The Express.
London, England, 1864-01-21 00:00:00

WprZE AT LONDOF IUtEDOZ

D&T lids& & Utm.....Albrommm, Ob. 44k.
ItsalabOor Dfoombs, lb. Wm... Jaime. lb. U..

LONDON, THURSDAY, JANUARY 21.

IT is of importance at the peasant moment
that the real ground of the Ultimatum
which Prussia and Austria have just presented to
Denmark should be clearly understood. If the
peace of Europe must be broken, everyone inte-
rested in its preservation is naturally anxious to
know the precise causes, the definite wrongs and
-rievances, which have rendered this extreme
step flecessary. The only irrievanoe alleged by
the German Poilira as tie group of ii:er
wary action against Denmark is the common Con-
stitntitm adopted in November last, immediately
after the death of the late King. This constitu-
tion, while carefully preserving the rights of the
Provincial Fetates inSleawig and Denmark Proper,
created • central organ or common assembly for
legislation in common affairs, in which both
should be equally represented. The German
Powers assert that this step is in direct
violation of the engagement solemnly contracted
by Denmark in the diplomatic correspondence
which took place between them twelve years ago.
They maintain that in that correspondence the
King of DENMARK pledged himself not to incorpo-
rate Sleswig with the kingdom of Denmark Proper,
or take any steps tending to produce this result,
. . .
and Ba...srs ut. lust Cilatna Q( the iTat 11140‘•1
elides of Sleswig. The alleged violation of the
first of these engagements is the ground of the
German Ultimatum. Prussia and Austria require
the immediate withdrawal of the November Con-
stitution, on pain of armed intervention in Slsswig.
The vital questions are, whether the engage-
meats said to have been made by Denmark have
really been violated, and whether in any came they
were of a kind to justify host le intervention on
the part of Germany. Taking the last point first,
there can be no doubt that before the final paci6-
cntion in Holstein and the withdrawal of Federal
execution in 1852, the King of Disratanu did
engage that Sleswig should not be hoorporated
with the kingdom ; but the very form of the
engagement would seem to determine its true
character as a voluntary and sovereign act, in
which none of the existing rights of the monarchy
were surrendered. They were made in the form of
a proclamation by the KING to all his subjects,
specifying his intentions with regard to the future
government of the whole monarchy. This reada-
mation was communicated to the German Powers
and the Diet, in so far as it related to the German
Duchies of Holstein and Lanenbarg. These pro-
vinces being Federal territory, the Diet, having
assisted the KING to restore order in them, was
entitled by the provisions of Federal law to auk
for explanations in regard to their futon govern-
ment. But no such right existed with regard to
81e5wi4,,,, nor does it appear to have been once
claimed throughout the whole of the correspon-
dence now appealed to. It is true that the Ger-
man Powers pressed the Danish Government to
declare its intentions with regard to the future
government of Sleewig as well as of the German
Duchies. But the Danish Government, in
meeting their request, reserved at the outset the
sovereign rights of the Kiso, formally
denied the right of the Confederation to extend in
any way its authority beyond the limits of Federal
territory, and declared that any communications
made with regard to the government of Sleswig
were of a strictly informal and confidential kind.
These reservations were accepted by Prussia and
Austria, and recognised in the formal decree of
the Diet which closed the correspondence. "The

" miner of the Prussian despatch of December

" 30, 1851, declares the .fain of the Duchy of
" Sleswig, being those of • non-German country,
" to be, as such, not subject to the investigation
" and discussion of the Germanic Confederation."
Austria made the same acknowledgment, that
communications with regard to Sleswig must be
looked upon as voluntary, and could not possess
the character of formal engagements. The Kiwo's
proclamation was communicated to the Diet under
the express reservation that th's was done only in
so far as it related to the Federal territories,
aid the Diet accepted this communication as satis-
factory in a decree which summed up the
official points of the previous correspondence. In
this final resolution, phased on the 29th of July,
1852, no reference whatever is made to the Duchy
of Sleswig. Any statement with regard to the
government of Sleswig made to the German
Powers under these circumstances can hardly
amount to an international obligation, much lees
afford any justifiable ground for hostile interven-
tion.

Still the promise not to incorporate Sleswig with

THE

the kingdom was undoubtedly made, and the
Danish Government is honourably hound to fulfil
it so far as this may be possible. The question is
whether it his really been violated, and if so to
what extent. The Danish Government declares
that it has done its utmost to carry out all the
promises contained in the Royal proclamation of
January 28, 1852, to which the German Powers
now appeal as a ground of action. In Sleswig it
has not only restored the Provincial Estates but
enlarged their prerogatives. This was the main point
urged by the German Powers in the oorrespon-1
dances ad 1861 and 1862, and the feats of the
case show that they regarded the restoration and
retention of the old Provincial lunembly as afford-
ing a Sal lcient guarantee against the dreaded in-
corporation. The very proclamation that protected
Sleswig from Incorporation contained the promise
of a common constitution for the whole monarchy,
and this was accepted by Austria and Prowl& as
a perfectly legitimate scheme, not conflicting in
any way with the promise now invoked.
The Prolusion despatch of December 30, 1851,
contains the following decisive paragraph :
" The German Powers acknowledge that, as a
" consequence of the principle of the integrity of
" the Danish united monarchy, a representation
" of all portions of this monarchy in a distinct
" legislative smoothly for discussion and decisions
" is not inconsistent with the separate rights of
"the German Duchies of Holstein and Linen-
" burg." If a common oonetitntion is not incon-
sistent with the separate right. of the German
Duthie,' it sorely cannot be seriously maintained
that it is inconsistent with the separate rights of
the Danish Duchy of Slerrig ; and in the light of
these facts the grievance complained of can hardly
be regarded in any other light than that of a con-
venient pretext for carrying out a foregone con-
clusion. The German Powers have certainly no
right to insist on the withdrawal of the constitu-
tion, and it would seem from their own admin.
Oats that there is no good reason for making such
a &mend.