which none of us may see the end of.  Early in November the Emperor of the French proposed a European Congress.  His position was such—­as he himself has described it, there can be no indelicacy in saying so—­his position had become painful from various causes, but mainly from the manner in which he had misapprehended the conduct of the English Government with regard to Poland.  He saw great troubles about to occur in Europe; he wished to anticipate their settlement; he felt himself in a false position with respect to his own subjects, because he had experienced a great diplomatic discomfiture; but he was desirous—­and there is no doubt of the sincerity of the declaration—­he was desirous of still taking a course which should restore and retain the cordial understanding with this country.  He proposed, then, a general Congress.

Well, when Parliament met on February 4, I had to make certain observations on the general condition of affairs, and I gave my opinion as to the propriety of Her Majesty’s Government refusing to be a party to that Congress.  Generally speaking, I think that a Congress should not precede action.  If you wish any happy and permanent result from a Congress, it should rather follow the great efforts of nations; and when they are somewhat exhausted, give them the opportunity of an honourable settlement.  Sir, I did not think it my duty to conceal my opinion, Her Majesty’s Government having admitted that they had felt it their duty to refuse a proposition of that character.  I should have felt that I was wanting in that ingenuousness and fair play in politics which I hope, whoever sits on that bench or this, we shall always pursue, if, when the true interests of the country are concerned, agreeing as I did with the Government, I did not express frankly that opinion.  But, Sir, I am bound to say that had I been aware of what has been communicated to us by the papers on the table—­had I been aware, when I spoke on February 4, that only a week before Parliament met, that only a week before we were assured by a Speech from the Throne that Her Majesty was continuing to carry on negotiations in the interest of peace—­that Her Majesty’s Government had made a proposition to France which must inevitably have produced, if accepted, a great European war, I should have given my approbation in terms much more qualified.

But, Sir, whatever difference of opinion there might be as to the propriety or impropriety of Her Majesty’s Government acceding to the Congress, I think there were not then—­I am sure there are not now—­two opinions as to the mode and manner in which that refusal was conveyed.  Sir, when the noble lord vindicated that curt and, as I conceive, most offensive reply, he dilated the other night on the straightforwardness of British Ministers, and said that, by whatever else their language might be characterized, it was distinguished by candour and clearness, and that even where it might be charged with being coarse, it at least conveyed a determinate meaning.  Well, Sir, I wish that if our diplomatic language is characterized by clearness and straightforwardness, some of that spirit had distinguished the dispatches and declarations addressed by the noble lord to the Court of Denmark.  It is a great pity that we did not have a little of that rude frankness when the fortunes of that ancient kingdom were at stake.