried out with economy or advantage to the nation. He also complained that the system was characterized by neglect and mismanagement, and urged that thorough reform was imperatively necessary. After a comprehensive review of the system now acted upon and of the waste of money, and the inefficiency of value obtained for it, Mr. Cobden said: "I shall conclude with a remark touching the present position of this country, in regard to its armaments. I consider that what has been done, with respect to the Armstrong guns and our armaments has been a disgrace to the country. You have disgraced the country by undertaking that which you should not have undertaken, and by then doing it in an inefficient manner. Remember, we are governed by a very narrow class-I allude to the personnel of administration. I do not complain of that, for our mercantile community do not seem to send in their young men to compete. I merely mention it as a fact; but bear in mind that you may one day find yourselves in such a difficulty, in consequence of your mismanagement of your guns and armaments, as may expose you to a serious dilemma. I cannot imagine any thing more calculated to irritate this proud and combative people, more likely to produce a democratic revolution, than if we were to find ourselves sacrificed in the matter of our defences, by the classes who have so long monopolized the administration of the country. You have brought this dilemma upon yourselves by becoming producers, and what I advise you is, at once to hand over your work to private producers. By doing 80 you will be absolved from a perilous responsibility. If you want great guns, rifles, iron hulls for ships, let it be known that you want them, and you will get them from private manufacturers;

or, if you fail, you will at least be absolved from your exclusive responsibility. You will say to the trading and manufacturing community, We are one with you, and we must rise or fall, flourish or fade, together, according to the energy, and zeal, and patriotism, that may be displayed alike by the governing classes, and the trade and industry of the country.''

Colonel Barttelot, who seconded the motion, expressed his opinion that the Government, rather than the House, was blameable for disregard of economy. Sir M. Peto, Mr. Laird, and Mr. White advocated the motion. On the other side were several speakers, connected with the existing or preceding Governments, who strongly controverted Mr. Cobden's views and the accuracy of his calculations. Among these were Mr. Correy, who had held office under Lord Derby's Government, and Mr. Monsell, who asserted that the establishments at Woolwich conduced to the honour, dignity, and safety of the country. He stated also, that the Enfield Small Arms Factory had been a complete success, and that in the course of a few years, the profits of the manufacture (which Mr. Cobden had left out of his calculation) paid the whole of the expenses. General Peel disputed Mr. Cobden's assertion, that the Armstrong gun had been a failure. Lord C. Paget stated that the reports from New Zealand of the practical efficiency of the gun were very favourable. Mr. Childers, one of the Lords of the Admiralty, controverted the application of the proposed reduction to the naval service. Mr. Cobden had argued that the Government ought to repair, but not to manufacture, in the dockyards, which ought in future to be only repairing establishments. Now, at present, a very large amount of the materials and fittings of a ship-the armour-plates, the engines and boilers were not manufactured in the Government yards, but were purchased in the open market. He assigned reasons why it would not be safe or expedient to depend entirely and exclusively upon private yards for our navy.

The Marquis of Hartington took up the same argument in regard to the army. After remarking that the Government had spent less upon their manufacturing establishments last year than in former years, he adverted to the difficulty of protecting the interests of the public, in dealing with contractors. He defended the Government military manufacturing establishments, and explained the nature and objects of the Pimlico establishment. He observed that the Government were most anxious to secure accuracy in the accounts of the establishments, and that he was glad on that account that the subject had been brought forward. Mr. Cobden's motion did not proceed to a division.

As in former years, provision was made in the present Session for carrying on the fortifications of the arsenals and dockyards which had been sanctioned by Parliament. The Marquis of Hartington moved Resolutions, providing a further sum of 650,000l. for the construction of works for the defence of these establishments,

and the ports of Dover and Portland, as well as for the erection of a central arsenal, to be charged upon the Consolidated Fund, the Commissioners of the Treasury being authorized to raise the amount by annuities for thirty years. The Resolution was adopted without any difference of opinion.

CHAPTER IV.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS-Superior interest of foreign as compared with domestic politics in the present year-Debates on international relations the most exciting of the Session-The controversy respecting Schleswig-Holstein occupies the largest share of public attention-Recapitulation of the leading events and attitude of the contending Powers-Part taken by England in the controversy-Diplomatic negotiations and their results-The Dano-German question is the subject of continual questions and comments in both Houses of Parliament-Explanations given from time to time by Earl Russell and Lord Palmerston-Progress of affairs in the Duchies-Evacuation of the Dannewerke-Conference held in London between the representatives of the leading Powers-Remarks of the Earl of Derby on these events-Resolution proposed in the House of Lords by Lord Campbell-Debate and withdrawal of motion -Mr. B. Osborne brings forward a Resolution in the Commons-Mr. Disraeli moves the previous question and the Resolution is not put-The Conference of London -Suspension of hostilities at the seat of war during its deliberations-After a protracted sitting the Conference terminates without result-Statements by Earl Russell and Viscount Palmerston in the two Houses respecting the debates and proceedings of the Conference-The Opposition leaders give notice of a vote of censure upon the Ministers on account of the failure of their policy-Great debates in both Houses— Resolution moved in the Upper House by the Earl of Malmesbury, pronouncing a censure upon the Government, is carried after a debate by a majority of nine-A similar Resolution is moved in the House of Commons by Mr. Disraeli-His speech, and answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer-The debate is continued for four nights by adjournment-Summary of the arguments urged by the leading speakers -Policy of non-interference advocated by Mr. Cobden-Amendments moved by Mr. Newdegate and Mr. A. W. Kinglake-The Resolution moved by Mr. Disraeli is rejected on a division by a majority of eighteen-Effect of this division in strengthening the Government.

Ir has been already stated that foreign politics furnished much more exciting topics of Parliamentary discussion in the Session of 1864, than domestic affairs. It was the former class of questions that produced the most interesting debates, that tested the strength of parties, and finally brought the fate of the Administration to the issue of a vote just before the termination of the Session. Among the transactions which engaged the attention of Parliament in reference to our foreign relations were the recent operations of our naval force in Japan, the civil war in China, in which we had also taken some part, the obstinate and protracted contest between the Federal and Confederate States in America, and the petty operations, inglorious in their results, but costly in the lives of brave men, against a tribe of savages in Ashantee, and our own insurgent

subjects in New Zealand. But that which excited by far the greatest interest in England, and gave occasion to repeated and animated discussions in both Houses of Parliament, was the controversy between Denmark and the German Powers respecting the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein-a controversy in which England herself was very nearly being embroiled, and from which, though it did not actually involve her in war, she did not emerge without reflection being made in some quarters upon her honour. From the beginning to the end of the present Session the varying course of events in the Duchies, as well as the diplomatic negotiations which were proceeding in London, formed the subject of a sort of running comment in Parliament; continual inquiries being addressed to the Ministers for information, incidental discussions being raised as every fresh incident in the struggle became known, and the whole policy of our Government in reference to the question being thoroughly canvassed in a formal debate before the Houses separated. The history of the transactions of this year, both military and political, connected with the Dano-German controversy, will be found related in detail in another part of this volume: we shall only refer to them here so far as may be necessary to make the proceedings in Parliament intelligible with reference to the particular occurrences which came under debate.

At the beginning of the year Germany was still formally at peace with Denmark. On the last day of 1863 the Prince of Augustenburg was received at Kiel by the Commissioners who administered the Federal Execution in Holstein. The Danes had, by the advice of the English Government, withdrawn from a province which they had neither the legal right to defend against the representatives of the Diet nor the physical power to hold. If their relative weakness had been better understood, they would have been advised also to evacuate Schleswig, and they would have accepted the comparatively moderate terms which were still offered by the great Powers. During the early part of January, Austria and Prussia were denounced by the Liberal party throughout Germany as enemies of the national cause. At that time both the great Powers recognized the rights of Christian IX. to the entire Danish monarchy, under the Treaty of 1852. They demanded from Denmark the immediate repeal of the common Constitution of the Kingdom and of Schleswig, and they proposed to the Diet that in case of refusal the Duchy should be occupied as a guarantee for the required concession. The minor States, under the guidance of the Saxon Minister, Baron Beust, insisted on immediate war, and, for the first time since the creation of the Confederacy, they outvoted Austria and Prussia in the Diet. The vote of the Diet determined both the Great Powers to assert their political supremacy in Germany, and in the course of a fortnight they concentrated on the frontier of Schleswig a powerful army, which crossed the Eider on the last day of January. After a few skirmishes the Danish troops evacuated the celebrated line of the Dannewerke, falling

back upon the fortified position of Düppel, opposite the little island of Alsen. The Austrian Generals, who had taken the chief part in the opening combats of the campaign, proceeded to occupy the northern portion of Schleswig and a part of Jutland, while the Prussians, aided by an Austrian contingent, formed the siege of Düppel.

Such was the position of affairs when the Session of Parliament commenced. On the 8th of February Viscount Palmerston, in answer to questions from Lord Robert Cecil, said that our Government had remonstrated with the Prussian and Austrian Governments on their proceedings in Holstein and Schleswig in regard to the Duke of Augustenburg, which were inconsistent with the good faith by which under the Treaty of 1852 they were bound to maintain the integrity of Denmark. The Prussian Government had stated that they disapproved of the proceedings in Schleswig, and orders had been issued from Berlin to put matters right. With regard to Holstein that Duchy was occupied by troops acting under the authority of the Diet, and therefore not under immediate authority of the King of Prussia. The Prussian Government had not denied the positive declaration that they intended to abide by the Treaty of 1852. The meaning of the despatch was not very clear, but the conclusion of it implied that whatever questions might arise, the Prussian and Austrian Governments were prepared to discuss them in concert with the other parties to that Treaty. It was alleged in Berlin that if resistance were made in Schleswig it would lead to war, and that war put an end to treaties. That was a most preposterous doctrine, and if it were once established any strong Power which had an inconvenient Treaty with a weak Power would have nothing to do to free itself from that engagement but to make an unprovoked and unjustifiable attack, and then to say war had broken out, and that, therefore, they were free from the engagement. The Prussian Government had, however, subsequently announced that it would abide by the Treaty of 1852.

On the next evening the subject was revived in both Houses. In the Upper House the Earl of Malmesbury raised the question by observing that the Duke of Augustenburg had acceded to the Treaty of 1852, and his son never protested against it. They were both bound in honour to adhere to it, but he feared that our Government had allowed the question to fall from a European to a German one. He asked, first, whether in the event of the Constitution having been withdrawn, Schleswig would be evacuated. Secondly, whether the German Powers would consider the Treaty abrogated by war, and whether it would remain in force as regarded the other Powers who were parties to it, and whether Her Majesty's Government would hold Austria and Prussia to that understanding. Earl Russell said Her Majesty's Government had always maintained that the question of Schleswig must be considered an international one. With respect to the first question, Her