On Monday night the Danish subject was resumed in the
House of Lords, on occasion of a motion of Lord Campbell's, " drawn " in part by Lord Grey, that a firmer policy in demanding mediation as the means of settling the differencesof Denmark withGermany would have prevented the war and diminished the immediate danger of its exteusionin Europe. The great speech of the evening was LordGrey's. He said that had we openly warned the Germans that if they attempted to cross the Eider they would find the frontier defended by English troops, peace as well as justice would have been pro- moted. Austria dare not venture needlessly on a war in the dis- tant North which would have brought a British fleet into the Adriatic and raised Venetia and Hungary ; and Prussia could not have fought alone. Further, we had menaced without perform- ance. " The British Minister at Berlin transmitted home a paper drawn up by the Prussian Government, and in that document it was distinctly asserted that England used threats to prevent mea- sures being adopted by Prussia, and that those threats had been in vain." Lord Russell's reply was very weak. He said we could not have defended the Eider because the Baltic was not open, till Lord Derby reminded him that the mouth of the Eider was not in the Baltic but the North Sea. He said England ought not to risk a waralone, or alone with Sweden and Denmark, and that France would not join her. But his oddest argument against war was that Mr. Gladstone had shown so great a prosperity and so large a surplus that it would be a pity to diminish it. On what state of the National Exchequer would Lord Russell then ground a special argument for war? Surely not on our poverty and destitution ? Lord Derby replied to Lord Russell, but took a much feebler li-
//
than Lord Grey. It was only a party attack, and carefully with- held all hope of Tory support to Denmark.
